|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 19:28:28 GMT
Ed can get out of that by becoming the new SNP Leader... Surely he can't fail to attract female voters. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 19, 2014 21:03:11 GMT
Behave! It's true that the people in the yes campaign think their campaign was better - but they fall into the trap of the self- delusional; believing the arguments that convince themselves will convince others. They utterly failed to convince voters concerned with the economy that an independent Scotland would be better. They failed to attract women. The SNP need to reflect on these failings. The latter, of course, may be addressed with a new leader. The big winner for this looks like it's David Cameron. Because he's put his main opponent at the UK level in a bind over the West Lothian question. Hard to see how Ed can get out of that. And most political commentators and observers. Ultimately it didn't succeed and some numpties will judge it solely on that (not calling you a numpty btw) but it increased independence support by 50% and put the shits up the no lot to the extent that they had to offer the last minute bribe of Devo Max, something which Cameron originally refused for consideration on the ballot paper as he felt secure enough that yes would not win. Imagine that being the result when the whole thing started off and support for independence was at less than one person in three! I'm not so sure about much of what you say. The yes folks are desperately disappointed because they thought they'd "rigged" things in their favour by giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds. Ultimately they failed because they were unable to convince enough people; particularly women. BTW - I think the win was on for them. They messed up. On the other hand, the no campaign also messed up big time. They shat themselves when a single opinion poll went against them. They knew they were lacklustre and dull so started making offers they've no idea how to deliver and wheeling out all the big guns including Gordon Brown; a sure sign of desperation! I'm not sure any of this impressed folk up here - if anything it could have been counter productive. In the end, as Darling correctly put it, the silent majority spoke. And they aren't impressed with political fluff. Actually Darling is a pretty good representation of them! One other thought - in the 1979 vote (on devolution - but of similar significance at the time to this weeks vote), the equivalent yes vote was 51%. So maybe 45% wasn't so impressive.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Sept 19, 2014 21:34:05 GMT
I think the Scots need to get over themselves now.
Listening to their self indulgent soul searching is starting to get in the way of important news.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 19, 2014 21:37:16 GMT
I think the Scots need to get over themselves now. Listening to their self indulgent soul searching is starting to get in the way of important news. Give ít another 24 hours. The media circus will move onto something else.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Sept 19, 2014 21:46:56 GMT
Voters aged 16-17: YES: 71%; NO: 29%
Voters aged 65+: YES: 27%; NO: 73%
Expect the issue to raise its head again as the current grey vote dies off.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Sept 19, 2014 22:00:17 GMT
Voters aged 16-17: YES: 71%; NO: 29% Voters aged 65+: YES: 27%; NO: 73% Expect the issue to raise its head again as the current grey vote dies off. Or perhaps they will just grow up.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Sept 19, 2014 22:12:20 GMT
Voters aged 16-17: YES: 71%; NO: 29% Voters aged 65+: YES: 27%; NO: 73% Expect the issue to raise its head again as the current grey vote dies off. Or perhaps they will just grow up. Will get the stats for the other ages but the 60+ vote swung it.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Sept 19, 2014 22:23:15 GMT
Voters aged 16-17: YES: 71%; NO: 29% Voters aged 65+: YES: 27%; NO: 73% Expect the issue to raise its head again as the current grey vote dies off. Guess that is not really a surprise. Young kids don't really do "sensible" and also they don't know what it is to pay for stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Sept 19, 2014 22:26:59 GMT
And most political commentators and observers. Ultimately it didn't succeed and some numpties will judge it solely on that (not calling you a numpty btw) but it increased independence support by 50% and put the shits up the no lot to the extent that they had to offer the last minute bribe of Devo Max, something which Cameron originally refused for consideration on the ballot paper as he felt secure enough that yes would not win. Imagine that being the result when the whole thing started off and support for independence was at less than one person in three! I'm not so sure about much of what you say. The yes folks are desperately disappointed because they thought they'd "rigged" things in their favour by giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds. Ultimately they failed because they were unable to convince enough people; particularly women. BTW - I think the win was on for them. They messed up. On the other hand, the no campaign also messed up big time. They shat themselves when a single opinion poll went against them. They knew they were lacklustre and dull so started making offers they've no idea how to deliver and wheeling out all the big guns including Gordon Brown; a sure sign of desperation! I'm not sure any of this impressed folk up here - if anything it could have been counter productive. In the end, as Darling correctly put it, the silent majority spoke. And they aren't impressed with political fluff. Actually Darling is a pretty good representation of them! One other thought - in the 1979 vote (on devolution - but of similar significance at the time to this weeks vote), the equivalent yes vote was 51%. So maybe 45% wasn't so impressive. I hadn't realised the 1979 devolution vote was so close, makes this one look like a landslide "no" by comparison! I think, and I said so at the time, that the main Westminster parties had panicked too soon and this one would have been won anyway by the "no" campaign without saddling themselves with all the extra "devo on steroids" stuff they committed to which will be a serious distraction from the important work which has been going on to fix the economy.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 19, 2014 22:29:53 GMT
When Governments scare people it is the elderly who scare most.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Sept 19, 2014 22:33:16 GMT
Course it did.
You get more right wing with age, that's why they wanted the kids to vote.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Sept 19, 2014 22:42:47 GMT
Thing is, as a result of this, IMHO that's the working class fucked for the next 10 years. Labour's all over the shop and every cunt knows it. so the lowest common denominator vote will be for UKIP cus they know the Libs are shithouses for an alternative. If the Jocks couldn't give em a black eye then the English don't stand a fucking chance. Fear beats hope it seems
General election campaign based on divisional policies like benefits, immigration, terrorism etc. And what do you know, we end up with a Tory/UKIP coalition. Nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 19, 2014 22:43:53 GMT
When Governments scare people it is the elderly who scare most. But there was lots to be scared about. Sadly you give the Scottish population little credit for their intelligence. Maybe they just decided ending 300 years of history and friendship when there was absolutely no clear answers on key issues was just winging it?
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Sept 19, 2014 22:58:44 GMT
I had over 60% of the Scottish down as being cunts so am pleasantly surprised to find is was only 54%.
Don't get me wrong that's nothing against the Scots, more like 75% for the English.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 20, 2014 9:23:35 GMT
I'm just waiting for the SNP to issue a statement saying that they're packing in the quest for an independent Scotland. If they'd won they'd have expected the No voters to accept the decision gracefully and allowed the Scotland to go independent wouldn't they?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 20, 2014 9:39:27 GMT
I'm just waiting for the SNP to issue a statement saying that they're packing in the quest for an independent Scotland. If they'd won they'd have expected the No voters to accept the decision gracefully and allowed the Scotland to go independent wouldn't they? I don't support the break up of the UK (and I am English) but even I think the SNP would be foolish to call an end to their campaign - they are surely entitled to wait and see if Westminster politicians deliver the powers they have promised? And even if they do, why should the SNP abandon their beliefs just because they have lost a referendum? Do the Conservatives in England abandon their beliefs if they lose an election? Do Labour? Or UKIP or any party? I'm old enough to have taken part in the referendum on membership of the Common Market - as it was then called. We voted to stay in. That hasn't stopped the Conservatives promising another referendum on EU membership after the next election. It sounds as if you want a one party state - in that you have an election and the winners assume power - for ever - and the losers abandon their beliefs - for ever!
The SNP will, no doubt wait for a decent interval, before asking for another referendum, but they should not abandon their beliefs unless/until they decide that those beliefs are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Sept 20, 2014 9:46:53 GMT
He's a canny politician - and as such will come out claiming a victory for Scotland (himself) even if there is a no vote. He will major on the concessions and claim the credit, he will enjoy the additional power he has, just as he has basked in the limelight over the past weeks. Despite all of this, I have a tad more respect for him than most others of his ilk (for whom I have zero), because he is good at it. Not that canny fair do's - you were right about him going. But i doubt its the end of his political career, he wants to be free to be able to criticise the government without having to be conciliatry because of the ongoing negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 20, 2014 10:30:52 GMT
I'm just waiting for the SNP to issue a statement saying that they're packing in the quest for an independent Scotland. If they'd won they'd have expected the No voters to accept the decision gracefully and allowed the Scotland to go independent wouldn't they? I don't support the break up of the UK (and I am English) but even I think the SNP would be foolish to call an end to their campaign - they are surely entitled to wait and see if Westminster politicians deliver the powers they have promised? And even if they do, why should the SNP abandon their beliefs just because they have lost a referendum? Do the Conservatives in England abandon their beliefs if they lose an election? Do Labour? Or UKIP or any party? I'm old enough to have taken part in the referendum on membership of the Common Market - as it was then called. We voted to stay in. That hasn't stopped the Conservatives promising another referendum on EU membership after the next election. It sounds as if you want a one party state - in that you have an election and the winners assume power - for ever - and the losers abandon their beliefs - for ever!
The SNP will, no doubt wait for a decent interval, before asking for another referendum, but they should not abandon their beliefs unless/until they decide that those beliefs are wrong.
My point was if there had been a 50% +1 vote in favour of the Yes side then there would have been a permanent separation. That's the difference, in a General Election a mandate is awarded for up to 5 years. This was apparently a permanent decision if it were a "yes", but not if were a "no"?
The SNP can continue to campaign for more devolution - which has been promised - but surely the Scottish people have had they're say on separation for many, many years?
"The SNP will, no doubt wait for a decent interval, before asking for another referendum". Sturgeon was talking about another referendum within 5 years if there was a no vote a couple of weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Sept 20, 2014 10:40:55 GMT
I'm just waiting for the SNP to issue a statement saying that they're packing in the quest for an independent Scotland. If they'd won they'd have expected the No voters to accept the decision gracefully and allowed the Scotland to go independent wouldn't they? I don't support the break up of the UK (and I am English) but even I think the SNP would be foolish to call an end to their campaign - they are surely entitled to wait and see if Westminster politicians deliver the powers they have promised? And even if they do, why should the SNP abandon their beliefs just because they have lost a referendum? Do the Conservatives in England abandon their beliefs if they lose an election? Do Labour? Or UKIP or any party? I'm old enough to have taken part in the referendum on membership of the Common Market - as it was then called. We voted to stay in. That hasn't stopped the Conservatives promising another referendum on EU membership after the next election. It sounds as if you want a one party state - in that you have an election and the winners assume power - for ever - and the losers abandon their beliefs - for ever!
The SNP will, no doubt wait for a decent interval, before asking for another referendum, but they should not abandon their beliefs unless/until they decide that those beliefs are wrong. So it's your fault then Lakeland eh? :-)
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 20, 2014 10:45:42 GMT
Labour were always in a lose-lose situation once Cameron promised devo-max two weeks ago to woo over the undecided. Cameron has now stated, quite rightly IMO, that this must run in tandem with English, Welsh and Irish devolution. Cameron and many other MPs think it is unfair now to allow Scottish MPs to vote on English Laws and issues. As it currently stands Labour would lose the voice of 41 of its MPs in Westminster and this is why Miliband wants the Scottish devo to be put in place well ahead of the rest of the UK because it will undoubtedly be a vote loser in the election south of the boarder if Scotland were given devo-max without the rest of the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 10:52:47 GMT
And most political commentators and observers. Ultimately it didn't succeed and some numpties will judge it solely on that (not calling you a numpty btw) but it increased independence support by 50% and put the shits up the no lot to the extent that they had to offer the last minute bribe of Devo Max, something which Cameron originally refused for consideration on the ballot paper as he felt secure enough that yes would not win. Imagine that being the result when the whole thing started off and support for independence was at less than one person in three! I'm not so sure about much of what you say. The yes folks are desperately disappointed because they thought they'd "rigged" things in their favour by giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds. Ultimately they failed because they were unable to convince enough people; particularly women. BTW - I think the win was on for them. They messed up. On the other hand, the no campaign also messed up big time. They shat themselves when a single opinion poll went against them. They knew they were lacklustre and dull so started making offers they've no idea how to deliver and wheeling out all the big guns including Gordon Brown; a sure sign of desperation! I'm not sure any of this impressed folk up here - if anything it could have been counter productive. In the end, as Darling correctly put it, the silent majority spoke. And they aren't impressed with political fluff. Actually Darling is a pretty good representation of them! One other thought - in the 1979 vote (on devolution - but of similar significance at the time to this weeks vote), the equivalent yes vote was 51%. So maybe 45% wasn't so impressive. They did rig things in their favour by allowing the young to vote. The demographic preference split was pretty obvious from the start. Idealistic, optimistic kids would generally vote yes, the scared coffin-dodgers would vote no!! That's very simplistic and trite obviously but the results bear out the voting preferences. I don't actually have a problem with the age of voting being 16. Really, what difference does two years make? It might help to make kids more politically aware and interested - that's certainly what happened in Scotland. And that's not a bad thing as turnouts have struggled to get much above 60% in general elections recently. Using age to suggest they're not capable of understanding is a red herring. There are just as many older people with little or no understanding of many political issues (right, mcf ). I'm sure like me every time an election comes along and you see some adults stopped in the street for their views you are routinely amazed by their complete ignorance, often not even knowing the basics like who the main party leaders are! On your last point, that 1979 vote was about devolution, not full independence and was on a turnout of 64%. My guess would be that an independence vote at that time would have been substantially lower than the 51% pro-devolution got. But it's comparing apples and pears so you can't really use it. There have been many independence question polls in the intervening years which have traditionally shown support for it at around 30%. Getting it up to 45% is good going. I never thought they'd win unless the polls got to about 55-45 in favour. As I said before the vote, the undecided would decide it in the end. We'll have to wait for more analysis but I'd bet that of the floating 10-15% who declared themselves to be undecided in the run up, about two thirds of those who eventually stuck an X on the ballot paper voted no. Change scares a lot of people, that's why loads of organisations now employ people with change management skills to make it less unsettling and for the changes to go through more smoothly. You had to be convinced to vote yes and if you weren't convinced then the fear of change was probably quite a powerful disincentive for these undecided folk. In these cases, voting for the status quo is generally what people do. On top of that I'd say the last ditch offer of Devo Max also went some way to turning them towards no. It would have done for me! Did you vote no in the end then?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 20, 2014 11:26:53 GMT
I'm not so sure about much of what you say. The yes folks are desperately disappointed because they thought they'd "rigged" things in their favour by giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds. Ultimately they failed because they were unable to convince enough people; particularly women. BTW - I think the win was on for them. They messed up. On the other hand, the no campaign also messed up big time. They shat themselves when a single opinion poll went against them. They knew they were lacklustre and dull so started making offers they've no idea how to deliver and wheeling out all the big guns including Gordon Brown; a sure sign of desperation! I'm not sure any of this impressed folk up here - if anything it could have been counter productive. In the end, as Darling correctly put it, the silent majority spoke. And they aren't impressed with political fluff. Actually Darling is a pretty good representation of them! One other thought - in the 1979 vote (on devolution - but of similar significance at the time to this weeks vote), the equivalent yes vote was 51%. So maybe 45% wasn't so impressive. They did rig things in their favour by allowing the young to vote. The demographic preference split was pretty obvious from the start. Idealistic, optimistic kids would generally vote yes, the scared coffin-dodgers would vote no!! That's very simplistic and trite obviously but the results bear out the voting preferences. I don't actually have a problem with the age of voting being 16. Really, what difference does two years make? It might help to make kids more politically aware and interested - that's certainly what happened in Scotland. And that's not a bad thing as turnouts have struggled to get much above 60% in general elections recently. Using age to suggest they're not capable of understanding is a red herring. There are just as many older people with little or no understanding of many political issues (right, mcf ). I'm sure like me every time an election comes along and you see some adults stopped in the street for their views you are routinely amazed by their complete ignorance, often not even knowing the basics like who the main party leaders are! On your last point, that 1979 vote was about devolution, not full independence and was on a turnout of 64%. My guess would be that an independence vote at that time would have been substantially lower than the 51% pro-devolution got. But it's comparing apples and pears so you can't really use it. There have been many independence question polls in the intervening years which have traditionally shown support for it at around 30%. Getting it up to 45% is good going. I never thought they'd win unless the polls got to about 55-45 in favour. As I said before the vote, the undecided would decide it in the end. We'll have to wait for more analysis but I'd bet that of the floating 10-15% who declared themselves to be undecided in the run up, about two thirds of those who eventually stuck an X on the ballot paper voted no. Change scares a lot of people, that's why loads of organisations now employ people with change management skills to make it less unsettling and for the changes to go through more smoothly. You had to be convinced to vote yes and if you weren't convinced then the fear of change was probably quite a powerful disincentive for these undecided folk. In these cases, voting for the status quo is generally what people do. On top of that I'd say the last ditch offer of Devo Max also went some way to turning them towards no. It would have done for me! Did you vote no in the end then? With you on these comments. But it's now time to move forward - as the debate has now become a national one thanks to Cameron's clever speech yesterday. But that new discussion probably merits a new thread!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 20, 2014 11:29:45 GMT
I don't support the break up of the UK (and I am English) but even I think the SNP would be foolish to call an end to their campaign - they are surely entitled to wait and see if Westminster politicians deliver the powers they have promised? And even if they do, why should the SNP abandon their beliefs just because they have lost a referendum? Do the Conservatives in England abandon their beliefs if they lose an election? Do Labour? Or UKIP or any party? I'm old enough to have taken part in the referendum on membership of the Common Market - as it was then called. We voted to stay in. That hasn't stopped the Conservatives promising another referendum on EU membership after the next election. It sounds as if you want a one party state - in that you have an election and the winners assume power - for ever - and the losers abandon their beliefs - for ever!
The SNP will, no doubt wait for a decent interval, before asking for another referendum, but they should not abandon their beliefs unless/until they decide that those beliefs are wrong.
My point was if there had been a 50% +1 vote in favour of the Yes side then there would have been a permanent separation. That's the difference, in a General Election a mandate is awarded for up to 5 years. This was apparently a permanent decision if it were a "yes", but not if were a "no"?
The SNP can continue to campaign for more devolution - which has been promised - but surely the Scottish people have had they're say on separation for many, many years?
"The SNP will, no doubt wait for a decent interval, before asking for another referendum". Sturgeon was talking about another referendum within 5 years if there was a no vote a couple of weeks ago. That's life. Unless there was a stipulation when the rules for this week's referendum were drawn up that the next one could not be for x number of years in the event of a no vote then any party can call for a referendum at any time. In practice, they'll only call for another referendum if they think they can win it. If Scotland gets the powers it was promised a couple of weeks back the chances are that there won't be a referendum for many many years because the SNP will know they can't win in the short term. If Scotland DOESN'T get the powers it was promised two weeks ago, then I'm sure the SNP will call another referendum in 5 years or so and I expect they will win it. The obvious way to avoid that happening is for the Westminster politicians to keep their promises - wow that's radical isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Sept 21, 2014 12:39:24 GMT
Obviously it makes total sense that English MPs should be the only ones voting on issues that solely effect England. Labour however will insist on dragging everything out with various conventions, consultations etc. for several years so they don't have to attempt to win a majority of English MPs in 2015. That would be far too ambitious and doesn't work with the 'limping into Downing Street on 35% of the vote' plan.
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Sept 21, 2014 15:00:39 GMT
So it should make sense that only Scottish, Welsh, North Ireland MPs vote on their issues
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Sept 21, 2014 18:44:02 GMT
My point was if there had been a 50% +1 vote in favour of the Yes side then there would have been a permanent separation. That's the difference, in a General Election a mandate is awarded for up to 5 years. This was apparently a permanent decision if it were a "yes", but not if were a "no"?
The SNP can continue to campaign for more devolution - which has been promised - but surely the Scottish people have had they're say on separation for many, many years?
"The SNP will, no doubt wait for a decent interval, before asking for another referendum". Sturgeon was talking about another referendum within 5 years if there was a no vote a couple of weeks ago. That's life. Unless there was a stipulation when the rules for this week's referendum were drawn up that the next one could not be for x number of years in the event of a no vote then any party can call for a referendum at any time. In practice, they'll only call for another referendum if they think they can win it. If Scotland gets the powers it was promised a couple of weeks back the chances are that there won't be a referendum for many many years because the SNP will know they can't win in the short term. If Scotland DOESN'T get the powers it was promised two weeks ago, then I'm sure the SNP will call another referendum in 5 years or so and I expect they will win it. The obvious way to avoid that happening is for the Westminster politicians to keep their promises - wow that's radical isn't it? :D Whilst I agree with generally what you say, the referendum was only 3 days ago! Now Salmond (the odious shitbag) starts rowing back from his word www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11111705/Alex-Salmond-says-No-voters-were-tricked.html
|
|