On 19/09/14 08:58, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:40:35 +0100, Jabba wrote:

I think you'll find he has won.

*ding* He's got the outcome that he really wanted. As much power as he
can cope with, without having all the awkward reality.

but he doesn't get the money. The price of that power will be the
responsibility to squeeze the last groat out of the scots to fund his
lavish eating habit.

They wont like that.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:06:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think the big winners will be UK citizens

The big losers, too.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:52:50 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:08:00 +0100, news wrote:

What is needed is to make every vote count (just as it did in this
referendum). Round here the Tories have such a big majority its not
worth getting off your arse to vote anything else.

Damn that democracy, where the candidate with the most support wins the
right to represent the entire constituency.

The notion of democracy is utter bull**** as soon as there's more than
a two-way choice.

On 19/09/2014 12:52, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:08:00 +0100, news wrote:

What is needed is to make every vote count (just as it did in this
referendum). Round here the Tories have such a big majority its not
worth getting off your arse to vote anything else.

Damn that democracy, where the candidate with the most support wins the
right to represent the entire constituency.


It would be far more democratic if each party got seats in Parliament in
proportion to the total number of votes they received in the country.

--
Colin Bignell

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:40:41 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

Mind you, a yes vote would have at least meant we didn't have to cheer
for Andy Murray any more.

You see, that's the kind of remark that makes me think less of you.

In that he actually cheered for Murray.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:45:35 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

What is needed is to make every vote count (just as it did in this
referendum). Round here the Tories have such a big majority its not
worth getting off your arse to vote anything else.

Damn that democracy, where the candidate with the most support wins the
right to represent the entire constituency.

It would be far more democratic if each party got seats in Parliament in
proportion to the total number of votes they received in the country.

Except that to do so would completely break local accountability.

Surely it's better to have your local party select the candidate for your
constituency, a real live individual based on local issues*, than a
"party list" of anonymous could-be-anybody national party yes men?

* - yes, I know that's not what often happens, but that's entirely down
to the local parties not standing up for themselves.

On Friday, September 19, 2014 11:39:07 AM UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:38:46 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my

surname here wrote:



It won't stop him trying to get another referendum.



That's about the size of it. He's a one-trick pony and with his

frustrated sights firmly set on more personal power, the only way to

deal with the ******* is for the Scottish electorate to wake up to how

cunning and ruthless a manipulator he is and how they've been played.

Sleazy little creep - I wish he'd do the decent thing and **** off.

+1

In article ,
"Brian Gaff" wrote:

The big story is not yes or no, but how can the uk get this kind of turnout
for council and ntional elections without making it illegal not to vote.
The answer of course is that people need to believe the issues are
important, and that any promises made will actually come to pass.

Very well said Brian! Although we do have to remember that the Scots
(sorry: the people in Scotland) weren't voting for anything other than a
promise that "things will be different".
Perhaps UKIP will force such a turnout at the next general election,
through the electorate being brought face to face with what might be,
and what might not be :-)

J.

In article ,
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote:

On 19/09/2014 10:56, charles wrote:
...
A few years ago at a General Election, there was a Vectis Nationalist
standing. I'll leave it to you Latin scholars to work out which seat was
involved.

... or those of us who live in the South. Mind you, they didn't want
full independence, they wanted Crown Dependency status, effectively
leaving them part of the UK, but not ruled from Westminster.

Aha! Now wouldn't we all like that one?!
Is that what the IOM have? Like ... we can make our own laws to suit us,
decide who lives here (provide a tax haven for rich folks etc.), ....
but we're British through and through so we'll 'ave all the rest of it
ta very much :-)

J.

On Friday, 19 September 2014 09:32:21 UTC+1, Brian Gaff wrote:
The big story is not yes or no, but how can the uk get this kind of turnout
for council and ntional elections without making it illegal not to vote.

I don't believe that will ever happen.

The answer of course is that people need to believe the issues are
important, and that any promises made will actually come to pass.

In this referendum people voted for something and actual idea not a personality that might do what they have said, that's the difference.

Perhaps if polititions had to adhere to their stated polices and were significantly accountable for their actions I might considering voting again.

What I don't want to do is vote for a liar who's making a good living from it. It should be a criminal offence to lie to voters, fines and/or imprisonment, perhapos even bringing back teh charge of treason and execution for serioius cases. :-)

In article ,
"Richard" wrote:

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:40:41 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

Mind you, a yes vote would have at least meant we didn't have to cheer
for Andy Murray any more.

You see, that's the kind of remark that makes me think less of you.

In that he actually cheered for Murray.

[A wonderful piece of analysis Richard: thanks for spotting that!]
J.

On 19/09/14 13:46, Richard wrote:
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:40:41 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

Mind you, a yes vote would have at least meant we didn't have to cheer
for Andy Murray any more.

You see, that's the kind of remark that makes me think less of you.

In that he actually cheered for Murray.

:-)



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 19/09/2014 14:01, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:45:35 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

What is needed is to make every vote count (just as it did in this
referendum). Round here the Tories have such a big majority its not
worth getting off your arse to vote anything else.

Damn that democracy, where the candidate with the most support wins the
right to represent the entire constituency.

It would be far more democratic if each party got seats in Parliament in
proportion to the total number of votes they received in the country.

Except that to do so would completely break local accountability.

Which is entirely irrelevant to whether or not what we have now is
democratic.

Surely it's better to have your local party select the candidate for your
constituency, a real live individual based on local issues*, than a
"party list" of anonymous could-be-anybody national party yes men?

* - yes, I know that's not what often happens, but that's entirely down
to the local parties not standing up for themselves.

In light of recent events, it may be time for a complete revision of
government. In order to gain parity with the other countries in the
Union, England should get its own assembly to control purely English
matters. If there is merit in local accountability (and I am not
convinced it has any effect), the four national assemblies could be
voted for on the constituency system.

Above the national assemblies, there would be a UK parliament, to
consider only those things that affect two or more countries of the
Union. That could be smaller than the existing parliament and could be
made up of MPs drawn from those voted into the national assemblies, in
proportion to the overall number of votes each party received. With
modern technology, there would also be scope for allowing the populace
to have a say in some, if not all, major decisions.

--
Colin Bignell

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:40:17 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

It would be far more democratic if each party got seats in Parliament
in proportion to the total number of votes they received in the
country.

Except that to do so would completely break local accountability.

Which is entirely irrelevant to whether or not what we have now is
democratic.

Democratic on a national level vs democratic on a local level. They're
different, but both are democratic.

If there is merit in local accountability (and I am not
convinced it has any effect)

It certainly does - IF your local MP is any use. If he isn't, then wtf is
he still in the job? If the answer to that is that the constituency party
is useless, then why haven't the majority of that constituency who
clearly support the party done anything about them?

the four national assemblies could be voted for on the constituency
system.

And, imho, should be.

In light of recent events, it may be time for a complete revision of
government. In order to gain parity with the other countries in the
Union, England should get its own assembly to control purely English
matters.

Above the national assemblies, there would be a UK parliament, to
consider only those things that affect two or more countries of the
Union. That could be smaller than the existing parliament and could be
made up of MPs drawn from those voted into the national assemblies, in
proportion to the overall number of votes each party received.

I could easily be convinced by that.

With modern technology, there would also be scope for allowing the
populace to have a say in some, if not all, major decisions.

Oh, good. The X-factor... runs, screaming

On 19/09/2014 14:27, Another John wrote:
In article ,
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote:

On 19/09/2014 10:56, charles wrote:
...
A few years ago at a General Election, there was a Vectis Nationalist
standing. I'll leave it to you Latin scholars to work out which seat was
involved.

... or those of us who live in the South. Mind you, they didn't want
full independence, they wanted Crown Dependency status, effectively
leaving them part of the UK, but not ruled from Westminster.

Aha! Now wouldn't we all like that one?!
Is that what the IOM have? Like ... we can make our own laws to suit us,
decide who lives here (provide a tax haven for rich folks etc.), ....
but we're British through and through so we'll 'ave all the rest of it
ta very much :-)

The IOM, Jersey and Guernsey are all Crown Dependencies, although I
think the IOM was the model they wanted to follow. That differs from the
Channel Islands by being in a Customs Union with the UK and, through
that, with the EU.


--
Colin Bignell

On 19/09/2014 14:55, Adrian wrote:
...
With modern technology, there would also be scope for allowing the
populace to have a say in some, if not all, major decisions.

Oh, good. The X-factor... runs, screaming


It would probably have prevented us from invading Iraq.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar \cpb\@ insert my surname here wrote:
In light of recent events, it may be time for a complete revision of
government. In order to gain parity with the other countries in the
Union, England should get its own assembly to control purely English
matters. If there is merit in local accountability (and I am not
convinced it has any effect), the four national assemblies could be
voted for on the constituency system.

Only if for every job that *creates* within the civil service etc, one is
lost from 'Westminster'. The last thing the country needs is more people
doing unproductive jobs.

--
*Half the people in the world are below average.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:38:46 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 19/09/2014 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And Sturgeon for later.

It must be the smell of fish


It won't stop him trying to get another referendum. I suspect that
Westminster might be a little less willing to amend the Scotland Act a
second time to allow one though.

If it'd been 'Yes', would Cameron have suggested another referendum in 20
years? Seems thet it goes on until the 'desired' answer is given and then
stops.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:39:07 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:38:46 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

It won't stop him trying to get another referendum.

That's about the size of it. He's a one-trick pony and with his
frustrated sights firmly set on more personal power, the only way to
deal with the ******* is for the Scottish electorate to wake up to how
cunning and ruthless a manipulator he is and how they've been played.
Sleazy little creep - I wish he'd do the decent thing and **** off.

He only wanted to be president - give him a break (neck, prferably).
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 07:58:20 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:40:35 +0100, Jabba wrote:

I think you'll find he has won.

*ding* He's got the outcome that he really wanted. As much power as he
can cope with, without having all the awkward reality.

Ah, he's really a LimpDim!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:26:17 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Jabba wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

And Sturgeon for later.

It must be the smell of fish

I think you'll find he has won.

I don't think that the really committed nationalists will think they have
won until they get an independent Scotland.

Sure, but they have anyway, and there arent enough committed nationalists to
matter anyway.

Seems that the number of Scots considering themselves British has risen by 9
percentage points from 15% to 24% in the last (? - can't remeber the time)
years.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

In article sting.com,
Jabba wrote:
wrote


On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:56:27 +0100, charles
wrote:

Every country has nationalists, sometimes they can whip up
backing, most of the time they're regarded by the majority
as nutcases. Don't be surprised to hear about the Cornish
nationalists in the next few months.

A few years ago at a General Election, there was a Vectis
Nationalist standing. I'll leave it to you Latin scholars to
work out which seat was involved.

A bus seat?

Toilet seat ?

Isle of Wight. So the bloody Romans should have walled them off as
well. Looks like the Solent isn't wide or deep enough!
--
Dennis Davis

On 19/09/14 15:54, PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:38:46 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 19/09/2014 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And Sturgeon for later.

It must be the smell of fish


It won't stop him trying to get another referendum. I suspect that
Westminster might be a little less willing to amend the Scotland Act a
second time to allow one though.

If it'd been 'Yes', would Cameron have suggested another referendum in 20
years? Seems thet it goes on until the 'desired' answer is given and then
stops.


Well smoked salmond NOW toast. He's gone, And the world is a better place.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Happy now ?

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...



Happy now ?

Depends.

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote


On 19/09/2014 14:27, Another John wrote:
In article ,
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote:

On 19/09/2014 10:56, charles wrote:
...
A few years ago at a General Election, there was a Vectis Nationalist
standing. I'll leave it to you Latin scholars to work out which seat was
involved.

... or those of us who live in the South. Mind you, they didn't want
full independence, they wanted Crown Dependency status, effectively
leaving them part of the UK, but not ruled from Westminster.

Aha! Now wouldn't we all like that one?!
Is that what the IOM have? Like ... we can make our own laws to suit us,
decide who lives here (provide a tax haven for rich folks etc.), ....
but we're British through and through so we'll 'ave all the rest of it
ta very much :-)

The IOM, Jersey and Guernsey are all Crown Dependencies, although I
think the IOM was the model they wanted to follow. That differs from the
Channel Islands by being in a Customs Union with the UK and, through
that, with the EU.


A tax haven run by the ****ing masons?

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote


On 19/09/2014 14:27, Another John wrote:
In article ,
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote:

On 19/09/2014 10:56, charles wrote:
...
A few years ago at a General Election, there was a Vectis
Nationalist
standing. I'll leave it to you Latin scholars to work out which seat
was
involved.

... or those of us who live in the South. Mind you, they didn't want
full independence, they wanted Crown Dependency status, effectively
leaving them part of the UK, but not ruled from Westminster.

Aha! Now wouldn't we all like that one?!
Is that what the IOM have? Like ... we can make our own laws to suit
us,
decide who lives here (provide a tax haven for rich folks etc.), ....
but we're British through and through so we'll 'ave all the rest of it
ta very much :-)

The IOM, Jersey and Guernsey are all Crown Dependencies, although I
think the IOM was the model they wanted to follow. That differs from the
Channel Islands by being in a Customs Union with the UK and, through
that, with the EU.


A tax haven run by the ****ing masons?

Really! There's a ****ing masons society? I'd join that one.

In article ,
says...

yes you clocked it. He always wanted 'devomax' on the ballot knowing full well independence wouldn't cut it. Westminster gambled on the yes/no option. When the polls got tight in the last few days, they bottled it and in effect that's exactly what they offered.


Does the UK Govt. have a mandate for the major constitutional changes
which are needed to give Scotland all these nice goodies?

I must have missed that bit.


--
Sam

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote


On 19/09/2014 14:01, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:45:35 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

What is needed is to make every vote count (just as it did in this
referendum). Round here the Tories have such a big majority its not
worth getting off your arse to vote anything else.

Damn that democracy, where the candidate with the most support wins the
right to represent the entire constituency.

It would be far more democratic if each party got seats in Parliament in
proportion to the total number of votes they received in the country.

Except that to do so would completely break local accountability.

Which is entirely irrelevant to whether or not what we have now is
democratic.

Surely it's better to have your local party select the candidate for your
constituency, a real live individual based on local issues*, than a
"party list" of anonymous could-be-anybody national party yes men?

* - yes, I know that's not what often happens, but that's entirely down
to the local parties not standing up for themselves.

In light of recent events, it may be time for a complete revision of
government. In order to gain parity with the other countries in the
Union, England should get its own assembly to control purely English
matters. If there is merit in local accountability (and I am not
convinced it has any effect), the four national assemblies could be
voted for on the constituency system.

Above the national assemblies, there would be a UK parliament, to
consider only those things that affect two or more countries of the
Union. That could be smaller than the existing parliament and could be
made up of MPs drawn from those voted into the national assemblies, in
proportion to the overall number of votes each party received. With
modern technology, there would also be scope for allowing the populace
to have a say in some, if not all, major decisions.


Pipe dream - thank ****.

Have you seen the quality of the politician in the Welsh Assembly? 90%
****ing clueless.

As for PR - WTF wants a Parliment like the Italians have?

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote


On 19/09/2014 14:55, Adrian wrote:
..
With modern technology, there would also be scope for allowing the
populace to have a say in some, if not all, major decisions.

Oh, good. The X-factor... runs, screaming


It would probably have prevented us from invading Iraq.


And at 50 pence per call, the Goverment could have paid for dozens of
duck houses.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:38:46 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

It won't stop him trying to get another referendum.

That's about the size of it. He's a one-trick pony and with his
frustrated sights firmly set on more personal power, the only way to
deal with the ******* is for the Scottish electorate to wake up to how
cunning and ruthless a manipulator he is and how they've been played.
Sleazy little creep - I wish he'd do the decent thing and **** off.

Known in the trade as an egotistical manstink.

PeterC wrote


On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:38:46 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 19/09/2014 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And Sturgeon for later.

It must be the smell of fish


It won't stop him trying to get another referendum. I suspect that
Westminster might be a little less willing to amend the Scotland Act a
second time to allow one though.

If it'd been 'Yes', would Cameron have suggested another referendum in 20
years? Seems thet it goes on until the 'desired' answer is given and then
stops.


HTF would that work, what with them being a separate nation ?

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

PeterC wrote


On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:38:46 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 19/09/2014 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And Sturgeon for later.

It must be the smell of fish


It won't stop him trying to get another referendum. I suspect that
Westminster might be a little less willing to amend the Scotland Act a
second time to allow one though.

If it'd been 'Yes', would Cameron have suggested another referendum in 20
years? Seems thet it goes on until the 'desired' answer is given and then
stops.


HTF would that work, what with them being a separate nation ?

Maybe the then independent scots might've realised that they were better off
in than out?

On 19/09/2014 17:49, Jabba wrote:
PeterC wrote


On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:38:46 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 19/09/2014 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And Sturgeon for later.

It must be the smell of fish


It won't stop him trying to get another referendum. I suspect that
Westminster might be a little less willing to amend the Scotland Act a
second time to allow one though.

If it'd been 'Yes', would Cameron have suggested another referendum in 20
years? Seems thet it goes on until the 'desired' answer is given and then
stops.


HTF would that work, what with them being a separate nation ?


We would accuse them of having WMDs and invade.

--
Colin Bignell

On 19/09/2014 5:45 PM, Jabba wrote:

Pipe dream - thank ****.

Have you seen the quality of the politician in the Welsh Assembly? 90%
****ing clueless.

As for PR - WTF wants a Parliment like the Italians have?


Do you have another less boring adjective?

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

Santa Claus has the right idea. Visit people only once a year. - Victor
Borge

On 19/09/2014 17:22, Jabba wrote:


Happy now ?


Not if Sturgeon (as reported likely) takes over.

--
Rod

"Another John" wrote in message
]...
In article ,
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote:

On 19/09/2014 10:56, charles wrote:
...
A few years ago at a General Election, there was a Vectis Nationalist
standing. I'll leave it to you Latin scholars to work out which seat
was
involved.

... or those of us who live in the South. Mind you, they didn't want
full independence, they wanted Crown Dependency status, effectively
leaving them part of the UK, but not ruled from Westminster.

Aha! Now wouldn't we all like that one?!
Is that what the IOM have? Like ... we can make our own laws to suit us,
decide who lives here (provide a tax haven for rich folks etc.), ....
but we're British through and through so we'll 'ave all the rest of it
ta very much :-)

J.

All of this arises because we have such a shower of useless incompetent ****
in th HOP.

On 19/09/2014 17:45, Jabba wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote


On 19/09/2014 14:01, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:45:35 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

What is needed is to make every vote count (just as it did in this
referendum). Round here the Tories have such a big majority its not
worth getting off your arse to vote anything else.

Damn that democracy, where the candidate with the most support wins the
right to represent the entire constituency.

It would be far more democratic if each party got seats in Parliament in
proportion to the total number of votes they received in the country.

Except that to do so would completely break local accountability.

Which is entirely irrelevant to whether or not what we have now is
democratic.

Surely it's better to have your local party select the candidate for your
constituency, a real live individual based on local issues*, than a
"party list" of anonymous could-be-anybody national party yes men?

* - yes, I know that's not what often happens, but that's entirely down
to the local parties not standing up for themselves.

In light of recent events, it may be time for a complete revision of
government. In order to gain parity with the other countries in the
Union, England should get its own assembly to control purely English
matters. If there is merit in local accountability (and I am not
convinced it has any effect), the four national assemblies could be
voted for on the constituency system.

Above the national assemblies, there would be a UK parliament, to
consider only those things that affect two or more countries of the
Union. That could be smaller than the existing parliament and could be
made up of MPs drawn from those voted into the national assemblies, in
proportion to the overall number of votes each party received. With
modern technology, there would also be scope for allowing the populace
to have a say in some, if not all, major decisions.


Pipe dream - thank ****.

Have you seen the quality of the politician in the Welsh Assembly? 90%
****ing clueless.

All the more reason why Welsh MPs shouldn't have a say in what happens
in England.

As for PR - WTF wants a Parliment like the Italians have?

It is not PR. It is the same system as we have now, with the MPs sitting
in four separate houses, depending upon the nationality of their
constituency. A sub-committee of those MPs deals with matters that
affect more than one country in the union and only that sub-committee is
selected using PR.

In any case, that was simply one option I came up with while sitting at
the keyboard. Offers are open for others that are an improvement on what
we have now and that give voters in England a similar voice to those in
other parts of the UK.


--
Colin Bignell

On 19/09/2014 18:43, polygonum wrote:
On 19/09/2014 17:22, Jabba wrote:


Happy now ?


Not if Sturgeon (as reported likely) takes over.


As Salmond said:

'... for Scotland the campaign continues and the dream shall never die.'

--
Colin Bignell

Interesting that the traditional SNP areas voted against independence,
in some cases quite firmly against. It is also notable that the place
with the lowest turnout, Glasgow, was one of the few places where the
yes vote got a majority.

--
Colin Bignell