REASONING BEHIND VOTING NO

[banterman86]

There really is no need to rerun the arguments of the referendum itself.

I do find it curious that Yes posters on here haven't idetified any obvious flaws in the campaign beying frustrations with the establishment.

it's chattering class stuff really, but I'd be curious to see what the likes of Jenkins and other senior figures say when the eventually get the chance.

[strichener]

Mr Swinney also announced a new 12% tax on properties costing more than £1m.

And so it begins.

That's a £120,000 on a £1m house - if that tax doesn't exist in the countries around Scotland where would you buy your next house if you were doing well enough to be able to afford that?

Some will continue in Scotland, but others will move. When they move they take their spending power with them.

However, how many houses in Scotland are over £1m - a few hundred, so wont raise much, but its good headlines for the fairer Scotland.

Is this another tax break to suit corporations? The UK charge up to 15% for corporations to purchase residential properties.

[H_B]

I do find it curious that Yes posters on here haven't idetified any obvious flaws in the campaign beying frustrations with the establishment.

There has been surprisingly little comment on the ludicrous "campaign targets" Yes announced after the mauling.

Who set those?

[banterman86]

There has been surprisingly little comment on the ludicrous "campaign targets" Yes announced after the mauling.

Who set those?

To be fair i don't think they were announced but leaked - probably by a disgruntled staffer.

Some of them were mad clearly but i would give them props for aiming for 65% of the vote which would ahve been a clear majority which no voters could not have seriously complained about.

The chance of them ever reaching that from where the started given the time frame was never going to happen. a 50+1 startegy would have been smarter, but 65 suggested they realsied it was important the country be behind the decision.

And on that, whilst there is still a fair amount of seethe about the reslt, i think it's good it was a clear result - a very close result in either direction wouldn;t have been good for the country I think.

[strichener]

Oh my god. Likened to a Nazi now.

Actually, people blinded by one man's character and vision of a country who are better than others, foreigners are no good, they treat us badly etc etc ---- Ah I see your point now about the link.

So whilst you have actually compared Yes voters to Nazi voters above, at no point in my post did I compare No voters to Nazis.

What I did do and clarified in the subsequent post was to show you how when something is voted for, the outcome may not be known and history can show this.

[H_B]

And on that, whilst there is still a fair amount of seethe about the reslt, i think it's good it was a clear result - a very close result in either direction wouldn;t have been good for the country I think.

I have mixed views on that. I think it being closer would have been good for those who seem to be interested in greater powers for the SP (not me).

But yes, the scale of the defeat (along with the enormous turnout) does have advantages, in that it shows how convincingly Yes was rejected.

The campaign targets were just pointless stupidity. Reminded me of the "9 minute Abs" stuff in There's Something About Mary. If you are picking 65% (which was a hallucinogenic drugs type figure) why not go for 75% or 96%?

[mikedafc]

No matter how you tart it up you still voted for English rule.

I'd rather be run by Westminster than Brussels which is what would have happened under independence with Scotland having far less influence over decisions made by unelected EU Ministers than they do as part of the UK

[forever_blue]

So whilst you have actually compared Yes voters to Nazi voters above, at no point in my post did I compare No voters to Nazis.

What I did do and clarified in the subsequent post was to show you how when something is voted for, the outcome may not be known and history can show this.

when you use the 1932 german elections as an example, it is very easy for people to jump to conclusions, I fail to think you do not understand this and knew fine well the reaction you would get by using that particular example.

[Tryfield]

I take that point but the argument about voting for Tories is ludicrous given that since 1997 they've only been in Government for 4 years.

And that was part of a coalition. I'm no fan of the Tories, but really, they haven't won an overall majority since 1992. Many P&Bers weren't even born then.

I detest party politics and believe all MP's should be independent and put in place to serve their constituents rather than tow a party line. A bit like Orkney and Shetland councillors. Every single one is independent of party politics.

[strichener]

when you use the 1932 german elections as an example, it is very easy for people to jump to conclusions, I fail to think you do not understand this and knew fine well the reaction you would get by using that particular example.

I can see where you are coming from but since there were subsequent elections in Germany twice in 1933, the second of which was the nazi single party election, then maybe people shouldn't jump to conclusions and rather understand history a little better before jumping in and showing themselves up.

Or maybe the same ability to jump to conclusions is what made them vote No in the first place.

[renton]

There really is no need to rerun the arguments of the referendum itself.

I do find it curious that Yes posters on here haven't idetified any obvious flaws in the campaign beying frustrations with the establishment.

it's chattering class stuff really, but I'd be curious to see what the likes of Jenkins and other senior figures say when the eventually get the chance.

I have, not on this thread maybe. There were clear massive No demographics - over 55s, other UK born, outside UK born - that the yes cmapaign never had much chance with. At least two of those groups owing to a disproportionate natID of British. Honestly, beyond the usual pension question which may have impacted on it, I think the baby boomer gorups all grew up with/ had formative experience of a very different idea of Britain than those generations that succeeded them.

I do think, certainly based on polling, that things like currency didn't have a huge bearing on their own, you could argue for a 'death by 1,000 cuts' type of phenomenon. Yes had a fragile elad in under 55s, that much seems clear - but they needed a far larger lead in these demographics to offset what they surely must've known were huge No demogrpahics in over 55s etc.

I think that the 'vow' in those last couple of weeks made a huge difference. I think they maybe had enough willing to chance it on Indy, right up to the point where Brown was wheeled out across the country screeching about 'as near to federalism as you can get'. Again, this is backed up by polling, in so much as the polling suggests as much as 25% of No voters did so becuase 'more powers' looked like a more risk free variant of the same endgame.

Could they have de-risked things more? Not massively, whether it was a currency union, Sterlingisation, a scottish currency or the Euro - No were going after that big style. All have their advantages and disadvantages. it's an essentially technical argument with a huge numbe rof if, buts and maybes. Fodder to anyone who wanted to reduce it to negative simplistic soundbites. No matter what happens, any second referendum is going to see the stay put side throw shit tonnes at whatever choice is next made on that.

The only way to get it, is by first getting substnatially more powers - to de-risk it by insulating Scotland more and more from Westminster decision making, an essentially iterative process, I think.

[banterman86]

I have mixed views on that. I think it being closer would have been good for those who seem to be interested in greater powers for the SP (not me).

But yes, the scale of the defeat (along with the enormous turnout) does have advantages, in that it shows how convincingly Yes was rejected.

The campaign targets were just pointless stupidity. Reminded me of the "9 minute Abs" stuff in There's Something About Mary. If you are picking 65% (which was a hallucinogenic drugs type figure) why not go for 75% or 96%?

I think the margin of the win - and the narrative that it woz the vow wot won it - is good for people looking for more powers. I'm not convinced a smaller margin - say 52-48 would have made more powers any more likely but would have fuelled a bit more resentment. I'm not really basing that on anything other than gut feeling mind.

That's a fair point about the targets - I have no idea how taht sort of stuff works. I don't think it follows taht if you target 65% and fail you could get 60 or 55 - in reality it's about targeting demographics surely.

The yes campaign targeted supposed labour voters very well, so in that sense there was some success. If they had done that from the start, instead of talking about copration tax cuts and bigging up business for Scotland would they have won? probably not, but they might have got closer.

On the other hand, did they underdevelop their centre right offer to the middle Scotland as a result, and would that have been more successful?

[renton]

I have mixed views on that. I think it being closer would have been good for those who seem to be interested in greater powers for the SP (not me).

But yes, the scale of the defeat (along with the enormous turnout) does have advantages, in that it shows how convincingly Yes was rejected.

The campaign targets were just pointless stupidity. Reminded me of the "9 minute Abs" stuff in There's Something About Mary. If you are picking 65% (which was a hallucinogenic drugs type figure) why not go for 75% or 96%?

i.e. Not massively? 55/45 either way was always going to be a headache for everyone: 70/30 is convincing - 45/55 ain't.

[Reynard]

i.e. Not massively? 55/45 either way was always going to be a headache for everyone: 70/30 is convincing - 45/55 ain't.

hundreds of thousands of a difference.

Not close at all.

[renton]

hundreds of thousands of a difference.

Not close at all.

eh, aye even at 49/51 it still wouldv'e been 100,000 odd difference. Close or not?

[joozy]

i.e. Not massively? 55/45 either way was always going to be a headache for everyone: 70/30 is convincing - 45/55 ain't.

hundreds of thousands of a difference.

Not close at all.

Over 20% more no voters than yes. Pretty convincing.

[banterman86]

I have, not on this thread maybe. There were clear massive No demographics - over 55s, other UK born, outside UK born - that the yes cmapaign never had much chance with. At least two of those groups owing to a disproportionate natID of British. Honestly, beyond the usual pension question which may have impacted on it, I think the baby boomer gorups all grew up with/ had formative experience of a very different idea of Britain than those generations that succeeded them.

I do think, certainly based on polling, that things like currency didn't have a huge bearing on their own, you could argue for a 'death by 1,000 cuts' type of phenomenon. Yes had a fragile elad in under 55s, that much seems clear - but they needed a far larger lead in these demographics to offset what they surely must've known were huge No demogrpahics in over 55s etc.

I think that the 'vow' in those last couple of weeks made a huge difference. I think they maybe had enough willing to chance it on Indy, right up to the point where Brown was wheeled out across the country screeching about 'as near to federalism as you can get'. Again, this is backed up by polling, in so much as the polling suggests as much as 25% of No voters did so becuase 'more powers' looked like a more risk free variant of the same endgame.

Could they have de-risked things more? Not massively, whether it was a currency union, Sterlingisation, a scottish currency or the Euro - No were going after that big style. All have their advantages and disadvantages. it's an essentially technical argument with a huge numbe rof if, buts and maybes. Fodder to anyone who wanted to reduce it to negative simplistic soundbites. No matter what happens, any second referendum is going to see the stay put side throw shit tonnes at whatever choice is next made on that.

The only way to get it, is by first getting substnatially more powers - to de-risk it by insulating Scotland more and more from Westminster decision making, an essentially iterative process, I think.

I don't really have the time to go into this at length but an interesting post - lots i don't agree with obviosuly but i think you're right on what happens in the second referendum - I have no idea what the Yes campaign would do in that scenario.

another point I'd make is I think the SNP made a mistake by naming March 2016 independence day. i think a smarter course of action would have been 2020, with one more devolved Scottish Parliament to negotiate with the rUK and set things up - basically give the whole process more breathing space.

The risk there of course is that six years is a long time, and if it had been a close result scots might in 2020 might well have been happy to stay in the UK, depsite voting for independence before hand.

[renton]

Over 20% more no voters than yes. Pretty convincing.

Or a 5% swing. Choose your stat, pays yer money and take yer chance.

[Reynard]

Over 20% more no voters than yes. Pretty convincing.

Decisive whatever way you care to look at it.

Interestingly, all the torn faced b*****d nats of the clown collective would happily have got it right up everyone had they managed to win by a handful of votes.

[strichener]

Decisive whatever way you care to look at it.

Interestingly, all the torn faced b*****d nats of the clown collective would happily have got it right up everyone had they managed to win by a handful of votes.

Not a handful, 1 would have done it for me TBH.