So it is a neverendum

clinchclinch Posts: 11,574
Forum Member
✭✭
I noticed that Salmond said the Scottish people had decided not to choose independence "at this stage." Sounds like he's already planning the next vote.
«1

Comments

  • Scott ChegScott Cheg Posts: 393
    Forum Member
    Cameron just stomped all over the idea of a re-run
  • Biffo the BearBiffo the Bear Posts: 25,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Salmond and the vocal minority had their chance. While the rest of Scotland will be waking up and waving their Union Jacks over a nice cup of tea, the traitorous nationalist alliances would do well to reflect on the result and their low behavioural standards during the campaign.
  • Sweaty Job RotSweaty Job Rot Posts: 2,031
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Salmond and the vocal minority had their chance. While the rest of Scotland will be waking up and waving their Union Jacks over a nice cup of tea, the traitorous nationalist alliances would do well to reflect on the result and their low behavioural standards during the campaign.

    🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 Up the Union.
  • DotheboyshallDotheboyshall Posts: 40,583
    Forum Member
    Salmond has lost his chance to be El Presidente. By the time the next opportunity for independence comes the world will have changed - as will the value of Scottish oil
  • rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I thought the logic behind not having a second question on the ballot was to prevent Salmond using it as a stepping stone and push for another referendum should he lose.

    I can't see how he can push for another one. Had it been the other way around he wouldn't be offering the unionists a second stab at it so it's time to put up and shut up.

    Methinks he'll be quietly planning his retirement from politics now. He has previously hinted that, what with his 60th birthday looming ever closer, he wasn't going to be around for "years" to come regardless of the result. I reckon he'll be gone by the time of the next Scottish elections - if not sooner.
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    clinch wrote: »
    I noticed that Salmond said the Scottish people had decided not to choose independence "at this stage." Sounds like he's already planning the next vote.

    That was always going to be the case with such a narrow loss - Salmon thinks that with just a little push he could swing it - so I he will not go quietly into the night.
  • RooksRooks Posts: 9,098
    Forum Member
    rusty123 wrote: »
    Methinks he'll be quietly planning his retirement from politics now. He has previously hinted that, what with his 60th birthday looming ever closer, he wasn't going to be around for "years" to come regardless of the result. I reckon he'll be gone by the time of the next Scottish elections - if not sooner.

    I suspect he'll be thinking of his own legacy once the dust has settled. He'll push to ensure new powers for Scotland then use that as his point to depart on a high. I really dislike him but even I will admit he's been very successful. Though he didn't deliver independence he has brought the SNP further than anyone ever thought they would. With his ultimate goal of independence gone I think he'll look for some other victory and step aside on a relative high.
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,818
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That was always going to be the case with such a narrow loss - Salmon thinks that with just a little push he could swing it - so I he will not go quietly into the night.
    Hardly a narrow loss. 87.5% of the regions of Scotland voted no. That's pretty emphatic. It's only because of the relatively huge population of Glasgow that the No vote percentage was as 'high' as it was. The only way Salmond could swing it in a future vote is by extending the vote to prisoners and babies (but only in Glasgow).
  • david16david16 Posts: 14,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    clinch wrote: »
    I noticed that Salmond said the Scottish people had decided not to choose independence "at this stage." Sounds like he's already planning the next vote.

    Of course, keep holding a referendum until you get the result you want.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,308
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That was always going to be the case with such a narrow loss - Salmon thinks that with just a little push he could swing it - so I he will not go quietly into the night.
    10% is not really a narrow loss.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,308
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And this is what Cameron said this morning:
    Speaking in Downing Street, Mr Cameron said the result was decisive.

    He said: "Now the debate has been settled for a generation, or as Alex Salmond has said: 'Perhaps for a lifetime'.

    "So there can be no disputes, no re-runs; we have heard the will of the Scottish people."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29270441

    A pretty emphatic dismissal of the possibility of any future referendum.
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    gashead wrote: »
    Hardly a narrow loss. 87.5% of the regions of Scotland voted no. That's pretty emphatic. It's only because of the relatively huge population of Glasgow that the No vote percentage was as 'high' as it was. The only way Salmond could swing it in a future vote is by extending the vote to prisoners and babies (but only in Glasgow).

    But the vote was not by an electoral college but simply by a majority of voters - and 45/55 is close enough.

    Personally I have mixed feelings - Scotland remaining means that we will have Scottish votes propping up Labour (Labour polled less voters than the Conservatives in England) - but I really did not want to see Scotland go it's separate ways - not only that but I could not see if working economically meaning that we English would end up bailing out Scotland in decades to come.
  • david16david16 Posts: 14,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    10% is not really a narrow loss.

    That's over 400,000 voters.

    Even if there was another 10% went to the ballot box in Dundee and Glasgow and all voted "yes" it still would not have been enough to turn it in Yes's favour.

    The 10% gap is not the missing 10% in both Dundee and Glasgow compared with everywhere else. That's only 2 cities in Scotland albeit 2 of the largest cities. 10% extra yes votes in both Dundee and Glasgow does not add up to over 400,000 yes votes.
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,818
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    But the vote was not by an electoral college but simply by a majority of voters - and 45/55 is close enough.
    For a result, sure, and ATEOTD, even a 50.1% win would still have been a win, but I'd hope that Salmond is looking at the results from the across the whole country before contemplating a push for another referendum in the near future, not fixating on or being misled by the 45% which, as I say, came largely from one city.
  • GeneralissimoGeneralissimo Posts: 6,289
    Forum Member
    He has to say that really, if the SNP were to declare that they were giving up their independence they would lose their unique appeal and become part of the 'establishment' in the eyes of their supporters. Deep down they know that's it for at least twenty years.
  • david16david16 Posts: 14,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    For a result, sure, and ATEOTD, even a 50.1% win would still have been a win, but I'd hope that Salmond is looking at the results from the across the whole country before contemplating a push for another referendum in the near future, not fixating on or being misled by the Glasgow vote.

    If Salmond seriously thinks 10% ( over 400,000) didn't turn up to vote yes at the ballot box in Dundee and Glasgow to match the percentages everywhere else he's pulling the wool over everybody's eyes.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,308
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    david16 wrote: »
    If Salmond seriously thinks 10% ( over 400,000) didn't turn up to vote yes at the ballot box in Dundee and Glasgow to match the percentages everywhere else he's pulling the wool over everybody's eyes.

    Yes, and of course that 10% of missing voters could very well have comprised a large number of No voters who felt too intimidated to cast their vote!
  • andersonsonsonandersonsonson Posts: 6,454
    Forum Member
    Salmond said it was a once in a century opportunity, the minute he loses, hes gonna try and get a new vote. Just please retire Salmond, you lost
  • DaewosDaewos Posts: 8,345
    Forum Member
    gashead wrote: »
    For a result, sure, and ATEOTD, even a 50.1% win would still have been a win, but I'd hope that Salmond is looking at the results from the across the whole country before contemplating a push for another referendum in the near future, not fixating on or being misled by the 45% which, as I say, came largely from one city.

    Not wishing to be pedantic but 88% of the Yes vote was from outside Glasgow
  • david16david16 Posts: 14,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Daewos wrote: »
    Not wishing to be pedantic but 88% of the Yes vote was from outside Glasgow

    But 12% of the Yes vote being in Glasgow was a big chunk.

    And it still wasn't enough to clich it for the yes campaign.
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,818
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Daewos wrote: »
    Not wishing to be pedantic but 88% of the Yes vote was from outside Glasgow
    Which means 12% came from just one council, whereas each of the other thirty-one contributed an average of just 2.84% of the total yes vote. Whichever way you look at it, the Glasgow vote makes up the bulk of the 45% that voted yes.
  • david16david16 Posts: 14,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    Which means 12% came from just one council, whereas each of the other thirty-one contributed an average of just 2.84% of the total yes vote. Whichever way you look at it, the Glasgow vote makes up the bulk of the 45% that voted yes.

    It doesn't seem to be realised by some people that just because a large majority of their own area is strongly in favour of something doesn't mean the same opinion is reflected by the majority everywhere else in Scotland.
  • DaewosDaewos Posts: 8,345
    Forum Member
    gashead wrote: »
    Which means 12% came from just one council, whereas each of the other thirty-one contributed an average of just 2.84% of the total yes vote. Whichever way you look at it, the Glasgow vote makes up the bulk of the 45% that voted yes.

    Seriously? What percentage of the Scottish population live in Glasgow? The population of Glasgow is about 600000, and the Scottish population is about 5.3 million. Which is just over 11% So proportionately, it mirrors population. Which does not take away from the fact that non-Glasgow votes were 88% (or the vast majority) of the Yes vote.
  • duckymallardduckymallard Posts: 13,936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    As I have said before, let's see what happens in March 2015.

    If by that time Cameron has not made good on his pledges, then there will be a lot of pissed off No voters in Scotland.
  • david16david16 Posts: 14,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Daewos wrote: »
    Seriously? What percentage of the Scottish population live in Glasgow? The population of Glasgow is about 600000, and the Scottish population is about 5.3 million. Which is just over 11% So proportionately, it mirrors population. Which does not take away from the fact that non-Glasgow votes were 88% (or the vast majority) of the Yes vote.

    But Glasgow had the population to have potentially turned it for the Yes campaign. The fact that it didn't clinch it for the Yes campaign suggests that Yes was even less popular than the Yes campaign imagined all over the rest of Scotland.
Sign In or Register to comment.