Harking back to the great days of the Unionist Party?
Times past are often cited as being considerably better than times present. In truth, times past were no better in many ways than present times. Because of incremental improvement, often won at great cost to the protagonists, society is considerably more equitable that it was 50 years ago, and infinitely more equitable than 100 years ago.
I opposed Scottish independence on a number of grounds, not least the unanswered questions on EU membership and currency. In the month before the referendum, £14Bn flowed out of Edinburgh to London, that money may now return, or not. Intrinsically, whether it returns or not is immaterial, we as we are still a single 'nation'.
SNP deceit can be characterised very nicely by the £400m of health spending cutbacks, which were to be announced after the referendum. Salmond, having seen the 'President Eck' nameplate disappear from his door, has reneged on his promise not to stand down in the event of a 'No' vote.
There have been very disparate opinions of the oil reserves, but even given the 'best estimate', there is a certain irony on the party which prides itself on its 'greenness' basing its financial forecasts (such as they were) on the ongoing consumption of fossil fuel.
I had to smile at Gordon Brown this morning, with his 'promise' that further devolved powers will be delivered. He is in no position to deliver anything, and Milliband and Cameron are already arguing as to what these devolved powers might be. Neither of them is actually able to guarantee anything, as neither has back bench consensus.
A country of 65m people is stronger on both the European and world stages than a country of 6m people. An independent Scotland would have as much influence as Albania, but probably with a weaker currency.
Scotland benefits from a higher per capita income from central government than the other nations within the UK, I am very surprised that those other nations are not more vociferous with regard to this.
Oh well, it is over. Those who wished to destroy the Union have lost. It'll be a while before they stop whining I suppose, but they'll get over it, just as I would have had to do had it gone the other way. The vote was lost by 10%, which is a large majority. Had this been a parliamentary election, 10% is 60 MPs, which would not, by any standards, be regarded as close.
One thing which has emerged is the difference between the 'Yes' and 'No' demographic. The 'poorer' areas voted 'Yes', presumably in he belief that this would deliver higher welfare spending; one may argue that the more prosperous areas voted 'No' because they would have had to pay for it.
I look forward to the next referendum. Ballot question: 'Should we have a Scottish parliament.'