The votes are in, the results to come

NOW WE SIT AND WAIT

As I sit to write this it's three minutes past eleven on the evening of the eighteenth of September, two thousand and fourteen.  Of course I could have written that sentence with far fewer keystrokes, but the pseudo formality feels right for the occasion.  Because today history has been made.  And in a few hours from now I'll find out if I'm one of those who made the change, or was a bit player as a nation actually turns down the offer of independence - the latter an unprecedented event as far as my knowledge goes.

The polls have closed, the rhetoric and shouting and half truths and downright lies are at rest, and all we can do now is watch and wait. The only big decisions left are whether to watch BBC or STV, and if I should pull an allnighter or try for a nap and an early rise?  

If you've read this blog before, or follow me on Twitter or Facebook, then you'll know exactly how I voted and which result I'm hoping for, so I'm going to skip that issue and look at how it's felt to be a part of such an epochal event.

We went out to vote late in the morning, by which time the flow in and out of our polling station wasmodest and there was no queue to join.  Outside the Yes and No campaign representatives stood chatting away to each other like old pals (perhaps they were).  There was no sense of great drama,not a hint of intimidation, none of the elements beloved of the sensationalist end of the media.  The only drama was in my my own heart and head when I paused before marking my cross in the box.  This really did feel so very different from any vote I've ever cast before.

Our afternoon took in a (Yes leaning) comedy play about the referendum, a bit of coffee and cake, and then a Danish thriller at the cinema.  So I haven't spent a lot of time walking the streets and my sense of the occasion is largely based on time spent on buses, and in the cafe and the theatre bar.  The skies over Edinburgh have been grey and gloomy all day and the public mood may have been influenced by the weather.  There seemed little excitement, no hint of panic.  But there was a definite tension in the air, not of the crackling electric variety, but an expectant calm that knows there will be a lot of disappointed people in the morning.  Very few Yes or No badges were in evidence on the street, although journalists were evident everywhere.

But the evidence from the ballot boxes belies this to an extent.  Following on from the record breaking 97% registration figure, there looks to have been a voter turnout unheard of in this country.  I've seen a story from one of the more rural stations, of all registered voters having recorded their votes by nine thirty this morning.  Many stations had queues awaiting their opening at seven am.  Are we going to hit 90% turnout?  As an exercise in democracy, whatever the outcome, this has been a remarkable occasion.  And, despite the efforts of the tabloids, largely devoid of nastiness (any large scale campaign that raises such passions is bound to bring out a few extremists on either side).  Citizens have been engaged, excited, ready to debate the issues and on both sides this has become as much a movement of the people as of politicians.  Scotland can be proud of being such a civilised country.

Whatever tomorrow brings the world will be different.  For all sorts of reasons.  For me the greatest of these is that the Yes movement has taken on the combined power and money of the UK government, what is generally referred to as "The Establishment", and 95% of the mass media (the Sunday Herald was the only national publication to come out for Yes, and there were justifiable doubts about the even-handedness of the BBC) and still managed to convince around half the electorate to join their cause.  That is a remarkable achievement, win or lose.

Now let's wait and see.

Oh, England, just give us a bit of space now, eh?  It isn't always about you....

The resuscitation of Gordon Brown

WHY GORDON?

Back in the dim and distant past, when this whole referendum thing first got into gear, the Scottish Government proposed there should be three choices on the voting paper.  For full independence, to retain the status quo, or for an increase of the powers devolved to the Holyrood parliament.  The latter quickly acquiring the daft name of 'Devo Max'.  The Cameron government thought otherwise and next Thursday's simple binary choice was the result.  Devo Max was an option Downing Street thought unnecessary.

Polling at the time suggested that that missing option was the one most likely to have attracted majority support from Scotland's voters, had it been offered.  But Westminster felt confident that if it came to the choice of staying within the UK, or going it alone, the unionists would win comfortably.
And all the evidence at the time suggested they were right.

Fast forward to Spring 2014 when it already it feels like the campaigning has been going on forever.  Yet now starting to ramp up in intensity.  Devo Max has largely been left to rot in the gutter, but the occasional unionist politician has mentioned that when a No vote goes through Westminster may give some consideration to passing on some additional powers.  Crumbs from the table.

How times change.  As the polls have closed up and the underdog Yes campaign has gained momentum, as the day of polling gets ever closer, as arguments and 'experts' get thrown at the electorate from every angle, the polarity of the debating has increased and passions have been raised.  This was going to be closer than almost anyone had imagined.

And then there was one, just one, poll that showed Yes ahead.  By only two points, and other polls still gave No a lead, but it seems to have sent a shudder through the whole Better Together movement, and the leaders of the three main UK parties in particular.  Just days later, backed by Cameron, Clegg and Milliband, an announcement was made proposing that a No vote would result in significantly greater powers being devolved to Edinburgh.  There wasn't a lot of detail, but it did seem reminiscent of something from the past.  It seems Devo Max has been picked up, given a bit of a dust, and presented to us as a fresh new set of ideas.  And it only took one poll....

If you know me in real life you might not be surprised at a teensy-weensy note of cynicism creeping in here.  Poor old Devo.  Cast aside unwanted, she's now back on the scene, slightly faded, slightly jaded, and not quite sure what she's doing any more. But someone seems to need her, urgently.  Good luck old girl.

But it's not the return of Ms Max that concerns me here.  Desperate times bring out desperate measures. And Better Together have been sounding very desperate recently.  No, what intrigues me more is the presentation of this brave new world.  And, more specifically, the choice of presenter.

Gordon Brown emerged as the spokesman for this one, the front man, apparently, for the Westminster establishment.  At first glance he seems a sensible enough choice.  A weel kent face.  Former leader and statesman.  And still retaining some degree of credibility, even affection, in Scotland (despite being a laughing stock to many in England).  A sensible choice.

Really?  If I was a government trying to convince an electorate of the sincerity of my very-late-to-the-party proposals would I really choose Gordon?  A backbench MP, perhaps with some influence, but with no power and no prospect of being in power.  A voice from the past, irrelevant to the future of all three parties.  A voice it might be very easy to disown if the future dictated such a course of action....

If these proposals (and note that's all they are - nothing is, or can be, guaranteed) are being brought forward with genuine sincerity shouldn't they be presented by someone who has real power to take them forward?  Someone, perhaps, from the current government?  A Scot of course, so that rules out the Conservatives (I've met hamsters with more charisma than Scotland's sole Tory MP).  So a credible LibDem then (that's Danny Alexander out of the reckoning).  And who do we have in the post of Scottish Secretary of State?   None other than Alistair Carmichael, one of the few senior unionists to maintain an air of moderation in his pronouncements and with the decency (or career awareness!) to announce that if there's a YES result he'd be available to be a member of the Scotland negotiating team.  That rare beast, a coalition minister it's possible to have some respect for.

And, if you really wanted to give the impression that the three parties were unified behind these proposals why not throw in Margaret Curran, Alistair's shadow?  Wouldn't that demonstrate some commitment to implement the new legislation required (let's for a moment that this will have to be done by a UK parliament that hasn't actually been elected yet)?  Wouldn't it?

But no.  We got Gordon.  Yesterday's man.  Anyone convinced?  Draw your own conclusions.


PS If any No voters read this, or perhaps a committed unionist in England, I'd love to hear from you and tell me where, if, my analysis is flawed.  Please do.