MarkoRaj Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Lost the referendum imo. One of the things I noticed about the 'scare stories' was that most of them were based on the idea of Scotland being 'without a currency.' I assume Salmond thought it would have made the position weaker or that dollarisation/our own currency were too easily dismissed. He should have been stronger. Instead of saying 'there's nothing stopping us from using the pound' that should have become the official position along with not paying the debt. I don't necessarily think that it was a masterstroke by Osborne et al as I think a stronger position on plan b would have been enough to negate the ploy. The wm politicians ganging up to tell Scotland what we can't do would never have been a vote winner in itself, however there was just too much uncertainty for it to be dismissed. A stronger position on plan b would have been enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oht Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 While it was probably the yes campaign's soft spot, if it wasn't the currency, another excuse would have been found by many. All the FB posts I see from no voters are along the lines of 'next time when it's better thought through I'll vote yes'. No they won't. 'So near and yet so far' couldn't be more aptly applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Mojo Risin' Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Lack of a plan B? or the wrong plan A? The Scottish pound (or the smackerooni) should have been first choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Currency and the EU were absolute shambles for Yes. Next time the actual wider campaign would do better to distance their selves from the SNP. Don't be tarred by their fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted September 20, 2014 Author Share Posted September 20, 2014 While it was probably the yes campaign's soft spot, if it wasn't the currency, another excuse would have been found by many. All the FB posts I see from no voters are along the lines of 'next time when it's better thought through I'll vote yes'. No they won't. 'So near and yet so far' couldn't be more aptly applied. I'm sure I saw a survey that said 57% of no voters said the currency was the overriding factor in their decision. I'm sure you're right but I can't imagine I'm the only one who struggled to get through to people when discussing this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon_alibion Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 As Marko above says, the currency was cited as the number one reason for a No vote in the Lord Ashcroft poll so it clearly had an impact. The problem is that as an argument it just handed all of the initiative to the other side. Did we really think Osborne and the rest were going to respond to the proposal of a currency union by saying it was a great idea? It gave them an open goal from the start and turned the argument into basically having to prove the other side were lying about their own policies (which is impossible, you either believe they're lying or you don't, you can't prove what they'll do in a future negotiation). The "plan B" should clearly have been a proposal to create an independent currency. The economics behind sterlingisation are ludicrous yet we ended up with that at the epicentre of the economic argument simply because we wanted to say "we can keep the pound" rather than putting forward a proper solution. I doubt it would have changed the overall result but as a bit of politics the currency plan was the biggest mistake on the Yes side, no question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al666 Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 The currency was just the most obvious in a long line of "policies" that were cobbled together in an attempt to win votes. As soon as you looked at most of the propaganda from the yes side, a little basic research demolished the arguments. Salmonds refusal to give answers to simple questions, coupled with his lies; eg legal advice on joining the EU, having talks with EU countries re an independant Scotland; that and trying to scare voters with UKIP and the ghost of Thatcher sowed the seeds of his own downfall and that of the campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Absolute bollocks, none of those questions were simple questions and the vast majority of them couldn't be answered as these answers would only be reached during the course of negotiations post yes. This was a problem for yes from the word go as it allowed no to focus on "uncertainty" - which was a bit of a weasel word imo - and play on people's fears from there. In a perfect world it would have been nice if both parties could have sat down, agreed beforehand this is what an independent Scotland would look like, and we could have voted on that with all the answers to hand. Obviously that's completely unrealistic IRL though, so yes were left with making predictions about what things could be like - not really satisfactory and easy prey for fear-mongers. Of course, the irony is that we're now faced with uncertainty anyway - 45% of people voted to leave the UK, and despite no voters wanting to paint this as a conclusive victory (not BT as far as I can see), in reality it's quite tight...if 200k more people had turned it would have been a yes victory. The "problem" (for yes supporters) with the current uncertainty is that the focus of solving this will not be on the Scottish interest, but on the interest of all and other regions of the UK, that may well conflict with the Scottish interest This is a moment of crisis for Westminster and has to be dealt with carefully. It wouldn't surprise me if in 100 years time, Thursday is looked on as the beginning of the end of the UK. That's why firing an unelected peer in charge without consultation with all parties is a mistake imo. And rushing any constiutional changes is also a mistake, but that all stems from the desperation showed by the UK govt in the last week or so of the campaign. Frankly I can't believe Cameron promised to keep the Barnett formula the same, as I don't reckon he'll be able to pull that one off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonapersona Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Most people who voted No probably didn't even read the white paper. The important thing to remember is that support for independence has reached 45%. It's a huge chunk of the population so now it's vital that this number doesn't start to dip. I first voted in the 1987 general election where my vote for the SNP (in the Borders too) counted for very little. We've come a long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHawHaw Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Absolute bollocks, none of those questions were simple questions and the vast majority of them couldn't be answered as these answers would only be reached during the course of negotiations post yes. This was a problem for yes from the word go as it allowed no to focus on "uncertainty" - which was a bit of a weasel word imo - and play on people's fears from there. In a perfect world it would have been nice if both parties could have sat down, agreed beforehand this is what an independent Scotland would look like, and we could have voted on that with all the answers to hand. Obviously that's completely unrealistic IRL though, so yes were left with making predictions about what things could be like - not really satisfactory and easy prey for fear-mongers. Of course, the irony is that we're now faced with uncertainty anyway - 45% of people voted to leave the UK, and despite no voters wanting to paint this as a conclusive victory (not BT as far as I can see), in reality it's quite tight...if 200k more people had turned it would have been a yes victory. The "problem" (for yes supporters) with the current uncertainty is that the focus of solving this will not be on the Scottish interest, but on the interest of all and other regions of the UK, that may well conflict with the Scottish interest This is a moment of crisis for Westminster and has to be dealt with carefully. It wouldn't surprise me if in 100 years time, Thursday is looked on as the beginning of the end of the UK. That's why firing an unelected peer in charge without consultation with all parties is a mistake imo. And rushing any constiutional changes is also a mistake, but that all stems from the desperation showed by the UK govt in the last week or so of the campaign. Frankly I can't believe Cameron promised to keep the Barnett formula the same, as I don't reckon he'll be able to pull that one off. Fantasic post if I may say so, particularly on the currency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Heliums Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Currency and the EU were absolute shambles for Yes. The EU was only an issue because the UK Government had the power to make it an issue. They could have settled it by asking the EU for a definitive answer. They didn't, because I suspect that if they had, it would have shafted them. UK Govt relied on FUD for both issues. It won them the battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 The EU was only an issue because the UK Government had the power to make it an issue. They could have settled it by asking the EU for a definitive answer. They didn't, because I suspect that if they had, it would have shafted them. UK Govt relied on FUD for both issues. It won them the battle. The EU as an entity couldn't have given confirmation as each new member has to be approved by all members. Its inconvenient but these are the kind of practical barriers that had to be addressed instead they were bypassed, blamed on Westminster and all the yes camp just shouted out any non believers. It worked in terms of the confirmed yes really liked that but it just didn't convince. The former yes camp just cant stand to look inwards, complete tunnel vision. I was convinced all the happy clapping was just a front, a means to an end by people who were compromising for the sake of what was their ultimate aim. I was wrong it looks like loads of yes people actually believed all the non- answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I don't see what they could have done, given the hostility and zero cooperation from London. Without settling the issue of division of assets and liabilities of the Bank of England first they couldn't set up their own currency, join the Euro, or set up a National Bank as lender of last resort. The Pound was the only option, in a currency union or not. After a Yes vote it would have been in London's interests to sort it out quickly for a smooth transition, and I don't think it would have been a huge obstacle, but it was impossible to give any 100% commitments while London refused to discuss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I don't see what they could have done, given the hostility and zero cooperation from London. Without settling the issue of division of assets and liabilities of the Bank of England first they couldn't set up their own currency, join the Euro, or set up a National Bank as lender of last resort. The Pound was the only option, in a currency union or not. After a Yes vote it would have been in London's interests to sort it out quickly for a smooth transition, and I don't think it would have been a huge obstacle, but it was impossible to give any 100% commitments while London refused to discuss it. Yes and what London did discuss was ignored or criticised and presented as lies. The yes camp went into over drive with their anti Westminster, anti tory, anti banker, anti big business rhetoric and yet the absolute foundation of their proposal was an agreement with the very people and organisations they were vilifying , it just doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 The EU was only an issue because the UK Government had the power to make it an issue. They could have settled it by asking the EU for a definitive answer. They didn't, because I suspect that if they had, it would have shafted them. UK Govt relied on FUD for both issues. It won them the battle. Completely wrong. On so many levels. The SNP fucked up in the EU as they lied from the start. Nicola Sturgeon lied about the admissions process. Alex Salmond lied about having received legal advice. They called the UK commissioned independent advice from the foremost world expert in state succession arrogant and colonial. Then unveiled a white papier that admitted he was right. I don't think it would have been possible for the SNP to make more of a c**t of the EU question of they'd tried. Still did better on that than the currency mind you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 It is a fallacy to say we lost the arguement on the currency and the economy. Or maybe it is more accurate to say that we would NEVER have been able to put together a currency and economic model that the majority 55+ group and in particular the 65+ group would have bought into. Our lack of a supposed plan B didn't stop us getting a majority from the 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54 age groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Heliums Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Completely wrong. On so many levels. The SNP fucked up in the EU as they lied from the start. Nicola Sturgeon lied about the admissions process. Alex Salmond lied about having received legal advice. They called the UK commissioned independent advice from the foremost world expert in state succession arrogant and colonial. Then unveiled a white papier that admitted he was right. I don't think it would have been possible for the SNP to make more of a c**t of the EU question of they'd tried. Still did better on that than the currency mind you I'm not disputing bad tactics - but I don't think that registered with the electorate. I'm simply stating that the UK Government could have settled the entire issue easily, but chose not to. Only possible reason can be that they thought it might damage them. But by refusing to settle the issue they did a disservice to voters too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I'm not disputing bad tactics - but I don't think that registered with the electorate. I'm simply stating that the UK Government could have settled the entire issue easily, but chose not to. Only possible reason can be that they thought it might damage them. But by refusing to settle the issue they did a disservice to voters too Of course they choose not to. And I another referendum 15-20 years down the line they will do so again. Next time I don't think it will have the same impact though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 It is a fallacy to say we lost the arguement on the currency and the economy. Or maybe it is more accurate to say that we would NEVER have been able to put together a currency and economic model that the majority 55+ group and in particular the 65+ group would have bought into. Our lack of a supposed plan B didn't stop us getting a majority from the 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54 age groups. Again its always easier to patronise the electorate- yes they mustn't have understood you or they didn't want to understand you or perhaps most arrogant of all they were too old to understand you. Yes that's easier than 'the transition plan to iScotland was rubbish'. 55 understood it as much as the 45 - they just didn't like what you had to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I'm not disputing bad tactics - but I don't think that registered with the electorate. I'm simply stating that the UK Government could have settled the entire issue easily, but chose not to. Only possible reason can be that they thought it might damage them. But by refusing to settle the issue they did a disservice to voters too Again like a CU the EU membership is being treated like some kind of tick box - yes or no. What the yes camp ignored was the detail, the conditions, the agreements, the responsibilities and even the costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.