BBC calls it. Scotland votes NO, 55-45

[MohRokTah]

That's pretty much the nail in the coffin for Scotland Independence.

[Ken Burch]

1. Well, for now.

If Cameron doesn't give Scotland the new powers he promised last week, there will be another referendum.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Those are unlikely before the next parliament.

And it'll probably be Miliband, then, and not Cameron.

[theHandpuppet]

5. Do the Scots really think they will ever see these "new powers"?

If so, I have a bridge to sell....

[Ken Burch]

11. It's hard to tell if that won the day

or whether it was the threats of job losses from corporations supposedly pulling out of Scotland after a "Yes".

It was some combination of bribes and blackmail.

If Cameron appeases the "Longshanks was right" faction of his MPs(which is most of them), he'll provoke another referendum

A lot of Scots voted "No" through gritted teeth, I suspect.

[MohRokTah]

6. Cameron cannot act unilaterally

Scotland will never be given preferential treatment.

[Ken Burch]

12. He needs to couple it with an English Parliament(or regional assemblies for England)

and there needs to be a renewed push for proportional representation in Westminster elections. The current model, first-past-the-post, is the most undemocratic method to choose a government short of our Electoral College

It the UK is to be preserved, the federal fact needs to be accepted. All power to Westminster is no longer acceptable to much of anyone.

[Agschmid]

4. Kick.

[Nye Bevan]

7. Congrats to the UK on still being the UK! (nt)

[Ken Burch]

10. The actual Nye Bevan would NEVER say anything like that.

(Hopefully, they'll at least get rid of the "K"...monarchy is ridiculous in this day and age).

[Nye Bevan]

13. Well.... Canada and Australia haven't got that message yet,

and show no signs of getting it anytime soon.

[Ken Burch]

14. A few more embarrassments from the Battenbergs and it'll sink in.

Basically, at this point the royals are the world's most overpaid theme-park employees.

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. Tell the Swedes, the Belgians, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Danes, the Spanish, the Japanese...

it's not like the UK is the only constitutional monarchy in the world.

[Ken Burch]

16. And those are all silly, too.

Heriditary rule should be a thing of the past, especially when(and this isn't the case in Scandinavia or Holland, to be fair)it's accompanied by a obscenely luxurious lifestyle.

And the actual Nye Bevan, a left-wing socialist, Labour cabinet minister(back when the Labour Party actually stood for something) and miner's son, would not have had much of any sympathy with the royals.

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. Not really that silly.

There's something to be said for stability and continuity. The American system of making the president essentially an elected king has its own problems. Look at the Republicans equating support for Bush with patriotism post 9/11. In a constitutional monarchy support for the head of state in the person of the monarch is separate and distinct from support for the government of the day.

[treestar]

23. It is a thing of the past

They have no real ruling powers at this point. The luxury is due to wealth built up over centuries in the family. Other families will have that, too. They are merely descendants of the rulers who are rich just like the descendants of any rich people will be.

[LittleBlue]

19. Notice how they all have something in common

They all do what we say. Every one of them are thralls to a republic.

This is my Team America moment.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. And they'd still be constitutional monarchies if the UK were still the dominant world power (n/t)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. I disagree - I think that purely ceremonial monarchy is quite a good idea.

" Tories saying it ought to be preserved because it was clever, and Radicals saying it ought to be destroyed because it was stupid, and all the time no one saw that it was right because it was stupid, " -G.K.Chesterton, "The Napoleon of Notting Hill" (actually talking about something slightly different, but the quote is apposite here).



I think that purely ceremonial monarchy is quite a good system.

How often have you heard people saying about e.g. George Bush "You may not respect the individual, but you have a duty to respect the office he holds, so moderate your criticism"?

The great virtue of a hereditary monarchy is that one can say "You may respect the individual (conversely, you may think he is a fatuous big-eared fool who talks to plants), but you have a duty not to respect the office he holds".

I think that it is healthy to separate the individual who serves as a ceremonial focus from patriotism from the individual who actually runs the country. If you're doing that, you want to make sure that the ceremonial individual does not hold any power, and that it is universally obvious that their views carry no weight. And the great virtue of hereditary - better even than lottery - is that it makes it absolutely clear that the holder has no kind of mandate for any kind of power whatsoever.

The big scandal in British politics is not the monarchy, it's the House of Lords, which does actually wield power. (Also, the civil list should be smaller, but that doesn't matter so much).

[TlalocW]

8. This can mean only one thing...

They mean to win Wimbledon!

TlalocW

[MohRokTah]

9. They shall use, THE BLANCMANGE!

[freshwest]

24. OMG!

[ChiciB1]

18. Oh Nooooo... Murray Did Win It...

But still will be wanting Novak Djokovic AGAIN! But some good players moving up. I LOVE TENNIS!

[betsuni]

22. Ah, the dream of Scottish independence is dead, it was kilt.

Until next time, maybe then more Scotch on the rocks.