Nicola Sturgeon says the SNP will vote on English laws

What they were selling was as close to identical to what we already have as possible. The only difference I could see was that there would be a border (but an open one, so things wouldn't be any different to how they are now) between Scotland and England and the politicians in charge would be based in Holyrood rather than Westminster.

It was about nationalism - division and power - rather than a fundamentally fairer society.

Hardly. They would have had control over budgets. They would have had governments that were always representative of how Scotland votes. They would have removed nuclear weapons.

Even still, people are confusing the SNP and people who support independence

Hardly. They would have had control over budgets. They would have had governments that were always representative of how Scotland votes. They would have removed nuclear weapons.

Even still, people are confusing the SNP and people who support independence

Not the 'not all independance supporters are on the snp' brigade.

The YeSNP had to resort to blatant lies to gain support.

What?

What are you confused about? The myth that somewhere out there there was a huge body of non snp supporters intent on voting yes? Or the fact that the YeSNP had to resort to blatant lies to further their aim?

It is not a myth

You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder over this

The fact that Salmond lied about legal advice about the EU? Peddled a myth about protecting the nhs whilst increasing PFI and reducing spending on it. Oraybe the farcical second oil boom and oil fund.

What has this got to do with any of my points in this thread?

Merely addressing your points from a few posts back, but we'll keep the post on track from now on.

They would have removed nuclear weapons.

UK elections are representative of how Scotland votes to a good approximation. You may argue it isn't a good enough approximation, which is more plausible after than during a 13 year run of Scottish Labour Prime Ministers with landslide majorities. But I still find it pretty implausible, since on all the obvious points of contention (NATO, EU, Euro, Schengen, monarchy, etc.) the SNP's position has been that it will be business as usual and vociferously attacked anyone who said otherwise.

That seems to be the only policy they can agree on. Yet when we think of it, what's the reason? Is it 1. they believe the UK is run by genocidal maniacs who are going to unleash a nuclear Armageddon and must be stopped at all costs or 2. the UK is run by reasonable people but they will be forced into a nuclear
exchange eventually - and if the base isn't in Scotland, Scotland would be just fine in such a case?

Or perhaps it is 3. we know that Trident is useful without ever needing to be used, but we also know that we'd continue to enjoy all the protections of an English Trident (note: we're going to still be in NATO and if NATO says otherwise then they are unionists and liars) without having to pay for it?

That is not good enough representation. It is not fair on the rest of the UK either. Again you are confusing the Yes campaign with what the SNP wanted.

Who agrees on? The reason I have is pretty clear. They are a waste of ****ing money and I'd much rather spend it on other things. Even still, I don't want them to move to England, I want them off the face of the planet.

Many yes voters don't want to stay in Nato etc. And they are not useful in the slightest

As I've said the vast majority of Yes voters don't take the positions you take. Salmond calculated that the best strategy was to present as few changes as possible. He repeatedly stated that Scotland would be in NATO, even arguing the point with NATO's own leadership! If the Yes campaign had been run by the SSP or the SWP then the No campaign wouldn't have needed to bother getting out of bed.

I don't mean this as a criticism of the SSP or SWP btw; I think their positions were much more principled than that of the SNP. But the SNP's strategy was the only one that had a chance of succeeding.

I question this statement. The SNP has 100,000 people in membership. 1.6 million people voted Yes

I genuinely believe the yes was fundamentally a grass roots campaign mainly supported by working class people who wanted change.

I genuinely believe the yes was fundamentally a grass roots campaign mainly supported by working class people who wanted change.

I think this is backwards - I suspect that support for radically changed institutions reduces as involvement reduces, from SWP/SSP and other minority parties, to SNP, to casual yes voters. If the SNP (who effectively controlled the Yes campaign - very little was reported that didn't come from them) had advocated for withdrawal from NATO, the pound, the EU, etc. they would have been more enthusiastically supported by the fringe parties but polled much worse with floating voters.

It's simply not plausible to me that Salmond chose to expend so much effort insisting on his particular narrative for NATO, the currency, and the EU if the only result of that were to leave votes on the table.

But there was very little change actually on offer. I think there were a variety of factors that convinced 1.6 million Scots to vote for independence, but "genuine change" was only a small one.

What do you think the main one was?

I don't think there was a single "main" one. I think a dislike of Westminster, a dislike of the English, and a desire for a larger welfare state were the largest ones.