Kyle Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Excuses. The establishment panic when that Yougov poll was released showing Yes in the lead was not a work of fiction, Kevin, no matter how much you wish it was. The ONLY reason No won (remember, all it needed was a swing of 200,000 voters) was Project Fear. I think your falling down the old yes trap of not being self critical/aware here Fide. Yes lost the referendum, no didn't win IMO. Yes failed to allay the fears of the many - the economic argument wasn't strong enough, the currency debate was well and truly lost, the pensioners were unconvinced that they would receive what they feel is their hard earned pension and I think there's an element of the no vote who couldn't see passed the fact Alex Salmond fronted the yes campaign. I'd say that more than 50% of the Scottish population would've voted yes if those arguments had've been stronger. Project fear obviously played a part in why some voted no, but equally I think a lot of people were put off the no campaign when the smear/fear crap started. That's when I started to look at yes with more conviction, prior to that I was a mindless no. If the better together campaign had focussed on the positives of the union rather than the negatives of independence, I likely would've voted no in the referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Absolutely no chance of that. Johnson does not have the necessary Parliamentary support to get on the members ballot. He has p*ssed off a lot of them with his arrogance and sense of entitlement. We will see. Either way it will be some tory pr1ck who waltzes in in 2020(Corbyn will be a shambles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I think your falling down the old yes trap of not being self critical/aware here Fide. Yes lost the referendum, no didn't win IMO. Yes failed to allay the fears of the many - the economic argument wasn't strong enough, the currency debate was well and truly lost, the pensioners were unconvinced that they would receive what they feel is their hard earned pension and I think there's an element of the no vote who couldn't see passed the fact Alex Salmond fronted the yes campaign. I'd say that more than 50% of the Scottish population would've voted yes if those arguments had've been stronger. Project fear obviously played a part in why some voted no, but equally I think a lot of people were put off the no campaign when the smear/fear crap started. That's when I started to look at yes with more conviction, prior to that I was a mindless no. If the better together campaign had focussed on the positives of the union rather than the negatives of independence, I likely would've voted no in the referendum. Being completely honest, I don't think I'm falling into any trap. Most of the arguements for Yes were well put across, well sourced, factually sound and bore scrutiny. However, Project Fear was a "thing". Officials from Better Together/ UKOK/ No Thanks passed the following off as fact: Scotland would enter a great depression after a Yes vote, shopping bills would rise, organ transplants wouldn't be possible, pensions would stop, armed guards would be placed at the border, the BBC licence fee would double, Russia would attack us, mortgages would rise, postal costs would rise, 1 million jobs would be lost. There were many, many more baseless examples of intimidation and fear exercised by the establishment. Remember, all No needed was that 200,000 vote swing. A swing I genuinely think went to their side thanks solely to Project Fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I think your falling down the old yes trap of not being self critical/aware here Fide. Yes lost the referendum, no didn't win IMO. Yes failed to allay the fears of the many - the economic argument wasn't strong enough, the currency debate was well and truly lost, the pensioners were unconvinced that they would receive what they feel is their hard earned pension and I think there's an element of the no vote who couldn't see passed the fact Alex Salmond fronted the yes campaign. I'd say that more than 50% of the Scottish population would've voted yes if those arguments had've been stronger. Project fear obviously played a part in why some voted no, but equally I think a lot of people were put off the no campaign when the smear/fear crap started. That's when I started to look at yes with more conviction, prior to that I was a mindless no. If the better together campaign had focussed on the positives of the union rather than the negatives of independence, I likely would've voted no in the referendum. If they could ever find any. The currency debate thing is interesting, because the announcement of the UK rejection of a currency union actually preceded a swing to Yes through the winter of 2013, probably due to perceived high handed, arrogant colonial thinking from the UK Gov in that respect. The other thing about currency is that no matter what Yes had come up with: Euro, Dollar, Rouble, a Scottish Groat, there were sufficient short term and long term risks with all options to provide plenty of ammunition to the No campaign to attack. By that standard, yes would 'lose' that debate, regardless. In the end, I don't think there were any singular debates or issues that turned folk off it in droves. There was likely a continuum of smaller things that all added up to a stick rather than twist mentality. The kind of gut decision that might be half rationalised by currency, or whatever - but which wouldn't stand up to an intellectual argument. The Vow, in the end, gave many people an out - 'more powers' allowed folk to feel more comfortable without ever stopping to consider what powers and how they would be delivered. The No campaign was primarily a spoiling campaign, it had all the ground to lose. Outside of the No core groups(older voters, other UK born demographics) it lost the argument, but not by sufficient margins to return an overall yes vote. It's hard to see how yes could modulate some of their arguments to make them more palatable to the 2014 electorate in retrospect. Take the EU thing, for example - realpolitik would have eventually secured a Scot entry/re-entry/remaining in the EU on some terms or other. Yet no conclusive terms, deals or criteria could be put forward prior to a Yes vote - so what do you do? You can't get a deal until you have a yes vote and you can't get a yes vote until the EU gives you a deal? Had the Scots electorate been persuaded by other arguments it might have been more willing to give a pass on that particular argument, the same goes for any of the other arguments. 45% was a fairly respectable result for Yes, given where it started from. Indyref1 probably couldn't win, in retrospect, but it has normalised the idea of independence to a degree that allows those of us yes inclined some hope for the future. It's no longer a fringe issue in a fringe party, but the central argument in modern Scottish political discourse. The UK government's principle failure was it's inability to kill off the Yes movement or to re-marginalise it. The past year has seen modest gains for Indy in polling, which is to be expected after the singular inability of Unionist parties to come up with a devolution settlement that Scots would be happy with, and then of course to promptly re-elect the fucking Tories. It got Indy ahead in youth and working age groups, a decent base to push on with as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Most of the arguements for Yes were well put across, well sourced, factually sound and bore scrutiny. lawl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 probably due to perceived high handed, arrogant colonial thinking from the UK Gov in that respect. Yes, it's certainly the UK government that was being arrogant here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 45% was a fairly respectable result for Yes, given where it started from. No it wasn't. I've already comprehensively proven that not to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Yes, it's certainly the UK government that was being arrogant here. It's a question of perception, because they managed to give the distinct impression that Scots were mere tenants, rather than part owners of the 'Great British Project' by telling them they couldn't use the Pound, the Yes position was based on an assumption, probably a reasonably accurate one, that a currency union was actually in everyone's best interests, short term, but like I said - inevitably every single currency option entailed a series of trade offs that would allow No to ring the Doomsday bells about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 No it wasn't. I've already comprehensively proven that not to be the case. Only to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 by telling them they couldn't use the Pound, the I think you are now getting into the Stuart Campbell type moron thinking. Osborne didn't tell Scotland it couldn't use the pound. He said that rUK would not be interested in a currency union. As is the right of any sovereign state to decide for itself. The arrogance here was 100% on the Yes campaign's side. Quite breathtaking arrogance to be frank. Seeking to tell another sovereign nation what was best for them and what they better do. You are right though. Yes managed to spin this as a positive for themselves, as most people are pretty thick and didn't manage to grasp this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 lawl the yes campaign said the NHS would die if we voted no, yet fide posts continuously about how well the NHS is doing in Scotland. Who was project fear again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Being completely honest, I don't think I'm falling into any trap. Most of the arguements for Yes were well put across, well sourced, factually sound and bore scrutiny. However, Project Fear was a "thing". Officials from Better Together/ UKOK/ No Thanks passed the following off as fact: Scotland would enter a great depression after a Yes vote, shopping bills would rise, organ transplants wouldn't be possible, pensions would stop, armed guards would be placed at the border, the BBC licence fee would double, Russia would attack us, mortgages would rise, postal costs would rise, 1 million jobs would be lost. There were many, many more baseless examples of intimidation and fear exercised by the establishment. Remember, all No needed was that 200,000 vote swing. A swing I genuinely think went to their side thanks solely to Project Fear. With all due respect, I think you are. Project fear undoubtedly played its part - I'm not denying that - but I also think that Yes could've won the referendum with a better thought out economic plan, a plan b if the currency union was to fail and with a more focussed campaign towards those demographics inclined to vote no rather than yes. The majority of Scots born across the rest of the UK (I do see those living in Scotland as Scots, regardless of where they were born - just to avoid that argument with someone ), pensioners and the middle class/right wing clearly didn't feel independence was a palatable option. Those who felt they had something to lose were much less likely to be convinced to take the leap of faith than those who felt they had nothing. Agree that project fear played a part in this, but plenty of people on the no side of things were open to listening to both sides of the argument but were unconvinced by the economic case set out by yes. I feel you're kind of employing labour's "it's the electorate's fault we lost the election" logic to be honest. It's entirely the fault of yes that we didn't win the referendum. That's not to say No performed well and Yes performed poorly - I think the opposite of that is true - but the fact remains that we voted no collectively more than 50% of the Scottish population would be inclined to vote yes if they were convinced they'd be at least as well off as they are now. Hell, I was a yes voter and I thought I would be worse off in the short term. They didn't even win me over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 With all due respect, I think you are. Project fear undoubtedly played its part - I'm not denying that - but I also think that Yes could've won the referendum with a better thought out economic plan, a plan b if the currency union was to fail and with a more focussed campaign towards those demographics inclined to vote no rather than yes. The majority of Scots born across the rest of the UK (I do see those living in Scotland as Scots, regardless of where they were born - just to avoid that argument with someone ), pensioners and the middle class/right wing clearly didn't feel independence was a palatable option. Those who felt they had something to lose were much less likely to be convinced to take the leap of faith than those who felt they had nothing. Agree that project fear played a part in this, but plenty of people on the no side of things were open to listening to both sides of the argument but were unconvinced by the economic case set out by yes. I feel you're kind of employing labour's "it's the electorate's fault we lost the election" logic to be honest. It's entirely the fault of yes that we didn't win the referendum. That's not to say No performed well and Yes performed poorly - I think the opposite of that is true - but the fact remains that we voted no collectively more than 50% of the Scottish population would be inclined to vote yes if they were convinced they'd be at least as well off as they are now. Hell, I was a yes voter and I thought I would be worse off in the short term. They didn't even win me over! We'll agree to disagree then. I'm just enjoying H_B's latest mewling scramble for relevance in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizfit Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I notice the herald on Twitter mentioning this. Every comment is from unionist accusing them of scaremongering:lol: Welcome to our life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 With all due respect, I think you are. Project fear undoubtedly played its part - I'm not denying that - but I also think that Yes could've won the referendum with a better thought out economic plan, a plan b if the currency union was to fail and with a more focussed campaign towards those demographics inclined to vote no rather than yes. The majority of Scots born across the rest of the UK (I do see those living in Scotland as Scots, regardless of where they were born - just to avoid that argument with someone ), pensioners and the middle class/right wing clearly didn't feel independence was a palatable option. Those who felt they had something to lose were much less likely to be convinced to take the leap of faith than those who felt they had nothing. Agree that project fear played a part in this, but plenty of people on the no side of things were open to listening to both sides of the argument but were unconvinced by the economic case set out by yes. I feel you're kind of employing labour's "it's the electorate's fault we lost the election" logic to be honest. It's entirely the fault of yes that we didn't win the referendum. That's not to say No performed well and Yes performed poorly - I think the opposite of that is true - but the fact remains that we voted no collectively more than 50% of the Scottish population would be inclined to vote yes if they were convinced they'd be at least as well off as they are now. Hell, I was a yes voter and I thought I would be worse off in the short term. They didn't even win me over! The Yes campaign had an awful lot of advantages also. They picked the date, the question, the franchise and took for themselves the "positive" side of the debate. They enjoyed a massive financial advantage also, and cominated social media and grassroots campaigning. The No campaign was shambolic, poorly organised, insipid and I think did more harm than good. Spouted some utter nonsense, cringeworthy leadership and some outrageous lies. Yet it was still a comprehensive victory for No despite all this. Yes could certainly win in the future, and may do so, if they learn the lesson of their defeat last time. Currency was an obvious failing, they made a total arse of EU membership as well - lying to the public, then being forced into a humiliating climbdown in their White Paper. On both things they would have profited I think from being honest with people and not just making stuff up as they went along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The Yes campaign had an awful lot of advantages also. They picked the date, the question, the franchise and took for themselves the "positive" side of the debate. They enjoyed a massive financial advantage also, and cominated social media and grassroots campaigning. The No campaign was shambolic, poorly organised, insipid and I think did more harm than good. Spouted some utter nonsense, cringeworthy leadership and some outrageous lies. Yet it was still a comprehensive victory for No despite all this. Yes could certainly win in the future, and may do so, if they learn the lesson of their defeat last time. Currency was an obvious failing, they made a total arse of EU membership as well - lying to the public, then being forced into a humiliating climbdown in their White Paper. On both things they would have profited I think from being honest with people and not just making stuff up as they went along. I think BT outspent yes in the end. No also had the vast majority of print and broadcast media the 3 main UK parties, the entire UK civil service and 300 years of institutional inertia. Finally, it was Darling who said No had to keep Yes below 40%, to win, and win well - to bury it for good. Yet the issue has not gone away - a year later and it's still the central political argument in Scotland, the Yes movement are far from being marginalised and if anything it's the Unionist campaigning machine that's been hugely damaged. Indy is now a mainstream point of view. No won, but it doesn't look all that comprehensive to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I think BT outspent yes in the end. No also had the vast majority of print and broadcast media the 3 main UK parties, the entire UK civil service and 300 years of institutional inertia. You're right, as confirmed in the following Unionist comic: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scotland-referendum-better-together-no-5099600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The Yes campaign had an awful lot of advantages also. They picked the date, the question, the franchise and took for themselves the "positive" side of the debate. They enjoyed a massive financial advantage also, and cominated social media and grassroots campaigning. The No campaign was shambolic, poorly organised, insipid and I think did more harm than good. Spouted some utter nonsense, cringeworthy leadership and some outrageous lies. Yet it was still a comprehensive victory for No despite all this. Yes could certainly win in the future, and may do so, if they learn the lesson of their defeat last time. Currency was an obvious failing, they made a total arse of EU membership as well - lying to the public, then being forced into a humiliating climbdown in their White Paper. On both things they would have profited I think from being honest with people and not just making stuff up as they went along. ^^^ the benefit of H_B on this forum, right there. Agree with the majority of this post. I don't think yes spent more than no in the end though. If the unionist parties have any sense - I'm look mainly at you, Labour - they'll have their own no campaigns next time round rather than one that encompasses all of them. I think the battering they took was in part down to the fact they aligned themselves with the Tories, even down to sharing a stage with them. No has to be positive about the UK next time - I don't think they can rely on fear/smear again in a referendum. You just need to look at how dimly that chat was viewed during the general election campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Osborne didn't tell Scotland it couldn't use the pound. He said that rUK would not be interested in a currency union. As is the right of any sovereign state to decide for itself. There is no legal reason why the rest of the UK would need to share it's currency with Scotland Because sharing the pound is not in the interests of either the people of Scotland or the rest of the UK. If Scotland walks away from the UK, it walks away from the UK pound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 In Sept 2013 TNS had Yes: 25% Look where we are in 2 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.