Like the battle of Waterloo, the battle for Scotland was a damn close-run thing. The effects of Thursday’s no vote are enormous – though not as massive as the consequences of a yes would have been.
The vote against independence means, above all, that the 307-year Union survives. It therefore means that the UK remains a G7 economic power and a member of the UN security council. It means Scotland will get more devolution. It means David Cameron will not be forced out. It means any Ed Miliband-led government elected next May has the chance to serve a full term, not find itself without a majority in 2016, when the Scots would have left. It means the pollsters got it right, Madrid will sleep a little more easily, and it means the banks will open on Friday morning as usual.
But the battlefield is still full of resonant lessons. The win, though close, was decisive. It looks like a 54%-46% or thereabouts. That’s not as good as it looked like being a couple of months ago. But it’s a lot more decisive than the recent polls had hinted. Second, it was women who saved the union. In the polls, men were decisively in favour of yes. The yes campaign was in some sense a guy thing. Men wanted to make a break with the Scotland they inhabit. Women didn’t. Third, this was to a significant degree a class vote too. Richer Scotland stuck with the union — so no did very well in a lot of traditonal SNP areas. Poorer Scotland, Labour Scotland, slipped towards yes, handing Glasgow, Dundee and North Lanarkshire to the independence camp. Gordon Brown stopped the slippage from becoming a rout, perhaps, but the questions for Labour — and for left politics more broadly — are profound.
For Scots, the no vote means relief for some, despair for others, both on the grand scale. For those who dreamed that a yes vote would take Scots on a journey to a land of milk, oil and honey, the mood this morning will be grim. Something that thousands of Scots wanted to be wonderful or merely just to witness has disappeared. The anticlimax will be cruel and crushing. For others, the majority, there will be thankfulness above all but uneasiness too. Thursday’s vote exposed a Scotland divided down the middle and against itself. Healing that hurt will not be easy or quick. It’s time to put away all flags.
The immediate political question now suddenly moves to London. Gordon Brown promised last week that work will start on Friday on drawing up the terms of a new devolution settlement. That may be a promise too far after the red-eyed adrenalin-pumping exhaustion of the past few days. But the deal needs to be on the table by the end of next month. It will not be easy to reconcile all the interests – Scots, English, Welsh, Northern Irish and local. But it is an epochal opportunity. The plan, like the banks, is too big to fail.
Alex Salmond and the SNP are not going anywhere. They will still govern Scotland until 2016. There will be speculation about Salmond’s position, and the SNP will need to decide whether to run in 2016 on a second referendum pledge. More immediately, the SNP will have to decide whether to go all-out win to more Westminster seats in the 2015 general election, in order to hold the next government’s feet to the fire over the promised devo-max settlement. Independence campaigners will feel gutted this morning. But they came within a whisker of ending the United Kingdom on Thursday. One day, perhaps soon, they will surely be back.
(Artículo de Martin Kettle, publicado en "The Guardian" el 19 de septiembre de 2014)
7 comentarios:
¿Hay razones para impugnar el juramento de Carles Puigdemont como president?
La Ley del régimen electoral es clara: "en el momento de tomar posesión y para adquirir la plena condición de sus cargos, los candidatos electos deben jurar o prometer acatamiento a la Constitución, así como cumplimentar los demás requisitos previstos en las leyes o reglamentos respectivos”
Los poderes del Presidente de la Generalitat emanan de la constitucion y del estatut. Leyes aprobadas en el Parlamento español.Es más, la ley electoral que se aplica en Catalunya es la española porque no ha habido intencion de hacer una propia (esa si es una competencia catalana) porque eso significaría perder un poder que ahora le viene de las comarcas más rurales.
Todo son frases grandilocuentes,días históricos, malas formas, desplantes, desprecios y menosprecios hacia el que piensa diferente con el único animo de crear crispación, malestar, enfrentamientos ridículos, que se consigue con eso? nada solo crearse enemigos, si alguien en su sano juicio cree que todo esto traerá algo bueno no ya ahora, en el futuro, entre pueblos que están condenados a conllevarse por el simple echo geográfico aparte del familiar y de lasos históricos es que esta muy mal de la cabeza, estas cosas solo traerán desgracia y ruina para todos. Cuando se siembra la semilla del odio hacia los demás, nunca se recogerá nada bueno, estos políticos de medio pelo solo saben crear enemistad entre la gente y toda para absolutamente nada, estamos todos condenados a conllevarnos, de lo contrario solo nos esperan peleas y disputas que no llevan a ningún lado, solo ruina y pobreza, tanto económica como intelectual y de todo tipo, pensaba que esta tierra queria prosperar y no retroceder hacia la caverna de los aislados.
El problema és que este señor no tiene la más mínima intención de respetar los derechos del 53% de la gente
Prometo respetar al President de la Generalitat, por imperativo legal (que luego yo ya haré lo que me de la gana)
Eso es lo que significa no? Porque me obligan...
Si yo hubiera firmado eso en mi toma de posesión como funcionaria, ni lo hubiera llegado a ser
En cualquier país serio si un cargo no jura por la Constitución se le da la patada en el acto e inhabilita de por vida.
Publicar un comentario