A little poll for the Referendum... if interested....

coolcait

cazziebo wrote: »

Or they were scared?

Scared by the media telling them they would lose their pensions? (lies)

Scared by the press reporting that food prices would go up? (More lies)

Scared by the reporting that the banks and big companies would relocate and take the jobs? (Denied by the banks and businesses?)

Persuaded by the Prime Minister of the UK that there was greater spoils to be had? ( a promise withdrawn within 24 hours)

71% of young people voted yes, 73% of over 65s voted No. It's not over. A year ago, no one thought the YES vote would come close. Two weeks ago, Westminster and the City saw the reality. They threw everything they had at this to get what they wanted.

It's a result based on deceit, lies and spin. It's a hollow win for the unionists who have their own reasons to keep Scotland in the UK.

We are where we are. It's up to us to make the best of what we have. I predict another referendum within 10 years;next time we'll get the right result.

It's more than a little bit naïve to suggest that 'deceit, lies and spin' came from only one side. The White Paper, for example, was a slickly produced package of airspun nothingness. Yet many people were inspired by it.


It's also very insulting to suggest that those who voted 'No' did so because they were 'scared', or 'persuaded... that there were greater spoils to be had'.


Over three and half million people voted. They will all have had very different journeys towards their ultimate decision of 'Yes' or 'No'.


Reducing all of that to the kind of glib stereotypes in your post is insulting to all of the voters in Scotland - on both sides - who based their decision on their own personal analysis of the information available.


All that said, the real winner yesterday was democracy. A turnout of almost 85% is phenomenal. And a credit to the entire country.

gettingtheresometime

cazziebo wrote: »

!!!!!!! Scotland generates way more money than it receives. Way more. Wales, Scotland, the North of England, the South West of England, the Midlands, all pay into the centralisation of the South East of England.

Stop believing the carp fed to you by the media.

cazziebo wrote: »

Or they were scared?

Scared by the media telling them they would lose their pensions? (lies)

Scared by the press reporting that food prices would go up? (More lies)

Scared by the reporting that the banks and big companies would relocate and take the jobs? (Denied by the banks and businesses?)

Persuaded by the Prime Minister of the UK that there was greater spoils to be had? ( a promise withdrawn within 24 hours)

71% of young people voted yes, 73% of over 65s voted No. It's not over. A year ago, no one thought the YES vote would come close. Two weeks ago, Westminster and the City saw the reality. They threw everything they had at this to get what they wanted.

It's a result based on deceit, lies and spin. It's a hollow win for the unionists who have their own reasons to keep Scotland in the UK.

We are where we are. It's up to us to make the best of what we have. I predict another referendum within 10 years;next time we'll get the right result.

Even though I thought it would be a yes vote, I'm glad that its a no vote.

tbh I think everyone needs to calm down in Scotland - this was never going to be an easy vote to recover from -and yes I do think that to expect the Scottish Parliament extra powers without a frank discussion about what it means for Scottish MPs in Westminster was fooling themselves.

For me, as an outsider, I too would have voted no -there was too many unknowns - being told that everything would be OK and there would be no problem with this that and the other wouldn't be good enough for me....and tbh there were a couple of people on the yes side that quite frankly should have been sent on a long holiday or kept well away from the media.

The point is that you may not have 'independence' but this vote has certainly made people sit up and think and surely that's a good thing?

balletshoes

coolcait wrote: »

It's more than a little bit naïve to suggest that 'deceit, lies and spin' came from only one side. The White Paper, for example, was a slickly produced package of airspun nothingness. Yet many people were inspired by it.


It's also very insulting to suggest that those who voted 'No' did so because they were 'scared', or 'persuaded... that there were greater spoils to be had'.


Over three and half million people voted. They will all have had very different journeys towards their ultimate decision of 'Yes' or 'No'.


Reducing all of that to the kind of glib stereotypes in your post is insulting to all of the voters in Scotland - on both sides - who based their decision on their own personal analysis of the information available.


All that said, the real winner yesterday was democracy. A turnout of almost 85% is phenomenal. And a credit to the entire country.

absolutely, thats something to be immensely proud of, and its indicative to me of how important this issue was, for both the yes and no voters, all over Scotland.

gettingtheresometime

balletshoes wrote: »

absolutely, thats something to be immensely proud of, and its indicative to me of how important this issue was, for both the yes and no voters, all over Scotland.

But shouldn't all elections be that important?

I love history and knowing what I know what it took people to get the vote,women especially, I feel almost its almost my moral duty to vote.

Trouble with that sentiment is when you have no clear choice .......

Tropez

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

But shouldn't all elections be that important?

I love history and knowing what I know what it took people to get the vote,women especially, I feel almost its almost my moral duty to vote.

Trouble with that sentiment is when you have no clear choice .......

The Scottish referendum though was a simple Yes/No vote.

The problem with General Elections is that a lot of the time it's a choice between (to borrow from South Park) a giant douche or a turd sandwich. Hard to really feel motivated to vote when none of the options appear to stand for what you individually stand for.

Also, another thing that comes into play is the fact that while the Scottish referendum was a vote where every vote counted, most elections are based on wards/constituencies. Since I've been alive, the same party has taken the local seat around here by a substantial majority. It doesn't look like changing, so where's the motivation? I know it could be argued that if everyone who felt like me got up and voted perhaps things would change but that's just not very likely.

coolcait

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

But shouldn't all elections be that important?

I love history and knowing what I know what it took people to get the vote,women especially, I feel almost its almost my moral duty to vote.

Trouble with that sentiment is when you have no clear choice .......

Tropez wrote: »

The Scottish referendum though was a simple Yes/No vote.

The problem with General Elections is that a lot of the time it's a choice between (to borrow from South Park) a giant douche or a turd sandwich. Hard to really feel motivated to vote when none of the options appear to stand for what you individually stand for.

I agree with those dilemmas.


We're very privileged to have this right to vote. If only we could get better options!


There have been times that I've considered spoiling the ballot paper - because all of the options were equally awful.


However, I usually go for the 'least bad' option - as I see it.


P.S. Tropez, you've edited your post since I quoted it. I can see how it would be difficult to get enthused abut voting if it's 'always' the same party that wins your local seat.
However, if it's always the same percentage of the electorate which is voting - say 40% - then you might actually see a difference if the other 60% did go out and vote.
You do sometimes see that effect when an MP has been 'tarnished' in some way, and the local electorate wants to make a point!

gettingtheresometime

Oh Topaz I do share your pain - really I do.

Personally I'd love to see more people stand as independents though I can understand why cost etc would be a barrier at something like the General Election.

Tropez

coolcait wrote: »

I agree with those dilemmas.


We're very privileged to have this right to vote. If only we could get better options!


There have been times that I've considered spoiling the ballot paper - because all of the options were equally awful.


However, I usually go for the 'least bad' option - as I see it.


P.S. Tropez, you've edited your post since I quoted it. I can see how it would be difficult to get enthused abut voting if it's 'always' the same party that wins your local seat.
However, if it's always the same percentage of the electorate which is voting - say 40% - then you might actually see a difference if the other 60% did go out and vote.
You do sometimes see that effect when an MP has been 'tarnished' in some way, and the local electorate wants to make a point!

The turnout is reasonable around here I think. The issue lies in the fact you have the party that always wins who are then followed by the selection of various parties whose policies are all anti-EU, or flat out racist. Some party called the "English Democrats" which based on their campaign literature around the time of the European Elections are particularly unpleasant, scored a similar amount of votes to one of the big three political parties.

I can only find it fortunate that the racist, anti-EU and flat out loony parties are so far behind the established seat holder. Since I'm pro-EU and definitely not racist, it's not really a political landscape that works for me around here

coolcait

Tropez wrote: »

The turnout is reasonable around here I think. The issue lies in the fact you have the party that always wins who are then followed by the selection of various parties whose policies are all anti-EU, or flat out racist. Some party called the "English Democrats" which based on their campaign literature around the time of the European Elections are particularly unpleasant, scored a similar amount of votes to one of the big three political parties.

I can only find it fortunate that the racist, anti-EU and flat out loony parties are so far behind the established seat holder. Since I'm pro-EU and definitely not racist, it's not really a political landscape that works for me around here

Ouch! Nightmare scenario. It sounds like "the party which always wins" might actually be the 'least bad' option...


It does remind me of turning out to vote at the last European elections, to find that there were about a dozen parties on the list. Less than half of them had made any contact with the local voters, through mailshots (never mind knocking on doors!).


Most of them had names, or descriptions, which could be summed up as '"F*** off foreigners".


It was one of those rare occasions where the 'mainstream' parties benefitted from the fact that - while it may not be possible to polish a turd - you can make it look better by putting it beside suppurating putrescence.

Tropez

coolcait wrote: »

Ouch! Nightmare scenario. It sounds like "the party which always wins" might actually be the 'least bad' option...


It does remind me of turning out to vote at the last European elections, to find that there were about a dozen parties on the list. Less than half of them had made any contact with the local voters, through mailshots (never mind knocking on doors!).


Most of them had names, or descriptions, which could be summed up as '"F*** off foreigners".


It was one of those rare occasions where the 'mainstream' parties benefitted from the fact that - while it may not be possible to polish a turd - you can make it look better by putting it beside suppurating putrescence.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Yep, that sounds about right. I actually voted at the European Elections because of the whole pro-EU thing. Oh my, as you say, a bunch of parties on the ballot who had names that were clearly their only policy. :rotfl: