When will indyref2 happen?

[ArabianKnight]

Don't know why a "Westminster out of Scotland" banner would not have sufficed. 

Gtf with the anti-English pish. 

[welshbairn]

I expect a large swing to Yes from English born Scots after the utter clusterfuck in Westminster since voting No in 2014.

[DiegoDiego]

I expect a large swing to Yes from English born Scots after the utter clusterfuck in Westminster since voting No in 2014.

I know quite a few folk who fit into that category.

[alr]

I expect a large swing to Yes from English born Scots after the utter clusterfuck in Westminster since voting No in 2014.

Ones like my Mrs who have chosen to live in Scotland for the past decade or so. Whilst voting no the last time I doubt she would this time around - the constant shambles of Westminster seems to be playing its part.

Last time round (before we met) it seems she was subject to some anti-English abuse and also felt that reasons for indy didn't stack up or get argued for well enough. On the flip side I played an active part and felt as though there was plenty of positive reasons out there. It goes to show that outside of the pro-indy bubble there was a lot more work to be done. Unfortunately the best trigger for independence could be more suffering under the tories and I think the Union will lose rather than Independence win. The sooner the better, mind.

[BawWatchin]

56 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Oh do f**k off with the ethnonationalism. I know plenty of English folk who voted yes.

Utter shite.

[NotThePars]

Didn't expect this thread to descend into fifth column type chat but fair play.

[tirso]

it's quite obvious English born people or English were hugely in favour of No.  And probably (at 10% and increasing) swung the vote alongside other demographics.    

That said, you'll never win going down a Freedom, Braveheart stye.  No point dwelling on it.  Although pretty much every country has been formed by an ethnic group, that's not the direction of travel these days thankfully.  

The campaign was lost because old people and English born Edinburgers, Aberdonians weren't convinced and very hard to reach.  They didn't do enough on pensions messaging.  The swing voters needed are old people.  How you convince them, no idea.  

 

[Savage Henry]

it's quite obvious English born people or English were hugely in favour of No.  And probably (at 10% and increasing) swung the vote alongside other demographics.    
That said, you'll never win going down a Freedom, Braveheart stye.  No point dwelling on it.  Although pretty much every country has been formed by an ethnic group, that's not the direction of travel these days thankfully.  
The campaign was lost because old people and English born Edinburgers, Aberdonians weren't convinced and very hard to reach.  They didn't do enough on pensions messaging.  The swing voters needed are old people.  How you convince them, no idea.  
 

The numbers don’t support that. At all. 16 to 19 tended to vote no, for example. Women, and middle income voters also tended to vote no.

I’m not sure why it’s “obvious” that English voters were hugely in favour of no. As far as I know, there isn’t a specific study on English-born voters (as opposed to English people with views on Independence).

In short, the results were far more blurred than you’re making out.

[Dons_1988]

Surely the people you need to target are those middle class voters with little emotional attachment to Scottish independence.

Convince them that not only can Scotland survive on its own but there are clear economic benefits to independence, you suspect a no deal brexit would aid that argument in any case.

[tirso]

15 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

The numbers don’t support that. At all. 16 to 19 tended to vote no, for example. Women, and middle income voters also tended to vote no.

I’m not sure why it’s “obvious” that English voters were hugely in favour of no. As far as I know, there isn’t a specific study on English-born voters (as opposed to English people with views on Independence).

In short, the results were far more blurred than you’re making out.

 

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/voted-yes-voted/

it only takes about 2 minutes to find evidence for it.

"Between them the two exercises confirm the presence of four patterns that were evident in the polls throughout most of the campaign: women, older people, those in more affluent circumstances and those who were born elsewhere in the UK were all relatively reluctant to vote Yes." Professor Curtice.

I knew it anyway but you don't always need stats to back up common sense.  Do you honestly believe there is no variation between an English born voter and a Scottish one on the matter of Scottish independence?  

I'm not saying its something that should be raised as a 'problem'.  Maybe it makes you feel more progressive denying it, I don't know.  I'm not denying it and I don't blame them either.

 

[renton]

30 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

The numbers don’t support that. At all. 16 to 19 tended to vote no, for example. Women, and middle income voters also tended to vote no.

I’m not sure why it’s “obvious” that English voters were hugely in favour of no. As far as I know, there isn’t a specific study on English-born voters (as opposed to English people with views on Independence).

In short, the results were far more blurred than you’re making out.

 

Not according to the Edinburgh University study:

http://centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Scottish Referendum Study 27 March 2015.pdf

page 7: 16-19 62.5% Yes. Interesting to note the dink down towards No in the 20-24 age range, almost certainly because that bin has a larger share of other UK born and EU nationals as it's most of your University population up to and through Post grad. Probably also folk from those Non Scots born demogrpahics whow went to Uni taking graduate jobs in Scotland for a year or two.

Also, page 5 for other UK born (mostly English) voting: 72.1% No.

Edited July 9, 2019 by renton

[git-intae-thum]

14 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

The numbers don’t support that. At all. 16 to 19 tended to vote no, for example. Women, and middle income voters also tended to vote no.

I’m not sure why it’s “obvious” that English voters were hugely in favour of no. As far as I know, there isn’t a specific study on English-born voters (as opposed to English people with views on Independence).

In short, the results were far more blurred than you’re making out.

 

Really surprised by you saying 16 to 19 voted no. First I have heard that.

Statistically the older a person was, the more likely they were to vote no.

That cannot be in dispute.

Two reasons they voted no imo.

Firstly...the older you are, the more likely you are to still retain a misguided sense of Britishness. Nothing the independence movement does can really shake that. 

Second .. money.

A campaign highlighting the UK pension...... contrasting with each of our European neighbours, may work.

Provide evidence of what Scotland ultimately can do differently.

Even a relatively small amount of older voters just not voting no next time, will likely see independence over the line.

[Savage Henry]

8 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

Really surprised by you saying 16 to 19 voted no. First I have heard that.

Statistically the older a person was, the more likely they were to vote no.

That cannot be in dispute.

Two reasons they voted no imo.

Firstly...the older you are, the more likely you are to still retain a misguided sense of Britishness. Nothing the independence movement does can really shake that. 

Second .. money.

A campaign highlighting the UK pension...... contrasting with each of our European neighbours, may work.

Provide evidence of what Scotland ultimately can do differently.

Even a relatively small amount of older voters just not voting no next time, will likely see independence over the line.

It absolutely is in dispute, because people lie about how they voted.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948

[renton]

3 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

It absolutely is in dispute, because people lie about how they voted.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948

That weirdly must be the same study as the one I've linked to, but with some of the numbers different.

[Savage Henry]

That weirdly must be the same study as the one I've linked to, but with some of the numbers different.

It does appear to be, doesn’t it? I’m sure the resident political scientists will explain it to me. I am quite willing to be corrected, but I stand by my statement that voting demographics are inherently blurred and it’s impossible to say just a few old folk changing to yes will sway things.

[tirso]

8 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

It absolutely is in dispute, because people lie about how they voted.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948

?

Literally says this in the article:

Those born in other parts of the UK were much more likely to vote 'No', by 70% to 30%. There was a smaller 'No' majority for those born outside the UK, and those born in Scotland were evenly split.

That's one study too but as Curtice says, the range of polls showed the four demographics quite clearly.

 

[git-intae-thum]

6 minutes ago, renton said:

That weirdly must be the same study as the one I've linked to, but with some of the numbers different.

I was just about to mention that. The only difference seems to be the date of the BBC article. Hmm.

[tirso]

1 minute ago, Savage Henry said:

 

It does appear to be, doesn’t it? I’m sure the resident political scientists will explain it to me. I am quite willing to be corrected, but I stand by my statement that voting demographics are inherently blurred and it’s impossible to say just a few old folk changing to yes will sway things.
 

 

Well you would think the umpteen polls showing the same thing might be onto something.  But it's definitely true, you never can tell for sure.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 minute ago, Savage Henry said:

 

It does appear to be, doesn’t it? I’m sure the resident political scientists will explain it to me. I am quite willing to be corrected, but I stand by my statement that voting demographics are inherently blurred and it’s impossible to say just a few old folk changing to yes will sway things.
 

 

Proportionately more older No voters than older Yes voters dying might have an impact.

 

That being said for me the real targets for any IndyRef2 campaign has to be those soft No voters - those who voted No not out of any politcial reason but out of economic fear.  In particular there needs to be more doen in terms of those female voters who voted No.

[renton]

5 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

It does appear to be, doesn’t it? I’m sure the resident political scientists will explain it to me. I am quite willing to be corrected, but I stand by my statement that voting demographics are inherently blurred and it’s impossible to say just a few old folk changing to yes will sway things.
 

 

Yeah, it's a shame the BBC article doesn't carry a link as the only one I can find online is the one I've posted above, which puts a bit of a different slant on things. 

IN any event, I agree to the extent that targeting old folk with better pension numbers will not work in any great numbers, there is in my opinion an inherent generational divide on the constitution that I reckon has it roots in pre and post '79. 

I don't like a 50% + 1 strategy so I'd caution against doubling down on the RIC strategy. Yes, I think need to be concentrating on the middle class metropolitan No voters, getting turnout up in the working class areas that previously voted yes and trying to ram home the message to the good people of the North East how much their livliehoods are about to get hammered. As well as maintaining the right of EU citizens to vote, which would put them squarely in the Yes bracket.

Edited July 9, 2019 by renton