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.

The SNP have independence as their key policy. They are currently the majority in our parliament. Come the next election, if people don't like what they have to say then they won't be the majority any more. However, Devo max is a very popular option and I think that we will have an SNP majority next time as people believe the SNP are the best people to deliver that for Scotland. I know a lot of no voters who would have voted for Devo Max had David Cameron not vetoed that option.

It's downright rude and patronising to equate no voters with pro poverty. And yet another way in which the yes campaign alienated and continues to alienate the majority of the Scottish people.

There are just so many contradictions in the yes rhetoric. We are told time and time again that Scotland is left leaning, socialist in nature and that if we went indie then the poor would benefit greatly.

Yet in the next breath we're told that 55% of us are selfish, Tory scum etc who don't care about the poor and thing food banks are just fine.

Which is it? Are we a socialist nation or are we all about self interest?

As a yes voter I agree with flump' s post. I disagreed, obviously, with the no voters but cannot bring myself to ascribe selfish motives for their vote. It's incredibly disrespectful and as flump says, divisive.

If we can't listen to each other what's the point?

And there we go. Coffee I voted no because I believed that the financial chaos unleashed would make the most vulnerable far worse off.

It's interesting this has come up now. I must admit my heart sunk listening to Nicola Sturgeon's speech - the thought of a re-run in a few years time is absolutely horrendous.

Nailing my colours to the mast, politically left wing and voted no. I've voted SNP in the past but will not do so again.

The idea that we would be living in a land of milk and honey in the event of a yes vote is laughable.

I think it is a problem to say that the leader of an 85,000 member party cannot express a view we know 1.5 million people agree with without people who oppose that view demanding she be denied freedom of speech.

That isn't democratic, not any more than it would have been to proceed with independence after there was a no vote.

Who on earth is suggesting she be denied freedom of speech?

Sorry, but what on earth? No-one is saying that.

Who on earth is suggesting she be denied freedom of speech?

All those suggesting that the SNP shouldn't talk about independence....

Polls after the event are now showing a Yes lead.

Many people were swayed by promises of further devolution.

Polls are also showing a massive SNP vote in the GE, and they are now the UKs third largest party.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the SNP should somehow give up independence there (almost) USP.

If you disagree with the SNP as most on this thread do, then don't vote for them. If as is predicted they win a vast majority of seats in Scotland in the GE, then that is democracy, and obviously a lot of people do agree with their policies.

But what about the promises made by the SNP post referendum that there wouldn't be another vote 'for a generation'. Or does that not apply now because it was 'Eck what said it and not the new incumbent?

Is it OK to complain if David Cameron reneges on his promises, but we have to keep schtum if the SNP go back on theirs?

Exactly flump. The yes campaign think that polls, the media etc are biased and full of lies unless they support yes, when suddenly 'the polls give a yes lead'. And we're just supposed to take that on trust.

I'm soooo tired of being told that I 'fell for lies' or 'believed promises'. Like all the no voters I know (and I know a lot) not one of us listened to Alistair Darling, David Cameron or the Daily bloody Record. Why would we? We made up our own minds, based upon a lifetime of knowing what it's like to live and work in Scotland, and a lifetimes understanding of politics and economics as they affect us all.

So frustrating to be lumped in with people who just read newspaper headlines and go 'och that's terrible!'. I dare say there's as many credulous, uninformed types on the yes side as there are on no. Yes voters don't have unique reading skills.

I don't expect the SNP to give up on independence after all it is their raison d'être. However what I had a massive problem with was the call to ignore the democratic decision of the people of Scotland and in the event of an SNP majority in the GE just declare independence anyway. That just confirmed for me that for some, they wanted independence whatever the cost.

But that wasn't the op. The op stated that Nicola Sturgeon was arrogant to continue to support independence given that there was a No vote.

She isnt, because that is in her party's manifesto and she would have no credibility if she decided suddenly it was a bad idea in order to try and get No voters to join.

Also, as has been pointed out the current polls show a majority in favour of independence so it is responsive to their wishes if she continues to support independence and give those people a chance to express their views in the future.

If you look at analysis of the polls by psephologists, some voters were influenced by 'the vow' - maybe 2-3% - but not enough to swing the vote from no to yes.

There's an interesting article analysing the vote here by John Curtice.

To summarise broadly for anyone who doesn't want to read it, the vote turned out as it did because people were concerned about the economic consequences of leaving the UK.

I'll leave people to draw their own conclusions about why that led to a no vote.

But what about the promises made by the SNP post referendum that there wouldn't be another vote 'for a generation'.

Ive always thought that it meant that the SNP, along with everyone else, thought the referendum would put the whole issue to bed.

I think they are as surprised as everyone else that the Yes campaign has not gone back into its box. I don't think anyone expected the implosion of Scottish labour, the massive increase in SNP membership, and the almost immediate breaking of the 'vow'.

The fact is that if SNP gets elected as a majority into the Scottish Parliament again (a parliament designed to stop that happening) it would be a clear indication of the electorates wishes.

Surely you don't expect them to simply ignore that?

I'm glad you had a 'good referendum' LovelyRita.

To add a No campaigner's perspective - in some ways it was immensely divisive and stressful for me, probably because I was in a 'mixed marriage' and the political arguments got very personal between my husband and I. We're still not over that, and rumble along biting our tongues and limiting political discussion (and we used to discuss politics and the news a lot). BUT I also went completely out of my comfort zone, and once I'd got over my initial terror of going out there and talking to people, I felt very energised by actually being involved in something so important. I have no idea how I found all the time (to be fair, a few other things slipped) but I am glad I did.

I was already on the school parent council and involved in the community council, but I've now (post-ref) joined a political party and am going out tonight to meet up with some of the people I campaigned with - it was an amazing intense experience to be involved in the campaign towards the end, and it is good to meet up with people who 'get' it.

I didn't encounter any vandalism or personal threats. I felt a bit weird wearing a badge at first (proclaiming my politics physically like that was new to me). I regularly got called a traitor online, but only once had someone shouting at me in the street when I was out campaigning. The worst part for me, and the thing that made me cry, was when I was pictured at an event and there were horrible comments about me being fat. Because discussing someone's views is just so boring when you can slag them off for the size of their arse instead. But considering some of the bile a few people from both sides were spewing out online, I got off pretty lightly.

What I did find difficult is that after the No vote, it was very hard to actually express the sense of happiness and relief. I was very aware that a lot of people were disappointed and upset, and there was no real chance to come to terms with what had happened. A lot of people got involved in the debate, and it was immensely emotional, and now all that energy is there to be harnessed. I would like if the question of another vote could be put on the back step whilst we try and move forward together, but passions are still very high and I don't know how that can happen.

I voted no because I care equally about poverty in Newcastle as I do poverty in Nairn. It is a steaming pile of horseshit to characterise no voters as selfish Tories who hate poor people. And I really wonder where this 'everyone changed their minds after new powers promise' stat came from too - I know many no voters who were always no voters.

Two things: if pro-indies persist in this negative view of the rest of their fellow citizens, they will not change hearts and minds so on you go, keep saying I'm selfish

And if 55% of the population are selfish child hating bastards, how is this socially just Scotland going to be achieved after independence? Surely we'll just vote the Scottish Tories in?

It doesn't make sense, does it?

Surely you don't expect them to simply ignore that?

No, not to ignore it, but to respect the Edinburgh Agreement and the legally binding referendum result.

If it had gone the other way, and BT was already campaigning for another referendum, would you not think that they were acting wrongly?

As for all the stuff about polls - obviously polls are a valuable tool to try and gauge how people are thinking. But you can't use a small poll to state with absolute confidence that over half of No voters think a certain way. I'm on the YouGov panel, and the questions that are asked are not nearly nuanced enough to capture the huge range of motivations and opinions. The poll for Wings also had the questions worded in a very leading way. They are (as Lord Ashcroft the pollster regularly states on twitter) just a snapshot. I hope we don't end up being governed in response to opinion polls.

I absolutely agree that the leader of the SNP should be free to talk about independence - but, considering that this is a key policy for them that has just been rejected in a vote heralded as 'once in a generation', it would be refreshing if there was more effort in promoting moving forward and trying to represent all of Scotland, not just how soon they can persuade every No voter to change their mind. People used to vote for the SNP for their other policies - if they make everything about independence, they will lose votes from those people, just as they will gain votes from people who don't actually agree with some of their other policies.

Obviously, it is early days, this is a party conference, and election manifestos are yet to be issued. But is isn't promising for people like me who had hoped the question of independence could stop being centre of the political debate.

Totally off-topic, lovely to 'see' you again Santana, how are you?

And you OOAOML! I'm a mum!! I had a boy and a girl a week and a half ago. They're amazing

Huge congratulations and I am so impressed that you are posting on MN - I could barely string two words together a week after the birth of one child let alone two!

Where does it say in the Edinburgh Agreement that afterwards people have to pretend they don't want independence any more?

Thank you! We're even trying to leave the house today

It doesn't say that Back. But it did make clear that the result would be binding and should be respected. Talking about round 2 isn't really respecting it. I know the point was made up thread about general elections - but it is widely known that general elections are for max. 5 years then we all get the chance to vote again. It was repeatedly stated the referendum was once in a generation - and people voted on that basis. Maybe some Yes voters would have voted No if they thought there would be another one - I spoke to some who didn't like the White Paper and didn't want independence negotiated on that basis, but thought this was their one chance.

I also feel that discussion has been very centred on the single issue of independence - how about we work with the powers we have, engage fully with the Smith Commission, try and bring the country together, that kind of thing? Although obviously that kind of speech isn't going to go down as well at a party conference with lots of members who joined post-ref and are still looking as if the only issue they want to talk about is independence.

I'm hoping that behind the scenes the key politicians are interested in representing all of Scotland, not just hoping most of us suddenly change our minds.