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.

Haha! I'd have been interested what my grandmother would have thought. She came here in '47, a war bride. My mom was born over there in '43 and I haven't even talked to her about it yet. How silly of me.

** No wonder you are such an anglophile.  :-P

I was definitely being extreme in my analogy.

But in terms of marriage if one person wants out then why should the other have a say in the actual separation?

Of course the break up of assets, finances etc they'll have a large say, but not the actual end of the relationship.

I want to know why he feels the need to resign. He tried, it didn't work. Get over it and keep doing your job. If it's because the SNP feel they've missed something important, they should call an election. Like what labour should've done in 2007

The man deserves a rest. He's been instrumental in achieving an improbable amount.

Also the party's going to need to kinda rebrand for a while I'd imagine and that'd be much easier with a new leader.

Maybe he doesn't want to be FM of a non-independent country? Similar thing happened here, after the Quebec referendum of 1995. The premier of the province at the time, Jacques Parizeau, resigned after the Yes side lost because he didn't want to be FM of a province - he wanted to be the leader of a country.

Meh. There was always the possibility that they were going to lose. He should see out the job he's been elected to do. I deserve a rest too but I'm not wealthy enough to be able to

Other than what Jon already said, you seem to assume that the rUK would interfere with Scotland's right to secede. But what about rUK's right to get rid of the whinging fuckers? Eh?

Instead of a free rUK, now there'll be another 10-15 years of whining from north of the border before another referendum. Hopefully next time all voters will be involved, as in democracy, and the fekkers will be kicked out. They can keep their fucking oil (what's left of it bwahahahahah).

There is opportunity for you there if you have the cajones for it. Start your own referendum to kick the whinging fuckers out!

Or are you whinging because they had the temerity to do something about a situation, that at least from their point of view, is not right?

Thems what asks is thems what gets. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I look forward to the referendum, perhaps it will be as riveting as the last one was.

Jon's analogy, which I answered, is not at all similar to Scotland.

All that's needed is an open, all-inclusive referendum or a revolution. But individual, exclusive referenda solve nothing.

As a half-blood, I was half-hoping yes would win, and half-dreading what might follow if it did. Disappointed.