So it's the day after the morning after

[Workingman]

Ossie, I first saw mention of it in a local blog, but I have seen "chatter" on similar ideas on the BBC and Sky blogs.

All things look to be being considered, including being elected, through co-opted, to proportional representation. Most seem to favour the assemblies running some sort of devo-max type self-rule with the government, drawn from the Senate, taking on most of the functions of the likes of the Home, Foreign and Defence ministries. The bit about the assemblies sending X number of members to the Senate was to stop England always being prime leader by default, hence the ratios, whatever they might be, say 1:1:2:4. As for them sending members, or having seats, based on the party ratios within each assembly is not clear. Proportional representation would seem fairest to me, but I guess that there are other ways. Not heard much about the HoL for a while, Its members are probably keeping their heads down to save them being knocked off.

These are rough diamond ideas, and need a lot of polishing, but there is little appetite for an English Parliament or City Regions or cobbling together something from the existing system, such as English only days.

[Suff]

WM, I understand what you are saying. Truly I do. Also I understand that Westminster could never deliver what the three stooges were promising. I must admit, I thought more Scots would have understood that but clearly I underestimated the Naiveté of the larger body of the Scots electorate.

However you need to understand something. All English people need to understand something.

Promises were made. Solid, cast iron, promises. They were to start from yesterday and they were to happen in the way that the promise was made. In Scots minds that means that the financial and political balance between England and Scotland was to be re-balanced. In other words, more of the control over money and more of the money Scotland produces was to come to Scotland and more of the powers of Westminster were to devolve to Scotland.

This was a solemn promise to stop the Scots voting Yes and taking ALL the Scots income and ALL the Scots powers away from Westminster.

This vote was taken in fear, with the offer of a helping hand and "changes" which were to redress the balance. Which, really, is all the Scots ever wanted.

So, Friday Morning what do the Scots hear?

"Thank you for saving my ass. Now I may have made a solemn promise to you but I'm not going to do it without saving my ass in England. I won't redress your power without giving more power to the English".

Regardless of what you think and how you reason it and how anyone in England looks at this. That is what the Scots believe was promised and that is what they heard on Friday. That will be reflected in the polls both in UK and Scottish elections.

As for bitter? Hell I'm not bitter. I'm amused. I'm finding life more and more amusing as every article comes out in the press, as everything goes back to "normal" and I really mean "normal" which is that the Scots can be on the back burner and they can get on with the business of the UK. Gordon Brown was not just giving a reminder when he said Friday 19th was delivery day and every day thereafter was delivery day until the 6 month window is over and the changes have been made. He was panicking. He stuck his oar in this and made his play. Now they're going to bury him. He, not the three stooges, will be directly accountable at the next UK elections. I wonder if he will keep his seat. FIFE went strongly No. His neck is on the line.

I am keen to hear how things go over the next six months. My Nirvana are that all 3 main parties are punished heavily for what they have done and SNP and UKIP are ascendant over it.

Ossie, you might want to be careful what you wish for. In the recent Swedish elections the Sweden Democrats got 12.6% of the vote, up from 5.6% last time. It gave them 49 seats in the parliament. In a FPTP they might have achieved exactly nothing. As we have seen in Scotland, PR gives totally crazy whack jobs true representation in government. In Israel, with only 3.5% required to get representation (up from 1%), the government is totally chaotic.

What I am doing, right now, is not expunging some kind of bitterness or hurt or disappointment. I'm commenting on what I believe the people of Scotland heard and what I believe the three stooges meant and intended. I'm sure not one of them has the slightest inclination of what they have done in this 11th hour mad dash to "Save the Union". They may come to rue the day that they ever bothered trying...

[Suff]

More and more amused. And more as they start to hack each other to death with blunt spoons.

That legislative timetable is a joke. Possible if only Scotland was in the mix. Utterly impossible to get any agreement in the time with England and Scotland in the mix...

[Workingman]

However you need to understand something. All English people need to understand something.

Promises were made. Solid, cast iron, promises. They were to start from yesterday and they were to happen in the way that the promise was made.

Oh, I do understand, yup, I understand. I and we understand that to start does not mean to finish. The two are not the same, one must come before the other.

So, Friday Morning what do the Scots hear?

"Thank you for saving my ass. Now I may have made a solemn promise to you but I'm not going to do it without saving my ass in England. I won't redress your power without giving more power to the English".

Rubbish! This is his statement in full, but to just pick a few quotes?

To those in Scotland sceptical of the constitutional promises made, let me say this we have delivered on devolution under this government, and we will do so again in the next Parliament.

The 3 pro-union parties have made commitments, clear commitments, on further powers for the Scottish Parliament. We will ensure that they are honoured in full.

And I can announce today that Lord Smith of Kelvin – who so successfully led Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games – has agreed to oversee the process to take forward the devolution commitments, with powers over tax, spending and welfare all agreed by November and draft legislation published by January.

And he is not giving the English MORE powers, he is devolving power to them, same as Scotland will be getting.

So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland.

His quotes are a matter of record and he can now be challenged on them at any time and in any place.

Regardless of what you think and how you reason it and how anyone in England looks at this. That is what the Scots believe was promised and that is what they heard on Friday.

Then the Scots need to get themselves better informed.

BTW re your "Amused" post. Are you really surprised that Liebour have gone on the attack? They are a busted flush in Scotland and they and back-bencher Brown will most likely be kicked out at the next election. He, personally, was in no position to make any promises so he could not break any. Giving him air-time was probably the biggest mistake the No camp made.

[Suff]

You missed the most important point of all. All the rest was just justification.

“It is absolutely right that a new and fair settlement for Scotland should be accompanied by a new and fair settlement that applies to all parts of our United Kingdom

You also missed all of this

“It is absolutely right that a new and fair settlement for Scotland should be accompanied by a new and fair settlement that applies to all parts of our United Kingdom. In Wales, there are proposals to give the Welsh government and Assembly more powers. And I want Wales to be at the heart of the debate on how to make our United Kingdom work for all our nations. In Northern Ireland, we must work to ensure that the devolved institutions function effectively.

“I have long believed that a crucial part missing from this national discussion is England. We have heard the voice of Scotland - and now the millions of voices of England must also be heard. The question of English votes for English laws – the so-called West Lothian question – requires a decisive answer.

And, vitally, all of this

So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland.

This was the key and clear crux of what Cameron said and what the Scots heard. It won't be forgiven. Not in this generation nor in the next. This is their third strike. I wonder if there will be any Tory MP's again in Westminster next year.

Now let's be clear here. The three stooges promised Scotland something. They promised nobody else Anything.

So to interweave what the Scots are to have with demands for change in all the other areas of the UK is seen as a stalling and delaying tactic to save the ass of someone who promised something which they were not empowered to give. The UK government did not promise anything. The leaders of the parties made a promise without consulting their members.

There was a clear promise. Agreement in November followed by first vote in January, followed by legislation on the statue book in this parliament. By adding in what amounts to federalism, into something which was a promise to Scotland alone, they give themselves an out on that delivery timeline, because it's not possible to agree it all. Which means no legislation in this government.

You mentioned that it's not "more powers". You still see it from an English view. Now take it as a Scots view or an Irish view or a Welsh view. England already has all the power it needs. All they need to do is make their mind up and nothing the rest of the UK can do will stop them.

As such, giving them the power to enact legislation which is damaging to the rest of the UK, without any representation from the rest of the UK, is giving England even more power on top of the overwhelming power they already have.

Don't think it won't be seen any other way outside of Englandshire.

[Suff]

On the Labour point I predicted what the referendum would do to them a while ago. It has split families right down the middle. Now they've been lied to by their own.

Labour is in a world of pain and it's getting worse. They underestimated Cameron and now they're paying the price.

[Suff]

Of course we now hear that

Cameron has handed the wider issues of constitutional reform over to a committee headed by William Hague, which has been told to report back within months.

If he is going to live up to the promise he made, then he doesn't have "Months". The clock is ticking, feet are tapping, It's nearly Sunday. Nothing is better. But it's getting worse as each new word is said....

I'm going to be walking around with a permanent smile soon if this continues. I was asked at work what would happen if there was a No vote. I told them that if the stooges lived up to their promises, then it might keep the question away for the next 50 years or so. However I said that if they delayed and did not deliver it would resurface around the end of the next parliament or slightly later.

Given what is going on today, it may resurface in the next 2 years. If it does, it will be by popular acclaim and will be a Yes vote by quite a large margin.

That is what Cameron and the rest are playing with today. That is the danger of lies and dismissiveness north of the border. If it comes up in 2 years then the Union is toast. If they can eak it out for a decade, they'll get a whole new decades worth of voters who don't know which end is up.

[shazsha]

Shaz, it is saddening to see both you and Suff so angry and bitter. The referendum is over. How and why the result came about cannot be changed. The situation as it is now has to be worked with, like it or not. The danger of Yes voters being angry and bitter, especially for those who make the decisions, is that they might be blinded to things which in the long term could be to their advantage under the new system.

There is not going to be another referendum coming along any time soon, so it is best to work on but never to forget.

I am angry and bitter, WM, but it's not an anger and bitterness that will rule my life. In fact, on reading further today, I think the bitterness is easing towards the no voters, but the anger is hardening towards Westminster.

I'm not as clued up politically as you and Suff, and could never debate or on the same level. However a lot of what Suff has said above I recognise and agree with especially where he said;

I was asked at work what would happen if there was a No vote. I told them that if the stooges lived up to their promises, then it might keep the question away for the next 50 years or so. However I said that if they delayed and did not deliver it would resurface around the end of the next parliament or slightly later.

Given what is going on today, it may resurface in the next 2 years. If it does, it will be by popular acclaim and will be a Yes vote by quite a large margin

I think a lot of undecided and/or wavering Yes voters decided to take what they saw as the safe No vote because they believed that change would come and it would come quickly. Some of them may have been unrealistic, in a time scale, but they seriously thought that the change would be implemented within a couple of months maximum.

That obviously isn't going to happen and around me I see people waking up to that and feeling aggrieved.

I know that living in Glasgow my views/feelings may be magnified but already there appears to be a massive backlash against Labour and I think they are definitely going to bear the brunt, in lost votes, at the next elections. Those votes are going to be picked up mainly by the SNP and I really think the Independence issue isn't just going to go away quietly.

I believe Cameron & Co thought that a few rash promises could be given, the No vote won, and then they could take their time implementing their own interpretation of them and that the Scottish people would just accept it. I don't see that happening.

As an aside, re England's devolution/independence/whatever. If the English people want that then I'm fully supportive of their right to seek, and implement it if so chosen. Magnanimously I won't even accuse them of hating the Scots or demand that a wall be built to contain them

[Suff]

Shaz, I don't know about you but I believe that a majority of the Scots, >55%, really wanted some kind of change. I think that the latter stages of the No campaign began to raise their awareness that if they voted No absolutely nothing was going to change. Hence, finally, the push towards Yes in the last two weeks.

I also believe that, like a drowning man, at least 15% of them grabbed the tree branch that was thrown in for them to grab hold of. Desperately hoping that this would keep their hope afloat until they could reach dry land.

Today I think the vast majority of those who grabbed that log in desperation are now beginning to realise that it was rotten to the core, hollow and is breaking up around them. They see their hope starting to sink and will, without a doubt, be drowned this time.

As the months go on there is going to be anger. Lots and lots of anger. It's going to overflow at the polls and the bitterness is going to totally encompass Scottish Politics.

The nice thing for you and me is that we won't have to be bitter. In fact we can be magnanimous and a sounding board for those who have become dissolutioned. Millipede and Brown may have thought they dived into the cesspit and came out with a bunch of fine smelling roses. But only to find that Cameron is standing there with a crop sprayer filled with petrol and a lighted candle.....

The best thing the Yes voters can do is shrug, smile, listen and say "Well if you don't like it you know what to do the next time the question is asked". Because there will be a next time. I have no doubt about it. Westminster had a chance to close this issue for good for this half of this century. Instead they chose to push their own personal agendas.

In my estimation, not only did they not close it, they fuelled the debate to a whole new level. They would have done better to let it run it's course and not intervene. Whilst it would be fanciful in the extreme to think that every ward could go SNP in the next election, it may be possible to see 35 SNP MP's in Westminster in May. That, I am absolutely sure, is something very few outside of Scotland would like to see......

[Workingman]

I am going back to:

You missed the most important point of all. All the rest was just justification.

“It is absolutely right that a new and fair settlement for Scotland should be accompanied by a new and fair settlement that applies to all parts of our United Kingdom.

I didn't miss it, I just do not see how it is controversial for all to be treated fairly. I certainly did not miss any of the other quotes as I included them, or part of, in my post.

So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland

I obviously disagree with your interpretation and I qualified my inclusion of that quote by saying that Cameron had pinned his colours to the mast and could be challenged. That is certainly what is happening, especially with the English question. Everybody recognises that this problem needs more time to iron out the complications. It is so complex that it will probably require the setting up of an Electoral Commission to look at all options. Those options will probably then have to be put to the English in a referendum of the "This, or this or this?" type and maybe with an element of second preference pro-rep thrown in.

That, however, does not mean Scottish devo-max being put on the back-burner, far from it. Nobody in their right mind would accept that - note "right mind". The most likely scenario is for Scots devo-max to be on the fast track whilst Wales and NI take the commuter line as the English "solution" is pushed in the sidings for copious applications of axle grease until a Deltic is found to drag it back to the main line.

I am also opposed to the "more powers for the English" line. Nothing could be further from the truth. The English already have the power. Their parliament is already the de facto and de jure parliament of the UK, how much more power could they possibly want? The strength of the main parties in England make it impossible for the Welsh, NI and Scottish to formal bloc to stop them. Due to part affiliations the could also not form a coherent coalition..... and that has always been the problem, for us all. The irony of all this is that with the power the English have fewer options. When devo-ma comes in Scotland will take over Welfare and as such can ditch the bedroom tax. We English have to put up and shut up.

Those things are why Ossie and I were discussing alternatives to the status quo. Many ideas are being looked at to prevent England always being top dog. They are a bit "out there" at the moment, but their time may come. Unfortunately politicians, the media and political commentators are stuck in the opaque Westminster bubble and cannot see anything beyond tinkering with the same old. Hopefully their bubble is about to burst.

As for a new referendum: it is not on. Cameron the SNP and Salmond have all made that clear. The on just held was a "once in a lifetime" or "once in a generation" event.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) was elected in Scotland in 2011 and promised a referendum on independence. We could have blocked that; we could have put it off, but just as with other big issues, it was right to take - not duck - the big decision.

I am a passionate believer in our United Kingdom – I wanted more than anything for our United Kingdom to stay together.

But I am also a democrat. And it was right that we respected the SNP’s majority in Holyrood and gave the Scottish people their right to have their say.

Let us also remember why it was right to ask the definitive question, Yes or No. Because now the debate has been settled for a generation or as Alex Salmond has said, perhaps for a lifetime.

So there can be no disputes, no re-runs – we have heard the settled will of the Scottish people.

But it is not just what was agreed and said, there are other reasons for no immediate new referendum. Cameron is about to be ousted, certainly after the next GE. In his place could come the wacky Johnson or the power mad Grove. Johnson is a maverick and Grove does not like to be challenged and it is not beyond either of them to carry out what you, Suff, mentioned in another thread. You pointed out that the government had suspended Stormont and could do the same to the Scottish parliament. I do not think Cameron would, but I would not put it past the other two.

There is also the way Labour could be treated in Scotland. If it is decimated and takes the blame for the failure of the Yes vote, it could well be obstructive of future referendum claims. If, by some fluke, it manages to form a government of its own, or in a coalition for LibDems and Greens, it could well refuse to put in place the required legislation to make any referendum legally binding.

Then there is the Scottish parliament problem. It has always been elected on about a 50% turnout. Even if Yes campaigners get in with 100% of the seats elected on 100% of votes cast, a world first, even Syria and N. Korea don't get those results, it would still be barely a mandate form the Scottish people. The more likely scenario is of a normal simple majority with the winners getting the highest percentage of votes cast in each seat - maybe a 20% mandate. Given that situation the UK government could say: "Fine have a referendum, have one every week, go knock yourselves out, but we are not going to recognise any of them. What then for Scotland, a Unilateral Declaration of Independence? The world already has a Zimbabwe, it does not need another.

I have said a few times, only to be dismissed or ignored, that the best option now is for all sides to work together. Defiance in defeat is fine, as Churchill noted, but it has to be tempered with pragmatism. At the moment the Yes camp is not displaying that pragmatism.

Out of interest I got my atlas out and could not find Englandshire. I guess it only exists in the minds of a new group that has appeared during the referendum, the Little Scotlanders.

And with that I will now put my thoughts on unchangeable past referendums to bed.