Well scotland didnt get independance, thread

BS.

According to the 2012 stats there were 930,000 over 65s in Scotland. According to Lord Ashcroft 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 – Member

What’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:

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.

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 all 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.

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.my point is clearly stated on the last page.

Bigjim 😆

😆 no fear, no scaremongering, no media bias. Youse a **** hilarious at times! 😆 I’m especially loving how the Sunday herald has morphed into the herald…

Interesting view from Irvine Welsh…

Scotland’s finest hour?

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.

That’s it chew, you tell me what I think….seems to be what youse are good at, thinking for silent majorities.

Going by last night in Glasgow I can understand why you hold them in such contempt mind.

BTW what I actually take from it is that pensions is where it was lost. It was allowed to put doubt in the minds of pensioners that their pensions would go down. Instead of highlighting the pittance they actually get.

The media had an agenda on this and from now on I’ll assume they have an agenda on everything else.

Don’t want to be patronising but that’s a given, surely? No-one sets up a newspaper because they want to inform people… it’s about power and control of information. Media’s always been like that.

Read Hack Attack by Nick Davies about the NOTW caper if you want to understand just how agenda/commerce driven all our media owners are and see that you basically can’t trust any of the mainstream media sources… but have hope that social media is taking that power away.

Worth reading George Orwell 1984 too if you want to understand how propaganda works

That’s it chew, you tell me what I think

Well if you could clearly articulate what you do think, I wont have to 😉

Unknown, if you don’t like the BBC bias then stop paying for it. Amazed at the number of people who complain about it yet still fork out with a monthly direct debit.

what I actually take from it is that pensions is where it was lost. It was allowed to put doubt in the minds of pensioners that their pensions would go down.

Maybe these folk have been around long enough to spot when someones spouting off BS, whereas the youngsters are more easily led?

Maybe these folk have been around long enough to spot when someones spouting off BS, whereas the youngsters are more easily lead?

Maybe they’ve had any sense of ambition and freedom of mind sucked out of them by being exposed to Westminster longer than anyone else.

I was wrong, it was university of west of Scotland. Still on the first page of Google for “Glasgow caley BBC bias” though.
link

Feel free to ignore everything else I wrote though.

I’d love to stop paying for it but unfortunately I’ll legally obliged to pay for our “fair and impartial” state broadcaster.

Of course I’ve always been aware that papers and channels put their own slant on things but these past months it’s been so stark that I’ve been shocked. The BBC is the really disappointing one.

Maybe they’ve had any sense of ambition and freedom of mind sucked out of them by being exposed to Westminster longer than anyone else.

These are the people who have shaped Westminster into how it is now. If they didnt like it they’ve had long enough to change it.

unknown – Member

I’d love to stop paying for it but unfortunately I’ll legally obliged to pay for our “fair and impartial” state broadcasterlegally obliged aye, in reality they’ve no power to do much about non payment.

Stop paying for it.

Chew – Member
That’s it chew, you tell me what I think

Well if you could clearly articulate what you do think, I wont have to apologies for giving you too much credit. 😉

I was wrong, it was university of west of Scotland. Still on the first page of Google for “Glasgow caley BBC bias” though.
link

Feel free to ignore everything else I wrote though.

Research from over a year ago however..

I think there’s a fair bit of deliberate misunderstanding going on here. It’s at least as reasonable to assume that the next 65+ generation will hold onto their current views as it is to assume they’ll feel the same as the current 65+ generation.

Blimey, if the losing is this bad at 55:45 imagine what we would be subjected to if it was really close.

(In addition to experience, I would imagine that the 65+ folk could see through the pension BS)

Research specifically on the referendum coverage and given the BBC denied bias as the time, reasonable to assume their editorial policy went unchanged.