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 Edinburgh Agreement: 'deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect'

The majority wasn't huge was it and the snp are an independence party that is why they were set up I think the snp have been quite good for Scotland I really like Nicola and of course she is going to keep fighting for independence,

Congratulations Santana on your new arrivals!

Lonny your view echo mine. This mischaracterisation of no voters from some quarters of the yes campaign needs to stop. We can't all be selfish bastard right wingers who hate the poor, or how did the SNP, who are broadly left of centre, win a majority at the last Holyrood election?

It would be very interesting to see an analysis of who voted SNP at the Holyrood, Westminster and European elections and how they voted in the independence referendum.

Interestingly I was talking to someone who is very senior in finance in Scotland at a conference recently. He was at a board meeting where the regulator was attending. The regulator made it very clear that in the event of Scottish independence they would expect the top 100 or so members of staff in terms of seniority to be based in the UK and not in Scotland. It would most certainly not be a case of moving a brass name plate. Multiply that by the number of financial institutions in Scotland and there would be a devastating effect on the local economy.

Not surprisingly he was extremely relieved at the result.

Ask a political party if they'd like an election result where they are over 10% ahead of their nearest rival, and see if they think that's too small a majority.

Pre-referendum, there was lots of chat about 'all of us working together', 'respecting the result', 'coming together as one Scotland' - how's that working out? did it only apply to one outcome? If it had been yes, would it have been 'suck it up, No voters, deal with it'? but because it was No it can be 'let's have a re-run'?

What kind of message are we sending out? No doesn't mean No? When people say No they don't mean it?

Oh and huge congrats to Santana on her new arrivals!!

"The majority wasn't huge was it " - actually, in the context of a referendum - yes it was.

As pps have pointed out, it was a decisive, if not overwhelming, rejection of independence.

And of course *Trixy' if you move those top 100 in a company, there are support functions that need to move with them. And not only the loss of corporation and income tax, but the loss to the local economy - all those terrible selfish financial services people who support local businesses selling over-priced coffees, sandwiches at lunchtime, shoe repairs, hairdressers etc. There's a steady flow of money from FS offices to local businesses.

Absolutely OOAOML. It still baffles me that so many people just didn't want to listen to what the consequences would be and were happy to stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la!!

I can't find the post but assuming santana has had her baby many congratulations lovey

I was also in a mixed marriage regarding the referendum and I am very proud of both of us that we never had a cross word or disagreement on the subject. I suspect most credit for that must go to my DH, who is an easygoing type, but I think it was great that we could show the children how you can hold different views but still respect and value each other.

However, the referendum is over, the people have spoken and SNP should focus their energies on what is best for Scotland in a united country. SNP have a horrific record on education and have slashed college funding. I think they should be held for account for that rather than wasting their time on something that most of Scotland doesn't want.

OP I think your post re "pledging to ignore" is a bit OTT. The BBC article you linked to quotes Sturgeon saying...
"So our task remains as it has always been - not to impose our will, not to berate those who disagree with us but to persuade - respectfully and intelligently through the strength of our arguments and the power of our actions - to persuade the majority of our fellow Scots that the best future for our country, the way to build a more prosperous more successful country and a fairer society, is for us to become a normal independent nation."

I think that's a pretty fair statement from a party leader at a party conference. I think Salmond was liked and loathed - a real Marmite politician - but Sturgeon i think doesn't have the smugness. She has determination but I think also some humility. And isn't it great Scotland will have a female first minister!

I think we will have another referendum in future - but it may be 10 years or more. As far as the 'once in a generation' thing goes, it was Salmond who stated that as his own view in an interview a few days before the ballot.

Nobody wants a 'neverendum' but if there's a desire for it in years to come - and a demonstrable desire from the electorate and no one else - then it should happen.

I didn't read the whole thread because there's so much I want to say about a lot of the points made here.

op YABU in your question. SNP are an independence party, that is what they campaign for, what they exist for. They have received upwards of 80,000 new members since the referendum and have become the third largest party in the UK. I think you can say they have a strong case for continuing to fight their cause.

Alex Salmond bowed out when he did because he knew Nicola was about to take over. By letting her deal with the press, he gave her the platform to imprint upon the people of Scotland that she was leadership material. That's politics.

I, too, found the campaign to be an overwhelmingly positive experience. I voted Yes. I also had some really good conversations with No voters and at no point have I ever said people voted No because they didn't care about social issues. What I have said is it confuses me why so many NO voters keep quiet with their opinions. It's possible to engage without it deteriorating into nastiness. No voters weren't the only ones nervous of joining in with the debate. I didn't have Yes stickers on my house or car for the same reasons people here said they didn't. Making sweeping generalisations by claiming all Yes voters were aggressive and scary is reductive and not helpful in the slightest.

I have to say I think the debate was let down by the lack of engagement by No voters. Apart from the 3 or 4 No voters I spoke to, there was no general acknowledgement from the No side that there was a desire for a change in the status quo re poverty etc which is why some Yes voters may have formed certain opinions. As a Yes voter I would have really appreciated a more candid debate with No voters without it descending into insults, as it so often did online. Both sides were guilty of this of course.

And to those who say we should suck it up and move on - you're trying to shut down the conversation. Independence will only happen if a majority of people want it to happen. Yes, it would be lovely if we could shut up all those we disagree with but I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that.

I wish we had managed that what. We tried but didn't. But then for us we have a few other tensions (as anyone who has been on a 'where to live' thread with me will know) and the referendum flushed a lot of issues into the open. It wasn't all about the referendum, more that the referendum showed us we have a lot of areas where we fundamentally disagree, and that we have very different ideas about what our aims are, what we want out of life etc.

I used the phrase suck it up because that was the message I was given by Yes voters pre-ref - I don't want either side to 'suck it up', I just want both sides to plan for the future in the knowledge that the majority was not in favour of independence. I don't want to shut down the debate, I just want the debate to be more inclusive and not focused on 'when everyone can be persuaded to vote Yes'.

I think all those complaining about the SNP not accepting the result are aiming their ire in the wrong place. SNP are all about independence and seeing as they've lost more than just this recent referendum & still kept going with their aims, their stance isn't a surprise.

The terms of the referendum were set to be a straight yes or no, and had that been the stance maintained throughout then I'd agree the SNP could be deemed to be 'sore losers' etc. The door opened for the SNP to take the stand they are doing, because the opponents to yes threw in the 'vow' last minute because they were seriously spooked by the polls that put yes ahead as we got down to the wire. Instead of the 'no' being considered decisive, it's now dependent upon the 'devo Max' option (that was not allowed on the ballot) & the way every 'yes' party behaves in the wake of the outcome. Had the terms remained just 'yes' or 'no' then I'd agree the SNP are not heeding the democratic will of the people of Scotland. But, the irony is that the SNP support is largely about a rejection of westminster 'politicking' - throwing in the previously unmentioned 'English votes for English laws' caveat that cameron did when the result came through, that one bit of (admittedly brilliant) politicking has thrown the whole thing up in the air. The squabbling that's followed & the implosion of Scottish Labour has underlined just how removed Scotland's interests are from the main UK parties' agendas & that is exactly where the SNP gain their momentum - it's fuelled a massive surge in their support since the referendum.

If anyone is to blame for the door on independence being firmly shut on independence then I'm afraid that's not down to the SNP. They'd have zero credibility & would have lost support in the wake of the result, had the the goalposts not been shifted so close to the end & then again following the result by cameron. Those 2 things have had the opposite effect on the SNP's standing & it's not the credibility of the SNP thats in question IMHO.

The fact is, there's far more involved in the debate on how scotland moves forward than what the SNP think or want - listening to to the Smith Commission other day and all those contributing, it seems to me that the SNP is actually a very small part of the ongoing discourse, and I think the future bodes well for all of us, if the topics of discussion I listened to were anything to go by. It remains to be seen how the Smith Commission will change things but I hope we all get a better Scotland as a result.

Congratulations Santana a birth announcement on my thread,

Thanks everyone for this debate, which has really helped me understand some of the issues better.

One thing that stuck out for me:

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

That's what I was getting at in my OP. I understand that the SNP are free to pursue their own policies, but surely as the future first minister, NS really ought to be representing all of Scotland, not just the minority who voted Yes.

Can you imagine the uproar if there had been a Yes vote, then Westminster turned round and said they'd push for another referendum in 2020, and that the Yes voters didn't really mean it and they'd change their mind soon. It would be preposterous.

I'd have a lot more respect for NS if she'd said that she would graciously accept the views of the majority, and work with all of Scotland AND the rest of the UK to work for a better Scotland. She could have shone like a true leader.

Missed opportunity from her there I think.

OP - I quite agree with you.

The last 2 years have probably one of the most divisive moments in our country's history, and certainly not one that I am keen to repeat any time soon. I listened to Alex Salmond promising 'once in a generation' and how the referendum would reflect the will of the Scottish people - and then they played predictable SNP politics and ignored the will of the Scottish people who didn't vote Yes and continue to posture and push for yet another referendum to reflect the will of the Scottish people....it's time for them to move on and accept what happened in September, and opposed to continually pressing for a the 'right' answer to a question that has already been asked and answered

OOAOML I didn't read the whole thread and I didn't see you use those words - it's just a general term that a lot of people use and more than one person here was expressing the same view albeit in different words. So wasn't aimed specifically at you.

Yes they're an independence party but they've also been elected to govern. The referendum dominated politics in Scotland for the last couple of years. The right thing to do is to work with existing powers to make the lives of people in Scotland better. A 'neverendum' debate is just keeping the country in limbo.

Thanks Molly, clearly I'm still feeling really sensitive. It was such a huge thing to go through, and I feel that I for one am just not sure how to deal with it going forward. Not business as usual, not independence. It still feels like everything is up in the air.

Yes they're an independence party but they've also been elected to govern. The referendum dominated politics in Scotland for the last couple of years. The right thing to do is to work with existing powers to make the lives of people in Scotland better. A 'neverendum' debate is just keeping the country in limbo.

Completely agree

I listened to Alex Salmond promising 'once in a generation' and how the referendum would reflect the will of the Scottish people - and then they played predictable SNP politics and ignored the will of the Scottish people who didn't vote Yes and continue to posture and push for yet another referendum to reflect the will of the Scottish people....it's time for them to move on and accept what happened in September, and opposed to continually pressing for a the 'right' answer to a question that has already been asked and answered

Yes. We'll respect the will of the Scottish people, as long as that will is the same as ours.

All votes are considered equal. But some are more equal than others.

And to those who say we should suck it up and move on - you're trying to shut down the conversation. Independence will only happen if a majority of people want it to happen. Yes, it would be lovely if we could shut up all those we disagree with but I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that.

And the majority of people didn't want it to happen! What is so hard to understand about that?

FWIW, I'm Welsh, not Scottish. The Scottish referendum ignited Welsh nationalism here, and talk of Welsh independence.

Many of my friends are ardent Welsh nationalists, and I never discuss such matters with them for that reason. I can see how a referendum here would be hugely divisive both at a national and also a personal level.

I really hope it doesn't come to that.