They'll include something in their 2016 Scottish election manifesto. Perhaps not demanding an immediate election (they'll want to wait for the oil price to rise) more about setting out conditions that would allow them to call a referendum. If they get a similar result in the elections they'll argue they have a mandate.

They have the freedom to do whatever the like. They have the power to achieve very little.

I'm sure most Scottish politicians who don't harbour notions of self-immolation will have taken heed of the colossal pressure that seemed to appear out-of-nowhere like a Amazonian python a few weeks before the referendum to take the vote away. At that point you can be certain they will have understood the message.

Challenging the mob boss' authority once is dangerous enough. Twice in short succession and you're practically begging to spend your next night sleeping with the fish.

I have to say the result went as I expected - ie a (probable) small Tory majority.

As I have said for 5 years Labour failed because it does not represent anybody. It tries to appeal to floating voters but gives nobody a reason to vote for them. Miliband was never a man for the British electorate but he per se was not the big problem. The problem was not communicating any policy until shortly before the election but even then in woolly, non-straightforward language and even then no coherent policy just piecemeal bits of attempted popularism. They have lost Scotland by that failure in representation and I doubt will ever get it back.

So, Labour need root and branch rethinking. They need a strong,campaigning, charismatic leader and to set out asap their vision of what they are about and who / what they represent. They then need to spend 5 years shouting it from the roof tops and being a forceful opposition. Do that and get it right and they may just turn it round. Don't and they are finished as an electoral force.

As to LibDems the commentators are talking tosh. All that has happened is they grew over recent elections as a party of protest and Clegg's pledge breaking 5 years ago (and I my view to a lesser extent their coalition) has made people realise they are not a decent protest vote and basically they are back to where they where a few elections back. UKIP have taken up the mantle of the protest vote but it is just that.

Labour by throwing away Scotland over recent years has probably destroyed itself. So, I guess we will need to reconsider the electoral system if that proves the case and the union may break.

As t shorter term ramifications - when do you think the first riots will be? Summer 2017 for me, although may be earlier.

Why would there be riots? The previous ones were race related, how long has it been since we had policitcal/economic protests on that scale?

Bitter individual - did you seriously think things would be better under Labour?

You called it to be fair.

I think that the big surprise is that so many bought into the view that it had to be a hung parliament. One thing that the polls consistently showed was that 1 in 4 had not decided (or preferred not to disclose their views) So it was always on the cards that one of the two main parties could win an overall majority a fact that was ignored by the pundits, politicians and the over hyped media and not made clear enough by the pollsters.

It was clear to me last year that Labour were facing a disaster in Scotland and did not have the leadership, policies or credibility (particularly on the economy) to produce a win in England against a successful Tory led Government which had turned the UK economy around from the disaster left by the previous Labour government.

Last I looked before all the results were in Labour had increased it share of the vote by about 1.4%, the Tories by only 0.4% yet we have the result we do. I have not checked that many but a quick look at a number of seats such as one in Bury shows a lot of similarity to what happened when the SDP split the Labour vote and let the Tories in with a large majority.

In Bury North the Tory got 18.9K, Labour 18.5K and UKIP 5.5K. I'd hazard a guess most of those 5.5K came from Labour. If they did I think those voters will live to regret it. As for that matter will the Labour defectors to the SNP in Scotland.

The same almost happened in Chester where Labour gained from the Tories by a slender majority of less than 100. When it was previously Labour prior to 2010 it has had majorities of around 5K. UKIP got a about 4.4K and their candidate was from Blacon, the big council estate and Labour stronghold so its almost certain in my view that this where most of their votes came from.

Every cloud has a silver lining and for me that comes in the form of that odious woman Esther McVey getting the boot in Wirral.

I would agree. I was not suggesting the protest vote was a simple switch from LibDem to UKIP but the overall numbers are similar (albeit almost certainly it was different individuals "protesting)."

If you think the Scots are from now to eternity going worship in gratitude at the feet of the SNP because they *think* they've gained some woolly concept that doesn't survive outside of political philosophy classes you are mistaken.

Labour will be back - "New" and "Improved" in four years as the "Only Sane Choice". Here they will save us (once again) from the "Heartless Monster of Conservatism". In Scotland they will likely be re-branded as "Traditional Labour" hell bent on kicking out SNP who - after a hellish four years in which they've been castrated by massive pressure from across the border, rocked by scandals and the victim of all manner of dirty tricks - will be facing the wrath of their own electorate for "selling them out".

If Machiavelli were alive he'd doubtless point out that even now - at the height of its supposed supremacy - the SNP wields little power. Scotland is a dirt poor little backwater. It exerts practically no influence outside its own borders and it certainly isn't able to stave off the attentions of its more powerful neighbour by punching it on the nose.

Right now it's the calm before the storm. I'll give them two years before the murkier elements of projected British power have them tearing each others throats out. Then enter "New" New Labour on a white horse.

It's the oldest scam in the book.

It's not as simple as just blaming Ed Milliband. The rise of UKIP and the SNP plus the collapse of the Lib Dems is what ultimately did for Labour in this election.

The Labour vote held up ok in England & Wales. It was Scotland that took 40 odd MP's away from Labour plus UKIP siphoning votes in some constituencies that were only narrowly held or gained by the Tories, plus too many Lib Dem constituencies turning blue instead of red.

But it isn't quite the disaster for Labour that's being made out. Nor is it a brilliant victory by the Tories. The Tories have benefitted from those issues Ive mentioned but their support is wafer thin. If the Lib Dems produce a decent leader and speak sensibly for 5 years then those Lib Dem constituencies will return and the UKIP vote has a good chance of collapsing if Farage isnt leader.

Having said that there was plenty Labour did wrong. Not challenging the austerity/over-spending/Labour crashed the economy charge laid at their door from day 1. Not advising Milliband well enough (bar one or 2 moments he only got going in the campaign by which point it was too late). But the main issues for me were:
- putting Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor - he's been terrible. Could never properly challenge Osborne or the Tories even when the economy was shrinking. And just comes across as if he doesn't really know what he's on about.
- not having a strong enough shadow cabinet/leadership around Milliband. When you compare to what Tony Blair had at his disposal (Brown, Blunkett, Cook, Mandelson etc).
They need to change that if they want to win next time.

Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage have resigned has the leaders of their parties.

I think most of the smart Labour politicians saw the writing on the wall the minute UKIP appeared on the scene, their coat-pockets stuffed with wads of cash from corporate benefactors.

As stated, I don't consider UKIP a political party. It's a brazen tool for election-rigging. You tell people the "Fuzzy Wuzzies are breaking down the doors and about to steal what's rightfully THEIRS" and they'll be queuing down main street to vote for them.

The decision that this was to be a Tory double-term was taken ages back. And UKIP was the safeguard to ensure no one reneged on the deal.

This explains why the Labour effort over the last few years has been so obviously half-hearted. I mean, no one with a shred of intelligence would ever make Milliband the face of a major political party. Ed Balls knew the score. He realised it's better to not be around for the next few years whilst Labour go at each other with knives. By spending some time out he freshly launders his image just in time for the next election when Labour is destined to "Save Britain" from heartless Toryism.

To be honest, I don't even know why I'm framing this within the context of political dichotomy. There truth is there is really only one political party in Britain containing multiple factions. They'll happily fight each other. But should "The Party" itself be threatened they'll happily link arms and defend what they see as an attack upon their class.

Until people wake up and recognise this scam for exactly what it is we will forever be under their boot heels.

And will now be rewarded for their efforts in spades. Jobs done.

Don't be ridiculous. I'd sooner vote for you.