the party's over

You know well that the neocon economic era did not start with Thatcher, but with her predecessor Callaghan in 1976. His government swung to bankers' cuts and bankers' rule. In the face of bankers' games with the pound it failed to sustain financial independence even for Britain. Tony Crosland said of underwriting council budgets "The party's over." In the present, how much harder was it supposed to be to sustain financial independence for Scotland, and without it even having its own currency at all? The oil price plummeting.

Now for the SNP the party's over. The end of the council tax freeze won't bite jn time for the election, because it's put off for a year, so you are supposed to think it's never coming. But as you have seen across the front pages today, all except the National of course, the SNP budget has set a bomb of hammering rises beyond inflation, 3%, next year, to hit you like a released spring.

This instead of using Scotland's national tax power redistributively as Labour is standing for, and in a narrower single issue way the Lib Dems are too. SNP position is an embarrassment in contrast to them. So that SNP policy is austerity, and Labour's policy is redistribute and spend on need.

Scotland's much-claimed progressive voters have had a crappy history of taking several elections to make culture shifts when the progressive ground moves away from where their voting habits are. They stayed with Labour throughout the New Labour period then moved away from Labour on grounds of the memory of New Labour but aftet it was actually over. That was absurd. It's time to catch up. There is nothing progressive in voting SNP this time.

Sturgeon's campaign hubris blew it

HOW ARE THE NATS NOW GOING TO COPE WITH THE SPECTACLE THAT THEIR OWN ACTIONS EXTINGUISHED THE GOVERNMENT THEY WERE HOPING TO CREATE AND GOT THE TORIES BACK IN?

THE HUBRIS OF BOASTING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO DICTATE TO A LABOUR GOVERNMENT AND FORCE IT TO DO A LIST OF GOODIES? WHEN YOU FORCED THE ISSUE OF THOSE CLAIMS, IN THE CAMPAIGN AND THE DEBATES, YOU FRIGHTENED VOTERS IN ENGLAND AWAY. YOU ENABLED THE TORIES TO SCARE THEM THAT YOU COULD FORCE THE UNION FURTHER APART IF LABOUR GOT IN. THOUGH YOU COULDN'T DO THAT, VOTERS BELIEVED IT AND FELT SAFER BY NOT ALLOWING THERE TO BE A GOVERNMENT INFLUENCED BY YOU AT ALL, AND RAN HOME TO THE TORIES AT THE LIKELY BLOODSTAINED COST WE ALL KNOW.

AFTER THIS DAY OF ELECTORAL SPASM WENT FOR YOU, THIS HISTORY WILL HANG OVER YOU THROUGH THE NEAR FUTURE. YOUR ACTIONS TOOK AWAY THE GOVERNMENT YOU DREAMED OF, FROM ALL OF BRITAIN: TOOK AWAY AT THE BRINK OF HAPPENING THE TANGIBLE CHANCE OF THE MOST EGALITARIAN GOVERNMENT SINCE BEFORE THATCHER, SINCE THE ONE YOU PUT OUT IN 1979, AND SUBSTITUTED THE WORST CASE INSTEAD.

within 3 days of losing they rewrite the rules

Referendums are part of our constitution for any change in the governing system big enough to be a constitutional change. That has been well established since the 90s, since the present post-Thatcher wave of constitutional reform got going - but the precedent's establishing can be traced back to the first EU referendum in 1975. For which Tony Benn, though his side lost that vote, was credited with adding referendums to our constitution.

3 days after losing this referendum, Salmond and Sillars are talking of dropping the need to have one, and considering an election win for pro-indy parties in 2016 to establish secession on its own. No longer want to have to hold a referendum after the experience of losing this one.

It is neither legal to declare UDI, nor constitutional to do it only 20 months after losing a referendum. If they actually do this, the population of Scotland will be put in a civil war type dilemma between which state to hold is legit here and to affiliate to. Will we end up like Cyprus with populations fleeing to either side of a green wall or getting trapped in a rogue state against their will with loss of international rights?

To suddenly write of such prospects evokes disbelief in peaceful familiar Britain - so remember nobody imagined the Northern Ireland troubles before they slipped into them very quickly. We have lived through exceptional days of constitutional instability recently and now we have 20 months' notice to take a position on the rights and wrongs of ref losers announcing a unilateral constitutional change abolishing what they lost only 3 days after they lost it. This is getting mad. This is not a democratic movement this is getting ever more fanatical on the tide of mob emotion they stirred up. As the dream falls from their hands, they clutch out after it.

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/salmond-we-don-t-need-referendum-for-independence-1-3548270
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/513637/Salmond-s-plan-for-indy-coup-as-he-claims-independence-possible-without-new-poll?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-uk-news+(Daily+Express+%3A%3A+UK+Feed)

Trust it to be Sillars, the most extreme and racist of the leading nat voices, the same one as made that threat against No-voting businessfolks before the poll. That they lost, by a bigger margin than the polls had said, indicating there was a shy No's effect or a drawing back from the brink like in Quebec, was a morally great statement for democracy against intimidation and peer pressure. Long to be commemorated.

Never again, "for at least a generation", will voting SNP feel like a normal party choice. From now on it will be a vote for the intimidatory movement who frightened the country out of putting "No" posters in their windows then who began hunting for ways round democracy within 3 days after they lost.

Britain has clear notice of the nats' ravings, anyway. 20 months to prevent an illegal civil rebellion and a drift into violent troubles.

"Alex Salmond lost. It is not for him to try to overthrow the will of the Scottish people in some sort of coup." - Johann Lamont

What to party for?

The partiers in Glasgow are right emotionally but they miss the point. We all pop our clogs, and unlike many folks, including for reasons of avoidable economic hardship under all governments in the neocon era she started, Thatcher lived to a full age anyone would be well satisfied with. That was a win for her. It is hardly a circumstance of death that there is anything in to celebrate. What's more, she took her leave of us with the huge satisfaction of being surrounded by disability welfare cuts and the media tough-talking us through a major depression, pushing the line that austerity is necessary and still on her side over economics even after the crash of 2008.

They are not pushing the voices who remind us that this is contrary to history and has a history of not working, which we are repeating. They only occasionally get heard buried long into the most serious radio current affairs slots when only the most intelligent and politically caring listeners are still istening, when the audience is lowest. Her death with neocon ideas still ruling and still pushed with a heavy hand by the tabloids, takes away the possibility that she would ever have to answer to the neocon system's end and a full properly complete exposing of all its human costs. That is a loss, not a gain. There would have been value against her ideas in her continued life until the neocon consensus ever ends.

The clear rebuttal to all the hard left voices whose regrets for her survival have gone as far as to sound sympathetic to terrorism, is that if she had been assassinated her ghost and supporters could always claim she would have gone on successfully for as long as she wished and never have fallen. Far better was scored against her ideas by her living to fall as she did at her own party's hands in 1990. Further to which, we all have our safety very ill served by those morally unscrupulous leading media voices who wrongly give the murder of Ian Gow any credit towards Thatcher's fall because they don't want ordinary people in the form of the anti-poll tax campaign to be seen to have achieved anything. Those media voices should be pursued criminally by the powers against encouraging terrorism.

We must not be conned by Salmond to read voting Yes as a vote against the neocon path originating from Thatcher. Without anywhere near enough public attention on it, he is sneaking in a measure against civil liberties that she never did, a charge for criminal defence even when you come out innocent. From his side too comes the tragedy of Thatcher's send off being the whole political class hammering us with money injustices. This measure of justice regression by Macaskill totally takes away the prospect that independence would end that.

At a time of austerity and with new measures against disability benefit starting from the same day as Thatcher died, there will be a public spending of £5 million on her funeral. Some very sensible folks have already pointed out that her biggest fans could afford to pay for this privately and her funeral should be privatised. If it angers you, contrast it not only with the British economic policy but with Macaskill undermining your democratic liberties and securities in pursuit of saving less than the political class routinely accept should be spent on Thatcher's funeral.

I want some more

Margo Macdonald and Patrick Harvie are wrong. It's like we are Oliver Twist and they are taking away our second helping, our second question.

Their motives against the second question are openly to increase the stakes for their preferred side, Yes, on the first question, which they think will make them more likely to win. That they think so is only a fallacy of true faith nationalism, it is an unproven act of faith and the polls make it look just as likely their tactics will backfire. The voters are already obviously growingly unsure towards Yes, so they may feel even more unsure if they know that the Yes side is holding them to ransom to vote Yes by depriving them of a second question. they may then vote No. They may be put off Yes by this picture of the forces behind it.

The recent experience of the AV referendum showed how easily a doubt about the character of the proposed change will make voters feel safer to run back into their caves to the devil they know and vote No. Holding voters to ransom to reject the option that you think they are worst off with did not work for Labour in its hard left controlled period in the 1980s, when twice the hard left believed voters would be forced to vote for hard left policies when the alternative was Thatcher, and on a British scale at least, they voted for Thatcher.

A second question is fairer to voters. It gives us a more complete say, a complete range of options. Suspect anyone who takes it away.

But we ain't falling for a mystery tour to nowhere

Let's at least join with Salmond in saying nobody is going to swallow from Cameron a meaningless lure with no content, vote No then gamble on what I might do by surprise. We remember what happened when Home said exactly this in 1979: his word broken by Thatcher and 20 years of nothing. It's not devo max he's promising, that is all he has told us about it. It's some undisclosed mystery less than that. Proper salesmen show us the product before we pay, and proper customers don't buy spivvy noncommittal mysteries whose details they are not told.