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.

Some analysts told us that ENglish people and Scottish people are different. They said that England has this tradition of "individual freedom" and the Scots are more communitarian and socialist. I can't believe that that is true. Would Scots put up with biometric Labour ID cards and DNA databases and "named persons" etc etc?

Gordon Brown referred to differences between Scottish and English society in his pre-referendum speech. He referred to the traditional intolerance of Scottish society, which it was apparently well known for before it joined the Union. He referred to England being traditionally known for its values of equity and fair play. I don't really want to get into a social argument of why that's better, and it seems on mumnset that certain commentators try to police you by only allowing you to say things that allude to how wonderful Scotland is but not to make any other comparisons between Scotland and England, but anyway I think its reasonable to say that differences between Scotland and England have probably been maintained to some extent by preservation of a different legal system, church and education, enshrined in the Act of Union.

Legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament does seem to be very controlling and many aspects of civil life are far more controlled in Scotland as a result than in England and Wales, or even the rest of Europe. I think you can distinguish between measures that have as their aim preservation of individual freedom and those that aim to restrict it, whether or not they incorporate new technological advances.

Phaedra agreed on the Bella Caledonia site. I have often suspected a lot of independence supporters want to create a little hegemony for themselves and their equally untalented friends. In other words, its easier to make money and corrupt a small pond than a big pond, where you're more likely to be found out. They have an interest in wanting to expel the brightest and best for ideological reasons - that's exactly what most notorious small states have done throughout history.

'I think its reasonable to say that differences between Scotland and England have probably been maintained to some extent by preservation of a different legal system, church and education, enshrined in the Act of Union.

Legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament does seem to be very controlling and many aspects of civil life are far more controlled in Scotland as a result than in England and Wales, or even the rest of Europe. I think you can distinguish between measures that have as their aim preservation of individual freedom and those that aim to restrict it, whether or not they incorporate new technological advances.'

Very interesting point Chelsy. I will look up Gordon Brown's speech to try and understand the difference better.

I can't seem to find the post which referred to that Bella Caledonia article - what did it say again?

From SantanaLopez 15:21

I did come across a fucking terrifying article from bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/05/11/reconciliation-and-truth/ though.

Reconciliation shouldn’t be necessary in our new Scotland. People who legitimately, if misguidedly, believed they were doing the right thing or who were enticed by their (often state-backed) fear should be welcomed with open arms, so long as they are prepared to work for the benefit of the wider population. But there should be no room for the people who looked only to maintain their comfort and luxury through exploiting and belittling the people they share this space with. We shouldn’t want to reconcile with them-their expulsion from our public and political life should be as thorough and declarative as every Yes vote struck in September. While revolutions don’t have to be violent they do have to be transformative, and we can’t do that if we offer amnesty to those whose interest was our subservience.

What. the. fuck.

It is statements like that that are making me seriously consider leaving Scotland, claig - you are right to call it terrifying!

Thanks Claig for the repost.

SDTG I think the post has just been c&p'd - sure Claig will correct me if not.

I suspect it's just a bit of posturing/sabre rattling but implication is horrible isn't it.

That will include Tunnocks then - the makers of our other national dish who were on the 'Now Banned' list of organisations which didn't support independence

SirChenjin. Sadly I work with people who are loudly and publicly telling all and sundry to boycott Tunnocks and others. It scares my slightly what his reaction would be if he found out I voted no and therefore was not 'of the true faith'

People should be person

There have been various assertions that Scots are different, more socialist etc. the British and Scottish social attitudes surveys contradict that ( with the proviso that these surveys cannot capture the whole nation). What we do have is a more representative parliament thanks to the voting system we have - and I would like to see the UK electoral system properly considered (not just offering us AV or status quo). It would be interesting to see what balance between the parties Westminster would have with a mix of FPTP and List MPs.

He referred to the traditional intolerance of Scottish society, which it was apparently well known for before it joined the Union. He referred to England being traditionally known for its values of equity and fair play. I don't really want to get into a social argument of why that's better, and it seems on mumnset that certain commentators try to police you by only allowing you to say things that allude to how wonderful Scotland is but not to make any other comparisons between Scotland and England, but anyway I think its reasonable to say that differences between Scotland and England have probably been maintained to some extent by preservation of a different legal system, church and education, enshrined in the Act of Union

I really don't think that's fair, Chelsy. I hope I'm not alone in thinking that Scotland is not less tolerant or committed to equity than England. Most of my students at work are from the Middle East and they can't tell me enough how they feel so welcome here, especially in Glasgow, where everyone they meet seems eager to hear about their countries and to chat away to them while accompanying them on the short walk to Tesco! And, not wishing to offend, they do say they find people more outwardly welcoming and effusive in Scotland than the rest of the UK. There is a lot of work being done in Glasgow, on a community level, to break down divisions between Catholic and Protestant, immigrant and locally born, rich and poor. People are proud to be making changes. They know that a more tolerant society is better and strive for it - we've had enough trouble with violence and sectarianism to know what the opposite feels like.

Sorry, I know that's just what you took from GB's speech, I've no wish to shoot the messenger!

"SDTG I think the post has just been c&p'd"

Yes, I only copied and pasted it. It was SantanaLopez who said it was terrifying.

'just what you took from GB's speech'

I can't find the speech. He makes so many. Has anyone got a link to that speech?

Claig if you go to YouTube and Google Gordon Brown better together speech, it's the first one that comes up - on phone so can't do links.

Thanks flippinada

How can NS be so arrogant as to bang on about Referendums and Indepedence in her lifetime etc.?

Our village is still covered in YES signs, despite the vote being 66% NO where I am, and despite it being some weeks ago now.

The Independents just don't 'get it'.

I too think there is an element of truth in the notion that it is about running a 'small pond to be a big fish in'.

Bank - I know, and I apologise for the flippancy. It's unbelievable that the issue of the (unofficial) list of banned organisations hasn't been addressed by the SNP - unless I've missed it? In which case I apologise. If not I would like to see them stamp on this and the other forms of diatribe from Bella Caledonia et al as completely incompatible with democracy, with Scotland and with the SNP's political stance.

There has been a gradual decrease in the number of yes posters and flags here (also a 60% No vote) and I think I understand why some people still have them up - people on both sides were very committed and very involved, and had it been a Yes I might well have wanted to remind people that not everyone agreed with the result. There's also an ongoing debate about what happens now, and although the majority voted to stay in the union, we have to remember that a lot of people didn't.

Pre-vote, there was a lot of talk about how it was likely that about half the country would end up disappointed. But I don't know if I fully understood what that would actually be like, and what the best way of dealing with it might be.

I was talking to a local Yes campaigner a week or so after the vote and he asked if I'd celebrated that weekend - I didn't, I felt it would be totally inappropriate. I had a feeling I'd taken some people's dreams away - I still thought I'd done the right thing, but to expect them not to be upset and for me to be vocal about it just seemed wrong.

I would prefer if people stopped talking about having another vote ASAP, but again I think we need to remember it has only been two months. Had it been a Yes vote, we'd be going through negotiations now, there would be lots of upset No voters looking to criticise every stage of the process.

Can't quite put my thoughts together sorry, kids are being really noisy. I do hope we can move towards reconciliation though.

AgentCooper I really don't think that's fair, Chelsy. I hope I'm not alone in thinking that Scotland is not less tolerant or committed to equity than England. Most of my students at work are from the Middle East and they can't tell me enough how they feel so welcome here, especially in Glasgow, where everyone they meet seems eager to hear about their countries and to chat away to them while accompanying them on the short walk to Tesco! And, not wishing to offend, they do say they find people more outwardly welcoming and effusive in Scotland than the rest of the UK.

I can't say whether its fair or not. I would just say that when ex-PMs are saying it in their speeches, when you have lists of "banned organisations", when you have large numbers of people promoting websites suggesting expulsion from a country of those who don't agree with them, that isn't possibly commensurate with telling those who encounter it that Scotland is the epitome of tolerance!

I would suggest that many people from the Middle East, particularly women, would find Scotland rather tolerant in comparison. Personally, I would say that a country such as The Netherlands is more tolerant, but then I, perhaps because I'm female, put quite a high regard on things like being left alone, not bothered, not stared at, etc.. I really don't want people chatting away to me when I go somewhere new. I don't think that attitude that seems to prevail amongst some independence supporters of condemning those who aren't the same as you is particularly Scottish, or if it is, its a very new "Scottishness". That attitude of condemning anyone who goes to world leading universities such as Oxford or Cambridge - horiffic, particularly since going to those universities was always something encouraged for the best Scottish students at many perfectly ordinary Scottish schools.

I am going to have a look to see what I can find on Gordon Brown's pre-referendum speech, but in the meantime, I can't encourage people enough to look at the Scottish Parliament's treatment of the Expert Witness, Professor Adam Tomkin of Glasgow University, Constitutional Law Expert, when he was giving them much needed advice on the legal consequences of Scottish independence:

I wonder if the SNP will rally strongly with Westminster failing to bring any of those 'new powers' that were promised forwards especially with elections not to far away?

In addition mumbling from conservatives of 'pushing back' with regards to the west lothian question etc

Awful behaviour from some of the (Yes) members of the SP there

I don't know if you've heard, BreakingDad, but since the No vote SNP membership has grown from around 25k to nearly 85k, and (pro yes) Greens and SSP have also seen massive increases in their memberships. I'd call that "rallying strongly".

Still didn't have enough support to win the referendum though - and I wonder how many of them will renew their membership next year once the Saltire waving has settled down?

Well, if I'd described it as the pre-referendum interview with David Dimbleby, people might have been able to find it! This is it here:

If you look at it 14 mins in, he describes a 16th and 17th Century Scotland as having been "authoritarian" compared to England, which he says at the time was known for equity, fair play and liberty, and makes the point that Scotland gained from England in this respect, while England gained more "communitarian" values from Scotland.

(btw, I'm really not a GB fan, but I believe in looking at sources from a neutral perspective).

What he is saying is nothing radical, the same with David Cameron's speech to GQ summit on rule of law recently. I'd love to use something from the SNP to compare it with, but its patently obvious that they draw up their proposals without proper research and legal foundation, and make it up as they go along. Do they write their speeches themselves? I mean, who on earth does do it?

I just wish I could use some proper sources, such as a Constitution, to show where these concepts are written down.

Did anyone see the interview with an SNP activist (or whatever she was) on the days leading up to it, where she blamed things on what was happening in South America?!

Damn - I wish I could remember what it was. It was breathtakingly awful - the No campaigner was very good, composed himself quickly, and said very politely that he disagreed. How he and the interviewer kept a straight face I don't know. DH is home later, I'll see if he remembers and post a link.