buster. 5,184 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 N The relative success of the yes campaign was based on lies and misinformation. It's concerning that so many people can be so easily taken in by it when it's clear the yes sets had no answers to how anything was to be paid for or a proper answer to the most basic of questions. There's a lot of gullible people out there. Both campaigns were flawed in different ways and neither could be said to have been conducted throughout with sufficient thoroughness of vision, pre-campaign graft/negotiation and honesty. I am probably one of the few who were reasonably objective but in the end felt more attracted by some of what the Yes campaign were saying. Now here is where I think many fail to appreciate the motivations of many who may have felt broadly similar. For many, it wasn't to do with Nationalism. It was to do with a deep discontent and disconnect with the political system that governs us. One that no longer seems to represent an increasing number of people. At it's base is that there is little difference between Conservative and (New) Labour. It is a big positive that a significant number have rekindled or found direct interest in politics, they won't like that in London. They prefer to dumb down the majority as can be seen by how they have allowed society to roll. At a UK level, the significant rise of Ukip is partly down to with this basic discontent. You then move onto trends within society since 1997 (arrival of Blair) that concern relationships between politicans, business (especially finance), the large media groups, USA (military conflicts) etc................................ the biggest apparent casaulties being the Truth, the lack of accountability and who ends up paying the 'price'. Society is sick. Truth is no longer important, it can be 'managed' and therefore the people aswell. Personally, I don't think Independence would have solved all the problems. There would have been a different watered down version of the same. Salmond had already demonstrated during the past few years that he would partake in a similar 'game'. I think a bigger change is needed at a UK level. Within the present system, a new political party or parties are needed to help give the electorate as a whole a chance of representation. In Spain this is happening, but is in great part down to the harsh austerity that is what actually moves people to act. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Society is sick.Truth is no longer important, it can be 'managed' and therefore the people aswell. Personally, I don't think Independence would have solved all the problems. There would have been a different watered down version of the same. Salmond had already demonstrated during the past few years that he would partake in a similar 'game'. I think it would have solved very few of the problems. I genuinely believe that there would be a lot less cash available for spending and as such many of the "promises" would have failed to happen. It's easy to promise something to get something that can't be undone and you can then walk away and let someone else worry about the inability of the country to finance the promises. The logic of "we want a change, independence is a change, therefore we want independence" is flawed but some can't see it and only when they ended up worse off would they realise what they had given up. I'd agree that change may be needed but independence isn't the answer and neither is greater devolution in itself. It's just pandering to the "I want" society. I don't know what the answer is but I haven't heard anyone else coming up with many answers either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I think I mentioned earlier how the tension we felt before the referendum was similar to the way we feel before Old Firm games, and now in the aftermath, there is another similarity. When Rangers beat Celtic decisively, and when we return home to enjoy the afterglow, before we even get there, it begins: Celtic were robbed; they should have had a penalty, a Rangers goal was offside, there was a foul committed before the second went in, a Rangers player should have been sent off - Celtic were the better team. Every Rangers victory over its old enemy is controversial, because bad losers make it so. We're seeing the same now. The result of the referendum, apparently, was a cry for change. From where I'm standing, it looked like the sovereign will of the Scottish people was for no change at all - we keep the Union - but this is being downplayed - just as it is when we gub Celtic. We're hearing talk of a recount - and that's all it will be: talk - and suggestions that the people have been hoodwinked. We're even hearing that independence might be achieved by the back door in future instead of by revisiting a referendum. In short, we are witnessing our fellow countrymen and women in full-on grievance mode. They complain bitterly that we don't get the governments we vote for in Scotland, and then when we vote decisively for the Union, they duck and dive and attempt to undermine what the electorate has told us in no uncertain terms: 55-45 28-4 The Noes have it - the Noes have it. If the sovereign will of the Scottish people is as important as Alex Salmond and the YES campaign kept saying, take heed of it. Scotland voted decisively to keep the Union. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Scotland voted decisively to keep the Union. "Scotland" did no such thing. People over 55 voted decisively , and those over 65 overwhelmingly, to remain in the UK. Of those, only 25% said the voted No out of some attachment to the UK; 75% voted No for 'economic' reasons, People under 55 voted decisively for independence. It's not a question of 'if', it's a question of 'when'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,184 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I think it would have solved very few of the problems. I genuinely believe that there would be a lot less cash available for spending and as such many of the "promises" would have failed to happen. It's easy to promise something to get something that can't be undone and you can then walk away and let someone else worry about the inability of the country to finance the promises. The logic of "we want a change, independence is a change, therefore we want independence" is flawed but some can't see it and only when they ended up worse off would they realise what they had given up. I'd agree that change may be needed but independence isn't the answer and neither is greater devolution in itself. It's just pandering to the "I want" society. I don't know what the answer is but I haven't heard anyone else coming up with many answers either. Those who wanted political change via Independence would do well to leave the Saltire at home and give thought how to approach the matter in a different way. What is apparent is that the reasons behind the general discontent and disconnection will not be materially addressed in a significant and lasting way by those in power. Hence the same and probably worsening conditions will prevail and eventually push louder opposition. The major difficulty that the 'opposition' will probably have is divided POV's/direction and a lack of unity of purpose. Those who have recently woken up to politics (again) would do well to take stock, forget the Nationalist v Unionist divide (which will now serve to protect Westminster from what I think should be the real debate), learn more, inform others and move on. Bottomline, we want a decent society and a political system that represents us........ We aren't getting it. The majority didn't want Independence. So use the head and tap into a market that is not only there but growing throughout the UK and beyond. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Under 38% of those eligible voted for independence, and T4C points out, many did so for reasons other than nationalism, so there's no guarantee that they would vote like that if they are ever given another chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmu 0 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 "Scotland" did no such thing. People over 55 voted decisively , and those over 65 overwhelmingly, to remain in the UK. Of those, only 25% said the voted No out of some attachment to the UK; 75% voted No for 'economic' reasons, People under 55 voted decisively for independence. It's not a question of 'if', it's a question of 'when'. This is a hell of a dangerous route trying to devalue the validity of a vote because of a certain grouping of the voters. you seem to have decided that oldies are to blame.. So they dont matter any more? Why not remove the validity of the unemployed cos they contribute nothing in terms of taxes, growth etc? Housewives.. Why should they vote when they dont work. Absolutely ridiculous examples, along with the age issue you raise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,289 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 "Scotland" did no such thing. People over 55 voted decisively , and those over 65 overwhelmingly, to remain in the UK. Of those, only 25% said the voted No out of some attachment to the UK; 75% voted No for 'economic' reasons, People under 55 voted decisively for independence. It's not a question of 'if', it's a question of 'when'. I think you will see from the Yougov poll out today that this is another piece of untrue propaganda from the "YES" side, more fantasy speculation peddled as fact! Check it out for yourself. It will be shown up for the sham it is eventually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 "Scotland" did no such thing. People over 55 voted decisively , and those over 65 overwhelmingly, to remain in the UK. Of those, only 25% said the voted No out of some attachment to the UK; 75% voted No for 'economic' reasons, People under 55 voted decisively for independence. It's not a question of 'if', it's a question of 'when'. I dont think thats wholly accurate RPB - more of a myth if these stats are correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 "Scotland" did no such thing. People over 55 voted decisively , and those over 65 overwhelmingly, to remain in the UK. Of those, only 25% said the voted No out of some attachment to the UK; 75% voted No for 'economic' reasons, People under 55 voted decisively for independence. It's not a question of 'if', it's a question of 'when'. Thank you for proving my point. Incidentally, Nicola Sturgeon said that Glasgow had been won decisively by the YES camp with 53.5% of the vote. Using her logic, what does that make a Scottish 55% NO vote? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts