2 million-odd unhappy voters isn't nothing - but it's not really a huge proportion of the total UK electorate. I doubt it will affect much of a material nature - unless lots of other UK-ers join in and we get e)!
Those 1.6m unhappy voters do have access to some fairly important levers. I think the margin of victory for the No side is less than the number of people who voted No contingent on further devolution for Scotland.
Satisfying the constitutional requirements of Scotland sufficiently for it to continue to vote to remain in the Union stresses UK constitution as it directly affects other parts of the UK in a way that is unsustainable.
I don't think it is possible to give Scotland the settlement it requires without having to engage the rest of the UK in some sort of change.
And those 1.6m voters and the many hundred of thousands of contingent No voters can have another referendum any time they want by voting for a party with a referendum in its manifesto at a Holyrood general election.
If I'd have been entitled, I'd have voted yes despite it not being as full devolution as I would have ideally liked. [I would be for an independent currency, The Scottish Crown, let's say]. On the theory that a start is better than nothing and that the rest would be more likely to come (in time) on that route than any other. But clearly others disagreed.
But I do hope for positive change across the UK, so let's see what happens next.
I'm heartened by a good 40% of scottish electorate making that difficult decision for independence. That's a clear conscious voice there that i think is reflected around a lot of the UK.
I'm disheartened by how this reminds me of the protests before the decision to Shock and Awe Iraq, where there was a clear mandate of the populace dismissed, and activist apathy very much settled in after that.
Watching and reading media coverage of teh referendum has been fascinating. Journalism has devolved into a public relations mouthpiece, with some blatant propaganda returning to the front and inside pages of most broadsides.
I'm very strongly interested in what happens next.
But "Fix this country" is the Nice Things and Puppies policy; it would get 98% of the vote, with 1% voting for "No, leave things as bad as they are" and 1% "I want worse!". The trouble comes when you try to work out the politics of what to do.
Comments 27
If I could, that's what I would vote for.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Satisfying the constitutional requirements of Scotland sufficiently for it to continue to vote to remain in the Union stresses UK constitution as it directly affects other parts of the UK in a way that is unsustainable.
I don't think it is possible to give Scotland the settlement it requires without having to engage the rest of the UK in some sort of change.
And those 1.6m voters and the many hundred of thousands of contingent No voters can have another referendum any time they want by voting for a party with a referendum in its manifesto at a Holyrood general election.
Reply
But I do hope for positive change across the UK, so let's see what happens next.
Reply
I'm disheartened by how this reminds me of the protests before the decision to Shock and Awe Iraq, where there was a clear mandate of the populace dismissed, and activist apathy very much settled in after that.
Watching and reading media coverage of teh referendum has been fascinating. Journalism has devolved into a public relations mouthpiece, with some blatant propaganda returning to the front and inside pages of most broadsides.
I'm very strongly interested in what happens next.
Reply
Reply
It's the most difficult option, you know; politicians would rather give you anything than that.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment