One analysis I heard of the independence movement was that it was mostly a far left push to more or less establish a welfare state funded primarily by North Sea oil revenue.
Any one else hear same or different?
Not really. The Yes campaign (and the SNP itself, come to think of it) were a load of disparate groups whose sole common policy was for an independent Scotland - they did come out with a lot of socialist type stuff, but that was probably at least as much about attracting the Labour vote (which is still the biggest in the country, and which has grown accustomed to being bought off) as it was a representation of the actual opinions of the SNP. For all his many faults, Salmond is not a fool and he would have known that, had they won last night, there was no way even with
all the North Sea Oil that they would have been able to even sustain the status quo.
IMHO a far greater handicap that they faced was that the Yes position isnt really based on any historical justification; Scotland didnt become part of the UK because it was occupied by the English, and it has done very well out of the Union - arguably even more than the English have. I think that deep down, most Scots understand this.
What will be important now is not what the Scottish Parliament gets, but what the rest end up with. There is already talk of an English Parliament (probably just composing the MPs for English constituencies, voting only on matters that just affects England), and more powers for Wales (which will be interesting to say the least, given that for every year that the Senedd is in existence the division between North and South Wales becomes more and more apparent - if we ever went independent, there would probably be two Waleses within a generation).
