DeeTillEhDeh

What do you mean taking it well? I just think (like a lot of people here) that there are more Labour voters who are as thick as mince compared to other parties.

Just checked the vote in North East - SNP did achieve 52% on the list vote which elected one additional member. Labour picked up 3 additional member seats. I need to check the total votes on the constituency votes.What I do know though is that in terms of constituency versus list vote the SNP only dropped 1.4% compared to a 5.4% drop by Labour - the SNP did perform relatively better on the list than Labour. That could be down to a number of factors - my gut instinct is that there are a large number of Labour voters too thick to understand that the second vote isn't a second choice.

The North East one is not as daft as it looks - there are voters out there who will have happily voted SNP for the SP elections who are either DK or No voters (my mother and grandfather for instance). Also although the SNP won lots of seats they did not win a majority of votes in the region as far as I recollect.

Seen both Yes and No voters who are nothing more than loudmouth arses - I don't believe it is the preserve of one side or the other.

Given my own dealings with the far left they probably didn't even carry out a canvass.From personal experience, canvasses are notoriously unreliable - fine for getting your vote out on the day but don't always paint an accurate picture. I take it they didn't have a not in or didn't answer the door option?

This has turned into a car crash of a thread.

Google "Negativity Bias Theory" - there is a plethora of research that would indicate otherwise.

It's human nature to be negative about change - that's why any sort of discussion about change comes down to the positives for the change and the negatives against.

To some extent this is true - the case for the union is very much based on the loss of its benefits by having independence - that by its very nature comes across as negative.That being said, BT are not exactly subtle when it comes to negativity - to the point where the arguments being put forward are wide of the mark - such as Lord Robertson's Nato speech. I would also argue that the argument for change can and has been negative itself - some here (and elsewhere) resort to blaming Westminster for any problem that exists.

PS To the post above. I do believe BT do have a problem putting forward a positive case - not because there isn't one but because, in referenda, being negative (especially for a No campaign) is usually effective. That being said I would say that BT are perhaps not being subtle enough in that negativity.

"The Yes campaign, however, have focussed on all the positive points of independence and about what can be achieved." They have quite happily put the boot in negatively when they saw fit. In fact I would argue that it happens a lot. It's almost a joke now. The standard argument is "X is being caused by Westminster. But if you vote for independence X won't happen". But then failing to explain why.

Was checking my calendar to make sure it wasn't 1st April.

The Clown Prince of Darien has awoken.

Women are more intelligent though.

The Panelbase poll (which I would use with caution) shows that DKs are beginning to break but equally to both sides - that isn't good news for the Yes campaign.

I wouldn't wear that in a million years. Like something Jamesey Cotter would wear.

Gone downhill? When was it ever up the hill?

Can't fekkin stand Lord Robertson.

Disagree - Baxter Pap is the chief clown.

I can think of other words to describe you.

That's why I :lol:'d when I saw the original sarcastic response - WoS is as impartial as BT.

"We don't do walking away" Except when you get beat in a cup final. Mine's a treble - cheers!!!

It's a shithole.

Worst I've seen Murray play in a long time.