Sunday, September 28, 2014

Ruth Davidson and the 300 year Reich : never let it be said that the anti-independence brigade are losing the plot

Inevitably there has been a subtle battle underway over the last ten days to establish a narrative of what the relatively narrow No vote in the referendum means in terms of time-scale.  Jack Straw wants to abolish democracy by retrospectively defining the referendum as a forever decision, David Cameron merely wants to hold Scotland hostage for "a generation, perhaps a lifetime" before we'll be generously permitted another chance to decide our own future, while the SNP are taking the more realistic view that the Scottish people themselves will set the timetable for their next exercise in self-determination.  Another referendum will take place if and when there's demand/support for one, and the result of any such referendum will be respected just as last week's was.  Indeed, that's the only view that it's possible for a democrat to take - it was democracy that got us to this point, and you can't just stop the clock when it suits you.

But if you're going to try it on like Cameron did, you at least have to try to keep your bid at a vaguely plausible-sounding number.  Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson apparently didn't get that memo, and has today well and truly jumped the shark by setting out her plans for the next "300 years" of glorious union that we seemingly have ahead of us (whether we like it or not).

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Ruthie.

*  *  *

There was an unfortunate disagreement on the previous thread, which led a couple of people to suggest again that I disable anonymous commenting.  The reason I'm reluctant to go down that road is that it seems to automatically disable the "Name/URL" option as well, meaning everyone would have to sign in to comment.

However, I would strongly urge people not to post anonymously if at all possible.  It's really easy to post under a specific name - just select "Name/URL" and leave the URL section blank if you don't have a website or profile you want to link to.

I do fully appreciate how frustrating it must feel to be wrongly accused of trolling.  But we've had a severe problem over the last few weeks with concern trolls (people pretending to be "terribly worried" independence supporters in order to sap morale), and most of them have posted anonymously.  It can be very difficult to distinguish between genuine commenters and the trolls.


  1. She actually said there'd be 300 more years of the Union? Wow. She's even more deluded than I thought.

  2. Presumably if there's a UK in/out EU referendum and a narrow 'stay in' prevails, we can look forward to at least another 4 decades of glorious union with the matter settled.

  3. Presumably if there's a UK in/out EU referendum and a narrow 'stay in' prevails, we can look forward to at least another 4 decades of glorious union with the matter settled.

  4. She obviously hasen't read Nostradamus. He predicted England would fall out with Scotland over europe. Which will leave England isolated in Europe. Referendum 2017 anyone? He also predicted the south of England will eventually be consumed by the sea after various earthquakes cause tidal surges.

  5. November 13, to be fair that's not going to be good for northern france, belgium and holland either - if that happened the eu would be the least of our worries

  6. James, can you change what appears if people don't put down a name. So, e.g., instead of 'anonymous' it reads 'UKIP voter' or 'My mum ties my shoelaces'...? You could have lots of fun here, changing it every few days.


  7. @November13 We will be well fracked if that happens. Or do I mean if that happens, we will have been well fracked.

  8. Really disappointing that Ruth Davidson has received this treatment on here, particularly the disturbing Nazi illusion. It does you no credit whatsoever James. Nor does the inference that Scotland is currently being held hostage, as opposed to being part of a union it has just expressed an electoral preference to remain in.

    There's a huge opportunity for the 45% to help deliver lasting constitutional change and greater independence for Scotland. But you have to accept that you need to work together with no voters (and their leaders) to achieve that. Ruth Davidson set out a (brief) prospectus for change, including real devolution of tax raising powers. It should be welcomed.

    Incidentally, I am sure I am not the only one who smiled at the irony of your post heralding the anti-independence brigade "losing the plot" the day after two of your own posters engaged in some spectacular blue-on-blue fire on this very site!

  9. You couldn't make this stuff up.

    Businesses that speak out for Britain's EU membership will be punished, vows John Redwood

    What were the Tories saying just a few weeks back?


    Looks like the pro-union campaign are now going to destroy all the arguments they used against independence themselves as we approach May 2015.

    First they say the NHS is under threat of privatisation, that Britain is in fact broken and were not better together with the Tories, now we should not listen to businesses when making political decisions while unionists actually openly threaten the latter...

  10. Difference is S_S that Redwood speaks as part of the British establishment. He is saying much the same thing as Jim Sillars, and we all know what the press reaction was like to Sillars. The outrage was palpable. I really despise the MSM.

  11. @Flockers

    How can anyone defend that comment from Davidson? It is absolutely demented and completely anti-democratic. It does her no good whatsoever. How the hell does she know what the political circumstances are going to be like in 300 years time? In addition, if you genuinely trust Westminster to deliver for Scotland then you are in for a very rude awakening indeed.

  12. That's outrageous from Redwood, and also completely wrong. I would expect professional investors would be more concerned abot CEOs imposing their BOO views on their companies than being seen to support remaining in. In any event, he is completely out of order, it is comparable to Sillars' nonsense and it should be criticised accordingly.

  13. Flockers : A Tory supporter who thinks that a speech from a Tory leader should be respectfully welcomed rather than relentlessly mocked. Who'd have thunk it?

    A friendly piece of advice for Tories everywhere - if you don't want to be compared to Hitler, it might be best not to mention that you're making plans for the next THREE HUNDRED YEARS. OK, in Hitler's case it was 1000 years, so I suppose that means Ruth Davidson is only 30% as deranged.

    And do you know why the "Ein Volk" thing popped into my head in the first place? Because Tory posters on Political Betting have used that line in reference to Alex Salmond. You know, Political Betting - that site you're always telling us is the most refined and sophisticated political discussion site in the world, the place that any right-thinking person would want to be.

    I suspect you might want to take a few quiet moments to reflect on your double standards.

    As far as David Cameron is concerned, don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't suggesting that he is holding us hostage now, but rather that he is proposing to do so in future. He clearly tried to suggest that this decision could not be revisited for an extremely long time, even if there was a clear desire to do on the part of the Scottish electorate. That comment was an affront to the democratic process.

    Lastly, it's obvious even to the dogs on the street that the moral legitimacy of the No victory is conditional on the London parties honouring the solemn promises they made to the electorate - namely to deliver "Devo SUPER Max" and something "close to federalism". Let's give them a chance and see what unfolds.

  14. Muttley, she's used a rehtorical device. It's not a demented statement and it is not anti-democratic. She has not said there will not be a vote for 300 years. She's said "there is no doubt in my mind that we will reshape our nation, we will re-craft our nation, we will make it fit for the next 300 years".

    In much the same way as pro-independence campaigners were never heard saying "we really only want to give this independence lark a bash, but of course we expect there would be another referendum to see if people would like to go back after five years", you should not be surprised that unionists now want to build a sustainable and enduring union and express it in those terms. What Davidson is categorically not saying is that this was Scotland's last chance.

    I absolutely trust Westminster to deliver devolution of extensive further powers to Scotland because the consequences if they do not are obvious, and damaging to both countries.

  15. James,

    Again, as with Muttley, I refer you to Ruth's actual words, rather than those you wish she said. She's not planning for 300 years of Westminster rule. There's no suggestion that it could not be ended (a lot) sooner by the Scottish people. Any comparison to Hitler is laughable and just demeans you.

    I don't support Nazi analogies in the context of Salmond either. Nor have I ever described PB as "the most refined and sophisticated political discussion site in the world". PB has an ugly side and at times becomes unreadable. But it also has a number of illuminating and interesting posters from all parts of the political spectrum, which is no mean feat.

    Sorry if you feel I twisted your words, but you have previously (pre-referendum) described Scotland as being hostage to Westminster (despite there being no evidence that a majority wanted independence) and your language was loose and does imply that Scotland is already being held hostage. I am glad you have cleared this up and reassured you now accept Scotland is not held hostage and indeed is part of the union under it's own free will.

    I do not disagree, and indeed have said repeatedly on here, that the Westminster parties must deliver the extensive further powers they promised. Nor have I ever shied away from saying that if they do not the consequence - independence in the very short-term - is obvious, and I would not seek to prevent that.

  16. "Nor have I ever described PB as "the most refined and sophisticated political discussion site in the world"."

    In which case you might want to row back on some rather over-the-top praise you gave to the site when you were attempting (not very successfully) to mock Mick Pork a few weeks ago. Those kind of comments do have a habit of coming back to bite you.

    As far as Scotland being in the union of its own free will is concerned, again you're putting words in my mouth. What we have seen over the last few weeks was a deeply flawed democratic process, largely due to the behaviour of the broadcasters. However, there comes a point where you have to accept the legitimacy of even an imperfect vote - for the time being.

  17. @Flockers.
    You honestly believe that Scotland is going to get Devo Max as promised, never mind DevoSuperMax or Home Rule?

  18. Juteman : No, he doesn't. He's pretending it wasn't even promised.

  19. Isn't it the case that the big problem with banning the Scots from having further referenda, either for a period of time or permanently, is that it undermines one of the lynch pins of the Good Friday Agreement: The principle of consent. If the GFA is thus percieved to be toast, doesn't that open a whole new and undesired can of worms? Surely London would not want to go down that road again?

  20. @Flockers

    To even mention that the UK will still exist in 300 years is batshit crazy. How the hell does she know that? Only a few weeks ago, 45 per cent of the Scottish electorate voted for independence, the first chance to democratically decide in over 300 years. This was in spite of
    the most sustained propaganda fuelled political campaign imaginable.

    You say trust Westminster? We have been here before. In 1979 we were promised a better deal and got no autonomy. Unionists refused to have a more powers option on the independence ballot paper. Then in the last minute, while in extreme panic mode, they and their MSM buddies promised Devo max, which means all powers except defence, foreign affairs, one or two taxation powers, going to Holyrood. They promised Devo max, and they certainly will not deliver it. So that is yet another con job on the people of Scotland. Just why do you trust these people and this state?

  21. Steven, what I always find weird about the Northern Ireland situation is that it's entirely up to the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide when or if there should be a constitutional referendum - and Sinn Fein accepted that. I'd have thought they'd have wanted some kind of automatic electoral trigger.

  22. Sigh.

    I honestly believe Scotland will get extensive further powers, as promised by the Westminster leaders. Whether this constitutes devoplus, devomax, devosupermax, home rule or whatever is one we can spend countless hours debating, but Salmond, Sturgeon et al were under no illusions that what was being offered was only further powers and not everything bar defence and foreign policy, as some on here have bizarrely (and only post-defeat) tried to claim. Pretending otherwise is a divisive tactic.

    The "vow" is what was offered. Stupid, ill-considered and vague though it was. That is what must (and I believe will) be delivered.

    I stand by every word of my post a few weeks ago. It wasn't over the top, it was perfectly fair comment. PB is a very successful site and Mick Pork was behaving ridiculously, like a love sick teenage girl trying to prove she's over the boy who dumped her by bitching about him endlessly. And of course it is Mick who ended up humiliated (though oddly not humbled) when despite his endless "hilarity" at the know-nothings inhabiting PB, they called the referendum correctly while Mick's aggressive outbursts about their ignorance of the importance of trust and the strength of the yes campaign's ground game came to nowt.

  23. I can't believe that folk haven't taken to the streets after the spoiling tactics of Westminster and the Daily Record in that last week of the referendum. Gordon Brown should be hounded every time he shows his face in public if DevoMax / Home Rule isn't on offer. The Daily Record editors should also have no place to hide..
    Not since the days of the miners strike have i felt such hatred for a politician. At least Thatcher made no attempt to hide her politics.

  24. And by the way "deeply-flawed democratic process" is a bloody insult to your countrymen. It was a great election, hugely engaging with both sides having ample opportunity to get their message out. The balance of the media was against you - but then so was the balance of the voters. We have a free press and freedom of speech and it was in your hands to get your message out, which you did, but not effectively enough.

    To describe it as a deeply flawed process is just plain ridiculous. It insults Scots and those from every nation on Earth that has suffered a genuinely deeply flawed electoral process.

    1. You are simply trolling now, flockers. The last 2 weeks of the campaign were shocking. If you think that was democracy, i'm even more determined to escape from your 'democratic' British State.

  25. "but Salmond, Sturgeon et al were under no illusions that what was being offered was only further powers and not everything bar defence and foreign policy"

    Oh, THEY had no illusions that the promises of "Devo SUPER Max" and "near federalism" were not going to be delivered. But the promises were not made to Salmond and Sturgeon - they were made to the electorate, who it appears believed them in sufficient numbers. We wait to see whether the victory for No was dishonourably won - I suspect you're right that it was, in which case who knows where we'll be in five or six years' time?

    "I stand by every word of my post a few weeks ago. It wasn't over the top, it was perfectly fair comment."

    When I have a spare few minutes, I'll try to track that comment down. You may have forgotten the details of what you wrote, but it was absolutely barking mad.

    "they called the referendum correctly"

    I don't see how they could have failed to call the referendum correctly at some point, given that Smithson made a bewildering sequence of completely contradictory comments on it. Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day.

  26. "And by the way "deeply-flawed democratic process" is a bloody insult to your countrymen. It was a great election"

    Nice try. There were many wonderful things about this referendum, but none of them provide any alibi for public service broadcasters failing to meet their obligations.

  27. "The last 2 weeks of the campaign were shocking."

    Agreed. It seemed to me the TV coverage did become markedly more impartial over the last three or four days - but that suggests that there must have been a private realisation of just how catastrophically they had failed their viewers over the previous week.

  28. Juteman - you seriously think the word democratic needs quote marks around it? That is terribly, terribly sad. A free and fair election, with no unusual restraints on media, representatives from both campaigns (including James) invited to participate in debates, interviews and other programmes, write columns, produce videos, widespread internet access, people campaigning on the street unhindered by officers of the law, almost no violence (certainly no state-sponsored violence), very little intimidation (a little low-level stuff on both sides). 85% turnout. Inspectors from both campaigns at the counts.

    It was the very essence of a democratic campaign. I have never met a politican of any stripe who has not felt hard done by by the BBC, but to say or imply that the process was undemocratic is just plain wrong, and dangerous.

    Accept the result.

    1. I honestly don't have a response to your drivel.

  29. "Mick Pork was behaving ridiculously, like a love sick teenage girl trying to prove she's over the boy who dumped her by bitching about him endlessly."


    you really don't have a fucking clue do you Flockers old bean. PB is a sick joke with most of the posters who actually knew something about betting having being driven off from it long ago.

    So you are in excellent company with the racists and bigots on Political Betting/Stormfront Lite. The fact that any criticism of it provokes such am OTT and lunatic response from yourself should tell everyone on SCOTgoesPOP what they need to know about both you and that site.

    As for behaving ridiculously, you are witlessly praising a BETTING site which is being run 90% of the time by an overtly biased tory (TheScreamingEagles) WHO LIED ABOUT HIS OWN CHILD DYING TO TRY AND WELCH ON A BET.

    So how's about you defend that instead of your demented and laughably incorrect shrieking.

    I was banned by the bigots on PB with no reasonable or even sane reason given, but rest assured, even if I wasn't I would hardly waste my fucking time on a repulsive site full of out of touch tory arselickers, bigots and racists like PB now is.

    As for your breathless hero worship of Davidson, she's as vapid and empty as the incompetent fop Cameron is. She too is a pitiful Public Relations drone and is merely Cameron's placewoman in the 'scottish' tories. This is her right here.

    [identifying paragraph removed]

    I’ve now taken the plunge to set myself up as a freelancer and am looking for voiceover work in commercials, documentaries and corporate films as well as scripting and media training.

    I’m [redacted] years old with a warm, rich voice which has both light and shade. A long history of factual programming means I can convey information with authority, combined with an openness and accessibility which encourages interest; the unexpected world of live broadcasting means I’ve learned to be equally adept at putting across humour. My accent is a neutral blend of central Scotland tones.

    I’m based in [redacted], but can travel anywhere. I don’t have an ISDN line in the house yet but will happily go to studios, otherwise I have home recording equipment and can send MP3 files by email.

    I have included a short demo of more commercial work, and if you have any jobs you think might benefit from one of Scotland’s more ‘well kent’ voices, then I’m keen to hear from you.”

    Whatever else you can say about Murdo at least he isn't a vacuous PR frontman drafted in to the 'scottish' tories by the desperate tory chumocracy.

    I realise a great many out of touch twits like yourself are upset right now Flockers. What with the comedy omnishambles of the tory conference providing everyone with such amusement. Tories running about like headless chickens wondering which tory MP might piss off to the kippers next could hardly be anything other than entertaining. However, it hardly excuses your vast ignorance on so many subjects or your petulant whining.

    Though by all means keep it going as you certainly don't sound like some comical stereotype of a tory twit way out of their depth.


  30. Flockers, that's about as feeble an attempt at a straw man as I've seen all week. I haven't disputed the legitimacy of the result, and to the best of my knowledge neither has Juteman, but that doesn't mean we're not entitled to point out that the process was nevertheless tainted by the failures of the broadcasters. You're an intelligent man, and pretending you don't understand that distinction is just pathetic.

    Sarah Smith said it best earlier this year - if the broadcasters received an equal amount of criticism from both sides, they'd know they were getting it just about right. To put it mildly, that isn't what happened.


  31. "Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this."

    Paul Mason - Former Newsnight journalist describing the overt BBC bias in the independence referendum. (someone who might, just might, know what they are talking about as opposed to some shrieking tory twit)

    Accept the reality.


  32. @Flockers

    You know as well as we do that Darling, Brown, and their MSM puppets, including the wretched Jackie Bird, were telling us we would get Devo max in the event of a No vote. We know what Devo max means, which is all powers bar defence, foreign affairs, Trident, and one or two taxation powers, going to Holyrood.

    You are already trying to pretend that it did not happen. However, like Alec Douglas Home in 1979, we all know it happened. Stop trying to con the people of Scotland. We are going to hold to account those promises made by unionist politicians and their MSM acolytes.

  33. Dave Jones ‏@WelshGasDoc

    Let’s see what Cameron “forgets” to mention during his speech. Foodbanks? Privatisation of the NHS? Andy Coulson? The Pasty Tax? #BBCQT

    Ah yes, Andy Coulson. Cameron's close friend and spindoctor for the tories, still in prison. Don't quite see how him ending up in prison was the NON-STORY all the PB tory twits were utterly convinced it was Flockers.

    If only someone had warned them, eh? ;-)

  34. Bless you for trying Mick. I have never commented on the TSE incident you referred to, certainly have never defended it or him. I found it very bizarre. It doesn't change the fact PB is still, though somewhat depleted, often engaging and illuminating, in a way this blog is sometimes.

    I have not been breathlessly hero-worshipping Ruth Davison. Or at least, if pointing out that someone isn't a Nazi is breathless hero worshipping, I have breathlessly hero-worshipped her no more than I would anyone else so falsely accused. All I have done is point out that it's deplorable to use Nazi terminology to characterise her speech (a speech in which, if you cared to notice, she supported greater devolution of tax raising powers).

    She may or may not be a pitiful PR drone, but I thought she did a good job in the campaign, and she was clearly effective at keeping Conservative supporters on board. I have similarly praised Nicola Sturgeon and Gordon Brown, while criticising Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond. I try to be fair. You just scream abuse at everyone who disagrees with you, from leading politicos to fellow forum dwellers.

    If I may borrow one of your phrases, I find it HILARIOUS that you refer to my "vast ignorance" when you have been proven wrong on a subject you have not only professed to have been steeped in for years, but which you were so confident about you screamed at others who pointed out a no victory was likely for years leading up to the day of the vote. Your credibility as a commentator on Scottish politics is in tatters. While I am impressed by the fact you have not allowed being so catastrophically wrong on your favourite topic to dampen your spirit even one iota, I will point out your credibility deficit from time to time.

    As for petulant whining, you're on a board that has been infested by people claiming to a greater or lesser degree that the no vote was a travesty of justice, an undemocratic process, deeply flawed or outright fixed. You might want to start with the beam in your eye.

  35. "the no vote was a travesty of justice, an undemocratic process, deeply flawed or outright fixed"

    If you think the claims of a deeply flawed process are unwarranted, by all means provide us with a detailed defence of the extraordinary behaviour of the London-based broadcasters in the crucial week after the publication of the YouGov poll putting Yes in the lead. Explain why Paul Mason (a highly experienced and respected former BBC journalist with no skin in the game) was wrong.

  36. James, In this thread alone you have used the phrase "deeply flawed" while Juteman has said "If you think that was democracy, i'm even more determined to escape from your 'democratic' British State". I was responding to his more extreme post rather than yours when I called on him to accept the result, but both your comments are profoundly wrong.

  37. Then I look forward to you meeting the challenge I have just laid down.

  38. I cannot comment on Paul Mason's views. I am sure they are genuinely held. He has a certain political perspective and he is entitled to express his view. It is not widely shared in the media, from what I have seen and read.

    My broader perspective on this is set out above. As the Yes campaign had every right to expect, it was given considerable air time, invited to all the relevant debates, given a platform to express its views etc. The no campaign felt that Salmond's lies went unchallenged and that in the second debate the chair gave him too much latitude. These things always get bogged down in claim and counter claim, but the fundamental point about equality of access to the media, the freedom to associate, speak and campaign are at the heart of whether or not this was a flawed (or deeply flawed process).

    Based on the evidence I saw over a number of months I believe it was a free and fair election, and not significantly flawed. Certainly not deeply flawed (James Kelly) or undemocratic (Juteman).

    If you divided the world into countries who would envy the Scots the process you just had, or pity you the process, the left hand column would be much longer than the right.

  39. I would also add, to address your question, that the Yougov poll shocked a lot of people out of complacency. For the first time the media started to think it was close, after months of static polls, and they naturally went into overdrive. Suddenly all the arguments were being heard again, being tested again and being dissected. We had the drama of the "vow". The breathless pieces about what it might mean for Cameron, for the country etc. It was just saturation coverage. And of course, from your perspective that must have felt like siege, because much of the print media was against you. But that's the price of not winning over the press.

    I was kind enough to point out where the yes campaign was going wrong weeks before the referendum. But alas I got shouted at rather than listened to.

  40. "It is not widely shared in the media, from what I have seen and read."

    You mean in the groupthink of the London-based media? Have you bothered to listen to Stuart Cosgrove's comments on the John Beattie show? See link below -

  41. I must say Flockers, I didn't notice you on here repudiating the many times labour and the tories in the No campaign implied the SNP and Yes supporters were Nazi's. Nor do I remember your 'outrage' when Yes supporters were smeared by disgusting tabloid scum like the Daily Mail. Perhaps there's a reason for that?

    Davidson is of little consequence as her CV makes abundantly clear. We hardly expected a tory party with ONE scottish MP to do anything other than support the grotesque reality of westminster tory rule of scotland despite that blatant democratic deficit.

    I fought to win the first independence referendum campaign Flockers old bean. As did all of us in the Yes campaign. As we all will in the next one.

    So if you are seriously trying to refer to that as "being so catastrophically wrong" then you truly are an ignorant fool. When has Cameron conceded he will lose the next election? When has little Ed? When has calamity Clegg?

    I was proven absolutely correct on turnout as it was truly vast and I was there on the ground helping to get voters registered.

    We in the SNP and Yes campaign know perfectly well where we have to adjust to win the next referendum but right now we can sit back and watch idiot tories and clueless labour MPs smash their promises and talk of DevoMAX and Home Rule to pieces as they bicker like children among themselves. Something the scottish public has actually noticed even if gullible and ignorant tory cheerleaders still haven't quite caught on to the reality.

    James has been forthright and honest throughout about how the actual voting process was run and I was there at a polling station from open of ballot box to final seal. So I'm afraid that just won't cut it old chap. We have been clear that the voting process was not seriously flawed.

    However if you want to get into posters reflecting on a site then the outright racism and bigotry on PB/Stormfront Lite is just a touch more concerning and repulsive than the few who were so upset at the result that they looked for irregularities in the voting to blame.

    So you might want to start with the beam in your eye yourself chum. :-)

    *DevoMAX - All powers apart from foreign affairs and defence.

  42. "And of course, from your perspective that must have felt like siege, because much of the print media was against you"

    You're not listening to me, Flockers. I keep referring to the BROADCAST media, because they're the ones who are obliged to be impartial. Listen to the Cosgrove interview.

  43. "I cannot comment on Paul Mason's views. I am sure they are genuinely held. He has a certain political perspective and he is entitled to express his view. It is not widely shared in the media, from what I have seen and read."

    Thank you so much Flockers.

    Anyone in any doubt whatsoever of why you simply do not understand what you are talking about will have had it removed completely by that. The truly wonderful thing is you clearly intend that to be taken seriously and not ironically, which only makes it all the more entertaining.

    More please. :-)

  44. "But that's the price of not winning over the press."

    This was the "price" that Cameron and little Ed paid to Murdoch, Dacre, dirty Des and all the rest.

    Leveson - REJECTED

    The watered down Press Royal Charter which both Cameron and little Ed claimed to support but Dacre, Murdoch and the rest of the press still loathed. - REJECTED

    Not particularly wise to start banging on about "winning over the press" after that. It does at least prove that some are still ignorant that the Royal Charter was firmly booted into touch by pressure from the press barons with nary a whimper from little Ed and Cammie.

  45. Really disappointing that Ruth Davidson has received this treatment on here.

    Really disappointing to hear Ruth was counting postal votes weeks in advance.

    Have the police spoken to her yet?

  46. You wonder why i question democracy, flockers.
    Lets go back 2 years, to the time of the Embra agreement. The SNP wanted the indy question, but left it up to others to organise a DevoMax question. Cameron insisted it must only be a straight choice between Indy or the Union.
    Everything is fine until about 10 days out, then a Yougov poll shows Indy on 51% Yes, and private No polling shows Yes on 53%. Despite being in the 28 day purdah period, Westminster and its tame media guarantees Devomax / Hone Rule.
    Yes is defeated.

  47. "Really disappointing to hear Ruth was counting postal votes weeks in advance."

    Yup. That was a dark day for any Tories of honour out there.

  48. Too many posts to respond to now, so in no particular order:

    James, apologies, you were clearly talking about broadcast media. I referenced print media only to highlight that I can see how in the last week the print media might have felt aggressive to a yes supporter. I don't think the BBC did a bad job over the campaign and as I said the no side found cause for complaint on a few occasions, so this is by no means one way. And crucially yes was given a platform on broadcast media to get its views across. I will listen to Cosgrove's comments later. Always interesting to hear a different perspective.

    Mick Pork - I never really found the mud slinging (by both sides) sufficiently interesting to comment on during the campaign, but for what it is worth I don't agree with anyone who ever referred to Salmond as a Nazi. There are more valid (and much milder!) criticisms that can be made of him and I think the use of Nazi terminology is deplorable. The criticism of cybernats in the Mail and other places was oevrblown. In fact I think Salmond dealt with it the best when he described "a few idiots on both sides" or words to that effect. That's pretty much my view. The trolling of JK Rowling, Andy Murray and countelss less well known people was completely unacceptable, but a sad reflection of the modern world rather than anything indyref specific.

    I am amused you think Cameron, Miliband et al were rewarded for Leveson etc. Have you read any of Murdoch's tweets about Cameron? Have you seen any of the press coverage of the Westminster leaders? It is positively brutal.

    I will concede that you correctly predicted a large turnout. As did, well, gosh, just about everyone. But don't pretend for one moment you were just enthusiastically campaigning. There are literally hundreds of your posts mocking people on the no side for not knowing what was about to happen. You hysterically lambasted people on here, on PB and elsewhere, proclaimed their ignorance and gloated over their impending defeat. And then you lost.

    Others - the postal vote counting comment does need to be investigated (as I understand it is). We should wait for the investigation before prejudging, of course, but you don't get a free pass in my book because of the colour of your rosette.

    Juteman - yes, that's democracy. Politicans make promises to win elections. They then must fulfil them, or incur the wrath of the gods. Or the electorate.

  49. Flockers : I can remember rather a lot of comments on PB that now look incredibly silly in the light of a 45% Yes vote. There were repeated predictions that Yes would slip back rather than surge forward as the campaign progressed - those were completely wrong. In particular, Antifrank endlessly prayed in aid his correct prediction about Scottish seats in 2010 to make people listen to his claim that Yes would end up on 33%. And as for the sainted Fitalass? Just a few months ago she was predicting a Yes vote of between 20% and 30%.

    As Mick would say : LOL, LOL and thrice LOL.

  50. " - I never really found the mud slinging (by both sides) sufficiently interesting to comment on "

    "The criticism of cybernats in the Mail and other places was oevrblown."


    Again, not a flicker of self-awareness or irony. Superb comedy Flockers old fruit. :-D

    I am amused you still don't understand what the word "pressure" means when it comes to the press barons. There's a reason the spineless jellyfish Cameron hired Andy Coulson despite being very clearly warned about it by Clegg and several others. It's the same reason the ineffectual little Ed hasn't said a peep about Trinity Mirror on hacking.

    "As did, well, gosh, just about everyone."

    Bullshit. I didn't predict a big turnout I predicted a truly vast one. The racists and bigots on politicalbetting were hardly there helping register scots. At least try not to sound like an ignorant fool on subject you clearly know very little about.

    " There are literally hundreds of your posts mocking people on the no side for not knowing what was about to happen. "

    Fine. Then literally supply us with a hundred. Come on Flocky, chop! chop! Get on with it. Put your fucking money where your mouth is for once.

    You seem to have somehow missed that we are the ones who have been producing evidence on this thread while you are the one shrieking dementedly and making assertions left, right and centre.

    Or are you just a desperate tory twit full of shit? Hmmm?

  51. James,

    I think Antifrank ended up losing a bundle backing yes, but I might be mistaken. There were of course outliers on both sides, including a few who predicted yes. But the wisdom of the crowds over there, certainly at the end, was for a no victory only slightly narrower than recorded on the day. It's fair to say taking the temparature on here there weren't many expecting a ten point defeat (barring concern trolls). Many thought yes were ahead even when it was very clear yes was trailing, badly. You were more measured than many of your guests, but I know you recognise what I am saying about Mick...

  52. SNP members total now 72,448. Join us

    That'll be the terrible backlash for the SNP so many tory twits, racists and bigots on PB predicted then.



  53. "I think Antifrank ended up losing a bundle backing yes, but I might be mistaken."

    Then he must have had a very sudden mood swing at the end, because for years he was saying Yes 33%, No 67% (based on the theory that voters always go back to the status quo).

    The spread of polls in the closing days (if we exclude the obvious outlier from ICM) put Yes between 46% and 49%, so nothing between 45% and 50% should have been any great surprise to anyone. The idea that there was some kind of unforeseen No tsunami is risible beyond words. Indeed, we know that the No side were briefing journalists on polling day that they were going to win by 58-42, so it's pretty clear that their canvassing/polling was significantly underestimating the Yes vote by then.

    "I know you recognise what I am saying about Mick..."

    Bollocks. (With all due respect.)

  54. The comical tory omnipanic continues apace.

    Jim Waterson ‏@jimwaterson 3h

    If UKIP has a defector here's a timetable 3pm Tue: press call for hacks 4pm Farage unveils MP in Brum 6pm Lead news, ruin Cameron speech

    No doubt the forthcoming tory civil war and split on Europe will be a triumph for he incompetent fop.

    Ah well, at least there's Clacton for the twits to look forward to.

    BBC Politics ‏@BBCPolitics Sep 28

    David Davis says the Clacton by-election for a previous Tory seat "looks like it is going to be walkover" for UKIP.

    Or not.

  55. Mick, it would bore everyone to tears were I to repost one hundred of your posts, and such is your penchant for witless repetition one will suffice, because you repeated it in different guises sufficiently often, but how's this for a starter:

    "Like I said at the time, and to be fair every single other time the out of touch Britnats kept shrieking witlessly about currency during this campaign, trust is going to destroy the No campaign.

    Trust is the absolute core issue of the entire Independence referendum and was always going to be.

    So all the No campaign ever does when it gets hysterical over currency (a minority issue and always has been) is reinforce that this Independence referendum is about who scots trust with scotland's future, Cameron, Clegg and little Ed or Sturgeon and Salmond? Who do scots trust to look after the best interests of scotland, the scottish parliament or westminster?"

    OK, one more:

    Mick Pork said...
    "Be in no doubt though, Yes are winning this on the ground. It's no contest."

    And you've ended with a very odd statement. It's not for me to produce evidence that Ruth Davidson is not planning for a 300 year reich - although I did anyway, by the cunning strategy of posting what she actually said. It's not for me to prove that the election was free and fair and democratic. It's for those now making wild assertions with a view to undermining their countrymen's decision to justify it. And perfectly fair of me to point out that they haven't.

    And if my calmly pointing out Ruth is not a nazi, that the referendum was democratic, that you were wrong in your predictions and that I thought Nicola Sturgeon did well qualifies as me "shrieking dementedly" I suggest you go and see the doctor about that bad case of irony...

  56. "It's not for me to prove that the election was free and fair and democratic. It's for those now making wild assertions with a view to undermining their countrymen's decision to justify it."

    It's ironic that you should try the "burden of proof is on everyone else" defence, because that's exactly the excuse Alex Massie came up with for the broadcasters' bias - the burden of proof was on Yes, so it was OK for the broadcasters to give them a harder time than No.

  57. "Be in no doubt though, Yes are winning this on the ground. It's no contest."

    Which we did. I know of nobody claiming No had the superior ground campaign unless you have completely lost your marbles and are trying to do so now.

    Is that all you've got after your amusingly demented rant about literally hundreds of posts? Really??


    Bit pitiful isn't it Flockers old fruit? Perhaps you would be wiser to stick with the dimwitted bigots and racists PB as you really do seem totally out of your depth on here.

  58. Oh, and by the way, it was indeed no contest on the ground. The Yes ground campaign was far superior - that's a self-evident statement of fact. It's hardly Mick's fault if you were imposing meanings on that statement that weren't there - I can assure you I knew exactly what he meant.

  59. Oh Ok, one more. This one's a keeper:

    Mick Pork said... "So let the out of touch fools shriek comically to themselves. Yes were always going to win this city by city, town by town, street by street, doorstep by doorstep, voter by voter. "

    Care to retract, porky?

  60. @Flockers

    Could you please explain how Annabel Goldie, Professor Tomkins, and Iain Gray are going to deliver Devo max to Holyrood? Devo max of course meaning all powers bar defence, foreign affairs, one or two taxation powers and Trident.

  61. Again, you're imposing a meaning on that statement that isn't there. I remember reading that, and I didn't think he meant "Yes are definitely going to win", but rather "if Yes are going to win, this is how it's going to happen".

  62. @James

    Has Alex Massie returned to being undecided on independence yet?...

  63. James, fair enough. I agree that first post is open to a generous interpretation that he used the word "winning" in the sense of "doing better than the other campaign, but not sufficiently well to actually win". You might have a harder job explaining away the next one I posted. And indeed you did not comment on the prediction that trust would "destroy" the no campaign (incidentally Pork backed that up with some choice quotes about how noone would give any credibility to the vow, so you might need to have a word with him to get him back on message about devosupermax)

    I can't seriously believe you are going to pretend that Mick never predicted a yes victory.

  64. "I agree that first post is open to a generous interpretation that he used the word "winning" in the sense of "doing better than the other campaign, but not sufficiently well to actually win"."

    You're getting warmer, but you're still not there. The correct interpretation is : "the Yes ground campaign is infinitely superior to the No ground campaign". Which it was. No had the natural advantage that their voters were disproportionately likely to be upper and middle class voters who needed no encouragement to turn out to vote, which is just as well for them, because they were being totally outgunned on the ground.

    As you'll have seen by now, I do not have the problem you seemed to anticipate with the second comment you posted.

  65. Here's more of that "evidence" thing I was talking about when it came to the blatantly obvious bias the BBC displayed along with the rest of the overwhelmingly unionist media.

    BBC bias and the Scots referendum - report

    Dr John Robertson from University of West Scotland has just published research on bias and fairness in news reporting on the issue of the Scottish referendum, covering both ITV (STV) and BBC. Here's what he found.

    (conc.)... So, on the objective evidence presented here, the mainstream TV coverage of the first year of the independence referendum campaigns has not been fair or balanced. Taken together, we have evidence of coverage which seems likely to have damaged the Yes campaign.

    That was just the first year mind. The shocking levels of undisguised bias in the latter stages of the campaign is the thing which has revolted so many scots and put a timebomb under the BBC when it comes to trust.

    I personally know of people who weren't remotely concerned about the BBC or the media who now vehemently avoid the BBC and have real anger over what they did.

    The kind of pyhrric victory the BBC have colluded with is coming home to roost right this second. They will find that moving swiftly on to Iraq propaganda to please the westminster warmongers and chickenhawks (yet again) might not be the brightest idea when it comes to the 45 in scotland.

  66. "Yes were always going to win this city by city, town by town, street by street, doorstep by doorstep, voter by voter. "

    Care to retract, porky?"

    Nope. Again you are desperately and comically trying to bend a simple statement of fact when it comes to campaigning on the ground to try and fit your lunatic shrieking about "hundreds for posts".

    Sorry old fruit. Not even close.

    You're two for two now and looking every bit the out of touch tory twit.

    Care to stop making a fool of yourself now?


    A reminder for the twits of what it is that was promised.

    *DevoMAX - All powers apart from foreign affairs and defence.

  67. "Could you please explain how Annabel Goldie, Professor Tomkins, and Iain Gray are going to deliver Devo max to Holyrood?"

    Perhaps through the medium of dance?


    You have to hand it to tory cheerleaders. They really are the most gullible and credulous bunch of obsequious drones. How many of them fell for Cammie's bullshit about a "Cast Iron Pledge" on Lisbon. How many of them were right there with Cameron cheering on the Iraq war as Blair fed them a pack of lies and they nodded along like sheep and voted it through. Totally out of touch and the never learn a thing.

  68. Who won the referendum is fairly clear cut. Whether the union has been saved or not is less clear.

  69. As Flockers scrabbles around desperately trying to find those "hundreds of posts" he promised, here's yet more of that "evidence" thing I was talking about.

    BBC Scotland comes under fire from NUJ over referendum coverage

    Writing in her Daily Record column, Ms McAlpine revealed in a letter to the committee, the National Union of Journalists claimed that BBC management had downplayed the costs of referendum coverage, claiming it was a “one off”. The NUJ also claimed management had dismissed Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games in 2014 as being nowhere near as important as the London Olympics.

    She added: “The people of Scotland pay for this service, and we have a right to expect that the BBC will provide first class, impartial and informative reporting of this debate.

    “The BBC are currently front-loading job cuts in news and current affairs in Scotland – in light of what is happening in Scotland over the next few years, surely this is the wrong approach for our national broadcaster at this time."

    Both the BBC director general George Entwistle and BBC Scotland director Ken MacQuarrie had been invited to appear in front of the Committee but declined to attend.

    The criticism of referendum planning and the poor quality coverage follows the scandal over the BBC’s role in the Jimmy Savile sex scandal.

    A survey published yesterday suggests that trust in the BBC has fallen to just 45% with almost two thirds believing that the child sex scandal has caused lasting damage to the BBC’s reputation.

  70. @S_S

    It looks like it is going to be the most pyrrhic victory imaginable for the No campaign/BBC/CBI/rest of the MSM etc. Support for Independence went up from a steady 30 per cent to 45 per cent, the BBC look even more discredited than they did after Saville, pro-independence parties have seen their memberships surge, and the Devo max promises already look like they have been pished up a wall. Who really won again?...

  71. @muttley

    Devo max also climbed to 74% for vs 18% against (ICM); the highest ever, reflecting Scotland's national identity (historic forced choice Scottish vs British) and matching 1997 Q1.

    I'm not sure that counts as victory when not that long ago we were hearing about the wonders of Calman and 'lines in the sand'.

  72. Pork, I said at the outset I was not going to bore everyone with dozens of posts, so I am stopping at three. Three in which you said that the no campaign would be destroyed ("some chicken, some neck", as Churchill might have said), that yes were "winning this on the ground" and indeed that "yes were always going to win this...".

    Now it may be the case that what you meant to say was that the no campaign would be outclassed on the street but still victorious, that yes were doing better on the ground than in the air war, but would still lose, and that yes intended to try and win it voter by voter, but would fail. But you didn't say that. And in these and many, many other posts, you mocked those who lacked the foresight to see what you thought you saw. In others you talked excitedly about the swing being even greater than in 2011, and the polls underestimating the strength of yes, even when thy had yes and no virtually level-pegging, and you mocked those who put faith in the bookies odds, ignoring the number of low value bets being placed in Scottish bookies.

    You can try all the sophistry you want, but you believed yes would win, you ceaseless mocked those who disagreed, and you made a fool out of yourself.

  73. Just so we're clear muttley. I agree entirely that the Smith Commission is looking pitifully inadequate and will not come close to delivering what was talked about and promised.

    My point is that with the SNP in government and the massive surge in the Yes parties there is simply no way on earth the scottish public will not be fully informed of the reality of what eventually emerges.

    There will be a burning and intense spotlight on every single aspect of any new powers. They will then be measured against every single statement vow and promise made by desperate tories, labour and lib dems in the final stages of the referendum.

    With 72,000 SNP members and the surge in scottish Greens and the SSP you can bet there will be no shortage of volunteers to help spread the truth to those No voters who were willing to give westminster one last chance off the back of VOWS, promises and talk of DevoMAX and Home Rule.

  74. Flockers, you've been unable to produce one comment that proves your point, let alone "hundreds". It seems to have been all in your head, old chap.

  75. "You can try all the sophistry you want"

    "and you made a fool out of yourself."


    Again, not a flicker of self-awareness or irony. Comedy Gold Flockers old fruit!

    Better luck next time. :-)

  76. This "evidence" stuff seems to be pretty copious and unambiguous when it comes to the obvious Bias of the BBC and overwhelmingly unionist media.

    BBC Scotland told to rethink news output amid questions over indy balance

    Scottish audiences believe BBC Scotland needs a "thorough reassessment" of its news output and have questioned its in impartiality covering the independence referendum.

  77. Quebec got 10% more for Yes on their second round.

    I'd take that.

  78. LOL, happy to let others judge the meaning of sentences such as "Yes were always going to win this city by city, town by town, street by street, doorstep by doorstep, voter by voter. " and "the No campaign will be destroyed".

    Equally happy for others to judge whether Mick's many derogatory remarks about those taking contrary positions were wise in retrospect, or whether his repeated assertions that the disparity between the polls and the ground being wider than in 2011 were consistent with a prediction of a 10-11pt no victory, or his repeated assurances that trust would be the decisive factor (and the public trusted Salmond and Sturgeon more), have proven to be correct.

    Don't be disheartened Porky. You're not the only one who called it wrong. You were just the most amusingly conceited about it.

  79. @Mick Pork

    There is no doubt that whatever the unionists cook up between themselves in this commission, it will never satisfy the electorate as a whole. Nearly 50 per cent of the electorate in Scotland voted for independence. Some undecided and soft Nos will have voted No because they thought Devo max would be implemented. It will not be of course, leaving unionists even more disreputable than ever before. This is shaping up to be another Calman, and after narrowing rejecting independence, this is just not going to satisfy the expectations of enough people in Scotland.

  80. "Flockers, you've been unable to produce one comment that proves your point, let alone "hundreds". It seems to have been all in your head, old chap. "

    I fear the tory omnipanic over tories leaving the sinking ship pissing off to the kippers, (thus spoiling the incompetent fop Cameron's conference) has made some of the more 'excitable' tories even more demented and unhinged than usual. Which, as you know, is saying quite something.

    Truly wonderful comedy though. You can see precisely why PoliticalBetting quickly became a joke site full of out of touch tory twits, racists and bigots.

  81. Flockers, No won by 5 points. If 1 in 20 had gone for Yes instead of No, Yes would have won (in fact if those that DK'd had voted, Yes would have won; No not achieving a majority of the electorate). 55% may sound quite convincing, but in reality it is really rather close.

    You seem to be confusing multi-party election results with binary referenda. In the former, swings can be distributed amongst multiple parties; in the latter it goes straight to the other side.

    40% Yes / 60% No and your starting to get a decent result for No. 65% No would have made another referendum a quite distant prospect; possibly generational. 70% No definitely generational, maybe more than one.

    1 in 20 could mean just a couple of years; a tiny swing required.

    Why did you think the panicked vow was made?

    There was a huge surge at the end to Yes so people predicting that were perfectly correct. It possibly was enough, but the vow - potentially based on illegal vote sampling - may have saved the day.

    This is why there's little celebration from No and Mick is fairly up-beat. He called it well, just not quite right.

  82. @muttley79

    Devolution is a process. The further down the road the unionists go the less credible their scaremongering about real and meaningful powers becomes.

    You add to that the obvious party politicking between labour and the tories (the lib dems are basically an irrelevance now thanks to calamity Clegg) and what you get are labour constantly on the back foot trying to justify offering LESS powers than the tories while also trying desperately not to answer the WLQ and EV4EL.

    The tories self-evidently want to put labour on the rack over more powers since they are looking to 2015. It's also been revealed that Cameron would be quite happy to see the whole more powers VOW and talk fail just as long as he could put the blame squarely on little Ed. The tories have ONE scottish MP after all so they have little to lose if the Smith Commission turns out to be a joke. (They do in the long term but Cameron doesn't do the long term as his continuing kipper shambles proves)

    Little Ed and Labour meanwhile only have themselves to blame as they refused to do a single thing about the WLQ when in power. It was also 'scottish' Labour and Labour who were front and centre as Cameron's willing stooges when the VOW and all the other talk about DevoMAX and home rule was wall to wall in the media.

    They are going to pay for that big time come 2015.

    Scottish_Skier likely remembers some of the polling on just how much damage was being done to 'scottish' labour being seen cheek to jowl with the tories. The most recent VI polling also bears that out.

    So it'll take far, far more than yet another "root and branch reform" from little Ed and Eggman Murphy to stop 'scottish' labour falling into recriminations and a bitter civil war.

    Lamont is already trying desperately to keep her job while it's only a matter of time before scottish Labour MPs start to take fright for their own jobs.

  83. The referendum result is like Labour winning a GE by 5% after being in power for 3 parliaments with their lead slowly eroding.

    How long would you give them?

  84. We need to pursue a narrative that a union is not incompatible with a fully sovereign nation. We could have a union on things that make sense for nations sharing a small island, such as defence (but not offence) and currency.

    What we have just now though is not a union; it's a merger, with the larger country naturally being the dominant one.

  85. If Yes had started out with a consistent whopping lead and this had slowly eroded in the 3 years ahead of the vote, with no finally taking it, those who support indy would very despondent.

    It was the other way around though. No lost the campaign but won the vote.

    Hence Yes went through the five stages of grief in around 24 hours before bouncing right back.

  86. Ahh, there's no point flockers, these lot think anyone who doesn't agree with their socialist worker underground revolution worldview is a rabid tory. Bit like an alabama redneck thinking that anyone who doesn't like a good lynching is a goddamn pinko.

    "If 1 in 20 had gone for Yes instead of No" - but they didn't. You'd all be better off doing something useful now, the referendum's come and gone.

  87. "Hence Yes went through the five stages of grief in around 24 hours before bouncing right back."

    Yes, I think that's right. I remember seeing a lot of people in absolute despair on the day after polling, and possibly the day after that, but it melted away astonishingly quickly.

  88. "You'd all be better off doing something useful now, the referendum's come and gone."

    Like winning a majority of Scottish seats at next year's general election and forcing Devo Max? Fear ye not, we're all working on it.

  89. You'd all be better off doing something useful now, the referendum's come and gone.

    I have been. Got at least one other definite Yes now. If only I'd know before. Anyway secured for next time and I'm working on another.

  90. "socialist worker underground revolution"

    Good lord! An out of touch tory twat. Who would have thunk it?

    Or perhaps it's one of those comical tory kippers in disguise?

    Cllr.Brian Silvester ‏@CllrBSilvester 8h

    'Tory MP said there could be a defection every month before yr end. 3 Eurosceptic MPs will join Ukip before election' …

    Poor old incompetent fop Cameron. John Major must be laughing away right now.

    Heather Smart ‏@gemini2359 Sep 28

    #murnaghan David Cameron's Tory Party looking like John Major's Govt ! Noooooo now you done it Edwina Currie & John Major come 2 mind !!!!!

  91. Just remember folks, a vote for Labour lets the Tories in by the back door.

    SNP is your devo max ticket in 2015.

  92. Scottish Skier. Thanks for your post. I'm not sure I understand it, or at least I think you've made some assumptions about my views that aren't correct.

    Taking your points in turn. The "just five points" meme doesn't really work. You can just as easily argue that yes needed to win c.22-23% more votes that they did in order to match the total number of no votes. Voters do not automatically go from one to the other, there are non-voters to win over or voters to be persuaded to sit on their hands.

    Clearly 55/45 is not as good as 60/40 or 70/30, and I agree that has some relevance to how quickly the question might come back. But equally it was not 49/51, or 49.9/50.1.

    I don't think the question will be back in a couple of years, unless Westminster fails to deliver extensive further powers as promised. It's very difficult to predict though. Clearly I hope we find a new constitutional settlement that works for Scotland as it does for other parts of the UK, but I don't pretend for one moment that a new settlement will necessarily kill the issue for a generation. It's a matter for the Scots when it comes back. During the campaign the polls were clear that people thought the result would be definitive for a decade to a generation. I tend to the view that when the emotion drains away, as inevitably it will, that sense of timing will reassert itself. Certainly Salmond seems to think so.

    We'll never know if there was a huge surge to yes at the end, or a more modest, gradual improvement, or a strong surge that then ebbed away. If you believe there was a huge surge to yes at the end, then you are implicitly accepting that the likes of YouGov and Ipsos Mori were calling it correctly three months out when they said there were 20pt no leads, and that Panelbase were wrong. That wasn't common currency on here at the time. If it was my third option above, a strong surge that ebbed away, we'll never truly know how much of that was attributable to the vow and how much to the jolt that Yes going ahead gave to the no campaign, and the redoubling of their efforts that followed.

    I think you know my view on Mick's predictive abilities, so I will restrict myself to saying I think you're being very generous. "That doctor who told you you're terminally ill and going to die. Well, it turns out you've got a bit of a sniffle. He called it quite well, but not quite right"

  93. It's a funny sort of time. I was working so hard for a Yes vote I couldn't really think straight for the last couple of days. I was in "what will be, will be" mode. On the evening of the poll, seeing the celebrations in the streets, I really thought we'd do it.

    I was lucky. I was a counting agent, and so busy doing box sampling I took in what was happening gradually. Then I had to comfort Generation Yes, who were in tears. Suddenly I realised I'd been here before, in 1992, and I could cope with it again.

    I could see a big black pit of despair right there, but I declined to go into it. In the morning the sun was still shining and the grass was still growing and Scotland was still astoundingly beautiful and we weren't Diego Garcia or Gaza or Tibet or Kurdistan.

    I peeled the Yes decals off my car, then took the stickers off as well and put back the SNP sticker I'd removed two years ago to make way. I'd already taken down the window posters. I wondered what was going to happen next.

    What happened next took me completely by surprise. This doesn't look like the glowing embers of an extinguished campaign. SNP membership almost tripling in less than a fortnight? A spontaneous rally at Holyrood with more people than showed up for the well-publicised one in Princes Street gardens in September 2012?

    I fished the stickers out of the bin and washed them. The plain white one is now on my window, and one of the blue ones on the rear windscreen of my car (beside the Wings one I never took off). If anyone asks, the answer is clear. To remind everyone that Yes is still here until Devo-super-duper-max with extra jam has been delivered. Or else.

  94. I don't quite get what you mean flockers.

    The gap was 10%. That means, as I said, just 1 in 20 would need to swap for Yes to win. Ergo, just a 5% swing needed.

    Are you saying this is incorrect?

    Your post came across as 1 in 10 (10%) needed, which is double reality. Sorry if I misunderstood.

    Yes did gain directly from No over the course of the campaign in huge numbers; think Yougov, TNS, MORI. They had massive leads for No in 12/13.

    Just wasn't quite enough.

    Will be interesting to see how Y/N polls develop over the next few years (or even months!). What will happen to our poll of polls?

    George Osborne seemed to be campaigning for an iScotland today already. That and we are back in Iraq. UKIP looking soon to have MPs, Labour starting to in-fight...

  95. @Rolfe

    High Road Blog ‏@highroadblog 1h

    @steven_syme @TrevorMStewart @UKLabour I did the same, now a member of SNP. Been Lab all my life but only SNP have any credibility now

    Tweets like these have been utterly commonplace since the collapse of the westminster twits VOW.

    Your experience as a Yes campaigner is not that unusual TBH. It took an ordinary scottish woman shopping with her husband and a worker at a supermarket to hammer the truth home to me a couple of days after the result. They were determined not downcast. Angry (with the disgraced BBC and biased media) not heartbroken. After that I knew we would all be back far sooner than the westminster bubble imbeciles had ever imagined.

    The fact that there are still out of touch tory twits trying to pretend the VOW and the Smith Commission will save them is proof positive that they have no idea what they are talking about. It's far too late for a half-arsed talking shop now. It's either BIG MEANINGFUL POWERS right quick or the scottish public will not forgive and not forget.

  96. "That and we are back in Iraq."

    Back in the slaughterhouse for years and years to come. Back with tory/labour/libdem chickenhawks and warmongers all doing their pathetic Blair impersonations and poodling.

    It will not take so very long for the public to turn on them massively for yet more Iraq stupidity.

    The Rush to Violence

    Between 4 and 20 August the Saudi Arabian government beheaded 19 people. Saudi Arabia, which has funded and armed ISIS from inception (initially with CIA support), is now bombing alongside the USA in Iraq and Syria.

    Forget the war technology porn regularly being broadcast by western media, with those spectacular photos of missiles erupting from ships into the night sky. Those missiles and bombs eviscerate and maim innocents as well as combatants, children as well as terrorists. The West always first denies, then regrets, “collateral damage”. The propaganda can be laughable. During the invasion of Iraq I remember a news propaganda item about how a cruise missile can enter a specific window, being followed by the next item – the US had apologised to Syria for two missiles aimed at Iraq which had hit Syria by accident.

    If we can accidentally bomb the Chinese Embassy in Serbia, we can – and do – hit civilian homes near the proposed target. Being eviscerated by a piece of flying shrapnel is no less terrible than being beheaded by a jihadist. Let us not pretend that our violence is somehow nicer. Children will be dying under our bombs soon.

    Other than the two extraordinary crazed Nigerians, there have been no recent Islamic motivated terrorist attacks in the UK and even a slowdown in the propaganda of phoney attacks. This was a threat to the major financial interests of the security industry, in both its governmental and private branches.

    There can be no greater nonsense than the idea that the Caliphate poses a direct threat to the UK. This is even more crazy than the claim that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the UK. But by seeking to join in the bombing campaign, and initiating a new round of fake “anti-terror” arrests in London, the British government is doing everything it possibly can do to try to provoke terrorist violence on British streets. The interests of the security state are therefore secured. I am longing for somebody to explain to me the precise mechanism by which our bombing Islamic countries helps prevent terrorist incidents in the UK. The way it can provoke such incidents seems to me too obvious to need stating. Indeed it says a great deal for the wisdom and tolerance of Britain’s Muslim communities that it has not provoked more. They could teach government a great deal about the good sense of not resorting to violence to gratify passions and earn short term acclaim.

  97. The Arrogance Of No- Overheard in a restaurant on Saturday night. Three mid twenties girls with posh Edinburgh accents.I am proud to be Scottish but I am also smart that's why I voted no. People don't realise how good we've got it.Just look at Ireland. So not only do they insult every yes voter as being stupid. They choose to ignore the poor and homeless and food banks. This I,m nae bad mentality so f**ck everyone else is why we didn't win. There is a lazy selfish pocket of people from the so called middle classes in Scotland. Losing the referendum has opened my eyes to the half baked Scots and selfish individuals I meet on a daily basis. It does make me despair but it also makes me very angry at them. I work with a lot of selfish people. Thatchers children I call them. I am happy to say I am not like any of them. They might think they have won a referendum but they have lost their spirit and social responsibility. I always say that everyone is one mistake away from losing their job or becoming homeless. There but for the grace of God etc.

  98. November 13 - why do people have to vote on behalf of what other people might want? Because these other people generally have their own votes they can cast. Is some tenement tenant drinking tennants going to vote for the party that does the best for mortgage holders? erm no. They'll vote for what's best for them, so I'll vote for what's best for me. I suppose letting people have a vote each means elections are inherently selfish. Bloody democracy eh.

  99. Yep you are right. It wasn't a vote for a nation...Did I miss something during the campaign. I didn't realise I was voting for my own job and mortgage. Christ now you tell me!

  100. Hey Flocks, thanks for the entertainment, by the way a free and fair referendum would have required no external interference and what did we get - the coward Cameron running around behind our backs briefing against Scottish independence with every politician, banker, businessman, broadcaster and newspaper proprietor he could.

    And you have the cheek to dig us up for questioning this so called democracy.

  101. Quite frankly I can't belive some of you are actually referring to the referendum as an election. They are two completely different things. Look them up in a dictionary.

  102. Roger, what errant nonsense. Cameron wasn't running around behind your back, he was on record as supporting the union. As is perfectly legitimate given the question of the day was Scotland's secession from that union of which he is the prime minister.

    If your contention is that Cameron should have remained completely silent, then that is somewhat inconsistent with Salmond's demand that Cameron participate in debate, and indeed with the howls of delight that greeted every Cameron intervention by those who believed (with some justification) that they were counter-productive.

    In any event, the idea that somehow Cameron intervened in a way that meant Scotland did not enjoy a free and fair election would be laughable were it not such a serious charge.

    It is ironic that on the same thread on which some people have claimed yes voters completed the cycle of grief in 24 hours, many are still evidently stuck on denial.

  103. Another 16 point lead for the SNP in Yougov UK.

    44% SNP
    28% Lab

  104. "If your contention is that Cameron should have remained completely silent, then that is somewhat inconsistent with Salmond's demand that Cameron participate in debate"

    But Cameron refusing to debate Salmond on the grounds that this was "a matter for Scots only" is somewhat (in fact utterly) inconsistent with him doing anything other than putting a sock in it. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

  105. If this keeps up there might be a need for a new Kellner Correction.

    'Lab 2010 + SNP 2011 + SNP 2015'

    By 2016 it could be even longer.


  106. November13

    Had it up here as well 'is your life that bad?'

    It's always very interesting to ask them what the uk debt is, as well as the deficit and whether they think that money can EVER be paid back, a quick look at the graph showing money borrowed over the years is also enlightening to them. What happens when the bubble bursts (again) as USUK capitalism is so fond of doing?
    Bank bailouts? What will their interest rates be then? House prices?

    There are so many stupid people out there who are firmly entrenched in the Chicago School of Economics theories rather than the Adam Smith theories. It's disappointing, but keep the chin up. Economy keeps bursting every 10 - 15 years and it's just accepted!? It doesn't have to be like that ffs.

    Flockers and SayNotoYesmen - Always thought that the yes campaign was not reaching the middle class that they needed to reach, Wealthy Nation didn't really seem up for it, an alternative manifesto should have been put out to reflect them.

  107. "Quite frankly I can't belive some of you are actually referring to the referendum as an election. They are two completely different things. Look them up in a dictionary."

    sorry doughboy, the yessers got me confused by wanting another referendum in 5 years time, and then another one after that if they lose, and then etc etc :-)

  108. Does your dictionary definition of referendum include words like "never to be repeated, fixed, a forever decision"? Because I must admit mine doesn't.