Saturday 19 September 2015


And they held a rally in George Square

They look so happy that they won, don't they...all 8 of them

But they were subdued by comparison to their celebrations a year ago

I read in Stuart's interview in the National (and Wings) that this was one of the things that encouraged him to fight on.

I one hundred percent with that. 

After all, it's not unreasonable to be enthusiastic and excited when you win. And I'm not suggesting that this was the way that all unionists behaved or wanted to behave. Indeed many unionists decried this behaviour. I'm sure there were elderly ladies who had been warned of barbed wire fencing, and no pensions, starvation and, for all I know,  the black plague, who were just sitting at home grateful that they could continue to receive the most niggardly pension in the developed world, and that, if they could but afford the train fare, they would be free to visit their great nephew in Carlisle without passing through Miliband's Checkpoint jock!

Important to remember that those in George Square don't represent the no vote, they're just mindless scumbags who would've done it anyway.

But when I read about, and watched videos of people who had told us over and again that they were proud Scots, burning Saltires, intimidating children, and making Nazi salutes, I decided that I'd never bend the knee to that kind of filth, no matter how many decent unionists there were who felt as disgusted by this as I was.

But after all their celebrations, you have to ask what exactly it was they won. They, it seems to me, gained a little time maybe? And that's all.

No matter how you look at it, it's not really worked out well for them. SNP membership has risen to 120,000; Labour lost 97% of its seats in Scotland including that of their new leader; Liberal Dems lost 90% of their seats and the Tories who had hoped to make gains, held on by 800 votes to their one rather pathetic little MP. The Minister of State at the Scotland Office has had to be appointed from the ranks of newly minted Aristocrats. Polls show that the SNP is on target to win a majority in the Holyrood General Election in May.

Why then, after they won so handsomely?

The politicians had started reneging on the Vow within 24 hours, and they went on doing it. 

The Vow (and associated assurances made by Gordon Brown because no one would believe Cameron or Miliband and hardly anyone knew who Clegg was) had the backing from the prime minister, the deputy prime minister and the leader of the opposition. It promised the devo max that had been so clearly denied to us by Cameron at the Edinburgh Agreement talks.

Perhaps some of us Scots had imagined real powers, like they have in little Gibraltar, The Malvinas/Falklands, The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, even tiny Sark with its 600 residents.

Fat chance.

The Smith Commission was a joke from minute one with 4 people from the Independence parties, and 6 from the Unionists. 

They weren't given time to read even 20% of the submissions from Scottish people. The listening exercise was a joke. It came down to what the panel proposed, and it seems that the Labour Party spent half their time on the phone to London getting instructions on what to think. 

Unbalanced and unacceptable.

And before it reported to the people (as was promised), it had to report to the Tory/Liberal Democrat Cabinet, who tore it to pieces and scrapped proposals that didn't accord with the whims of Theresa May and Iain Duncan Smith.

At its beginning it was a poor man's devo max, by the time it was finished it was a mess of a few extra powers, most of which were meaningless without Full Fiscal Autonomy.

Some of the powers that have been devolved are difficult if not impossible to use. 

We will have greater powers over income tax. Of course no one has dared to use the ones we already have, income tax being a sacred cow since the days of Thatcher. The only way we could ever change income tax is if we had power to alter VAT, or other big money earning taxes. But we don't!

We can't even alter one band of tax without altering another; we can't make new bands of tax; we can't alter thresholds. 

In short we can charge billionaires more if we want, but if we put up the higher rate of tax by 5%, we have to put it up 5% on the people who are half starving on minimum wage.

It's a joke.

It's an insult.

And even Gordon Brown, it's most enthusiastic supporter a year ago, says it hasn't been delivered. Despite the fact that he stood guarantor.

Westminster said what it needed to, in order to win. Then, having won, it swung the union flag in our faces and told us to sod off and Gordon with us.
Today in Freedom Square
Cameron is an idiot if he thinks that Scots take that kind of treatment lying down. But he can rest easy. We are a peaceful people (maybe one of the reasons we abhor his wars). We won't take to the streets. 

But we will win, of that he should have no doubt.

I don't know when it will be, but there will be another referendum and this time it will say YES!


  1. Why haven't the polls shifted in favour of YES?

    1. Many polls suggested a yes lead even before the referendum, some folks had to learn the hard way asking 0.05% of Scotland what they want gives different results to when you ask 85%. Well I say learned, clearly there's plenty that didn't and likely never will.

    2. There were a few polls that gave YES a lead, but on average they predicted a NO win. We're roughly 50/50 now. Seeing as we were as low as 27% a few years back I would consider that reasonable progress. :)

  2. Replies
    1. Some are, I suspect. Some are not. But the movement is there.

    2. The key Tris is not in the raw data and the questioning necessarily, but in the weighting. I think Scot Goes Pop has highlighted this.

      My money is on a real 55 / 45 split in favour of YES. = or - a small part.

    3. Yes true Panda.

  3. They are shifting, slowly. I'm sure any psephologist will tell you that slow changes tend to stick.

    1. Exactly. The shift slowly because event by event, insult by insult, people are persuaded.

      At the moment it's more or less 50-50.

  4. Obviously the first poster doesn't visit Scot Goes Pop often

    1. True.

      Anon: I can heartily recommend this blog for continuing information on polls and and analysis thereof.

  5. Well I always knew I was on the correct side, but if anyone wanted to be sure that would have made them. Who would want to be associated with that riot.
    Wish I could go to the Rally today but dog problems, the dog is the problem, would not want to take him into the crowd expected and cannot leave him at home.

  6. Marcia sa I said above, before reading your post.

  7. I often wonder about salmond and sturgeon going on about the future of scotland, when they have no investment in it ie chidless!

    1. Stay classy, Robbo.

    2. Next you'll be doing a Blair McDougall and telling us YES voters don't love their families.

    3. Maybe they want a country where the children of other Scots don't have to leave.

      Our population has to all intents been static for 50 years. That of the UK has grown around 20%.

      Saor Alba

    4. Take my vote away, only people who've reproduced could care about our future enough to have the right to vote. FFS.

    5. Of course there are people on the NO side who have no children too. Are their opinions equally invalid because they have no children?

      And what of all the YES advocates who do have children?

      The argument is stupid, insulting and beneath contempt.

    6. Yes. It's a part of the “no such thing as society” and “selfish gene” myths, where only me and mine and their future can matter.

      All kinds of experiences get us caring about all kinds of things, and the ways having and/or raising kids changes us, are so different for different folk.

  8. I don't believe the "Vow" had a critical impact to be honest. There seems to be a tendency for some Yes supporters to use this as the main reason for losing, rather than being honest and looking at where the Yes arguments either fell over or were too woolly (ie Currency).

    However, there is little point in going over old arguments, as you can't change the result.

    The problem now is deciding when a second referendum can be held. However you look at the polls, the bottom line is that the country is still split 50/50. For Nicola to be certain of victory you need consistent polls around the 60/40 as a minimum. Another problem is that Cameron can ignore any demands for a second referendum. Why should he be bothered? Labour are not going to win enough seats in England with Corbyn in place. And while I had hopes for him, he's turning out to be a walking disaster as far as the media are concerned, especially with some of his shadow cabinet appointees and their rather colourful pasts and comments.

    Is independence still possible? Absolutely yes. So why am I being pessimistic? Because I can't see a groundswell of public opinion screaming for change. The SNP destroyed their opponents in the last election, and will do so next year. But the number of people voting for the SNP is still roughly half. Something is missing. Nicola was absolutely correct when she highlighted that however much we scream and shout, it will always be the 45. Something needs to be done to persuade the No voters. My own view is that we need to stop blaming Westminster for everything that goes wrong. It is starting to mirror the "SNP bad" bollocks that comes out every 5 minutes. The focus needs to be on the achievements of the Scottish Parliament and what it has and can deliver with the current powers. Then use that as the base on which to show what can be possible.

    Anyway, back to the damned painting.................


    1. I would somewhat agree with Zog.

      However, if we take a view that it going to be several years until we get another go, perhaps the best thing is to devote effort to producing informative literature which can be used for the next campaign when it comes.

      The WBB was a godsend, yet it was not endorsed by Yes or the SNP. And I really believe it was a grassroots movement which got us to the brink, not Yes nor the SNP.

      I was handing out CND stuff, and green stuff, but nothing which was designed to appeal to natural conservatives. The pensions issue was a disaster, and yet it could have been handled so much better. We had lots of infantry and no ammunition.

      I put my hand up, I did not get active until the few weeks before the vote, but we so could have done more. I was told there was literature in immigrant languages, but I saw none. I do not believe vilification of "tories" was a vote winner - and I do believe the opportunities of independence will actually help lots of those who think that way get richer. More business, no Etonian glass ceiling, getting the land out of the aristocracy's hands.

      Little bits of pocket shrapnel put away in jars mounts up. Money is going to be needed in 6 years time. You may even want to print your own literature. So save for the sunny day.

      But don't surrender. The campaign showed that without a doubt, they need us way more than we need them. In a few more years, the EU may have evolved more, Catalunya may have seceded but stayed in. The pensions fraud will become even more apparent. And oil will be back up in price. Labour will struggle to recover - and likely be in turmoil when they lose again in 5 years time - to Osborne/May or Johnston ( none of whom is Jockaphile ).

      2021. Now do the research. Join a yes party - to learn how to canvass, and to meet others of like mind. Prepare better, more diverse literature. If the UK doesn't give on FFA, it will lose even an unofficial plebiscite - at which point we can lawfully rebel.

      This is a winable fight. We were cheated, and if we are honest, we could have done with a bit better leadership ( no criticism of AS, whom I respect greatly and admire - but I don't think he believed he could actually win). But if we want to be free, we have to do it ourselves. We cannot leave it to others. Nicola has that bit right. We can only try again when we are certain to win.

      Saor Alba

    2. I'm just off out. I'll reply later Zog and Saor Allba (was that a Nik?, or just a wish?:)

    3. Both. Caus JimNArlene complained!

      Saor Alba

    4. Out of a Saturday night? Shocking, I have spare paint brushes available, only one outside wall to go.......


    5. OK... Get the spare paint brush out and I'll come round with Munguin.

      I only went out for a little while anyway. Not that I was in the pub getting legless...

      I'm not sure what effect the Vow had. It was certainly intended to have an effect. A couple of weeks before the vote they promised what they had ruled out at Edinburgh.

      Polling by Ashcroft seemed to show that many people had been affected by it, given who had promised it, adn the passion with which it was done. Surely an ex-prime minister wouldn't allow them to wiggle out of it.

      Oh we;ll.

      However, I'm absolutely certain that there were other things that affected it.

      The question of the currency for example. There's no doubt that, logical and correct though Salmond's arguments were, Darling scored good points (possibly his only ever) on the currency situation.

      Yet, it is also said that the tide really started to turn when the Coke man turned up in Edinburgh to tell us we couldn't use our currency after separation. He, the towel folder, wouldn't allow it.

      We need better arguments for this next time; ones that people will understand.

      I'm sure there are many more. We need a better organised campaign... and as one of our readers suggested, a great network of organisations really working together.

      We could probably do without the BBC!

      But unless something magical happens we need to learn to live with it.

      I bet there are some pretty good brains working on it now, learning lessons, as they say. I certainly hope so!

    6. Saor...

      Jim didn;t really complain. I think he made a valid point We were getting comments form Anon, some of them were rational, thought out, etc, and some were raving zoomer stuff. And there was stuff in between. It cased some confusions I thought it was a good idea that we get people to sign their stuff, so that we could distinguish who was who, without that person having to give a REAL name if they didn't want to.

      I agree with all you said there.

      Can't really add much to that. It's bang on.