BerwickMad Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Yeh, that is fanciful stuff. I never heard this as a reason. It was always down to how it would affect them and their immediate families. I suppose he could mean, what people think is best for the country, but is was mainly selfish reasons that I heard. Hardly. First of all I will vote for what benefits me personally, but I'm unlikely to do this if I think what's best for me screws everyone else. If I had enough money for private health care, I'd still hold the NHS as an issue worth considering at the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 27, 2014 Author Share Posted September 27, 2014 Hardly. First of all I will vote for what benefits me personally, You and 55% of Scotland, chummy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 You and 55% of Scotland, chummy.I'd think 90% plus tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 27, 2014 Author Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'd think 90% plus tbh. Evidently not. #45andgrowing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 That's the percentage of people who voted Yes. I think it's fair to say a fair number of them thought voting that way would be best for their own personal circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 27, 2014 Author Share Posted September 27, 2014 That's the percentage of people who voted Yes. I think it's fair to say a fair number of them thought voting that way would be best for their own personal circumstances. I would respectfully disagree. Yes voters think differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Delusional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 27, 2014 Author Share Posted September 27, 2014 Raging. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Predictable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Berwick Mad is right. Blaming everything on the media and pensioners is almost Celtic esque in levels of always cheated never defeateds and takes away from the fact that a sizable chunk of the population weren't swayed or persuaded by the yes campaign. Even without the scaremongering a large proportion of people would have voted to stay in the union. The energy should be put into persuading those people in the future. Blaming on outside influences breeds compacency: we would have won if it wasn't for x y and z implies that the work to persuade people has already been done and getting rid of x y z is all that we need to do next time, which patently isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Don't keep us in suspense then! What did you're Yes pals blame it on? Majority didn't think that the Yes campaign had mitigated the risks and uncertainty around currency stability, to convince soft No's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 27, 2014 Author Share Posted September 27, 2014 Majority didn't think that the Yes campaign had mitigated the risks and uncertainty around currency stability, to convince soft No's. Yeah, the soft Nos had a hard enough time under the incessant pressure being applied by the combined media outlets, the establishment and big corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Majority didn't think that the Yes campaign had mitigated the risks and uncertainty around currency stability, to convince soft No's. Probably a fair assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Hardly. First of all I will vote for what benefits me personally, but I'm unlikely to do this if I think what's best for me screws everyone else. If I had enough money for private health care, I'd still hold the NHS as an issue worth considering at the election.But that's you. Admirable as those feelings are, I'm not sure how many other No voters thought this way.I was voting for what I thought would be better for everyone. The media told me I was wrong. The majority voted against it. That's life. It would have been nice to see if I was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Facebook is entertainment and in some ways that's comedic but in the case of Yes it's tragedy mixed in. It is really sad that deluded people believe that social media has a serious place anywhere other than discussing sport, music and cooking You're so quick to dismiss Facebook as a platform for political debate yet here you are consistently arguing about politics on a fucking football website. Unlucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 27, 2014 Author Share Posted September 27, 2014 You're so quick to dismiss Facebook as a platform for political debate yet here you are consistently arguing about politics on a fucking football website. Unlucks. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 You're so quick to dismiss Facebook as a platform for political debate yet here you are consistently arguing about politics on a fucking football website. Unlucks. You got me. The reason I come on here is that i want to be heard along with the other members of the huge majority of "silent" closet Yes voters. If you could bottle irony, you'd be a billionaire even though you write posts that sound c**tish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Yeah, the soft Nos had a hard enough time under the incessant pressure being applied by the combined media outlets, the establishment and big corporations. Only perhaps in the same way they faced a constant barrage of Yes noise on Facebook, Twitter and internet chat forums. The continual and repetitive 'Shouting and Telling' by Yes supporters probably had an adverse effect however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 27, 2014 Author Share Posted September 27, 2014 Only perhaps in the same way they faced a constant barrage of Yes noise on Facebook, Twitter and internet chat forums. The continual and repetitive 'Shouting and Telling' by Yes supporters probably had an adverse effect however. Yeah cos that's equal. People on twitter and facebook are an absolute whisper compared to the deafening roar of 97% of the print press, all the broadcast media, the establishment and every world leader and CEO Westminster leaned on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 You got me. The reason I come on here is that i want to be heard along with the other members of the huge majority of "silent" closet Yes voters. If you could bottle irony, you'd be a billionaire even though you write posts that sound c**tish I don't have a clue what you're on about here, I was just pointing out that you're slagging off Facebook as no place for politics whilst constantly posting about politics in a football forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.