It may have been a cynical ploy but it's happened and plenty of them were engaged so there is a debate to be had. Personally I don't really care, i'm just living up to my name.
With all due respect in 15-20 years time (at most) when the 65+ fizzle out the Yes' WILL be in the majority.
You're assuming that everyone that voted yes now will still vote yes then and than all of the new voters, some of whom are yet to be born, won't vote no.
"With all due respect in 15-20 years time (at most) when the 65+ fizzle out the Yes' WILL be in the majority." And the current 45-50 yr olds will become the next 65+ . And have the same concerns then as their predecessors have now.
And in 20 years time the experienced people will make the same correct decision, which is No to independence.
Seven ages of man and all that. You have to understand that what are the aspirations/concerns of kids, are not those of adults etc.
Look nobody on here predicted we would lose to WBA so don't expect me to believe that any of us can predict what is to happen in 15 or 20 years time.
On the contrary there will be considerably more people who are 65+ . The UK as a whole and Scotland in particular, has an ageing population. Also the nos will come with a decent campaign next time. The fact that the yes's campaign was so superior and they still lost by 10% speaks volumes. The Nos will not be so complacent in the event of another referendum.
Sorry chirpy they do not have an argument. They weren't complacent that were just covering that fact. They will have even less of an argument in years to come. Try it! put an argument together that keeps Scotland in the union.The only one is FEAR of change and that is what they successfully used. It won't work next time.
I think the biggest vote loser for the "Yes" campaign was that they did not have answers for the biggest questions :- What currency will they use? Will they be able to stay in the EU without reapplying for membership? How many large employers will move out of Scotland due to the risks? People need certainty, or at least a plausible answer.
"David Cameron doesn't think he can carry his own backbenchers, never mind the threat from UKIP, unless he links Scottish progress to changes in England," Mr Salmond said. "Ed Miliband doesn't want to do that because Labour would lose their majority over English business in the House of Commons. That is the logjam the Westminster leaders got themselves into. "There is a big issue there, but shouldn't they have thought of that before they made a solemn vow and pledge to the Scottish people." ----------- Alex Salmond once again spot on.
There is nothing the Scots can do if all party leaders renege on their promises is there? This all goes back to those useless pinheads in the Labour government tampering with the stability of it all in the first place. Now in the main there hasn't been a ripple of discontent amongst the English in protest about this unfair load of crap known as devolution has there so I doubt very much that when all the dust settles there'll be any ripples again. If Cameron gave no devolved powers to England we'd just shrug because those who want it are in the minority and we are not a nation of sniveling little cry babies like the Scotch or the Welsh for that matter. Now, what would satisfy the English about devolution? Too difficult to say so why don't we have a referendum in England to see if we want independence and if the answer is yes then the Scots will be an independent nation won't they? Now if Cameron gives us a referendum in 2017 about Europe he could ask the two questions at the same time. "Do you want to be in Europe and do you want independence for England? Could work.
Which beggars the question, is Salmond being wise after the event? If he was so sure this would happen, he should have brought it up before the referendum!
Probably correct because in the face of the onslaught from MSM and Westminster out voice did not get through to pensioners who use TV and MSM for their info. The fact remains that we have the answers, you just did not hear them.
All I remember him saying was that it was all too late, why are they doing it now, etc. Nothing about Cameron using the Englsh devolution question to try and nulify Labour. Or Milliband's predictable reaction.
Scottish devolution pledge stands insists No 10 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29300084 The reason Salmond (and others) are attempting to suggest Westminster are back tracking, is because they are feeling bruised and defeated so any sort of delay and they try and use it as a way to keep their "Voice" heard, when the changes are happening, they may not move in the exact manner or speed, as stated but the changes in power for Scotland will happen , just its more complicated then just saying "these are the changes, here you go".
Salmond had many many chances to answer these questions, but could not give a convincing reply. 1) currency - he said the pound, but all 3 parties said we couldn't possibly have the same currency as a separate country without monetary union. The UK pound is issues by the bank of England and guaranteed by them. The Scots could have had the pound, but as it is today i.e. the Scottish pound. 2) EU membership. My understanding is that every new member has to have a unanimous yes from all existing members. The Spanish came out and said they would not accept an independent Scotland as an immediate new member, probably due to their own internal independence demands from the Catalans. For an independent Scotland to become an EU member could have taken 8 years. 3) When RBS goes public stating that they would move jobs/business south of the new border following a yes vote, its pretty hard to argue its not going to happen. I think the SNP missed a real chance for independence - they should have demanded a vote to have included the whole of the UK. I think the groundswell of feeling in England for fair treatment shows that many in England would have preferred the Scots to go their own way.
Well yes, he would say that, wouldn't he? But to suggest that he foresaw the current problem, is completely wrong.
