No, Pjen clearly thinks that the only votes were for independence or Devomax and Devomax won. Or at least, the Devomax voters made the ddifference (despite the fact that he himself is a Devomax supporter and voted “yes”).
I can’t be the only person to think that “devomax” is an ugly, meaningless buzzword, and the sort of thing that would be best left out of the political discussion in favour of some nuance, and actual thought about what the effects will be, can I?
It’s not strictly defined but I wouldn’t call it meaningless. ISTM to mean virtual independence while remaining in the economic union of the UK. No?
The problem with buzzwords is that they can seem to mean something, without actually doing so. What’s bothering me is that attempts to discuss the actual nature of further devolution, and the legalities and practicalities involved with that and with a reduction in Scottish MPs powers, are either being avoided or actively rebuffed. Pjen has constantly refused to engage in any such discussion, and indeed criticised me for doing so, as though wanting it enough will be sufficient for it to happen.
It’s been clear for a long time that the majority of calls for further devolution or independence are based on passion, not reason. Which isn’t to say that there are no reasonable arguments for either, but that they are not being used. When the sole argument in favour of “devomax” is “they promised”, it’s hard to take it seriously. It needs to be explained clearly and soon how it will benefit both Scotland and the UK, so that come the election next year the parties can have coherent plans for it, and people can vote accordingly.
Because I do not expect the rest of the UK to vote for giving more money and power to Scotland - a region that has a disproportionate amount of both - without getting something in return.
It’s not totally a buzz word, even the Conservatives (in Scotland anyway) have been pondering this stuff for a while. Here’s a precis of the Strathclyde Commission, and there’s a full link on the page
http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2014/06/strathclyde-commission-scotland-full-powers-income-tax/
The earlier intermediate step of the Calman Commission, which everyone but the SNP accepted, ended up as the Scotland Act 2012. That will now come into force in 2016.
The moderator is confused. I don’t know what a ‘plastic jock’ is but it sure sounds insulting. No warning, but let’s keep it civil.
And if anyone knows, please write.
In England anyone on benefits gets free eye tests, and those 15 or younger or 60 and older under the NHS, and anyone else at Tescos; and I paid naught for my last dental work since I was on benefits. There are plenty of NHS dentists wanting customers around here ( though less so in London.
Then they should present a plan to hold another referendum, if they want independence. What the hell else would you expect?
Scotland is a rich country.
That seemed to be a catch phrase we with relentless frequency throughout the Yes campaign.
So do they need a subsidy from the rest of the UK?
It is a time for constructive ideas for how the UK and devolved governments should work.
I don’t think regional assemblies will get much support from the voters. Our local government elections last year persuaded only 31% of those eligible to use their vote.
Local government is not well regarded. That is not going to get better by adding another layer of politicians at a regional level. It could turn into a fiasco like the elected Police Commissioners which went down to a highly embarrassing 15%. Or maybe it will become a place for protest votes like the European elections. Which also have low turnouts and seem to be full of one trick pony political parties that no-one seriously expects to do anything constructive.
Scotland showed how it can be done, when votes are perceived by the electorate to really count for something fundamental and not simply elect the usually party apparatchiks. But that was a one-off.
We also have a problem with our political parties, that have historically low membership levels and usually rely on benefactors or one sort or another.
I am not sure teaching schoolkids ‘Civics’ from a early age and allowing them to vote at 16? It might make them even more reluctant to vote. The first past the post system tends to mean that your vote does not count for much in an area dominated by one party. But Proportional Representation? We had a referendum about that and people voted against the idea.
There don’t seem to be any easy answers.
People are really treating the “Yes” side with WAY more solemnity than they’re worth. These people are basically the tracksuit brigade, led by a few perpetually-angry doubletalkers.
A Plastic Jock is an English person who claims great affinity with the Scots. There is a more common variation, the Plastic Paddy - those who romanticise an Irish connection. It makes me wonder if there is such a thing as a Plastic Taff, which would be someone English who adores everything Welsh.
Plastic, of course suggests that it is a man-made substitute for the genuine article.
Is it an insult? Well that is best answered by the person it was directed to. I thought it was just funny.
It’s a play on the idea of “plastic paddy”, which would be someone who’s not a proper Irishman. I’m suggesting that, due to his English birth and upbringing, Pjen is not a true Scotsman. So to speak.
If you think that’s too much of an insult, fair enough. It’s meant as a dig rather than an insult, but I’ll not use it again.
ETA - Or what filmstar-en said. Should’ve clicked next page…
English people of that sort (they’re found in the U.S. too) are clearly deeply affected by Stockholm Syndrome, probably induced by watching too many crappy movies featuring evil Brits. They should learn to embrace their inner British imperial warrior, there’s no shame in it. 
Oh, digs are OK. But it’s always a careful line to tread.
Or…
The US and the UK: Two Nations Separated by a Common Language
OR…
Mel Gibson’s Chicken in Chicken Run, referring to a Scot Chicken: “I swear it’s like she ain’t using real words.”
Oh, come now, let’s try to remain at least somewhat connected to reality. In the referendum just completed, there was a 45% vote in favour of independence. There clearly is a desire for independence in Scotland; it may not be the desire of a majority of the voters, but it’s the desire of a very substantial minority. A unionist who cared about the union would have to admit that (a) there is a desire for independence in Scotland, (b) support for independence, while not a majority, is strikingly high, and (c) the posssiblity that the future course of events might turn see 45% desire for independence grow into a greater than 50% desire cannot be lightly dismissed.
People who genuinely care about the union, and who are not stupid, will be concerned to know what might be done to prevent this happening and, ideally, to reduce the demand for independence in Scotland. The leaders of the main unionist parties appeared to think that promising the Scots a greater measure of devolution, to be delivered in early course, was an effective way to do this. I am not saying that they were right to think this, but I see no reason to think that they were wrong.
If so, the notion that the fulfilment of this promise should now be held up as a way of exerting leverage to get “something for England” would be an extremely stupid one and, again, no genuine unionist who is not irredeemably stupid should countenance it for an instant. Such a stance would be a gift from the gods to Scottish nationalists; a living demonstration that, yes, at Westminster the rights and interests of Scotland are subordinated to English political considerations. Even if the promise of early Devo-max did not, in fact, win additional votes to the NO side, reneging on that promise or subordinating it to English concerns seems likely to change minds in the other direction.
I’ve not said it should be held up based on that, I’ve said repeatedly that, for the benefit of the union, power should be shared out proportionally. That doesn’t mean Scotland having devolved powers and also power over the rest of the UK. This should be an issue that’s sorted out in the coming negotiations over devolution, as it’s effectively part of the same issue.
Ultimately, I am in favour of the Union overall. It’s certainly better for Scotland than independence would be, and whilst in the long run I could see the UK being better of with less Labour voters and a fairer distribution of wealth (ironic that it would work like that) it would take far too long and do too much damage in the short and medium term.
Hopefully, if devolution is handled properly, Scotland will have to raise its own money through its own taxes rather than claiming more than its share from the UK. Which is another thing I’m not convinced all the Scots have thought through.
Ultimately, Scotland voted decisively for Union last week. Hopefully, their government will accept that, and act in a way that’s best for the whole Union, not just Scotland. I expect they will, just as I expect English MPs to.
Devolution for England and devolution for Scotland are not the same issue. The English up to now haven’t pressed for devolution, and haven’t needed to because they overwhelmingly dominate the Westminster Parliament and can ensure that, to a large extent, Westminster takes English affairs seriously and accords priority to English concerns. The Scots have never been in that position; hence Scots nationalism has had a value for Scotland, and a corresponding ability to attract support, that English nationalism has not had. That is why the Scots already have a significant measure of devolution and the English don’t.
English views on this now seem to be changing, but it remains the case that the English need or appetite for devolution is going to be materially different from the Scottish situation, because of the continuing English dominance at Westminster. Thus even if the English have now decided that they would like some devolution too, from the Scots perspective there is no need to couple the two issues together and treat them “as part of the same issue”. Nobody has ever suggested that devolved government in Northern Ireland needs to be coupled with English devolution in this way; why should Scotland be different?
The fact is that the Scottish and English relationships to the Union are always going to be somewhat different. They have been up to now, and there is no reason to expect this to change. If the English do want devolution, they don’t necessarily want the form of devolution, or the degree of devolution, that the Scots want. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have individually-tailored forms and degrees of devolution; the English should as well. And the Scots will be justifiably suspicious of any attempt to link delivery of Devo-max to negotiation (more or less from scratch) of English devolution as “part of the same issue”.
I honestly don’t see the 55% NO vote as being as decisive as you do. Most people would see 45% of the country wanting out as an alarmingly high proportion, rather than as a ringing endorsement of the union. I agree that the question of independence for Scotland is off the table for now and, if the unionists play their cards wisely, for quite a while. But it’s not a given that they will play their cards wisely.
It is interesting that you say that there is no desire for independence when nearly haf the population voted for it. There is a desire for independence, just not shared by more than fifty per cent of the population. If Devo Max had appeared on the ballot paper, there would have been little chance of a vote for Independence as that would satisfy the general thirst for more powers for Scotland. Virtually no-one here wants the status quo to continue. The news (we are getting full Scottish News now with a special evening programme in the 10.30 slot on the devolution/independence issue. This is full of discussion about the future of Scotland and none of that is about maintaining the status quo.
There is an expectation among virtually all people and among all Scottish political parties that Home Rule has been promised as an alternative to voting for independence.
Should English politics frustrate this will, then I can see a return to calls for independence. Salmond said that with the Vow the question of independence had been put to bed for a generation but now, with the backtracking has said that if the agreement is not met, then all bets are off. Sturgeon has said that so long as Home Rule is given, the SNP would remain committed to independence in the long terms and see it as a natural process proceeding eventually from Home Rule to Independence in a generation or so, but if certain ‘events’ happen (UK leaving the EU, the Vow not being kept to) then Independence would be back on the table.
It will be interesting to see the polling on who supports the Devo Max/Home Rule proposed in the Vow, and who supports Independence or the Status Quo. I suspect that Home Rule will be at the 80% plus mark- a difficult movement to counter.
“My side” before the campaign was for Devo Max or Home Rule; I only moved to supporting Independence bacause of the negativity and intransigence of the Better Together campaign. I feel we won!
The Vow certainly swung a lot of people who were planning to vote YES but voted instead for Home Rule. If it is not met there will be a surge of resentment towards Westminster.