Most English people are heartily relieved at the result: not entirely because they may be pro-union but also because the prospect of many years of wall to wall coverage of Scottish independence would be too much to bear. So with this in mind some very brief thoughts:
- Unlike many I have no axe to grind re Mr Salmond: the weasel has simply taken the view that the means justifies the end like most politicians would.
- Why on earth did Cameron agree to this in the first place? Hubris and arrogance perhaps as he saw the opinion polls and thought SNP were backing a lost cause.
- On what basis could anyone possibly justify such huge change on a 50/50 vote? In most situations major constitutional change might require (for example) a 2/3 majority.
- Ironic that the result was based on the people who voted: coming strike ballot legislation would force a decision to be based on the people who voted for a strike as a percentage of those eligible to vote.
- What of the legacy? All now one lovely united Scottish nation? I think not: yes/no is binary and there isn’t really a middle position to build consensus and compromise. Bitterness will remain for many years.
- Given the unequivocal comments of Big Business, the future for investment in Scotland looks grim. With a mere 10% margin of victory businesses will take the view that another vote in (say) 20 years’ time might go the other way and make decisions on whether to invest in Scotland, or remain based there, accordingly.