interesting that "Teh" got the result pretty much spot on

>For all your posturing over the rights of democracy

Not entirely sure what that means and I don't think I've ever done that.

> you don't seem to be too fazed that (a) the future of the UK was not decided by all of its citizens

The future of Scotland was decided by Scotland. Had they voted Yes then the rest of the UK could've decided their own future. What Kos said.

>that in a pathetic attempt to appease the minority, the political leader of all persuasions pretty much sold rUK down the river.

No idea why you think we've been sold down the river.

>And then you criticise the US democratic process. Odd, no?

What's odd about it?

 

I'm not sure - there's already a vocal Tory rebellion on granting any more powers, but the risk the Big Three parties run is that if they weasel out of it, the Scottish electorate could swing away from Labour to the SNP, with the SNP taking the position of "the people voted No to independence, but they're still voting for us, so they obviously want something".

I think rUK should have had the vote as to whether Scotland should be allowed to stay. The way it was run, only a minority was given the opportunity to vote on the union, and that's hardly democracy. It's all a matter of perspective, init?

But there was no mandate from that from our parties.

No, they just took it upon themselves to run around like headless chickens, and make promises without discussing with those annoying little proles. You know, the likes of you.

David Cameron, to Alex Salmond: "Take me, take me big boy"
Ed Milliband, to Alex Salmond: "Take me, take me big boy"
The guy from the LibDems, to anyone who'd listen: "bock bock bock"

Looks like teh voted pretty much as Scotland did. As others have noted, hardly a win when pretty much half the population is left unhappy. Hopefully the powers that be take note.

edit: bah, Jon said the same - I need to read to the end before posting!!!

How could you possibly say the all of UK had the right to allow Scotland to secede? That would have decidedly put those favour of independence at a complete and futile disadvantage. Would it have been right to have had a vote in Britain to allow America to dissolve the British rule? I thought it amazing the number of people that were allowed to vote.

I don't see the vote result as a defeat for supporters of independence. This is an historic win for them because the vote was very close. It is a loss for all of the UK however if real change for better Scottish representation does not occur. Not rheteric like we got with Hopey Changy obama, but real progress and real representation for the needs of Scotland.

I am puzzled by this statement by Cameron: What exactly does he mean by that? I could take that a couple of ways. I am sure you have a better handle on it over there; I came in way late in the game.

Thank God that the voice for independence did not require a battle as it did with our American Revolution. The Scots are to be praised for their efforts, a wonderful show of democracy in action. The U.S. and many other united nations ought to look at this as a sign that there ia a need to do better, particularly the United States. Our representatives are doing more in self preservation and for their individual states than they are for the good of Country.

The voter turnout is most impressive. The U.S. has never had voter turnout that high, even though we fought a bloody war for the right to do so. In local elections we are lucky to have 40%, national elections perhaps mid sixties (if our statistics are correct which is doubtful either way). Our voters are apathetic, even during polarised elections such as 2008 and 2012 were; a large percentage likely had no idea what they were voting for. When presented with the opponents platform as their own candidates, many were seen on videos as supportive of the opposite position. they voted for a milestone.

Hail to the Scots! May the vote send a message to the UK that the Scottish have voice and are not afraid to use it.

And I'd say they better get it. As I said a few moments ago, this should be a wake up call to ALL Republics and Democracies that "united" should actually mean something for everyone involved, not just many or most.

Regarding turn out I think it was particularly high for two reasons.

1. People cared about the result
2. They knew their vote counted

Such a shame we didn't vote in favour of the Alternative Vote here in the UK. Whilst it wasn't the best form of Proportional Representation it was a step in the right direction in terms of electoral reform.

Well sheeeeeeiiiiiiittttttt, I was pulling for team yes!

The U.S. "Democratic" process, for as good as it might be in some respects is exceedingly flawed which is why Lucy crticises it and is quite right in doing so.

Basically in the U.S. we have two kinds of people that are a combination of several factors: voters and non-voters; relatively informed and relatively uninformed; emotional and logical; pro-union (as in labour) and anti-union; and so on.

The categories could be endless and there are commonalities in the combinations that sort of define the typical Democrat and the typical Republican. Where it becomes a problem is when the low information voters use a single issue to define their entire vote. Politicans cater to this and try to appear to be the most appealing to the most number of people on single issues; it isn't as simple as it seems because they have to try to do it in such a way as to not really tip their hand for total support or rejection of a topic. Nobody lays out their entire platform becasue they'd lose votes that way. Then they do as much as they can for themselves to stay in power and try to bribe their constituents with their own tax money in the form of projects.

If we called city inhabitants Democrats in Scotland and suburbanites Republicans in Scotland, that would fairly accurately show how the vote went in America for prezbo. That's why he won, appeal to large population centers. Also, prezbo won much more of the young, idealistic vote (against young idealists voting republican) which is probably similar to the demographic voting for secession. In the Scottish scenario I see their vote as probably more defining and beneficial (potentially) in end results than defeat would indicate. At least I hope so.

if your wife asked for a separation you wouldn't want to be involved?

Scotland and the UK isn't a marriage though. I don't really feel like analogies are helpful on this one. 

Idealist, romantic, prick! It is none of your business!

Actually that is how I voted in the poll. The knee jerk reaction is to say yes. But without a full foundation for continuance after the vote and all the ramifications involved it would seem to be more emotional than practical. I think if they work out details in advance of the next vote, perhaps there is success the next time around. Or perhaps if Britain follows through on promises to give more power to Edinburgh, they won't feel the need to have another vote.

Milko is probably right on this one.

But let's see it as an abusive relationship. Should the abused have to seek permission from the abuser to end the marriage?

I am not getting the concepts but I think it was because I was up too early Thursday morning and to sleep too late this morning following the vote.

Actually, I think Milko is probably right too

I don't think this has been an abusive relationship, I think Scotland has been treated pretty well and I am glad to see a majority of them think so too

I just see it as an anomaly that, when the possible result was break up of the union, 92% of the members were not involved in the decision

I know I don't have any ties currently, and I guess it is a romantic pick!  My grams came from Scotland when she was but a wee lass.  I'm pretty sure I've posted the boarding pass here in the past from their adventures to America.  I think she was 7 when they came here.  She passed away two years ago but I can still hear her slightly accented voice!  It said vote yes!

Artful, but it isn't the same at all.

I'd suspect that if my wife wanted separation, my vote would not really count anyway. Plus, she is catholic so she would want an annulment vs separation or divorce, but she'd never get an annulment if I had anything to say about it. Annulments are, as you lot say, bollocks. Church-santioned divorce to salve a conscience via a "donation" to the church of $1200.00 or more (likely way more today) is ridiculous. It is all about the money.

Two people who marry should have worked out their differences prior and made a concerted wffort at communication and commitment along the way. I took the oath of marriage seriously; I did not have to marry, I chose to. It is an ethereal thing, a marriage, one that too many take lightly or don't truly believe in in the first place. For some it is a thing to do or a societal license to have children. I have heard many men say that and more. If I hadn't believed in the sanctity of marriage, I would not have participated in one.

If my wife wanted a separation, in a theoretical sense, why would I want a vote? If she doesn't want me any more, I don't want her. That isn't a "vote", it is resignation to a reality.

In the Scottish sense, they are separate from England because of devolution as I understand it. It is I think quite a bit more complicated an arrangement than our States because the U.S. Supreme Court has determined secession is uncontitutional, although the U.S. Constitution does not specifically address the issue. This more came about as a result of the Civil War.

I have to admit being rather ignorant about the Scottish situation. I'd welcome more explanation on Scots and their desires to be independent. Fascinating historical event and hardly much on it here. Most people here probably don't even know about the Declaration of Arbroath as I didn't before the other day, upon which our own Declaration was based.