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.

Well said tricky

Trixy, sorry

I think that's the main thing for me - I was taking her as speaking as First Minister, but of course she isn't just yet.

Regardless, it's a political role. You don't expect Dave and Georgie boy to be impartial, after all.

Don't know about signing anything, but Salmond definitely said there was only one chance at this and there wouldn't be another chance in a generation, then swiftly went back on that when it didn't go his way.

The Edinburgh Agreement. It would be a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect. Well, I don't think the SNP have even bothered pretending to respect the result.

"It's like if the Tories get voted out at the next election and they go around telling everyone they'll keep fighting for what the country really wanted and ignore what they actually voted for."

Well, yes. That's how a representative democracy works. Party A thinks [set of policies A]. Party B thinks [set of policies B]. An election votes in Party A, who implement [set of policies A]. Party B might tweak [set of policies B] a bit in response, but by-and-large they engage in a PR exercise telling everyone that [set of policies B] is better. Any time anything goes wrong they tell the press that it's because of [set of policies A] and that it would never happen if [set of policies B] had been implemented.

Eventually, after one or more parliamentary terms, Party B will be voted in and will implement [set of policies B]. Party A might tweak [set of policies A] a bit in response, but by-and-large they engage in a PR exercise telling everyone that [set of policies A] is better. Any time anything goes wrong they tell the press that it's because of [set of policies B] and that it would never happen if [set of policies A] had been implemented.

And so on, and so on. Over an extended period of time all the little tweaks accumulate and may change the political landscape, but essentially a party doesn't change its entire philosophy because it fails to convince the electorate on one occasion.

'Over an extended period of time all the little tweaks accumulate and may change the political landscape, but essentially a party doesn't change its entire philosophy because it fails to convince the electorate on one occasion.'

Yes, I agree.

I would argue that most British parties' philosophies have become polarised and are much the same, and that the main driving factor is purposive, in that they will promise and do whatever is necessary to stay in power. There are slight differencies of policy but none of them is proposing drastic changes (other than UKIP). The SNP is slightly out on a limb because of its nationalist policies but things like free prescriptions, elderly care, Council Tax rise restrains, getting rid of bridge tolls are vote winners, designed not to bring in a particular philosophy but to keep voters happy.

I thought Alex Salmond's behaviour and comments after the referendum were appalling; it was like listening to someone's public descent into madness. It was also horrific, to think that this deluded man thought he could assume the power to change an entire country's identity following a referendum stating the opposite, and tell more than half the voting population that they were mistaken, scared, etc.. The political animal in the SNP is mostly of such a dire quality that they are an embarrassment on any kind of international stage, but like sociopaths, they spend their time telling themselves they are wonderful, talented, right, just, equitable, fair, etc..

Its not a good time to be living in Scotland!

Yes, it was supposed to be a 'once in a lifetime opportunity' for the people of Scotland to express their wishes.

It cost £13m and a great deal of stress and division.

Well, Scotland spoke.
It was not a 'close' result.
There was just over a 10% difference with a huge turnout.
In my region it was 33% yes to 66% NO and that figure was in many other regions, from Orkney up north to the Borderlands in the south.

I would like the SNP to respect the will of the people of Scotland as they promised to do.
Anything else makes them look like liars and makes Scotland look a laughing stock, frankly.

I don't want any more of my money being wasted in another idealistic attempt at independence whilst my children are wanting in school equipment and my local hospital is wanting in staff to operate.

The difference with this, BuckskinnedAstronaut is that the policies that a Labour or Tory party might bring in are almost never irreversible - deciding to leave the Union would be irrevocable.

Labour nationalised the railways, the Tories denationalised them. A UKIP government could close our borders to all immigrants, and the following government could open them again.

But even if every single dreadful predication that anyone made during the campaign came true, Scotland could not get back into the Union.

In my opinion, if there is ever to be another referendum, there has to be a higher bar set. 50.1% in favour of independence should not be enough - I think a decision that big, that irrevocable must be the will of a big majority of the electorate - 65%+, minimum.

I'm a Scot, and I don't want another referendum. It's getting so that I'd advise my children to move away when they grow up and I'd never have thought I'd say that.

The whole thing caused a huge amount of ill feeling and it hasn't gone away. The SNP won't take No for an answer.

Twoandtwo it seems to have passed the political chattering classes by. But then it's real economics rather than rhetoric.

Mind reader said everything I would want to.

I'll post more tomorrow it's too late to be coherent tonight.

Really interesting to read all the different points of view here.

Sad to read what a negative impact the referendum has had on many people's lives.

The vote was very close

Er, In binary political terms that wasn't that close.

If you think back to 2012, Obama's 3.9% victory over Romney was considered a landslide.

The margin of victory for Yes in the referendum was 10.6%. So it's less a 'close' result a more a massive landslide with a really bloody big cherry on top (for the Yes side, not the No's obviously).

This is why our house is currently on the market. I am sick and tired of the posturing of the SNP and the yes campaign. Most constituencies voted no. About 37% of the electorate voted yes. That is nowhere near enough to still be considering tearing our country apart.

So Nicola Sturgeon is all about 'persuading people'. Well, she can 'persuade' off, instead of assuming 'no' voters have so little conviction in their opinions that they can be swayed by more fairy tales.

It will not go away, so as soon as we can sell our house it will be us who are going away.

There appears little chance that the SNP will get hammered in the GE, because of the parlous state Labour are in. I will be out campaigning for the Libdems due to our local MP being an absolute star but because of the huge uncertainties caused by the SNP's rhetoric, we will be leaving as soon as we can.

The 1995 Quebec referendum was close - 49.3% to 50.7%. The Scottish one, well not so much.

Regarding the SNP, they're not going to change their tune as others have said. That is not to say they can't run an effective government, either in Scotland or as a coalition partner but the business of running things is always going to be secondary to pursuing the goal of independence. The voters of Scotland can decide what they want.

Can I counteract some of the negativity and share what a positive thing the referendum has been for me?

I've met some wonderful people. I've increased my circle of friends. As quite a shy person who has struggled with confidence in the past I found myself going outside of my comfort zone to canvas, work on stalls and attend public meetings. I talked with strangers, answered questions and even dealt with the abuse.

The result gutted me, part of me wanted to crawl back into myself but that feeling of hope helped me.

I drove myself 2 hours north to go to a meeting of 1000 women, walking in on my own, feeling nervous. I came out of the meeting with a renewed sense of hope and contacts to start a local group. I've joined a political party and attend meetings, I even joined parent rep group at school and the management committee of a local organisation. Both things that I had wanted to do before but never took the step.

I feel more awake and aware than I have ever before. I've never been so well read and have even embarked on more study on the back of the referendum.

It's not all doom and gloom. The whole process has changed me for the better.

How long have you been in Scotland flump?

Rita - born here, lived in Australia for 12 years from age 25, moved back to Scotland 14 years ago with Aussie DH.

We will not be going back to Australia because my elderly parents need us here, but we will be moving south of the border, whether than be Berwick or Cornwall I have no idea at this stage.

It's strange because I have been through an independence referendum in Australia, and was actually quite surprised at the high 'no' vote there, considering that while the Queen is still head of state, Australia is very much its own country. I think it will become a republic in the future, when the population demographic moves further from the 'WASP' background.

The ties that bind Scotland to the rest of the UK are an entirely different kettle of fish. I strongly believe we are 'better together' - as did the majority of the voting electorate, although you wouldn't think it to hear Ms Sturgeon.......

I agree for most constitutional change a 2/3 majority should be the test. the characterisation of no voters as 'negative' offends me, I love scotland which is why we're hanging on for now, it's not negative to believe scottish people will be richer as part of a United kingdom.

Absolutely, mindreader.It's the steamrollers get onwards and the certainty that a) most no voters are OAPs so they'll die soon and then we'll win mentality and b) the No voters don't know their own mind and can be easily persuaded to change it that really gets on my funbags.

I know lifeline SNP voters who will not vote for them again as they disliked how AS et all handled the aftermath and how so many YES voters seem to have just ignored the result. They also live around here and see how destructive and divisive the while process has been. But hey, the SNP got lots of new voters so they won't care anyway.

I was really glad to hear her speech.

I can't help feeling cheated by the referendum as a Yes voter. Hearing afterwards that 57% say they would have voted Yes if new powers were not promised, and then finding out that those in the Smith Commission are now referring to a 'so-called' vow.
Finding out that the BBC are now having to investigate their biased coverage, which they denied had taken place before the vote.

Having my kids come home after the referendum and telling me 7 new families had had to use the food bank.

I am glad there is still the prospect of change, much as I love living here I am making plans to leave because it is bad and getting worse.

I am utterly and completely ashamed that so many people though of themselves rather than those who could have benefited from independence, children, the poor, the disabled who are suffering so badly under the cuts. It is not being a sore loser to want to change these things, it is a commitment to a basic human need to improve society for the benefit of its members.

I was thinking of the poor when I voted no, the economic uncertainty unleashed by independence would have hurt the poor far more than the wealthy, it's a mischaracterisation to equate no voters with being pro cuts and food banks etc.

Coffee your post is an example of why the referendum was so divisive. Yes voters tried to paint no voters as having no compassion, not caring for others, only voting for themselves and with no eye to the future. If you continue in that manner, all you will do is alienate people.