Scotland votes no to independence

[transam]

<snip>

when the devo max option would always have won if it had been allowed to be on the ballot..

Whose 'fault' is it that it wasn't?

The Scottish Parliament, i.e. Salmond and the SNP, decided on the question!

But even with extra devolution promises, those under 65 voted Yes (not by much - but without the pensioner vote, Scotland would be independent). This is a vote where the 3 to 1 vote for No by pensioners gave No the win. I hope they can look their children and grandchildren in the eye.

How do you know?

Was it not a secret ballot?

Don't say that post ballot surveys prove it; that would only be true if every voter was asked and every one asked answered.

Apparently it was Cameron who refused to allow devomax, and the Scottish parliament were allowed to choose the question. Bit of a Hobson's choice

But it's all academic now. England needs to sort out it's parliament while they have the chance or all those scottish MP's will be voting for things in Sussex etc

Why do you keep quoting ENGLAND.....?....Do you not understand the UK is a Union, governed by the union that voted IN who ever is governing.

You and others come across as folk who just do not like the English, and your quest is to be rid the English tie. I have read it here, English Scum, and other stuff .

But strange ain't it that YES and NO Scots are now having an open air toe to toe cos they don't like each other...

[7by7]

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?

[nontabury]

Unfortunately it's people like those who make these posters, that will feed the hate and animosity of those who will not accept the democratic view of the Whole electorate.

[jpinx]

But even with extra devolution promises, those under 65 voted Yes (not by much - but without the pensioner vote, Scotland would be independent). This is a vote where the 3 to 1 vote for No by pensioners gave No the win. I hope they can look their children and grandchildren in the eye.

How do you know?

Was it not a secret ballot?

Don't say that post ballot surveys prove it; that would only be true if every voter was asked and every one asked answered.

Apparently it was Cameron who refused to allow devomax, and the Scottish parliament were allowed to choose the question. Bit of a Hobson's choice

But it's all academic now. England needs to sort out it's parliament while they have the chance or all those scottish MP's will be voting for things in Sussex etc

Why do you keep quoting ENGLAND.....?....Do you not understand the UK is a Union, governed by the union that voted IN who ever is governing.

You and others come across as folk who just do not like the English, and your quest is to be rid the English tie. I have read it here, English Scum, and other stuff .

But strange ain't it that YES and NO Scots are now having an open air toe to toe cos they don't like each other...

I take it that you are familiar with the "West Lothian Question" ?

[balo]

It's too late to regret now , you could have been one of the wealthiest nations in Europe, just like Norway.

Without the North sea oil , Norway would still be a poor country . Now we are too rich .

[alanrchase]

Unfortunately it's people like those who make these posters, that will feed the hate and animosity of those who will not accept the democratic view of the Whole electorate.

Never known freedom? England ruled by Scottish Kings and vice versa. 300 odd years of shenanigans. Scots used to cross the boarders for a fight and English reciprocated ie crossed into Scotland. World back then was a shade different.

[phuketjock]

PhuketJock

Please explain why the Barnett formula is neccessary if The Scottish parliament gets tax raising powers. Its no good trying the Salmond trick of blaming everything on nasty English tories , even the majority of Scots have now seen through that.

Barnett is hugely unfair to certain less prosperous parts of the UK , notably Wales and the North East of England.

Further devolution means Scotland taking financial responsibility , good luck expecting that from Salmond.

No where in my post did I support or criticise the merits of the Barnett formula I merely

pointed out that the Tory,Labour, and Liberal Democrat leaders in West minister Vowed

on the front page of a popular Scottish tabloid prior to the referendum vote that Scotland

would still be eligible for payment under the existing Barnett formula and also promised

further tax/revenue raising powers to the Scottish government if there was a NO vote.

Now there is already murmers of denying that promise by the very person, I discovered

on the news last night, that has been put in charge of the negotiations with the Scottish

government on the new devolution powers for that government William Hague.

I fear the cowardly NO voters have very little idea of the depth of their betrayal of the nation

of Scotland, but I am quite positive it will not be very long before even they realise the grave

misjustice they have done their counrty.

A sad sad day for them and Scotland..................................

Don't like to assume but seems you may be Scottish? How did you vote? Yes, No?

Yes I am Scottish and if I had the opportunity I think you have probably guessed I would have voted

YES, but unfortunately the rules of the referendum did not allow me to be elegible to vote sadly.

[alanrchase]

PhuketJock

Please explain why the Barnett formula is neccessary if The Scottish parliament gets tax raising powers. Its no good trying the Salmond trick of blaming everything on nasty English tories , even the majority of Scots have now seen through that.

Barnett is hugely unfair to certain less prosperous parts of the UK , notably Wales and the North East of England.

Further devolution means Scotland taking financial responsibility , good luck expecting that from Salmond.

No where in my post did I support or criticise the merits of the Barnett formula I merely

pointed out that the Tory,Labour, and Liberal Democrat leaders in West minister Vowed

on the front page of a popular Scottish tabloid prior to the referendum vote that Scotland

would still be eligible for payment under the existing Barnett formula and also promised

further tax/revenue raising powers to the Scottish government if there was a NO vote.

Now there is already murmers of denying that promise by the very person, I discovered

on the news last night, that has been put in charge of the negotiations with the Scottish

government on the new devolution powers for that government William Hague.

I fear the cowardly NO voters have very little idea of the depth of their betrayal of the nation

of Scotland, but I am quite positive it will not be very long before even they realise the grave

misjustice they have done their counrty.

A sad sad day for them and Scotland..................................

Don't like to assume but seems you may be Scottish? How did you vote? Yes, No?

Yes I am Scottish and if I had the opportunity I think you have probably guessed I would have voted

YES, but unfortunately the rules of the referendum did not allow me to be elegible to vote sadly.

Do you not feel a shade robbed by your own country?

[inutil]

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.

Edited September 20, 2014 by inutil

[jpinx]

No where in my post did I support or criticise the merits of the Barnett formula I merely

pointed out that the Tory,Labour, and Liberal Democrat leaders in West minister Vowed

on the front page of a popular Scottish tabloid prior to the referendum vote that Scotland

would still be eligible for payment under the existing Barnett formula and also promised

further tax/revenue raising powers to the Scottish government if there was a NO vote.

Now there is already murmers of denying that promise by the very person, I discovered

on the news last night, that has been put in charge of the negotiations with the Scottish

government on the new devolution powers for that government William Hague.

I fear the cowardly NO voters have very little idea of the depth of their betrayal of the nation

of Scotland, but I am quite positive it will not be very long before even they realise the grave

misjustice they have done their counrty.

A sad sad day for them and Scotland..................................

Don't like to assume but seems you may be Scottish? How did you vote? Yes, No?

Yes I am Scottish and if I had the opportunity I think you have probably guessed I would have voted

YES, but unfortunately the rules of the referendum did not allow me to be elegible to vote sadly.

Do you not feel a shade robbed by your own country?

Which happened first -- he abandoned his country or his country abandoned him ?

[7by7]

Yes I am Scottish and if I had the opportunity I think you have probably guessed I would have voted

YES, but unfortunately the rules of the referendum did not allow me to be elegible to vote sadly.

Who set those rules? The Scottish parliament, i.e. Salmond and the SNP.

They really shot themselves in the foot with that one.

If the many pro independence posts on TV from ex pat Scots are anything to go by, many ex pats would have voted Yes!

As the pro independence support of Scots like Sean Connery who love their country so much they choose to live elsewhere, also shows.

[nontabury]

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.

[phuketjock]

PhuketJock

Please explain why the Barnett formula is neccessary if The Scottish parliament gets tax raising powers. Its no good trying the Salmond trick of blaming everything on nasty English tories , even the majority of Scots have now seen through that.

Barnett is hugely unfair to certain less prosperous parts of the UK , notably Wales and the North East of England.

Further devolution means Scotland taking financial responsibility , good luck expecting that from Salmond.

No where in my post did I support or criticise the merits of the Barnett formula I merely

pointed out that the Tory,Labour, and Liberal Democrat leaders in West minister Vowed

on the front page of a popular Scottish tabloid prior to the referendum vote that Scotland

would still be eligible for payment under the existing Barnett formula and also promised

further tax/revenue raising powers to the Scottish government if there was a NO vote.

Now there is already murmers of denying that promise by the very person, I discovered

on the news last night, that has been put in charge of the negotiations with the Scottish

government on the new devolution powers for that government William Hague.

I fear the cowardly NO voters have very little idea of the depth of their betrayal of the nation

of Scotland, but I am quite positive it will not be very long before even they realise the grave

misjustice they have done their counrty.

A sad sad day for them and Scotland..................................

Scots Cowards, 55% are cowards, adding on the folk who didn't bother voting cos they don't care, we then have about 65% of Scots in YOUR opinion are cowards.

This must be the most ridiculous thing I have read in a looooooooong time chum.

As per usual transam you continue to spout your nonsense from you lower orifice.

[rajyindee]

I have no reason to like or dislike Herr Salmonella. But you have to have some sympathy for a guy who tried to lead his people to the promised land, only for the Haggises and Lassies to turn round, raise their skirts and kilts and wind on him. I never realised the dork Cameron was a dish. No knowing what ladies think! I am sure I am missing something; well maybe a lot of things.

Still pissed-off that you weren't old enough to vote, or what?

[7by7]

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.

38% Yes

48% No

14% didn't vote.

People generally get off their &lt;deleted&gt; to vote if they want change, not if they are happy with the status quo.

But I agree; this is academic anyway; it only needed 1 more person to vote one way than the other for that option to have won.

[inutil]

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.

[transam]

PhuketJock

Please explain why the Barnett formula is neccessary if The Scottish parliament gets tax raising powers. Its no good trying the Salmond trick of blaming everything on nasty English tories , even the majority of Scots have now seen through that.

Barnett is hugely unfair to certain less prosperous parts of the UK , notably Wales and the North East of England.

Further devolution means Scotland taking financial responsibility , good luck expecting that from Salmond.

No where in my post did I support or criticise the merits of the Barnett formula I merely

pointed out that the Tory,Labour, and Liberal Democrat leaders in West minister Vowed

on the front page of a popular Scottish tabloid prior to the referendum vote that Scotland

would still be eligible for payment under the existing Barnett formula and also promised

further tax/revenue raising powers to the Scottish government if there was a NO vote.

Now there is already murmers of denying that promise by the very person, I discovered

on the news last night, that has been put in charge of the negotiations with the Scottish

government on the new devolution powers for that government William Hague.

I fear the cowardly NO voters have very little idea of the depth of their betrayal of the nation

of Scotland, but I am quite positive it will not be very long before even they realise the grave

misjustice they have done their counrty.

A sad sad day for them and Scotland..................................

Scots Cowards, 55% are cowards, adding on the folk who didn't bother voting cos they don't care, we then have about 65% of Scots in YOUR opinion are cowards.

This must be the most ridiculous thing I have read in a looooooooong time chum.

As per usual transam you continue to spout your nonsense from you lower orifice.

An expected response, am OK with it, your the guy that calls 2/3 of his country folk cowards, not me.

Perhaps a typical YES camp view, bit of a numnut view in my opinion, BUT then you did believe what Salmond had on the table..........

[phuketjock]

No where in my post did I support or criticise the merits of the Barnett formula I merely

pointed out that the Tory,Labour, and Liberal Democrat leaders in West minister Vowed

on the front page of a popular Scottish tabloid prior to the referendum vote that Scotland

would still be eligible for payment under the existing Barnett formula and also promised

further tax/revenue raising powers to the Scottish government if there was a NO vote.

Now there is already murmers of denying that promise by the very person, I discovered

on the news last night, that has been put in charge of the negotiations with the Scottish

government on the new devolution powers for that government William Hague.

I fear the cowardly NO voters have very little idea of the depth of their betrayal of the nation

of Scotland, but I am quite positive it will not be very long before even they realise the grave

misjustice they have done their counrty.

A sad sad day for them and Scotland..................................

Don't like to assume but seems you may be Scottish? How did you vote? Yes, No?

Yes I am Scottish and if I had the opportunity I think you have probably guessed I would have voted

YES, but unfortunately the rules of the referendum did not allow me to be elegible to vote sadly.

Do you not feel a shade robbed by your own country?

Not nearly as robbed as I feel by my fellow countymen that voted NO sad to say.

There had to be some kind of restriction on who could or couldn't vote, whether

the way it was done was right or not I really don't know, it was probably the least

complicated way but I am not sure???

[inutil]

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.

Edited September 20, 2014 by inutil

[phuketjock]

Don't like to assume but seems you may be Scottish? How did you vote? Yes, No?

Yes I am Scottish and if I had the opportunity I think you have probably guessed I would have voted

YES, but unfortunately the rules of the referendum did not allow me to be elegible to vote sadly.

Do you not feel a shade robbed by your own country?

Which happened first -- he abandoned his country or his country abandoned him ?

Neither jp I still have a flat in Scotland and although not resident ( the reason I could not vote )

I am still paying Uk tax on my pension and would have been more than happy to be paying that

tax to an independent Scottish government. But because of the naysayers it is going into the

coffer of Westminister to be squandered as usual, not unlike the money from the Scottish oil.

[alanrchase]

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. 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. It seems extra daft that no Yes supporter is arguing (really) 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.

Votes are votes. Result is confirmed. In most democracies arround the world if you needed 50% of eligible voters there would never be a final outcome. Even the most "Democratic" country in the world suffers from low voter turnout. Believe in Australia you can be fined for not voting? Suppose that is considered freedom.

[EmptyHead]

Such an embarrasment. I supposed i should be happy to call myself British;better than calling myself Scottish.

[jpinx]

Yes I am Scottish and if I had the opportunity I think you have probably guessed I would have voted

YES, but unfortunately the rules of the referendum did not allow me to be elegible to vote sadly.

Do you not feel a shade robbed by your own country?

Which happened first -- he abandoned his country or his country abandoned him ?

Neither jp I still have a flat in Scotland and although not resident ( the reason I could not vote )

I am still paying Uk tax on my pension and would have been more than happy to be paying that

tax to an independent Scottish government. But because of the naysayers it is going into the

coffer of Westminister to be squandered as usual, not unlike the money from the Scottish oil.

I won't go into details pj, but if you had sorted out your affairs before leaving, you would now have a postal vote

[alanrchase]

Yes I am Scottish and if I had the opportunity I think you have probably guessed I would have voted

YES, but unfortunately the rules of the referendum did not allow me to be elegible to vote sadly.

Do you not feel a shade robbed by your own country?

Which happened first -- he abandoned his country or his country abandoned him ?

Neither jp I still have a flat in Scotland and although not resident ( the reason I could not vote )

I am still paying Uk tax on my pension and would have been more than happy to be paying that

tax to an independent Scottish government. But because of the naysayers it is going into the

coffer of Westminister to be squandered as usual, not unlike the money from the Scottish oil.

I won't go into details pj, but if you had sorted out your affairs before leaving, you would now have a postal vote

Thought to vote you needed to be resident for three months?

Only just started living in Thailand on a permanent basis myself and will pay tax in Thailand.

[jpinx]

Yes I am Scottish and if I had the opportunity I think you have probably guessed I would have voted

YES, but unfortunately the rules of the referendum did not allow me to be elegible to vote sadly.

Do you not feel a shade robbed by your own country?

Which happened first -- he abandoned his country or his country abandoned him ?

Neither jp I still have a flat in Scotland and although not resident ( the reason I could not vote )

I am still paying Uk tax on my pension and would have been more than happy to be paying that

tax to an independent Scottish government. But because of the naysayers it is going into the

coffer of Westminister to be squandered as usual, not unlike the money from the Scottish oil.

I won't go into details pj, but if you had sorted out your affairs before leaving, you would now have a postal vote

Thought to vote you needed to be resident for three months?

Only just started living in Thailand on a permanent basis myself and will pay tax in Thailand.

Define "resident"

[alanrchase]

Yes I am Scottish and if I had the opportunity I think you have probably guessed I would have voted

YES, but unfortunately the rules of the referendum did not allow me to be elegible to vote sadly.

Do you not feel a shade robbed by your own country?

Which happened first -- he abandoned his country or his country abandoned him ?

Neither jp I still have a flat in Scotland and although not resident ( the reason I could not vote )

I am still paying Uk tax on my pension and would have been more than happy to be paying that

tax to an independent Scottish government. But because of the naysayers it is going into the

coffer of Westminister to be squandered as usual, not unlike the money from the Scottish oil.

I won't go into details pj, but if you had sorted out your affairs before leaving, you would now have a postal vote

Thought to vote you needed to be resident for three months?

Only just started living in Thailand on a permanent basis myself and will pay tax in Thailand.

Define "resident"

Believe to vote resident meant you lived in Scottish borders. English, Scottish or from an EU country was ok. Sorry missed out Welsh and Irish.

[ginglee]

Salmond has left a split nation behind him http://news.uk.msn.com/in-pictures/police-separate-yes-and-no-rivals-2

[alanrchase]

Salmond has left a split nation behind him http://news.uk.msn.com/in-pictures/police-separate-yes-and-no-rivals-2

No real need to do that.

[inutil]

Yeah, sectarianism was pretty well established in Glasgow before the referendum.

[phuketjock]

Do you not feel a shade robbed by your own country?

Which happened first -- he abandoned his country or his country abandoned him ?

Neither jp I still have a flat in Scotland and although not resident ( the reason I could not vote )

I am still paying Uk tax on my pension and would have been more than happy to be paying that

tax to an independent Scottish government. But because of the naysayers it is going into the

coffer of Westminister to be squandered as usual, not unlike the money from the Scottish oil.

I won't go into details pj, but if you had sorted out your affairs before leaving, you would now have a postal vote

Believe me jp I investigated many avenues but found the obstacles I was confronted with unsurmountable,

largely irrellevant now my one vote would not have swung it I fear.