Scottish Independence discussion area

Cantremember

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I put forward 3 main reason for the older gen voting No

1. You take less risks as you get older
2. The scare stories from the No side went straight for that demographic
3. They are more likely to have an affinity for the union

Lmao. You could with equal validity say that younger Scots have no clue as to the real world, taxes and the cost of bureaucracy and defence. Or that they actually believe Braveheart. The Balkanization of Europe marks a descent into the past: at least Scotland had the wit to say no to it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Cantremember wrote: »

Lmao. You could with ......

You could, is that your viewpoint then?

oppenheimer1

porsche959 wrote: »

I think those make sense and would add:

4. More likely to get their news wholly or mainly from traditional media, vast majority of which were against Scottish independence.

In addition, older people are also generally more dependent on the state. It pays pensions and provides healthcare among lots of other things. Older people are not willing to take the risk that their own new country would be able to provide the same standard of living for them.

While the same risks also affect young people, they maintain a capability to react to change. Older people by their very nature to not possess that capability.

Cantremember

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You could, is that your viewpoint then?

As far as you read obviously.

oppenheimer1

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Have you heard about the rigging rumours in the referendum?

http://shar.es/1asR3h

If it were true, the rigging would have to have been on an industrial scale. Simply not possible.

Conspiracy theories are a distraction.

Aidric

porsche959 wrote: »

I think those make sense and would add:

4. More likely to get their news wholly or mainly from traditional media, vast majority of which were against Scottish independence.

True. It's funny isn't it when you think about the western medias coverage of the recent crisis in Ukraine and how they dismissed the Russian coverage as a propaganda whitewash. Yet they are perfectly capable of puling the same card when the agenda suits.

Aidric

Aidric wrote: »

True. It's funny isn't it when you think about the western medias coverage of the recent crisis in Ukraine and how they dismissed the Russian coverage as a propaganda whitewash. Yet they are perfectly capable of puling the same card when the agenda suits.

It's always important to remember that all media sources will only provide "a version of the truth" that is in accordance to the media's owner.

Pravda (truth) being one of the most quoted examples as it was the Soviet Union's mouthpiece. The main difference these days that there are multiple sources of information, but many will just stick to the source that they are familiar with.

Aidric

Deleted User wrote: »

It's always important to remember that all media sources will only provide "a version of the truth" that is in accordance to the media's owner.

Pravda (truth) being one of the most quoted examples as it was the Soviet Union's mouthpiece. The main difference these days that there are multiple sources of information, but many will just stick to the source that they are familiar with.

Oh sure, which is why everyone should read both sides of story. I've heard successive BBC Chairmen speaking about the impartiality of the organisation but it wasn't on show in this referendum.

La_Gordy

Is there anymore trouble tonight?

Guy:Incognito

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I put forward 3 main reason for the older gen voting No

1. You take less risks as you get older
2. The scare stories from the No side went straight for that demographic
3. They are more likely to have an affinity for the union

No chance that you've more sense when your older? I bet that would be in there if the numbers were reversed.

Im only surprised the 16-24 year old were so even. Though I'd be interested to see a 16-20 stat. Here anyway they seem to be full of "vote for anything as long as its against the brits". Tends to mellow out and get more rational for most once they start to come out of their teens and in to the real world.


Do you not see any irony in your views where everyone that voted against what you want , and just happened to be larger in numbers, are basically doddery idiots that aren't capable of proper individual thought.

porsche959

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If it were true, the rigging would have to have been on an industrial scale. Simply not possible.

Conspiracy theories are a distraction.

Those promoting this particular conspiracy theory would also have to explain how the bookies and polling companies were in on it too.

porsche959

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No chance that you've more sense when your older? I bet that would be in there if the numbers were reversed.

Im only surprised the 16-24 year old were so even. Though I'd be interested to see a 16-20 stat. Here anyway they seem to be full of "vote for anything as long as its against the brits". Tends to mellow out and get more rational for most once they start to come out of their teens and in to the real world.

The middle aged cohort also voted in favour.

Banjoxed

porsche959 wrote: »

I think those make sense and would add:

4. More likely to get their news wholly or mainly from traditional media, vast majority of which were against Scottish independence.

Or, as a close friend of mine in the Highlands, who is neither elderly nor well off, said, "Well I'm glad I woke up on Friday still British".

Guy:Incognito

porsche959 wrote: »

The middle aged cohort also voted in favour.

I would take 2 -3 points either side as being more or less 50:50 tbh.


I'd be interested to see numbers in the middle of an upswing economy wise. Wonder would some of the working class numbers have been happier with status que with less of them and their peers on the dole or earning more.


You'll always have a group at either extreme that will always be pro or anti union. Its the large middle ground where these things are won and lost. These people can swing with circumstances. Theres been war and recession in the last few years imo that's going to swing the middle ground people towards independence more than good times and prosperity.

Guy:Incognito

porsche959 wrote: »

Those promoting this particular conspiracy theory would also have to explain how the bookies and polling companies were in on it too.

and what the yes sides angle was in debunking it.

Its actually funny with the one where the guy put up the video of all the votes on the no table when the yes campaign explains it and he retweets their tweet and just says hes not buying it, its rigged.

philstar

there's alot of disapointed sinn fein'ers out there....

kingchess

well it seems 45% of people in Scotland are disappointed anyway,whatever about sinn feiners

SharpshooterTom

philstar wrote: »

there's alot of disapointed sinn fein'ers out there....

Excuse me, not everyone who supports Scottish independence is a Sinn Fein supporter. I live in Northern Ireland and I despise Republicanism, I've never given Sinn Fein a preference vote, my support goes to the SDLP or the Alliance party. I'm still a small n nationalist at heart and I am in Scotland as well, but doesn't make me in the slightest a provo.

It might sound strange to you but not everyone who supports Scottish nationalism is doing it to "get one over da Brits". I like Scottish culture and national identity, I like their left of centre politics, unique from a lot of England and think they could go better alone, although I do recognise their important and proud contribution to British history also.

Wurzelbert

Deleted User wrote: »

Scotland must have quite a sizeable percentage of older people for those age groups to have had such an affect on the outcome.

typical european demographics i’d wager…

Wurzelbert

Wurzelbert wrote: »

typical european demographics i’d wager…

True,
[OT]Especially if you're referring to "the natives", countries with a high immigrant population have a much younger demographic.[/OT]
Anyway there are plenty of other threads discussing that issue.

A Dub in Glasgo

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No chance that you've more sense when your older? I bet that would be in there if the numbers were reversed.

Im only surprised the 16-24 year old were so even. Though I'd be interested to see a 16-20 stat. Here anyway they seem to be full of "vote for anything as long as its against the brits". Tends to mellow out and get more rational for most once they start to come out of their teens and in to the real world.


Do you not see any irony in your views where everyone that voted against what you want , and just happened to be larger in numbers, are basically doddery idiots that aren't capable of proper individual thought.

What are you doddering about?

A Dub in Glasgo

philstar wrote: »

there's alot of disapointed sinn fein'ers out there....

Another 10 more and you will be in heaven :pac:

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

True,
[OT]Especially if you're referring to "the natives", countries with a high immigrant population have a much younger demographic.[/OT]
Anyway there are plenty of other threads discussing that issue.

Essentially that was going to be immigration policy in an independent Scotland to help shore up the lop sided demographics. That demographic put a halt to that

Wurzelbert

Deleted User wrote: »

True,
[OT]Especially if you're referring to "the natives", countries with a high immigrant population have a much younger demographic.[/OT]
Anyway there are plenty of other threads discussing that issue.

yeah, i was just replying to another post…and thanks for enlightening us on the impact of immigration on a country’s demographics…

Smiles35

philstar wrote: »

there's alot of disapointed sinn fein'ers out there....

I'd say it's opposite. Scotland going native would have ment an end of a era of dedicated 'agitation' and back and forth banter. A Sinn Fein man droped in a leafet to my house just yesterday, back to work for him.

feargale

What puzzles me most is the idea of SNP supporters voting NO, and Tories voting YES. Apparently there were quite a few of both.

porsche959

feargale wrote: »

What puzzles me most is the idea of SNP supporters voting NO, and Tories voting YES. Apparently there were quite a few of both.

(1) People vote for political parties for all kinds of reasons, for example someone might for vote for SNP because their local SNP politician did a favour for them but not really favour independence.
(2) Tory voters that voted Yes mightn't be as crazy as might first appear, if an independent Scotland ditched the First Past the Post system their party would have better representation in a Scottish parliament than currently in Westminister.
(3) Some voters are just plain crazy.

eire4

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

they voted no get over it

Given how this election developed while the no vote did win Thursday I think this issue is far from settled and will play a significant part in next years westminister elections. It will be very interesting to see what happends to Labours vote given they campaigned strongly for no and yet a good chunk of their typical voters in Scotalnd voted yes. Will they lose some ground in Scotland to the SNP next year that will be interesting to watch.

tayto lover

philstar wrote: »

there's alot of disapointed sinn fein'ers out there....

I'm disappointed and i've never voted for SF in a general Election in my life.
I love to see countries running their own affairs but in this case they clearly weren't up to it. I put that down to fear and cowardice tbh.

Iwasfrozen

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm disappointed and i've never voted for SF in a general Election in my life.
I love to see countries running their own affairs but in this case they clearly weren't up to it. I put that down to fear and cowardice tbh.

What about Scottish people who weren't afraid or cowardly and just genuinely have an affiliation with the UK as a whole?

philstar

^^^^^^^^^^^^

exactly, some irish (shinners) just can't accept this,

feargale

porsche959 wrote: »

(3) Some voters are just plain crazy.

Yes. Vincent Browne some years ago the night after an election count : " We would like to talk to the voter in Dublin North who gave their no. 1 to the Unionist candidate and their no. 2 to Sinn Fein. It happened.

tayto lover

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What about Scottish people who weren't afraid or cowardly and just genuinely have an affiliation with the UK as a whole?

I cannot see 55% of the Scots as fitting that profile tbh. Can you?

tayto lover

philstar wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^

exactly, some irish (shinners) just can't accept this,

What about the other "shinners"? Can they accept it?

Iwasfrozen

tayto lover wrote: »

I cannot see 55% of the Scots as fitting that profile tbh. Can you?

I would see there being a core unionist vote at around 45% in Scotland with the majority of people being undecided. The yes campaign campaigned better than the no campaign and as a result swayed most of the "undecided" to their side but in the end it just wasn't enough to catch up to the unionist vote.

Iwasfrozen

tayto lover wrote: »

What about the other "shinners"? Can they accept it?

I think you read his post wrong.

tayto lover

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would see there being a core unionist vote at around 45% in Scotland with the majority of people being undecided. The yes campaign campaigned better than the no campaign and as a result swayed most of the "undecided" to their side but in the end it just wasn't enough to catch up to the unionist vote.

I can't see the campaigning having much to do with it at all.
To me it boiled down to "do you want to run your own affairs and country or do you not?"
Is that not also what the ballot paper read?

tayto lover

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think you read his post wrong.

No I read it correctly.
He has mentioned shinners or IRA in nearly every post he disagreed with which is silly.

Iwasfrozen

tayto lover wrote: »

I can't see the campaigning having much to do with it at all.
To me it boiled down to "do you want to run your own affairs and country or do you not?"
Is that not also what the ballot paper read?

You don't see campaigning having any influence on the vote?

tayto lover

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You don't see campaigning having any influence on the vote?

Not a huge influence but then i'm putting myself in the position of a Scot.
I really think many people will live to regret their vote.
A great chance to run your own country missed through fear/cowardice.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would see there being a core unionist vote at around 45% in Scotland with the majority of people being undecided. The yes campaign campaigned better than the no campaign and as a result swayed most of the "undecided" to their side but in the end it just wasn't enough to catch up to the unionist vote.

So a majority of 55% is 28% so you think 45% vote for the Union, 27% vote for Independence and 28% undecided but 35%ish of those undecided will vote for the union and 65%ish will vote for Independence giving a grand total of 55% for the union and 45% for Independence?

I think your original 45% figure is too high

Iwasfrozen

tayto lover wrote: »

No I read it correctly.
He has mentioned shinners or IRA in nearly every post he disagreed with which is silly.

I don't think so. He said some Irish (shinners) implying the shinners are the some Irish. There are no other shinners because he was referring to shinners as a group.

Iwasfrozen

tayto lover wrote: »

Not a huge influence but then i'm putting myself in the position of a Scot.
I really think many people will live to regret their vote.
A great chance to run your own country missed through fear/cowardice.

Well if we agree that the no side attracted the lions share of the don't knows then surely you must agree the unionist core must be significantly larger than the partitionists?

tayto lover

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So a majority of 55% is 28% so you think 45% vote for the Union, 27% vote for Independence and 28% undecided but 35%ish of those undecided will vote for the union and 65%ish will vote for Independence giving a grand total of 55% for the union and 45% for Independence?

I think your original 45% figure is too high

It was a Yes or No vote.
55% voted No, 45% voted Yes. As near as makes no difference.
Not interested in who they were. All were Scots and the majority rejected independence.

The_Kew_Tour

We have affiliation with Germany.

Does that mean we can claim to be able World Cup winners?

tayto lover

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

We have affiliation with Germany.

Does that mean we can claim to be able World Cup winners?

Better beer drinkers maybe.

Iwasfrozen

tayto lover wrote: »

It was a Yes or No vote.
55% voted No, 45% voted Yes. As near as makes no difference.
Not interested in who they were. All were Scots and the majority rejected independence.

It matters when you try to say the majority of voters were somehow "cowardly" for refusing independence. I would counter that the majority of no voters were not afraid of independence but simply felt a cultural connection to the UK as a whole and didn't want to leave it. Doesn't that sound far more plausible than assuming people are idiots?

kingchess

I do not think the 55% were cowardly.-they voted yes because they believed it was for the best,and maybe they believed the tories and labour ,a better Scotland and a better UK. the problem now shifts to England,Cameron is trying to shaft Labour already by adding new conditions about scottish MPs(read Labour MPs)voting on English affairs and any powers they give to Scotland must also be given to England,Wales and N. Ireland.there is an election coming to the UK next year and the tories will attack Labour if they do not protect the rights of their English voters while at the same time they are trying to retain the Labour vote in Scotland-why should Scottish MPs vote on English only matters and English MPs have no say on Scottish matters?? .Politics is a cut throat game it seems and power is all that matters. and of course the Barnett formula where Scotland get more money per head than other parts of the UK-that will questioned by English people when Scotland get tax raising powers,in other words why should England subsidise Scotland??Interesting times lie ahead.

A Dub in Glasgo

kingchess wrote: »

and of course the Barnett formula where Scotland get more money per head than other parts of the UK-that will questioned by English people when Scotland get tax raising powers,in other words why should England subsidise Scotland??Interesting times lie ahead.

Just because the money in the pot is distributed by the Westminster government does not mean England subsidises what comes out of the pot. Scotland puts more into the pot than it takes out therefore England does not subsidise Scotland.

kingchess

yes I know that England is not subsidising Scotland but the view in the rest of the UK is that it is ,that the Scots are subsidised-that they get more money spent on them per head compared to the rest of the UK,not taking into account what they put into the "pot".