inutil

Salmond was gutted. Of course. He worked his ass off. But your interpretation of what i wrote was wide of the mark. The win spin is not that salmond wanted to lose the referendum. But was that AFTER he had lost, the decision was made to lock down SNP strongholds in the former labour strongholds of Glasgow and the regions around it.

He wasnt going to personally be able to do it because a resurgent gordon brown would probably have turned that tide back against him. He is still divisive, and no matter how well loved he is now, as the leader of the SNP he'd just lose momentum. (I say probably because my mam posted up a petition the other day with a picture of gordon brown calling him a traitor to scotland and asking for signatures). So he fell on his sword. Not because he lost the referendum. He fell on his sword so that the SNP could consolidate their gains, and keep the pressure on Westminster to deliver or force through another referendum.

Not in the next SPE in 2016... those will be built around holding Westminster to account, but in the 2020ish election, we might see it rear its head again. Which puts a vote thereafter sometime around 2024. Ah, the space age! No doubt if the SNP or the relevant party come to decide the day, they might pick September 18th if they felt they were betrayed by Westminster promises. Should the promises of course be delivered on, then i see absolutely no political will for a second bite. So thats the question...

As for england not getting a vote, honestly. If scotland wants to leave the union, thats for scotland to decide. We're not here in chains, we're in the union by a legal compact and thats it. Though we are not in chains, allowing the English the majority vote in deciding whether even allow scotland permission to consider leaving the Union might very well be forcing those chains on us. It can also be reasonably argued as well that the English people voted in Cameron who made that choice on their behalf as their elected representative. As such, again, if you dont like this agreement pr feel he over stepped his remit, please feel free to kick him out next year.

In addition, if England wants to have its own referendum and leave the union, it need only set up its own parliament, and have a party with a referendum in its manifesto win convincingly in any election. Theres nothing at all stopping England doing this except (i suspect) the complete lack of political will to do so. I certainly wont be calling for Scottish people to also vote in the referendum. England is not in chains to Scotland. If it wants to break up the union, it has my most express thanks.

Well, ive got 46.8 on the yes vote and 37.9% on yes (84.6% turn out, not 86% of 4,271,500 eligible voters rounded from the 84.6% that voted). So we're closing that margin of error. I would also argue that the youth and workers are less likely or too busy to turn up to the polls on poling day compared with grannies and grandads with nothing better to do and an army of volunteers to drive them, so again, maybe more pause for thought. Its all hypothetical and pointless though. Unless we introduce punishments for people who dont vote, you go with the people that turn up. Thirty eight percent of the entire population is enough to deliver landslide governments after all. Didnt blair get something like 30.8% in 1997? Yes, he did, i just did the sums

The point is that the math might stand on the figures we have. But this is superfluous to anything at all given that the terms of this vote set out that the total CAST votes be counted in the total percentages. What doesnt stand and cant stand is the interpretation of the voting intentions of those who failed (for whatever reason) to turn up and cast their vote. Thats just silly and self serving. We all have our feelings and ideas, but the only reflections we have are polling weights, margins of error, and assumptions about human behaviour. All of which are susceptible to being made up on the spot to suit our personal agenda. Come on now, lets be grown up. Its a silly dead end. I got sick of arguing this point in the thai news forums about the differences between direct and representative democracy and whether Yingluck had a mandate to govern. It seems extra daft, because no Yes supporter is seriously arguing (really) against the idea that the No side won. To further try and diminish their vote by rounding the proportion down to convey some kind of political lack of will seems spurious on top of it. The logic cuts both ways, and since NO failed to garner 50% of the total votes, perhaps we should all do this again and again until someone scores 50% of all possible votes plus 1.

Am I right in understanding there can't be another vote for 30 years?

You are not im afraid. Its at the whim of three things:

1. A manifesto pledge.

2. A mandate to deliver on that manifesto.

3. A British government in Parliament that agrees on such a thing.

There could be another mandate in as little as 2 years. There could be one if the UK EU referendum actually compels Scotland into leaving the EU in 2017. There could be one at the next Scottish parliament elections thereafter.

There even could be one if someone said "lets have a referendum!" and printed up a bunch of ballot papers (though without the actual chance of being endorsed by the UK government to make it a legally binding verdict, it would lack any participation and be a massive waste of time, money and effort).

Basically you follow those three rules at the top and we could have another one within 2 years (but Scotland would REAAAAAAALLLLLLYYYY have to want it to offset the sheer annoyance of dealing with this all again and grinding the country to a halt - people would be mad IN SCOTLAND if a second referendum comes without any good reason other than to try and get the vote the independence movement want). More than likely only if there was real cross party support against a yes vote to leave the EU would perhaps trigger another referendum. Failing that it will be argued that two years is far too short a time politically to insist on devo max pledges being fully honored and delivered. Maybe in about ten years though, the records can be checked again before the emotion on broken promises is enirely forgotten, but not so early that people think "this again!?!??!"

Lets not forget that UKIP received many scottish votes in the EU elections, gaining One of the Six Scottish seats, nearly getting a second.

If in the event of a referendum to leave the EU, and England,Wales and Northern Ireland all voted 51% to leave and then Scotland tipped the balance with one hundred % wishing to remain, then as a United democracy the three other areas of the UK should and would have to accept that democratic decision, like wise if the Scottish vote failed to turn that balance, then they also should accept the democratic decision of the whole country.

For me... thats democracy.

You can bitch and complain that your team won your region but the rest of the planet voted against you. But thats democracy! The EU vote shouldnt be a reason for scotland to bring out the indy referendum. However, cynicism suggests that a poor downtrodden scotland being steamrollered into compliance by their english masters might actually bring to the table an intervention from the meddling EU itself. I doubt it. But swift guaranteed EU membership (or rather non-revocation for an independent scotland) might be something that people would want to have a say on given that it was one of the main attacks against the independence movement. If scotland could preserve its EU membership by voting for independence, then it might bring the subject to the fore again.

45% Yes, 55% No.

But 14% of those eligible to vote didn't.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that those who didn't vote didn't really care; apart from a small percentage who were prevented from voting by illness or similar.

I think it's also reasonable to conclude that Yes supporters made sure they voted if at all possible.

So, if my maths is correct, only 38% of Scottish voters wanted an independent Scotland enough to go and vote for it.

Your maths is self serving and based on circumstances and assumptions you are pulling out of your arse. With respect.

Are you denying that 14% of voters didn't vote?

My conclusion is that they didn't do so because they didn't care enough to vote (apart from those who were prevented from doing so by legitimate reasons such as illness). If you disagree with that conclusion; what is yours?

Or are you saying my maths is incorrect?

Instead of the insults, why don't you provide your analysis of the figures?

How about this:

The turnout in Glasgow, one of the biggest YES votes was only 3/4 of the entire electorate. This means that the yes voter thought everyone was going to vote for them, so the rest of them didnt bother showing up. That means that theres at least another 100,000 votes right away we might just as well suggest were obvious yes votes. Should be mirror this "its going to be a yes vote, why bother?" throughout the rest of the country, then clearly the yes campaign stormed this with just over 53% of the vote!

So why did you only down grade the yes vote? Why not also the no vote and show that they only achieved 46.8% of the entire possible electorate either?

Be clear im not taking this point in any way serious. Its a self-serving interpretation of an unknown and UNKNOWABLE element to suit my personal agenda. Just as yours is.

The referendum was very clear. If you dont vote, it has no bearing at all on the result. It is 50% of total votes +1.

Am I right in understanding there can't be another vote for 30 years?

You are not im afraid. Its at the whim of three things:

1. A manifesto pledge.

2. A mandate to deliver on that manifesto.

3. A British government in Parliament that agrees on such a thing.

There could be another mandate in as little as 2 years. There could be one if the UK EU referendum actually compels Scotland into leaving the EU in 2017. There could be one at the next Scottish parliament elections thereafter.

There even could be one if someone said "lets have a referendum!" and printed up a bunch of ballot papers (though without the actual chance of being endorsed by the UK government to make it a legally binding verdict, it would lack any participation and be a massive waste of time, money and effort).

Basically you follow those three rules at the top and we could have another one within 2 years (but Scotland would REAAAAAAALLLLLLYYYY have to want it to offset the sheer annoyance of dealing with this all again and grinding the country to a halt - people would be mad IN SCOTLAND if a second referendum comes without any good reason other than to try and get the vote the independence movement want). More than likely only if there was real cross party support against a yes vote to leave the EU would perhaps trigger another referendum. Failing that it will be argued that two years is far too short a time politically to insist on devo max pledges being fully honored and delivered. Maybe in about ten years though, the records can be checked again before the emotion on broken promises is enirely forgotten, but not so early that people think "this <deleted> again!?!??!"

Your maths is self serving and based on circumstances and assumptions you are pulling out of your arse. With respect.

Come on, you can make these stupid arguments for any age group.

Perhaps then pensioners should be barred from voting because theres a decent chance theyll be dead before the changes on offer from the relevant parties have time to actually affect them. It makes them selfish, myopic and narrow and forces the rest of us us into kow-towing to their stupid brand of selfish conservatism because old people are clearly too stupid and doddery to deal with change or do the decent thing and DIE!!! Wait, that reminds me. Their brains arent working anyway. Who gave these people a vote? Madness. There should be an upper age limit. Lets make it pensioner age to be fair. Id reduce it to 60 as well, but my mum might shout at me what with her retirement age already going up.

Whenever you vote for i) a party campaigning for the setting up of a specific English parliament, and then ii) a party within that English parliament campaigning specifically on a manifesto proposal to offer a referendum on England staying in the Union. Of course youll probably need overwhelming support to force westminster to agree, but if scotland can do it, im sure england can as well.

Then again, you could of course push for a party in a general election voting exclusively on a platform of a national referendum on the break up of the union, and if they garner the seats, then sure, they could push it through. But im assuming that the whole of the UK would be in on that referendum given that it was the whole UK that voted on that manifesto. For best results (and to keep it an exclusively English decision) youll really need to set up your own parliament first and then win the election of that parliament.

Glad to help.

Well of course not, because then you might hit on something that the scottish labour supporter probably doesnt want to pay for. So it goes. We all have shit that taxes end up paying for that we dont want. But thats not how taxation works of course

Further, referendums are in integral part of any democratic nation. Not to mention that a great deal of this was paid for through donations. The cost will be marginal, and the conservative/lib majority government agreed to the structure and funding of it. So you know, vote THEM out if you think they wasted your money.

Salmond can retire and wait to see what happens next. He will never give up - only pause and watch how the cards fall in the next year or so. If Westminster are not seen as delivering on the promises recently made -- regardless of who's in power -- expect more independence rumblings.

I saw an interesting comment that blamed the pensioners in Scotland for tipping the vote into a NO, but I haven't been able to substantiate it. It might explain why Salmond extended the age limit downwards. If the same happens next time the YES result should be more achieveable.

Indeed - it's not "...if..." it's only "...when..."

Meantime Catalonia will have resolved the methods of becoming independent and getting into the EU

Of course it was. Every poll had the over 65s stubbornly stuck around 3-1 in favour of the union. Thats why the better together campaign kept banging the pension drum. For salmond the only likely movement was from core labour support. Its why i kept banging on about the west coast labour supporter. They really did hold the cards in this. And thats why he kept banging on about protecting the NHS and getting shot of westminster austerity.

Its why i think Gordon Browns intervention WAS so crucial. Without it, the Yes campaign were approaching a tipping point of labour support deciding that any change was better than none. Browns push on devo max with the three main parties gave them another choice. Though they dont believe it, they also likely didnt believe the vision salmond was painting either, and given the choice between a radical vision that risked everything versus a minor change with little risk, they went for the latter... obviously, because people are risk averse. That so many went with the former though does beg the logical question that if people are risk averse then why would they even contemplate this leap into the abyss? And this is the question Westminster has to address properly for the sake of democracy THROUGHOUT the UK.

What was the cost of all this?

I sure hospitals and schools facing cut-backs will understand all the money spent and achieving very little.

Did you know that there are actually more departments in westminster than just health and education?

Thats weird, i thought this was a referendum on scottish independence, and not in fact a scottish parliament election. Pop back in 2016 and ask me the same question if you like. Since youre asking though, im farily certain theyll want to keep him.

What i like about his resignation is that it suggests two things:

1. What i just wrote about - him screwing labour out of regaining their lost votes by falling on his sword (note to Little Englanders of the forum: his decision had nothing to do with losing the election, it was about consolidating the gains the SNP had made in formerly impenetrable labour strongholds).

2, What you just wrote - he'll be back, but in the same role that Brown played in this one. As soon as the next referendum comes (assuming labour and the tories put devo max on the back benches, its more a when, not if), he'll be out there making the case but as the elder statesman rather than the firebrand leader. It will be more effective for it.

Salmond is a brilliantly strategic thinker. He's a step ahead of the game almost all the time. He looked ragged in that last week. But until Brown stepped in with a positive vision, he was barely breaking a sweat. In fact it was just the sheer effort of mobilising a grassroots campaign that did him in. But the networks are now there and the infrastructure is built. He will have learned a lot and he will take it on board for round 2 when he comes back.

On that third point: Brown and Devo max. Again. I really think Brown wound them up a bit. He had his eyes right on one thing: a national left of center social democratic labour government in the UK. The frenzy of the Little Englanders on this forum for greater powers for England must be music to his ears. You cant make an omelette... England already has all the say in the economic direction of this country... and theyre actually agreeing to devolution and putting in place the mechanisms for the diffusion of power? Its hilarious watching them think this is in England's (well, the South East of England's) benefit. Long may they keep at it. The south east in its ire on the west loathian question and the Barnett formula are sacrificing their queen (westminster and south east controlled politics) for the sake of a couple of pawns. To do it they have to talk about the deprivation IN ENGLAND created by Westminster government policy which will only foster the resentment the North East already has for Westminster politics. Its so self-destructive, youd have to be incredibly stupid to fall for it. And they are. Again, Brown, a step ahead.

I bet Gordon Brown is crying into his breakfast :'(

Salmond was the Dr Evil to his Austin Powers. A brother (shit, spoilers!), a compatriot, and an arch enemy to be chased into the ground.

Salmond V Brown in 2016 was set to be a titanic battle for labour. Brown is best unfettered and without focus groups telling him how to be a normal human being. He's clearly not a normal human being. He's an asocial tower of rage and fury. Salmond is in many ways like him: the T-1000 sent from the future to go back to the past and do sums. He's a bit more human of course because he's a cheeky scamp who likes to cause a bit of mischief. Unlike Brown, his programming likely got scrambled in the time-jump making his AI think he actually was a real boy.

But Sturgeon? Common touch, left wing, sincere, diplomatic... she's Brown's kryptonite and he will know it. His comeback might be scuppered before it even begins.

What a bunch of Jellyfish. Scotland should have a referendum to change their name from: Scotland to Spineless/KissAssLand.

Quite, I'm embarrassed to be a Scot today - what a bunch of narrow-minded dumpties.

The front page pre referendum VOW is already being threatened with being renaged on,

watched a post result interview with William Hague and when asked about the promised

new revenue raising powers for the post referendum Scottish government and continuation

of the Barnett payment system he immediately said " oh well if there are new revenue raising

powers for the Scottish government we may have to adjust the Barnett system payment levels."

The ink is barely dry on the counting officers declaration papers and the Westminister rats are

up to their old lying and cheating ways, nothing new there then. @asterds of the highest order.

To be fair to the brave Scots voters, as apposed to the bigoted nationalist, I think very few if any changed their voting intentions due to what the 3 Westminster clowns were saying, the intelligent Scottish voters realised that any further Scottish subsidies would have to be endorsed by a parliament consisting of M.P's from all over the country and not the 3 unwise men.

The three unwise men all carrying with them an office of whips and of course the three line whip (which means attend and vote with your party, or sit on the back benches until we find a way to deselect/brief against you). If they want to pass legislation, they could... very very easily. Youre not talking a Major or Callaghan government held up by the prospect of a few bastards trying to force a no confidence motion in a soon to be (or already) minority government. Youre looking at around 630 out of a possible 650 votes. Only a declaration of war garners that kind of cross party potential.

Also, it doesnt matter who changed their minds, who didnt, nor who voted for independence and who didnt. To a man and woman, everybody in Scotland will be expecting that vow to be kept regardless of their own personal standpoint on the matter whilst inside the voting booth marking their cross for yes.

Scotland votes 'No' by 55.3 per cent: final result

EDINBURGH (AFP) - Scotland rejected independence from the United Kingdom by 55.3 per cent to 44.7 per cent, on a record 84.6 per cent turnout, final results showed Friday.

Official figures show 2,001,926 people voted to stay in the union and 1,617,989 voted to leave, with turnout beating the previous record for a UK vote of 84 per cent, set in the 1950 British general election.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Scotland-votes-No-by-55-3-per-cent-final-result-30243659.html

-- The Nation 2014-09-19

The reason the NO vote is far greater than opinion polls predicted is the intimidation that was being used by the Yes campaigners caused many to keep their intentions to themselves. This is the backfire on the bully campaigners with their graffiti, eggs, window smashing and verbal abuse. Serves you right.

oooooooorrrrr... polls had the yes vote at 47 and no at 53. Factor in a) margin of error plus the quiet vote for the status quo as many people (including myself remarked on - there was a point in the polling when Quebec was brought up endlessly), and you have an unsurprising result that has <deleted> all to do with terrified scottish people incapable of making themselves heard. The vote went as expected. Yes needed to be a good few percentage points above 50% consistently to even HOPE for a win. They could have pulled it off with a very late surge, but as i said 2 days ago, theyd failed to break through and had taken a beating in the final week of campaigning. So less of the nonsense and more of the actual observation of reality please.

If Salmond had campaigned using a clear and concise framework for transition and what would follow, with all the numbers adding up, Yes would have won. But he didn't. He used nationalist rhetoric instead.

The words "Nationalist rhetoric" here is a touch unfair. In a sense it was nationalist in that it accepted the argument categorically (and indeed defined its ENTIRE campaign around the notion) that this was a decision on whether Scotland was ready to vote yes to not only the benefits of self determination, but also own the potentially catastrophic initial results of independence. It was couched in nationalism in that it spoke of the Scottish people's enduring and collective capacity to rebuild their country and turn around the inevitable problems of independence. But nationalism in hills, glens, rob roy, shortbread and Curries Red Kola? Not so much.

Again, we've brought up the reasons as to why the White paper was just an SNP party political document long before the vote was even in. So theres no reason to retread that ground again. The scottish people knew that they werent voting for (or against) Salmond and the SNP, but rather more simply - and more seriously - self-determination. They knew that the real negotiations would only begin after an independence vote. And thats why the negativity of better together didnt resonate. They took Salmond and the SNP programme more seriously than they waranted. They fought a campaign based on strategies youd use in an election. In this case it was just about autonomy. And the only message they had was that it might be terrible. But Scotland knew this. It was GOING to be difficult. It was GOING to be arduous and serious. The consequences were right there. But it was just a simple question of whether it would be worth it for the price of Self-determination.

No. Apparently. But my money is on that intervention last week (christ! was it only last week?) having saved the No vote. The yes vote was about to surge. Gordon Brown in many ways, by pushing for devo max so hard, and offering that one positive reason gave hope to labour supporters looking at that one and only offer for change on the table and realising they didnt have to go all in. They could hedge. It saved the labour exodus to independence, and it also possibly saved the Scottish Labour Party from a rout in the Scottish Parliament Election and the General Election. Big Gordon saved the union. But he did it with the intention of ultimately transforming it. And that resonated with the wavering labour/independence voter in Scotland.

Maybe. All conjecture in the end. Maybe the sentiment for independence just never took off and never was seriously going to take off despite the indications otherwise. Perhaps in fact, the 51% was the highest possible number the YES campaign could ever hope to get considering the intransigence of the pensioners and of course the more conservative parts of Scotland. Still, im fine that no won. Not ecstatic, but i want change and reform. If im not getting it through independence then ill settle for the wholesale break up of the UK constitutionally instead

And yes mad English supporters blaming scotland for everything. Im right behind you when you start shouting about powers for England and the regions. Just know that i feel absolutely in my heart that youre going to get yours when it comes. Not from Scotland, but from the regions of England youve ignored the last 30 years. England is mad as hell. And its not at Scotland.

Oooh, ill still be voting to stay in the EU as well. For the reasons that in fact the No campaign threw towards scotland. I look forward to recycling the anti-independence lines

Scotland votes 'No' by 55.3 per cent: final result

EDINBURGH (AFP) - Scotland rejected independence from the United Kingdom by 55.3 per cent to 44.7 per cent, on a record 84.6 per cent turnout, final results showed Friday.

Official figures show 2,001,926 people voted to stay in the union and 1,617,989 voted to leave, with turnout beating the previous record for a UK vote of 84 per cent, set in the 1950 British general election.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Scotland-votes-No-by-55-3-per-cent-final-result-30243659.html

-- The Nation 2014-09-19

The reason the NO vote is far greater than opinion polls predicted is the intimidation that was being used by the Yes campaigners caused many to keep their intentions to themselves. This is the backfire on the bully campaigners with their graffiti, eggs, window smashing and verbal abuse. Serves you right.

oooooooorrrrr... polls had the yes vote at 47 and no at 53. Factor in i) margin of error plus ii) the quiet vote for the status quo as many people (including myself) remarked on (and made a bit of a big deal out of), and you have an unsurprising result that has chuff all to do with terrified scottish people incapable of making themselves heard and everything to do with standard behaviour in a referendum/election. The vote went as expected. Yes needed to be a good few percentage points above 50% consistently to even HOPE for a win. They could have pulled it off with a very late surge, but as i said 2 days ago, theyd failed to break through and had taken a beating in the final week of campaigning. So less of the nonsense and more of the actual observation of reality please.

Eugh, a whole night of no real news and having to just sit on my thumbs. Lucky ive been at work for the brunt of it without access to the net. The boredom would have killed me. What i need is a 16 hour coma so i can be around for the results coming in around 10am tomorrow (9am thailand i think). Ah, its tough. heres literally nothing to argue about any more. Um... oooh! i know, why cant i beat Berwick rangers with Clyde on Football manager handheld DESPITE being second in the league, then sitting bottom and me having knocked Dundee out of the Scottish Cup 5th round? No matter what they just launch a barage of attacks. I got beat by them 8-2 on one occasion. Its getting ridiculous. No matter what strategy i use, theyre balanced 5 man mid strat just overwhelms my far better players. Ill fix that then.

I think Salmond will be alright. The only thing worrying him is the prospect of Gordon Brown as the new leader of the Scottish Labour Party. He might even retire before the 2016 election. Either way he came thhhiiiiiiiiissssss close to delivering something no one would have thought he could deliver even a month ago. He reignited a political conversation in scotland and restored a certain degree of pride in its people to have such a positive debate. He will come out of this smelling of roses either way. Casualties will be the scottish labour party, and the lib dems. The pro union tories might have now seen at least a bit of momentum as the natural voice and protectors of the union.

Brown will stop the rot in labour though should he return. If he doesnt, then theyre screwed for a generation until they find someone of his caliber either in scotland or westminster. Mistrust in the scottish labour party right now is about as high as its ever been. When my aploitical mum is tearing up her card NOW even after the debacle of new labour and the rise and rise of the SNP, then theyve clearly screwed up. Tommy Sheridan has also come out of this kinda well

Panic obviously

Im kinda torn. Part of me believes that without this interjection momentum was just about to take off for the YES campaign. Theyd just crossed the single most important threshold for the first time: plausibility, and i think without such an offer on the table the option of Independence versus Status quo would have led to an exodus from the labour support. They want change. No doubt about it. But they dont necessarily want Salmond. But this is their one shot, so perhaps it was time to join the winning side.

The devo max option will have at least made them stop and think.

The other part of me however believes that it was just wild panic and the interjection didnt even need to happen. You see, the YES campaign had just crossed the single most important threshold for the first time: plausibility, and i think that this would have led to plenty of people saying to themselves "hang on, this isnt a fun party any more. This shit might actually happen!

The terrifying prospect that Scotland would actually vote for something out of pure spite and sticking it to England and Westminster might seem a laugh when the polls are running at 40% chance for change, but at 51% maybe its getting a bit 'real'.

So no idea. Ill leave it to the historians to decide. What i can say though is that both will have factored in the momentary halting of the YES campaign momentum for the No campaign to actually catch their breath and recover.

An interesting analysis. I think it will have more impact on waverers (Labour or otherwise) than you think. Either way, I predict a wider 'no' victory than expected.

If i can add to it, what strikes me most about it is that it comes off more like Holyrood stump speech. It really felt more like an attack on the SNP than an attack on independence if that makes sense. He TORE INTO the SNP policies. I know in many ways that thats all we;ve got, but my feeling was he maybe spent a bit over long campaigning against the SNP that he could have spent outlining the benefits of the union. It felt like the first shot of the next election. Clearly hes going to be the SLPs new leader, and honestly they need him badly. Theyve been atrocious.

Well, like everything else it depends on tone. But the tone of the woman in the adverts he used, it basically means F***OFF!

Now i dont hide my love for Gordon Brown. I liked that clip before i even watched it, so confident was i that I would. I wasnt disappointed... with some of it

Remember im a yes voter, but im also a pinko leftist dyed in the wool west coast of scotland labour supporter. Independence is my second choice by quite some way. My first choice is devo max. It might even be devo super max whatever that is. Basically my first choice is the one that gives the Scottish parliament as much control of its budget as it can cope with whilst keeping the union in place. I also agree that England, Wales and Ireland should have similar controls. Basically disperse as much power from westminster as possible thanks. Let the regions hold the federal government in check.

But what i want to talk about is Browns speech and why it wont turn votes. It could have if it had stopped about 5 minutes in. Up to then it was a phenomenal speech that ticked every box a labour supporter wanted to hear. There was play to the Welfare state, to the ties of British socialism and to the union out of which these things came. Now this is honey to the ears of a lefty labour supporter like myself. It was stirring, accurate and spoke of a common shared cause that would continue to lead and bring change for all of our benefits. And as ive remarked, this isnt the solitary burden of Scotland. The attack on the risks was also great. It wasnt wishy washy. It was direct, clear and very forceful. I think the one on the raised prices in the supermarkets had me grimacing a bit mind you. Supermarkets set prices on their market and what their competitors are doing. Market forces seem always forgotten about when people want to make silly points.

But then he started hitting the 'talking points' and it just seemed beneath him to be honest. He looked FURIOUS and could barely contain the contempt he has for the SNP throughout, but the latter half of the speech had me checking off the past weeks 'themes' of the better together campaign. There was also VERY little on the greater powers for scotland after a no vote. I was disappointed he didnt explicate his vision and what hes been (by all accounts) pushing very hard for.

All in all, if its an appeal directed at the base of the better together movement, sure, it was excellent. But aimed at the labour voters who MIGHT (in his own words) be wavering, it wont have been enough. Theres some meat in it. but much of it feels a little empty. Pity, because the guardian feed of it had brown achieving the formerly impossible and rousing even the English media to applaud him. If i was his teacher, id give him a 7 or an 8 out of 10 on it. Lots of recycled lines and talking points. A strong and original start, but tapered off toward the end into soundbites and hollowness.