JIm SIllars : Indy ref failure analysis

[rob murray]

SOme interesting facts to be revealed in Jim Sillars new book which examines the referendum, currency issue was all over the sundays yesterday, ie according to Sillars it was the decision not to outline a plan b ie what an indy scotland would use as currency and the failure of Alec Salmond to recognise the need for a clear plan b on this which existed and was supported by the majority involved in the yes campaign. Salmond thought that announcing this PLan B so late in the day would show splits in the yes campaign, so he called it wrong. SIllars is quite correct in his analysis, uncertainty over currency was perhaps the single issue which de railed the yes campaign that and a lack of clarity over EU where again a plan b existed. Sillars is claiming that another indy ref cannot be taken seriously until an honest examination of the last failure is undertaken, that the yes campaign learns from mistakes and presents plan b's on key strateguc issues to the electorate. In other words he wants us to be given the facts, solutions and options rather than Salmons approach...."believe me it will be alright on the night ". AT last some grown up thinking, a book I look forward to and will certainly get and read with an open mind.

[Shabbychic]

Yes, for once I agree with you. Sound like a very interesting book. Here (http://www.thenational.scot/politics/jim-sillars-new-book-extract-we-need-an-honest-assessment-of-what-the-yes-campaign-got-right-and-wrong.7247) is more of what it is about. Appears to be much more to it than just plan B.

Strange how all the unionist media (usual suspects) concentrate on only one part of the book? Still think there is no media bias?

[rob murray]

Yes, for once I agree with you. Sound like a very interesting book. Here (http://www.thenational.scot/politics/jim-sillars-new-book-extract-we-need-an-honest-assessment-of-what-the-yes-campaign-got-right-and-wrong.7247) is more of what it is about. Appears to be much more to it than just plan B.

Strange how all the unionist media (usual suspects) concentrate on only one part of the book? Still think there is no media bias?

I found an early post you made, an analysis of the vote, very highlighting, you said yourself that failure to address some key issues created uncertainty, I agreed with you, when it all comes down to it Salmond took the wrong strategic decisions ie not announcing plan b's on currency and EU but sticking to his script, which lets face it was ropey and relied to much on the believe me or believe these project fear merchants.....now thats wrong ie polarising the debate into 2 camps without addressing the big questions ( or avoiding them / posturing etc ) ..... Salmond gambled and lost, wiser heads counselled addressing the big issues, issues which were of concern to people and the need for announcing plan b's. The media, is biased and always will be, but Salmond left himself wide open by his tactics and mannerism ( all bluster he is a marmite politician ! ) I hope Sillars book will make people think ie both yes / no voters, as he is not ducking the big issues and what plan b's are in place, mores the pity SIllars wasnt fronting the campaign as his more measured approach plus plan b outlines may have calmed people down and yes may well have won. Yes people need to take Sillars analysis on the chin and learn why they lost, which means an admission that they got things wrong, which obviously they did....No voters may well be swayed if the SNP as a party adopted plan b's and articulated them, moving from what is a polarised position into a more honest and open one. As Dale Carnegie's famous book goes : How to win friends and influence people.

Im approaching this situation / SIllars book with an open mind.

[Shabbychic]

I will totally read this book with an open mind, and accept any failings found, and I'm sure there are plenty. I have no problem with that. Where I do have a problem however, is the fact that all the mainstream media are focusing on is ONE issue....plan B, when there is so much more to the story. Surely you must see this?

This is always the way and why I get so angry at times when you and others rush to post all the anti-SNP media rubbish. They never show both sides, or other sides to the argument. No matter what the story is, the writer always picks out a negative point and runs with it, and ignores other aspects of the story, just as has been done with Jim's book. I have also found that any positive stories, that can't be twisted, are just ignored.

Look at this politics section for example. Anyone new will take one look and see it is overrun with SNP haters. It is as if no other political issues are going on in the UK. Almost every thread is about SNP doing this and SNP doing that......actually I laugh quite a lot at the antics and titles, and find I can't take much of it seriously.

All I ask is for the haters on here to look at the whole picture, and not just the unionist media's slant on it. They might even be surprised!

[theone]

Maybe the separatists main failure was not realising that the majority of Scots did not want to leave the UK.

I'd be really interested to know how many people actually changed their minds through the whole campaign.

[davth]

The referendum was not a failure.
It was a glorious waste of our money and time, but definitely not a failure

[Shabbychic]

Maybe the separatists main failure was not realising that the majority of Scots did not want to leave the UK.

I'd be really interested to know how many people actually changed their minds through the whole campaign.

Knowing full well that those who voted for independence object to being called "separatists" why do you persist on using that term? Where on this lis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_independence_days)t is separatist mentioned? We want Independence just like all the other countries mentioned. You, I believe are deliberately attempting to provoke. I am fed up listening to how nasty the nationalists are........you and your buddies should start by looking in the mirror.

If you are so interested in the referendum, why don't you read Jim's book, instead of spouting your sanctimonious drivel!

[rob murray]

I will totally read this book with an open mind, and accept any failings found, and I'm sure there are plenty. I have no problem with that. Where I do have a problem however, is the fact that all the mainstream media are focusing on is ONE issue....plan B, when there is so much more to the story. Surely you must see this?

This is always the way and why I get so angry at times when you and others rush to post all the anti-SNP media rubbish. They never show both sides, or other sides to the argument. No matter what the story is, the writer always picks out a negative point and runs with it, and ignores other aspects of the story, just as has been done with Jim's book. I have also found that any positive stories, that can't be twisted, are just ignored.

Look at this politics section for example. Anyone new will take one look and see it is overrun with SNP haters. It is as if no other political issues are going on in the UK. Almost every thread is about SNP doing this and SNP doing that......actually I laugh quite a lot at the antics and titles, and find I can't take much of it seriously.

All I ask is for the haters on here to look at the whole picture, and not just the unionist media's slant on it. They might even be surprised!

Yes I do but that the whole point Salmond blustered his way through the campaign and didnt offer alternatives ie what if we couldnt use the pound, the EU what would happen in the period prior to becomming accepted ( this take a lot more time than he inferred ) there were and are alternative routes to progress he choose not to do so as politicaly he thought he had the momentum and didnt want to introduce oplan b alternatives as it could be spun out as splits n the campaign. The SNP are in government and people are entitled to question "their" government and ms sturgeon has now held her hands up on several serious issues which need addressed, thats from her mouth and not the media which I agree can be severely biased. But pro yes sites like wings over scotland are equally as biased. Just because you criticise the government doent make you an SNP hater, similarly just becuase you are a no voter shouldnt tarnish you, ie I see Sillars book as a vital attempt at reconciliation and introducing a long needed adult grown up perspective into this debate. Of courses I have long known that there is no love lost between Salmond and Sillars so fully expect some die hard yessers to dismiss SIllars perspectives, interestingly Partick Harvie of the Greens is in favour and generally agrees with SIllars, ie why did the yes campaign lose....theres more to it than simply media bias / the vow etc.....could it be that Salmond gambled and played it all out wrongly, currency and EU .......there were and are creditible alternatives ?

[cptdodger]

Knowing full well that those who voted for independence object to being called "separatists" why do you persist on using that term? Where on this lis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_independence_days)t is separatist mentioned? We want Independence just like all the other countries mentioned. You, I believe are deliberately attempting to provoke. I am fed up listening to how nasty the nationalists are........you and your buddies should start by looking in the mirror.

If you are so interested in the referendum, why don't you read Jim's book, instead of spouting your sanctimonious drivel!

Are you not doing exactly the same, calling us Nationalists ?

I went a bit wrong there, I'm not a Nationalist at all, see below !!

[rob murray]

Are you not doing exactly the same, calling us Nationalists ?

Its the term "unionist" that gets me.....people who use this know fully well fine what is being inferred, lets leave it at that. Independance does mean seperation, an independant scotland sepereted from the UK has to mean seperation, and I dont see "seperation" / "seperationists" as an insulting word.

[Shabbychic]

I am not arguing with you on these points. All I ask is for everyone to have an open mind and stop name calling and dredging up nonsense articles.....or worse, believing it all without question, because it's what they want to hear.

I believe most "unionists" call themselves that.

[cptdodger]

Its the term "unionist" that gets me.....people who use this know fully well fine what is being inferred, lets leave it at that. Independance does mean seperation, an independant scotland sepereted from the UK has to mean seperation, and I dont see "seperation" / "seperationists" as an insulting word.

Just call me British then, I'm happy with that !!

[rob murray]

I am not arguing with you on these points. All I ask is for everyone to have an open mind and stop name calling and dredging up nonsense articles.....or worse, believing it all without question, because it's what they want to hear.

Totally agree with you, lets be adult about the situation, surely SIllars book and revelations will calm things down and we can get serious debate going....but everyone has the right to criticise a governments performance especially when they dont deliver, to once again make a point sturgeons recent admissions on SNP goverment failings......a good starter for 10 now we watch what is being done to sort things.

[rob murray]

Just call me British then, I'm happy with that !!

SO am, I I am like all Scots, British until the situation changes then if scotland is indepedant I will be a scot not a Brit.

[Shabbychic]

Are you not doing exactly the same, calling us Nationalists ?

I used the term Nationalist as that or Nats is usually how we are referred to.

[cptdodger]

I used the term Nationalist as that or Nats is usually how we are referred to.

To be fair I never refer to anybody as anything, that is Nationalist or whatever the people that voted Yes are commonly referred to. I am just somebody that voted no in the referendum.

[davth]

I use a word that rhymes with Nats to describe the Separatists.

[cptdodger]

And this is the reason I never refer to anybody by either Nationalist or whatever, I get confused with all the terms !! I believe I would be whatever you call somebody that doesn't want Independence !

[BetterTogether]

I'm not sure if any of you have been watching the Alistair Carmichael Trial today but it makes for a rather unedifying debacle when one could also use the same premise to launch an equally spurious legal action on Alex Salmond and his assertion that he had sought advice on membership to enter the EU, then proceeded to waste nearly £20,000 trying to suppress the fact no such advice had been undertaken by using taxpayers money.

I think Shabbychic should go and use social media a bit more and find some of the rather choice language used to describe No voters quite commonly used is the term Britnat although that is probably one of the least offensive.

It's also worth noting by those who voted for the SNP that whilst they can rejoice at having 56 out of 59 seats it also makes it rather difficult to question any other party in Scotland Political system when they effectively run the whole show.

Until such time as other parties win a suitable amount of seats or another party wins at Holyrood any criticism has to be laid quite squarely at the door of the SNP the constant arguing over constitional issue at the expense of the day to day running of this country may well keep some duly occupied but for the rest of us who didn't vote for them it provides a situation where SNP voters can no longer claim their voice isn't being heard but they it also holds them to account for their choices in political party.

There is no shortage of information about the failures of the SNP but I've yet to meet one person who will roundly accept those failings put their hands up and admit that the SNP are making mistakes and not doing an overly impressive job considering they've had 8 years in power.

[theone]

Knowing full well that those who voted for independence object to being called "separatists" why do you persist on using that term? Where on this lis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_independence_days)t is separatist mentioned? We want Independence just like all the other countries mentioned. You, I believe are deliberately attempting to provoke. I am fed up listening to how nasty the nationalists are........you and your buddies should start by looking in the mirror.

If you are so interested in the referendum, why don't you read Jim's book, instead of spouting your sanctimonious drivel!

If you don't like the term separatist, stop trying to separate the UK. No provocation intended, that is what independence seekers are.

You can be as sick as you like about hearing how nasty nationalists are. But that isn't coming from me. Re-read my post and think again.

I am/was very interested in the referendum. I may well read the book but Jim's opinion is just another amongst hundreds.

He may well think plan 'b' was the snp failure. Or currency. Or anything else. Many nationalists claim it was 'the pledge'.

As per my previous post, I don't think was any of these. I think the vast majority of people decided long ago which way they were voting and not enough changed their minds for a yes vote.

If you think that's 'sanctimonious drivel' then so be it, but I would suggest it is yourself who is 'nasty' and needs to 'look in the mirror'.

[cptdodger]

I have said this before, and got so much abuse thrown at me for it on Facebook, but I knew from 1979, I would always vote no. It had nothing to do with whatever this plan b is, or currency or anything else for that matter. For me is was my Nationality that was being played about with, and I wasn't having it. No amount of speeches, pledges, books or anything else would, or has changed my mind. Political parties such as the SNP, Conservatives come and go, but once my Nationality was gone that would be it. To me, it is non negotiable.

[golach]

I have said this before, and got so much abuse thrown at me for it on Facebook, but I knew from 1979, I would always vote no. It had nothing to do with whatever this plan b is, or currency or anything else for that matter. For me is was my Nationality that was being played about with, and I wasn't having it. No amount of speeches, pledges, books or anything else would, or has changed my mind. Political parties such as the SNP, Conservatives come and go, but once my Nationality was gone that would be it. To me, it is non negotiable.I am totally with you on this subject I was a Naw voter before the Nats got power , and nothing during the referendum or any thing since have changed my mind, i will be voting Naw for the foreseeable future.

[davth]

I am totally with you on this subject I was a Naw voter before the Nats got power , and nothing during the referendum or any thing since have changed my mind, am still will be voting Naw for the foreseeable future.

Ditto.............

[gleeber]

I have said this before, and got so much abuse thrown at me for it on Facebook, but I knew from 1979, I would always vote no. It had nothing to do with whatever this plan b is, or currency or anything else for that matter. For me is was my Nationality that was being played about with, and I wasn't having it. No amount of speeches, pledges, books or anything else would, or has changed my mind. Political parties such as the SNP, Conservatives come and go, but once my Nationality was gone that would be it. To me, it is non negotiable.


I am totally with you on this subject I was a Naw voter before the Nats got power , and nothing during the referendum or any thing since have changed my mind, i will be voting Naw for the foreseeable future.


Ditto.............

I imagine that in years to come this forum will become a social document and will be studied by students of the ologies to see how it all went wrong or right whatever your ism may be.
Nationalism can be a very destructive force but we all have it and its important to us.
Most people have a personal national identity and that's deeper than other things in our lives. The proofs there in the quotes above.

Carl Rogers was a well known author and psychologist. He studied people and groups and mediated with them to try and find an answer to whatever their deeper conflicts may be. He found the most difficult groups to work with were the Unionists and the Nationalists in Northern Ireland. There was no solution from the outside. It was a deep set ism and don't you dare touch it.

During 30 years of troubles nearly 4000 people were killed because of Nationalism so lets not take our eye off that.

You lot are stoking a fire. I'll call you unionists because that's what you are but your also British Nationalists whether you like it or not. I'm British too. Your national identities at stake but mine isn't. Its understandable your upset .You haven't been challenged for over 300 years. Your going the wrong way about sorting it . Every day for months carpet posting and insults about how bad the SNP are. First thing in the morning last thing at night. I find it disturbing and at times childish.

[BetterTogether]

I imagine that in years to come this forum will become a social document and will be studied by students of the ologies to see how it all went wrong or right whatever your ism may be.Nationalism can be a very destructive force but we all have it and its important to us.Most people have a personal national identity and that's deeper than other things in our lives. The proofs there in the quotes above. Carl Rogers was a well known author and psychologist. He studied people and groups and mediated with them to try and find an answer to whatever their deeper conflicts may be. He found the most difficult groups to work with were the Unionists and the Nationalists in Northern Ireland. There was no solution from the outside. It was a deep set ism and don't you dare touch it. During 30 years of troubles nearly 4000 people were killed because of Nationalism so lets not take our eye off that.You lot are stoking a fire. I'll call you unionists because that's what you are but your also British Nationalists whether you like it or not. I'm British too. Your national identities at stake but mine isn't. Its understandable your upset .You haven't been challenged for over 300 years. Your going the wrong way about sorting it . Every day for months carpet posting and insults about how bad the SNP are. First thing in the morning last thing at night. I find it disturbing and at times childish.

I find your post very disturbing and vaguely threatening in its tone. It almost suggests that unless everyone allows you to have your preffered choice, despite it having been voted and decided already democratically.
That civil unrest will ensue.
Why else would you mention the troubles and amount who died or stoking fires.

The referendum has been and gone the decision was made yet still those hell bent on Seperation haven't accepted the result and carry on campaigning hurling insults and making veiled threats on social media and calling for another referendum I ask you who is stoking the fires if not yourselves.

[gleeber]

We live in a depressing age. Sometimes the whole world seems to be on fire.I'm one of the most grateful people around that I live in Britain. I would never down her.
I worry about the recent upsurge of British Nationalism on the internet. Facebooks full of it too. I get it on my fb page courtesy of a fb friend who likes and shares the most offensive anti SNP material. It's pure hatred directed towards the SNP. It has little to do with democracy and more to do with the haters.
Ian Paisley used to use democracy as a shield whilst at the same time stoking the fires of hatred to satisfy his own deep national identity. He came round a bit when he was helped to understand democracy is a 2 way process and those he hated had needs that had to be considered too.
What about you Mr Together? Are you going to carpet bomb the org forever and a day with anti SNP propaganda to satisfy some deep and warped sense of Identity or are you going to consider, like Mr Paisley, that it takes 2 to tango.

[davth]

GleeberGet over it, the referendum was decided by a fairly decent majority.It's all the sour grapes and demands for a second referendum that fuel any fires burning.And frankly thinly veilled threats of the Scottish troubles is moronic.

[cptdodger]

Facebooks full of it too. I get it on my fb page courtesy of a fb friend who likes and shares the most offensive anti SNP material. It's pure hatred directed towards the SNP. It has little to do with democracy and more to do with the haters.

You want to see hatred on Facebook? This group appeared a couple of days after the Referendum, aimed purely at No voters. I will post a link to the newspaper report on this group. And before anybody disclaims the newspaper of glorifying it, talking rubbish or whatever else you accuse newspapers of - this is only the half of it, they could not print the rest of what was on this group, I know, because I sat in a Police station for nearly three hours giving a statement.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13181372.Police_investigate_sinister_Scottish_Repu blican_Army_website/

So gleeber, if you are that concerned about what you have read on Facebook, do something about it, like I did.

[gleeber]

I'm just as concerned about them M/s Dodger as I am about you but I don't get them in my face all day every day on my favourite website.

[cptdodger]

I'm just as concerned about them M/s Dodger as I am about you but I don't get them in my face all day every day on my favourite website.

Why are you concerned about me ?

[cptdodger]

I'm just as concerned about them M/s Dodger as I am about you but I don't get them in my face all day every day on my favourite website.

And I don't get them in my face everyday either, that group was removed rather quickly, unfortunately it was pointed out to me by one of my American friends, god only knows what impression the rest of the world had about Scotland after the Referendum. I chose long before the referendum not to go on groups that had anything to do with the Yes or No (to Scottish Independence) votes. The abuse and comments were vile. So, it goes both ways.

[golach]

I get it on my fb page courtesy of a fb friend who likes and shares the most offensive anti SNP material. It's pure hatred directed towards the SNP.
.
if you have an FB friend who post anti SNP material the answer is simple.........unfriend them.....its only FB not the end of the world. I got rid of a pro snp poster this way, its easy just a click of a button.

[rob murray]

I started this thread to illustrate that Jim SIllars, a previously very prominent and influential scottish politician has a new book where he examines the failure of the yes vote and for the first time people will see that alternatives, plan b's were available and accepted by the yes working group. Salmond woudlnt go down this route as I said he thought introducing plan b's late into the yes campaign would "split" the campaign, as it turns out he got it badly wrong. He, for political reasons, with held vital key information on plan b's on currency and the EU which as it turns out blew up in his face. SIllars approach is to get a national debate going, focusing internally initially ie why did the yes campaign really fail, the dismissal of plan b's ( on currency and EU ) played, he suggests, a big part in the failure. The book is more for yes voters and the SNP as a whole, understand why they lost, and stop blaming / running on grievanances, the book also presupposes another vote sometime in the future when the timing is right ( fiscally and economically ) this is backed up by STurgeons 2 terms government plan. ie indy 2 is off the agenda for at least 2 parliaments. It doesnt matter if polls show that yes support is 52% 62% or 72% indy 2 wont happen until the government deliver and the economy has been developed ( particulary post north sea oil price slumps = less tax revenue ), hence sturgeons 2 term plan. ANy future campaign, Sillars argues has to meaningful address the big issues. Of course in doing so there will be a % of people who will always vote no preferring to be part of GB and be British as is their choice, but at least Sillars is attempting to really bottom out why yes failed and to try and change the landscape, ie become less adversarial and more open all round which is a good thing if this comes off. But no matter what, Sillars is an elder stateman, he may not carry enough weight now to influence his party, the choice to really examine the yes failure or not lies soley with the SNP and yes voters.

[rob murray]

Below is very interesting...............clearly shows that plan b's were available and dismissed and also Sturgeons take on the yes failure : the Yes campaign’s failure to convince enough people about “the economic ability of Scotland to be an independent country.” Note though that Sillars ( and academic ) claims are rejected by elements of the SNP......

A majority of members on the board that governed last year’s Scottish independence campaign privately supported naming a Plan B currency despite Alex Salmond’s public claims that George Osborne was bluffing over not sharing the pound, a senior nationalist has disclosed. Jim Sillars, the SNP’s former deputy leader, said they eventually decided not to put forward an alternative because they feared it would mean Yes Scotland being portrayed as split on the crucial issue.

But Mr Sillars said he now believed this was the campaign’s biggest mistake following academic research into the Unionist Better Together campaign’s 11-point victory that showed “people didn’t know what kind of money they would use.”

The SNP rejected his claims, made in a new book published to coincide with the referendum’s first anniversary, but his version of events was supported by other members of the Yes Scotland advisory board.

During the campaign Mr Salmond insisted there would be a currency union between a separate Scotland and the remainder of the UK after a Yes vote, and Mr Osborne was bluffing over rejecting any such deal (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/10632764/Scottish-independence-George-Osborne-to-rule-out-currency-union.html).

He said there were three Plan Bs (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11039935/Alex-Salmond-refuses-to-reveal-which-currency-he-would-settle-for-before-referendum.html)– the euro, a new Scottish currency and unilaterally adopting the pound in the same way countries like Panama use the US dollar – without specifying his preference.
But Mr Sillars, who is Mr Salmond’s former mentor, said senior Yes Scotland board members wanted to give public backing to creating a new Scottish pound. They included Dennis Canavan, the campaign’s chairman, Colin Fox, the Scottish Socialist Party leader, and Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Greens’ co-leader.
“Without that (proposal), the uncertainty was not removed. At that time, I got in touch with some members of the Yes Scotland advisory board to persuade them that whatever the SNP government said about a currency union, the broader Yes campaign had to have a plan B – our own Scottish currency,” he told the Sunday Times.
“Most of them agreed and at one meeting of the advisory board, there was a majority for an alternative plan B. This fact has never been made public, primarily because that majority was persuaded that to declare for a plan B would be seen as the Yes side being split.”

Salmond has blamed the last-minute Unionist “vow” of more powers for Scotland for the defeat but this was rejected by academic research into the result (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/11497348/The-vow-of-more-devolution-made-little-difference-to-outcome-of-independence-referendum.html), which found the impact of the vow was negligible and economic factors were to blame.
In a recent interview, Ms Sturgeon cited the Yes campaign’s failure to convince enough people about “the economic ability of Scotland to be an independent country.” ....hence her toning down indy 2 and focusing on a 2 term parliament to build the scottish economy.

[BetterTogether]

I'd tend to agree with your posts Rob there's no doubt the currency and EU issues where fudged during the referendum with no credible answers along with the NATO issue as well. The other issue is no one doubts Scotland's ability to be a sovereign nation that's probably the easiest part of the whole equation but what sort of country would it be. The economy of 5 million people is nowhere near as strong as the economy of 65 million who just happens to be your largest export market as well, I think had the vote swung them other way many hard and undesirable truths would of come home to roost for Scotland. Simple economics would of prevailed and we would now be a lot poorer for it.

[BetterTogether]

What about you Mr Together? Are you going to carpet bomb the org forever and a day with anti SNP propaganda to satisfy some deep and warped sense of Identity or are you going to consider, like Mr Paisley, that it takes 2 to tango.

You seem to have missed one salient point until such time as Scottish Politics returns some semblance of normality with other parties being voted into seats we live in a virtual one party state.

There are no two sides to criticising a ruling government they are either in power or not.

You seem to consider my posts as some kind of anti SNP witch hunt how about looking it as more robust critique of the ruling party.

If it where to be any other party and their failures where as monumental as the present incumbents then I'd be just as vociferous.

You call the current scene depressing but your other post was one of the closest I've seen on the org which would breach the incitement to riot act so I'd be very careful how you phrase things in case a man wearing blue visits you.

[rob murray]

I'd tend to agree with your posts Rob there's no doubt the currency and EU issues where fudged during the referendum with no credible answers along with the NATO issue as well. The other issue is no one doubts Scotland's ability to be a sovereign nation that's probably the easiest part of the whole equation but what sort of country would it be. The economy of 5 million people is nowhere near as strong as the economy of 65 million who just happens to be your largest export market as well, I think had the vote swung them other way many hard and undesirable truths would of come home to roost for Scotland. Simple economics would of prevailed and we would now be a lot poorer for it.

There can be no doubt now that creditible options on currency and EU were dismissed by the yes campaign as headed by Salmond, what I find interesting is that he feared that announcing at a late stage alternatives would be seen as a split in the campaign....what made him think that ? because the vote was lost, the myth has been propogated that the vow, media bias / anti yes scare stories, all coupled up under project fear, was to blame for the failure of the yes campaign. We now know the absolute truth, questions over currency and EU were not dealt with in sufficient depth ( ie the plan b options ) and questions over the economy were also not realistically dealt with, ( unless of course you go to wings over scotland where you can download loads of posters proclaiming that Scotland absolutely could go it alone and issues related to currency EU and economy are all blasted out the ball park, a just have blind faith approach / they the noers are all lying to.... so vote yes. Sturgeon herself is qouted as saying that failure to convince people of scotlands economic viability also contributed. So we have a substantial majority of senior politicans / people who made up the yes team who were in favour of going public with plan b's over currency EU, couple this with sturgeons admission over "doubts" on the economy and we are are near the mark in explaininig the failure. Question is if the yes camp did outline plan b's and a creditible economic plan would they have secured a majority / we will never know.

[Shabbychic]

More from Jim Sillars (http://www.thenational.scot/politics/exclusive-jim-sillars-extract-we-must-set-scotland-free-from-the-shackles-of-economic-inequality.7283) new book.

[rob murray]

More from Jim Sillars (http://www.thenational.scot/politics/exclusive-jim-sillars-extract-we-must-set-scotland-free-from-the-shackles-of-economic-inequality.7283) new book.

Good read and a bit like Corbyn.....ie make banks servants to the people and not masters...also raises interesting critique over OBR and IFS ."What Yes did not successfully get across was the idea that independence does not mean creating a mini UK, but a completely different Scottish state, with economic structures and moral principles aimed at correcting the gross inequalities that now define us to our lasting shame.

[theone]

"What Yes did not successfully get across was the idea that independence does not mean creating a mini UK, but a completely different Scottish state, with economic structures and moral principles aimed at correcting the gross inequalities that now define us to our lasting shame.

I'm not convinced.

The assumption here seems to be that if they had done this the SNP would have won.

Also terms like "our lasting shame" shows the analysis is strongly influenced by the authors own political views and so not a unbiased assessment of the campaign.

40% or so were always going to vote yes. The same for no. That left 20% or so potentially open to influence to the campaigns.

I doubt enough of that 20% would have wanted a "completely different Scottish state" whether it had been offered to them or not. Many of them would rather fix any failings in the marriage rather than take the option of divorce.

[rob murray]

I'm not convinced.

The assumption here seems to be that if they had done this the SNP would have won.

Also terms like "our lasting shame" shows the analysis is strongly influenced by the authors own political views and so not a unbiased assessment of the campaign.

40% or so were always going to vote yes. The same for no. That left 20% or so potentially open to influence to the campaigns.

I doubt enough of that 20% would have wanted a "completely different Scottish state" whether it had been offered to them or not. Many of them would rather fix any failings in the marriage rather than take the option of divorce.

I assume that SIllars is spelling out what should have been done and wasnt first time round and what needs to be done in any re run. He is right to highlight the plan b's and their dismissal. However, in terms of his forward planning, splits may well occur as yes of course he is adding his own political views which differ than that held by others within the party holding currently power...he is an elder stateman now so will be interesting to see what if any influence he will have .