I'd just be interested to see if native Scots (for want of a better term) were more or less Yes than the full electorate.
Perhaps they just identify as British before Scottish.
yes, but i'm not going to edit other peoples posts when I quote them.
Eh? No editing of other peoples posts going on here. Just pointing out inaccuracies. I guess UK's fifth, maybe fourth, city doesn't sound as impressive as the original, inaccurate statement.
unknown - Member
I'm not disgusted by no voters, except the ones in George Square last night, but I am disappointed in them. And in the media coverage that influenced them.
Were they not able to make up their own minds? Did they not believe what was in "Scotland's Future"?
utterly confunding leap
Ummmmm....confunding????? Is that an SNP economic formula?
Edit: Again no editing of the original quote.
whatever, I was quoting what somebody else said.
There is an irony in complaining about London's excess influence while ignoring how concentrated the YES vote was in Scotland by location.
[quote=mikewsmith said]whatever, I was quoting what somebody else said.
sarcasm Aside I have no idea why you are getting grief for quoting someone else who got it wrong and you are correct
All the 'native' born Scots I know voted NO. I only know two 'non-native' Scots who were eligible to vote - they both voted YES (a bit like Ben - they seemed hugely enthusiastic about independence as a concept).
Incredibly unscientific but IME just because someone was born in Scotland doesn't mean they would automatically vote yes. The 'natives' I know are incredibly patriotic - they truly love Scotland they just also believe in a United Kingdom. I think that some of the YES voters on here have a real problem with this concept. Salmond exploited this to perfection.
Well said AD.
There is an irony in complaining about London's excess influence while ignoring how concentrated the YES vote was in Scotland by location.
You'd have had more people vote yes in London than Glasgow if they'd had the vote.
I said I was disappointed in them because I believe they were wrong. They believe I was wrong to vote yes. That's democracy and time will tell who was right.
My experience is the opposite of ADs, of everyone I know I can only think of 3 no voters, that's way I'd be interested to know the stats (which don't exist anyway).
unknown - Member
the stats (which don't exist anyway).
And shouldn't exist IMO.
Thankfully it is large enough to not lead to it being questioned as to legitimacy
Try telling that to all the people complaining the vote was rigged
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/independent-enquiry-for-scottish-referendum-vote-count
I would rather not try and reason with them but I wish you the very best of luck ...you may just need that straw man pic
oh dear the internet must be lonely
Why is this important?I and others believe the campaign was rigged.
It's wrong because I don't agree with it 🙁
no one I know thinks it was rigged. God knows where they get their numbers from. I suspect its not restricted to Scotland.aracer - Member
Thankfully it is large enough to not lead to it being questioned as to legitimacy
Try telling that to all the people complaining the vote was rigged
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/independent-enquiry-for-scottish-referendum-vote-count
I would rather not try and reason with them
I don't think they even understand the concept of reason!
Forget the distinction between native or not I would love to see the stats on voters wealth or what football team supported
there was a bunch of stuff on the BBC I think on voter groupings, a lot was done from the area and polls but there was some correlation between earning and preference but there were also a lot of other factors.
I think the media coverage and scare tactics pre voting was disgraceful. It makes me question the morality of Britain. Are we really free democratic thinkers? There was a clear agenda for the no campaign and I fear it was shear financially driven. I think if there was no money to be gained from Scotland in the UK we (Scotland) would happily be cut lose.
The facts are for me, the government lied in the past and continues to lie. The 1979 referendum proved that. The people were told they could not support themselves and the oil was on its way out. The dossier that has since been released after been kept secret has spoiled that lie. And guess what the oil is still there.
There will come a day when there will be no financial gain for the UK in Scotland and maybe the truth will out regarding how loyal the UK will be to Scotland.
[quote=seosamh77]Just be aware that minus the over 65. The vote was actually 54% yes.
BS.
According to the [url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Equality/Equalities/PopulationMigration ]2012 stats[/url] there were 930,000 over 65s in Scotland. According to [url= https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/512890984255205376/photo/1 ]Lord Ashcroft[/url] 73% voted No, 27% voted Yes.
If every single one of those over 65s voted, that's 679,000 No votes and 251,000 Yes votes. If you subtract those from the totals then you have 1,323,000 No votes and 1,367,000 Yes votes from under 65s, which is just under 51% Yes.
However it seems rather unlikely that all of them voted - if we assume an 85% turnout to match the overall turnout (in reality I suspect the turnout was lower, though I can imagine arguments for it being higher, in reality we'll never know), that's 577,000 No votes and 213,000 Yes votes. Subtract those from the totals and you're left with 1,425,000 No votes and 1,405,000 Yes votes from under 65s, which is 50.4% No.
So even without the over 65s you want to dismiss, Scotland voted No. Blame those pesky 18-24s.
There will come a day when there will be no financial gain for the UK in Scotland and maybe the truth will out regarding how loyal the UK will be to Scotland.
Well, as soon as we English stop getting our weekly brown envelope of cash marked "TRIBUTE EXTRACTED FROM CELTIC VASSAL STATES", I reckon support for Union with Scotland might plummet. But until then, we're right by you.
Well, maybe behind you. Holding a whip. But definitely in close proximity whatever happens.
There will come a day when there will be no financial gain for the UK in Scotland and maybe the truth will out regarding how loyal the UK will be to Scotland.
do you think the Welsh won't want to stick with you in a successful Union?
sherry - Member
I think the media coverage and scare tactics pre voting was disgraceful. It makes me question the morality of Britain.
??
Are we really free democratic thinkers?
Yes, if you are discriminating enough not to swallow BS.
There was a clear agenda for the no campaign and I fear it was shear financially driven.
No need to be afraid - it wasn't.
The facts are for me, the government lied in the past and continues to lie.
One things for sure, AS managed to redress the balance and some. A whole campaign based on lies and deceit.
seosamh77 » Just be aware that minus the over 65. The vote was actually 54% yes.
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. What's your point?
grum - MemberWhat's your point?
Once the Logan's Run Act 2015 is passed, Scotland will be independent.
What's your point?
Obvious answer I would have thought.....that with a bit of jiggery-pokery, a few votes added here, a few deducted there, you can always end up with the "correct" election/referendum result.
Either that or he's suggesting that voting should be restricted to persons 16-65 years of age.
I'm not sure.
Re the media, even if you ignore the BBC's coverage, which and is quite incredible, only one national paper supported a Yes vote. That's not exactly representative of a 55/45 split in the vote. In a world where many (most) people don't bother to do their own research, the media has enormous power. It seems they now use that power to further the agenda of their wealthy owners, or the westminster in the case of the bbc. Sadly, I'll never be able to take anything in the mainstream media entirely at face value again.
In a world where many (most) people don't bother to do their own research, the media has enormous power.
If the coverage was so biased, and the media wield so much power, then why was the vote not representative of this? Perhaps because traditional media outlets aren't as powerful as you're assuming?
unknown
Sadly, I'll never be able to take anything in the mainstream media entirely at face value again.
You've got the right perspective from now on, consider it an "enlightenment".
Kit we'll never know what the vote would have been had the media coverage been truly neutral. Just because the vote was 45/55 you can't say the media didn't have a major influence.
Once the Logan's Run Act 2015 is passed, Scotland will be independent.
🙂
Re the media, even if you ignore the BBC's coverage, which and is quite incredible, only one national paper supported a Yes vote. That's not exactly representative of a 55/45 split in the vote. In a world where many (most) people don't bother to do their own research, the media has enormous power. It seems they now use that power to further the agenda of their wealthy owners, or the westminster in the case of the bbc. Sadly, I'll never be able to take anything in the mainstream media entirely at face value again.
You seem to be forgetting that the most powerful press-owning oligarch was pro-independence. I wonder why?
You're right about not taking anything in the media at face value though. Whenever I've seen a news article about something I have personal knowledge of it's always been wildly innacurate.
In a world where many (most) people don't bother to do their own research
If people cant be bothered to do research on important issues such as independence, you could argue they shouldnt be allowed to vote. Oh, i voted for him because I liked his shoes.....
Just because the vote was 45/55 you can't say the media didn't have a major influence.
Nor can you say it did. Anything about media influence is speculation, unless there's a survey of media consumption vs voting habits. Is there?
So are you taking up the armed struggle?
😆
sesamesam77 earlier:
[img] 
[/img]
Oh, i voted for him because I liked his shoes.....
How do you think the Home Secretary got to the top of the political ladder ?
Aesthetically pleasing footwear.
[img] 
[/img]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7020807.stm
You seem to be forgetting that the most powerful press-owning oligarch was pro-independence. I wonder why?
Who?
Unknown - so we have all the mainstream media (ex the Dirty Digger) apparently lined up against Salmond including the largely supportive Herald. On top of that he did the extraordinary trick of uniting three mainstream political parties, the UK and Europe, technocrats, businessmen in many sectors, international organisations and their chief representatives etc...
So what happened
1 A conspiracy?
2 A coincidence?
3 the fact that they were [b]all[/b] able to see that the Emperor was wearing no clothes?
The so-called biased media, allowed a campaign based on a completely false narrative around the NHS, currencies, debt, policy options, inequality, you name it, to be delivered without health warnings or much critical comment. Now I love freedom of speech, but only because it allows you to test the (flawed) assumptions on which nonsense spouted by the likes of Salmond, Farrage, Griffen and Co is based. But unchallenged reporting of BS is itself a massive source of bias. And in this case, it almost worked but for the canny silent majority who would not be bullied and others whose critical faculties were on high BS alert.
The BBC today are reporting a riot in George square by unionist/loyalist thugs as a"clash between rival supporters". Go on twitter, look at the photos then read the BBC article and tell me it's not biased. If that doesn't convince you try comparing it to the coverage of Jim Murphy getting an egg thrown at him or milliband being sworn at. There was also an academic study a while back which showed a systematic bias against yes on the BBC. Can't be arsed looking it up but it was by Glasgow caley iirc.
The no campaign's new powers bribe timetable included a step that should have happened yesterday but didn't, have you seen much coverage of that? The no campaign lie didn't last a day, that's a huge deal but not in the media.
The referendum's over, it's done, but my eyes have been opened. The media had an agenda on this and from now on I'll assume they have an agenda on everything else.
my point is clearly stated on the last page.ernie_lynch - Member
What's your point?
Obvious answer I would have thought.....that with a bit of jiggery-pokery, a few votes added here, a few deducted there, you can always end up with the "correct" election/referendum result.Either that or he's suggesting that voting should be restricted to persons 16-65 years of age.
I'm not sure.
Bigjim 😆
😆 no fear, no scaremongering, no media bias. Youse a ****ing hilarious at times! 😆 I'm especially loving how the Sunday herald has morphed into the herald...
Interesting view from Irvine Welsh...
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/20/irvine-welsh-scottish-independence-glorious-failure ]Scotland's finest hour?[/url]
my point is clearly stated on the last page
Not really. If it was clear people would get it.
What you're trying to suggest is if there is another referendum in 30 years time then these people over 65 who have a No stance woundnt be around, so there would be a higher proportion of Yes voters.
What you're forgetting is in 30 years time there will another generation of over 65's who will have the same opinion that its not worth the risk, as they wont be around to see any benefits after the difficult transitional years.
an academic study
You are right, no need to bother looking it up.
