REASONING BEHIND VOTING NO

[renton]

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.

There is nothing in there all that controversial. It's obvious from both demi-exit polls where No were massively ahead, and were unsurprisingly in groups where Yes had been weak all along. then you've got polling that suggests 25% of No voters were at least heavily swayed by promises of mor epowers, and then a post Indy-ref Panelbase poll suggesting that folk were voting in favour of old school devo max - i.e. everything bar foreign and defence by a huge margin 66% in favour odds.

The limited data suggests a last minute catch by Westminster. It was always up hill for Yes and they made significant in roads, but were always going to be prey to any significant devolution promises from No. Again, something you can trawl back through all of Curtice's SASS data to confirm.

[Reynard]

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

XBL levels

[Wee Willie]

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

When was this guy elected ?

The UK's Lord Hill has been confirmed as the EU commissioner for financial services after facing questions from MEPs for a second time.

You would rather kowtow tae a predominately (overwhelmingly) English government in which you have f*** all influence.

Bow down tae an unelected bunch of crooks in the hoose o' lords, none of which we get tae vote on.

They have a job for life, ye cannae get rid o' them, hands oot for taxpayers money.

Yet your complaint is that EU Ministers aren't elected.

Surely they are elected in their own country. ?

Mair than whit we dae.

I think you have been too easily led by UKIP and the little Englander parties.

It seems to me that the word for you is Gullible.

[renton]

XBL levels

As I said, pick the stat you like. The important point is whether or not we're going to be doing this all again,any time soon - and as much as you'd like to think it is, 45/55 won't bury it. it really all depends on Westminster now, and what they decide to enact from whatever the Smith commission comes up with.

[Colin M]

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 voted Yes but there are umpteen things I think could have been done differently, ranging from the obviously flawed economic plan to the suggestion that the campaigning itself missed significant chunks of the electorate.

I heard the Spectator's Alex Massie comment at a debate that if Salmond had got "a draw" on the economy that he thought Yes would have won. That rings true with me, and there was plenty commentary in the press and other sources leading up to the referendum that indicated as such. The Herald (daily version) for example gave the distinct impression in its coming-out-for-No editorial that with a stronger economic plan it would have gone the other way. The Scotsman was reasonably similar IIRC.

That however discounts the fact that many people, particularly older, will still have a strong emotional attachment to the idea of the Union, and while it's certainly true for me that the Better Together campaign failed miserably to convey the positives of the arrangement for most of its duration, many people simply do see that there are benefits there that they believe are best not jeopardised. Personally, I don't believe the Union is anywhere near satisfactorily serving Scotland in its present form and I'm deeply cynical as to whether the Smith commission and any subsequent changes will do enough to change my view on that. If there's to be a major shift in public opinion towards a more likely Yes vote (and the likelihood of another referendum in the first place) then I believe it would be in a cementing of that broad view in enough people voting No. The factors most likely to affect that IMO would be the UK voting out of the EU, Tories having power and following through on their human rights threat, and "The Vow" not amounting to enough for peoples' liking, particularly if Scotland's overall funding is significantly cut.

To that end, I think a further "swing" in favour of independence is more likely to come from what path England/rUK follows than anything the ongoing Yes movement does.

[Reynard]

As I said, pick the stat you like. The important point is whether or not we're going to be doing this all again,any time soon - and as much as you'd like to think it is, 45/55 won't bury it. it really all depends on Westminster now, and what they decide to enact from whatever the Smith commission comes up with.

Well, Nicola wont be including it any any of the next few manifestos. So, not anytime soon. There will now be opportunities for the scottish government to piss us off with tax collecting powers etc. Harder to ride a wave of populism

[Reynard]

Or to put it more delicately. Sturgeon and the SNP now have a big shite sandwich to chow down on.

[renton]

Well, Nicola wont be including it any any of the next few manifestos. So, not anytime soon. There will now be opportunities for the scottish government to piss us off with tax collecting powers etc. Harder to ride a wave of populism

Certainly not the next one. See how things are in 2020, depending on how much opportunity Westminster gives her to piss us off.

[Reynard]

Certainly not the next one. See how things are in 2020, depending on how much opportunity Westminster gives her to piss us off.

I'll certainly be arguing for as much rope as possible.

[Reynard]

Will be interesting to see how the SNP placate the middle class voters in their former Tory shires who will be having to cough up for the scheme goblin vote they are currently courting.

[Wee Willie]

Britain is my country. I wasn't breaking it up for one mans ego.

A Britain which is 90% England and she decides our foreign policy as well as every other policy.

In the name of defence let's go half way round the world and bomb these fanatics Islamic State in Iraq.

No matter that it should be Arab States like Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc who should be assisting Iraq.

Are you happy that we seem to be the policemen of the world.

What influence does Scottish MP’s, all 71 of them, have on foreign policy when there are over 600 English MP’s.

You are just sheep who hand control of our future to English politicians.

[doulikefish]

Superb,tax the rich to help the poor and more European influence please

[Reynard]

A Britain which is 90% England and she decides our foreign policy as well as every other policy.

In the name of defence let's go half way round the world and bomb these fanatics Islamic State in Iraq.

No matter that it should be Arab States like Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc who should be assisting Iraq.

Are you happy that we seem to be the policemen of the world.

What influence does Scottish MP’s, all 71 of them, have on foreign policy when there are over 600 English MP’s.

You are just sheep who hand control of our future to English politicians.

And you are an ethnic nationalist c**t.

Get to f**k

[doulikefish]

And you are an ethnic nationalist c**t.

Get to f**k

Baaaaaa

[Collins Out!]

The Rangers no voters voted that way due to an ingrained feeling of anti-Catholicism. They still have a deep rooted fear that an independent Scotland would be a return to a 'papish' Scotland which has to be avoided at all costs in their minds.

I think the sectarian issues behind the no vote were conveniently hidden away by the blinkered mainstream media.

[bob the tank]

90% of the women I work with, voted no, because they were frightened by the Bitter Together doomsday scenarios. No other reason..

[The 55]

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.

How very clever of you. Did nothing to forward your argument. And you lost. Jumping to conclusions is apt indeed for people who voted for something that had no history to show whereas 300 years of a politically and ecomonically stable union in world terms had plenty of empirical evidence.

Jumping with blinkers on I would suggest

[Wee Willie]

A Britain which is 90% England and she decides our foreign policy as well as every other policy.

In the name of defence let's go half way round the world and bomb these fanatics Islamic State in Iraq.

No matter that it should be Arab States like Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc who should be assisting Iraq.

Are you happy that we seem to be the policemen of the world.

What influence does Scottish MP’s, all 71 of them, have on foreign policy when there are over 600 English MP’s.

You are just sheep who hand control of our future to English politicians.

And you are an ethnic nationalist c**t.

Get to f**k

Did I tell any lies or did I touch a nerve ?

[Confidemus]

So 97% of the print press, all the broadcast media, large corporations (who employ people) and Westminster PLUS TWO MILLION of your fellow countrymen in a democracy said No Thanks. So did most other statesmen who were willing to give an opinion.

You and some others said Yes. Ask yourself why all these people said No. Was it just to get this sort of hysteria on P&B or did they perhaps make up their minds on the basis of their experience of the world and it's workings?

I'm sure you will have a conspiratorial answer, but to be honest a lot of us just didn't want it. This focus on having someone born on the same side of a dotted line placed on this land mass choosing your destiny because they must be better at making decisions is laughable. That being the case why was stripping Brussels of all power not an argument?

Really - get over the patriotic, nationalistic thing and accept that many, many people just don't agree and won't agree, and frankly the bit about not looking your children in the eye is laughable as an attempt to gather some sort of victory and moral high ground lost by losing a democratic vote.

The difference in the end between Yes and No was a touch over 10%. Or 400,000 voters. Meaning a 6% swing from No to , or just over 200,000 voters changing their minds would have won Yes the day. By my calculations, out of the approximately 3.6 million who ended up voting, if 216,000 had been persuaded to vote Yes instead of No, Scotland would now be preparing for independence.

There is no doubt whatsover that immense pressure was applied on people to vote No. From Deutsche Bank warning of a great depression, to the BBC's bias, to 36 out of 37 newspapers backing a No vote, to pensioners being lied to, essentially, the No campaign, specifically in the last 10 days of the referendum, cranked up the fear, negativity and lies to a quite breathtaking degree and I have no doubt that this was sufficient to win No the day. See below as an example.

To suggest that the No campaign, to include the media, the establishment and all the large corporations played a fair and level campaign is risible. Yes were not given a fraction of the air and press time that No got and even inaccuracies purported by No were not corrected. This, as I have said, lead to the single biggest perversion of democracy in Scottish political history. Yes had a fantastic message. It just wasn't given the same exposure as No's lies and fear.

Thanks for playing anyway.

[strichener]

How very clever of you. Did nothing to forward your argument. And you lost. Jumping to conclusions is apt indeed for people who voted for something that had no history to show whereas 300 years of a politically and ecomonically stable union in world terms had plenty of empirical evidence.

Jumping with blinkers on I would suggest

Did I? I am sure it wasn't me that insinuated that Alex Salmond was the Scottish equivalent of Hitler.