Where did the Yes campaign go wrong?

[MuckleMoo]

Thought I would get this up and running to see what posters think.

We, as Yes voters, can point the finger of blame at the media etc for failing to win the independence arguement but the simple truth is that the electorate didn't buy into the Yes vision.

Where do you think the Yes campaign fell short? And what do we need to do to try and secure a more positive outcome if/when there is another referendum?

[YassinMoutaouakil]

Letting auld c***s vote.

[ICTJohnboy]

Thought I would get this up and running to see what posters think.

We, as Yes voters, can point the finger of blame at the media etc for failing to win the independence arguement but the simple truth is that the electorate didn't by into the Yes vision.

Where do you think the Yes campaign fell short? And what do we need to do to try and secure a more positive outcome if/when there is another referendum?

The Yes campaign was brilliant - they did nothing wrong.

The No shower fell for all the scaremongering and of course, "The Vow"

[Lex]

I don't think they went wrong anywhere.

I think it was a good solid campaign that was well run and they maximised their potential votes.

The issue they had was that Scotland doesn't want to be independent, and there was simply nothing they could do to change that.

[FrontPage]

Currency Union. Shouldve been talking about our own currency from day 1.

Also not enough Scare Mongering, too many people went into this referendum not knowing the dangers of staying gin the Union. In England, they are moving to the american system of delivering public services, where the public are customers of health care, elderly care, higher education etc rather than the recipients of services for free. Already in England its common for the elderly to downsize or straight up give up being homeowners to pay for elderly care, kids are already paying 9,000 a year for University, soon getting half your health care for free but paying for the rest will be the norm.

There is also an apparently lack of education from older people as to how their pension is funded, judging by comment son other sites, I think people genuinely believe there's a pot of money in a vault in London they have paid into all their life.

[pandarilla]

I don't think they went wrong anywhere.

I think it was a good solid campaign that was well run and they maximised their potential votes.

The issue they had was that Scotland doesn't want to be independent, and there was simply nothing they could do to change that.

A majority wanted it - but a big chunk of folk fell for the scare tactics of the British establishment.

[mjw]

There was two years to sort out the currency issue,instead it became the main talking point between the two debates.If there is one scare story that is going to hit home it's the threat to the money in your account/pension/pocket...

[pandarilla]

Currency Union. Shouldve been talking about our own currency from day 1.

Also not enough Scare Mongering, too many people went into this referendum not knowing the dangers of staying gin the Union. In England, they are moving to the american system of delivering public services, where the public are customers of health care, elderly care, higher education etc rather than the recipients of services for free. Already in England its common for the elderly to downsize or straight up give up being homeowners to pay for elderly care, kids are already paying 9,000 a year for University, soon getting half your health care for free but paying for the rest will be the norm.

There is also an apparently lack of education from older people as to how their pension is funded, judging by comment son other sites, I think people genuinely believe there's a pot of money in a vault in London they have paid into all their life.

I'm pretty certain this wouldn't have got 35% to vote Yes. Sadly, folk are attached to the pound as a currency.

[Mr Heliums]

Failure to get old people to drop their prejudices and listen to reason.

[LordHawHaw]

Thought I would get this up and running to see what posters think.

We, as Yes voters, can point the finger of blame at the media etc for failing to win the independence arguement but the simple truth is that the electorate didn't by into the Yes vision.

Where do you think the Yes campaign fell short? And what do we need to do to try and secure a more positive outcome if/when there is another referendum?

I have to say I thought the debate on the whole was a stunning piece of and for democracy, the yes campaign was truely superb, a real grass roots involvement that made me proud to be Scottish, the enthusiastic empowerment of ordinary Scots to dream and discuss how our society could and should be run was very powerful.

The no campaign was very negative imo mainly as they could not offer a vision as it was not in their power to deliver, so they had to knock the pluses for the yes campaign and all they offered was fear of change, supported by what I considered to be poor one sided reporting from our mainstream media.

For me the yes campaign simply failed to win the silent majority in things like currency ( Motherwell fan on another thread summed it up beautifully) Yes simply did not or could not answer the currency question. I was very surprised by the huge amount of people I met that were very quiet about how they were voting, the YES simply did not win the heads of these people, that's why they (we) lost

However I do believe if we continue in the UK with a Tory government and it's austerity for the masses then independence may not be too far away

[SpoonTon]

I don't think they went wrong anywhere.

I think it was a good solid campaign that was well run and they maximised their potential votes.

The issue they had was that Scotland doesn't want to be independent, and there was simply nothing they could do to change that.

I agree with the first two parts but disagree with the final part. I don't think there was anything they could do to stop people, mainly older people, from being put off by the uncertainties of independence. If people were guaranteed that a currency union would be forged, that we would remain in the EU, and that oil would last at least 60 years - then Yes would have won. But those main uncertatinties bled into others - what if I lose my pension, what if we don't have enough money etc, etc. I don't think the Yes campaign ever had support of over 45%, so I think that the panic from Westminster merely solidified a victory that was already won.

I reckon that outside of these uncertanties support for independence is slighty stronger than support for the union, but it would have to come to a point of being far stronger to actually be able to push independence through.

[Snakebite]

Their target audience.

Junkies, neds, clueless 16/17 year old's, left wing students. They don't make up the majority of Scottish population. Also it was too much of a bandwagon fuelled by social media, which we seen in the end, social media meant nothing. People voting yes for a "laugh" the sort of people who went to the royal wedding pissup in Kelvingrove Park a few years ago and went along to George Square because its the in thing to do that night. Bandwagons don't pay bills or secure jobs for families, a strong United Kingdom does.

[LongTimeLurker]

Thought I would get this up and running to see what posters think....

Arguably in calling the referendum in the first place. It's normally very bad politics to call a referendum if you don't have 60%+ on the side of the radical change you want at the outset, but Salmond did very well to get 45% and if "the Vow" that was needed to stop it being on an absolute knife edge prompts Cameron to go down the path of English MPs for English votes you are probably going to get what you wanted in a decade or two possibly in a velvet divorce scenario.

[HibeeJibee]

I think 'Yes' ran a pretty good campaign? They were more positive (which was partly via the nature of the question and scenario), they'd a more energised and active ground campaign, plus they promised that prettymuch anything that people could want would be better while promising that as little as possible would change (e.g. the monarchy, the currency, NATO, etc. etc.). I think very few people would rate 'No' as having run the better campaign in terms of the tactics and strategy, and it's hard to identify many areas which 'Yes' could have done meaningfully better or differently. They were also able to pick the format, choose the timing, include 16-17 year olds, endorse it with "the Scottish Government" stamp, and being largely driven by the SNP - unlike 'No' with their 3 parties - they got across a more precise message. They also had the dominant political figure of the period as leader.

Ultimately, it still left them half a million people behind, though. Referendums / elections aren't necessarily won by those with the better campaign machine.

As an aside, people are deluding themselves if they think their currency decision was a negative. If they'd proposed a Scots Mark or using the Euro they'd have been even more vulnerable to attack, and probably lost by an even wider margin.

[sergie's no1 fan]

My Gran was scared into believing she was losing her pension and she'd need a Visa to visit her sister in law in England who she never sees anyway.

I'm assuming she wasn't the only one who was scared and mis informed.

[Jamaldo]

Arguably in calling the referendum in the first place. It's normally very bad politics to call a referendum if you don't have 60%+ on the side of the radical change you want at the outset, but Salmond did very well to get 45% and if "the Vow" that was needed to stop it being on an absolute knife edge prompts Cameron to go down the path of English MPs for English votes you are probably going to get what you wanted in a decade or two possibly in a velvet divorce scenario.

That's a good point I suppose but the SNP were probably of the view that the majority they had in the Scottish Parliament would likely go in 2016 and so they felt it was now or never.

[Loondave1]

Maybe saying "scaremongering" to answer a question once too often . Acknowledging difficulties ahead maybe.I know lots of silent nos that just got peed off with the YES in their faces like some brainwashed cult follower.In order to request big change you need meat on policies and facts.Oldies me included will not buy into wing and a prayer optimism.Also respecting others right to disagree without accusing them of being traitors.That kind of juvenile pish wins no friends.

[The_Kincardine]

I think 'Yes' ran a pretty good campaign? They were more positive (which was partly via the nature of the question and scenario), they'd a more energised and active ground campaign, plus they promised that prettymuch anything that people could want would be better while promising that as little as possible would change (e.g. the monarchy, the currency, NATO, etc. etc.). I think very few people would rate 'No' as having run the better campaign in terms of the tactics and strategy, and it's hard to identify many areas which 'Yes' could have done meaningfully better or differently.

Fuxace HJ am I agreeing with you again? For sure Yes ran the better campaign but they were always on to a hiding to nothing for 3 reasons: Demographics, connectivity and stasis.

Demographics. I'd guess close to 20% of the electorate are non-Scots. Why would they want independence?

Connectivity. Two aspects to this. 1. there are at least 600,000 Scots living in England. This is bound to have an influence on their families. 2. There are no barriers to trade between Scotland and England and independence would have, of course, introduced some.

Stasis: Folk like certainty and predictability. iScotland offered neither.

My take is that 45% is a remarkable result.

[blanco]

Maybe saying "scaremongering" to answer a question once too often . Acknowledging difficulties ahead maybe.I know lots of silent nos that just got peed off with the YES in their faces like some brainwashed cult follower.In order to request big change you need meat on policies and facts.Oldies me included will not buy into wing and a prayer optimism.Also respecting others right to disagree without accusing them of being traitors.That kind of juvenile pish wins no friends.

Treacherous auld c***s like you would sell your grandchildren down the river for your winter fuel payment and free tv license.

[H_B]

I think Tubbs summed this up on another thread well but Yes really did have every possible advantage. The 45% should be disappointing for that reason.

An unpopular coalition . The aftermath of a financial crisis... the ability to choose the question.. the timing... the scope of the electorate... claim the positive side of the debate for themselves .. a huge funding advantage at the start...

All of this brought just 45% from a huge turnout.