Scottish Independence yea or nay

alastair

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I cannot comment on C4 and ignoring your online sites and RTE, the other sources were all supporting the No side

No they were not. The Guardian alone had a pro-No editorial position, but that didn't undermine it's fair coverage of the campaign. The BBC had no position whatsoever, and Murdoch's papers were neutral too.

A Dub in Glasgo

Berserker wrote: »

As a 'Yes' voter, you are always going to say that. A 'No' voter would say the complete opposite. That is a natural human reaction. This Irish media here was visibly pushing 'Yes'. The papers last weekend (Times and Indo) even had articles about life in an independent Scotland.

Eh? the Times and Guardian were officially aligned to the No campaign. The BBC often ignored it's own charter to portray the No in better light or Yes in darker light. They had a vested interest in No as they would have lost 8-9% of its funding and potentially job losses.

The Irish media was an irrelevance to the Scotland referendum

A Dub in Glasgo

alastair wrote: »

No they were not. The Guardian alone had a pro-No editorial position, but that didn't undermine it's fair coverage of the campaign. The BBC had no position whatsoever, and Murdoch's papers were neutral too.

See above and link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_endorsements_in_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#Newspapers

alastair

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

They did, it was Blair McDougall

The Yes campaign? Blair McDougall?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

alastair wrote: »

Just where is the media currently controlled by Westminster? Honestly this is the sort of guff that you'd expect of Putin, not a mature democracy.

BBC Scotland exists in name only. Sky is controlled by Murdoch. How many papers are owned by bigger agencies in London or international agencies?

A full year ago there were calls from Yes campaigners to have the OSCE step in and monitor the coverage by BBC Scotland and across all print media.

BBC Scotland is not answerable to Scottish Parliament and is not subject to Scottish Freedom of Information Laws and cannot be questioned by MSPs. Maybe it's not controlled by Westminster, I don't think I said it was, but it's certainly controlled from outside of Scotland.

A Dub in Glasgo

alastair wrote: »

The Yes campaign? Blair McDougall?

Meant to say Jenkins. The Yes campaign was headed up by Blair Jenkins and the No campaign headed up by Blair McDougall

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Maybe it's not controlled by Westminster, I don't think I said it was, but it's certainly controlled from outside of Scotland.

No maybe about it - it's not, and nor should it be controlled by Hollyrood.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

alastair wrote: »

No maybe about it - it's not, and nor should it be controlled by Hollyrood.

I never said it was controlled by Westminster, pay attention. The point is it's not answerable to Scottish Parliament which means it can do whatever it wants without being held accountable by the Scottish people.

alastair

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Meant to say Jenkins. The Yes campaign was headed up by Blair Jenkins and the No campaign headed up by Blair McDougall

Neither of whom played much of a role in presenting the case to the public - the leadership of the campaigns, as far as joe public was concerned was Alex Salmond vs Alistair Darling, which then transitioned into Alex Salmond vs Gordon Brown when things started looking dicey.

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I never said it was controlled by Westminster, pay attention. The point is it's not answerable to Scottish Parliament which means it can do whatever it wants without being held accountable by the Scottish people.

You said:

There's also a movement underway to have control of the media in Scotland devolved to the Scottish Parliament

Now that supposed 'devolution' suggests that it's currently 'controlled' by that other non-devolved parliament; Westminster.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

alastair wrote: »

Neither of whom played much of a role in presenting the case to the public - the leadership of the campaigns, as far as joe public was concerned was Alex Salmond vs Alistair Darling, which then transitioned into Alex Salmond vs Gordon Brown when things started looking dicey.

There was no official leader of the Yes campaign. There were a number of different groups working in their own ways towards the same cause. The media ran with Salmond being the leader because he was the main political figure on the Yes side. Which worked out well for the No side because a lot of people, stupid uninformed people, didn't want Alex Salmond running their country if they were to be independent despite the fact that there would have been elections to set up a new government and painting Salmond as the leader only added to this misconception.

A Dub in Glasgo

alastair wrote: »

Neither of whom played much of a role in presenting the case to the public - the leadership of the campaigns, as far as joe public was concerned was Alex Salmond vs Alistair Darling, which then transitioned into Alex Salmond vs Gordon Brown when things started looking dicey.

It never got to a Salmond v Brown match. Brown got his live 50 minutes uninterrupted broadcast courtesy of the BBC where he was telling the people in Scotland about all the wonderful new powers that will be coming, first they had to vote No! Hmm, how did that work out?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

alastair wrote: »

You said:

Now that supposed 'devolution' suggests that it's currently 'controlled' by that other non-devolved parliament; Westminster.

No, it suggests it's controlled by people outside of Scotland. Perhaps I chose the wrong words but I think my follow up posts made my point perfectly clear.

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There was no official leader of the Yes campaign. There were a number of different groups working in their own ways towards the same cause. The media ran with Salmond being the leader because he was the main political figure on the Yes side.

Just as they did with the No side.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Which worked out well for the No side because a lot of people, stupid uninformed people, didn't want Alex Salmond running their country if they were to be independent despite the fact that there would have been elections to set up a new government and painting Salmond as the leader only added to this misconception.

Not sure who you're blaming here - the uninformed, or the media? I'm pretty sure most people were aware that independence would have required an electoral process.

alastair

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It never got to a Salmond v Brown match. Brown got his live 50 minutes uninterrupted broadcast courtesy of the BBC where he was telling the people in Scotland about all the wonderful new powers that will be coming, first they had to vote No! Hmm, how did that work out?

I seem to recall watching Brown and Salmond get equal TV time, one after another, with David Dimbleby, to make their respective pitches.

A Dub in Glasgo

alastair wrote: »

I'm pretty sure most people were aware that independence would have required an electoral process.

I was blue in the face telling that to 2 guys in work who voted No because they hate Salmond. They are big Labour voters and Labour worked hard to ensure it was Salmond v Labour as they portrayed him as the bogeyman.

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

No, it suggests it's controlled by people outside of Scotland.

Who, outside Scotland can have powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament, other than Westminster?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Perhaps I chose the wrong words but I think my follow up posts made my point perfectly clear.

It's still not clear TBH. You appear to want political control over public broadcasting.

A Dub in Glasgo

alastair wrote: »

I seem to recall watching Brown and Salmond get equal TV time, one after another, with David Dimbleby, to make their respective pitches.

They did last week. Did the BBC give Salmond anytime to retort on the Brown 'new powers' speech that was beamed live across the UK courtesy of the BBC?

alastair

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

They did last week. Did the BBC give Salmond anytime to retort on the Brown 'new powers' speech that was beamed live across the UK courtesy of the BBC?

Sure they did - they broadcast his speech from Perth later the same day.

A Dub in Glasgo

alastair wrote: »

Sure they did - they broadcast his speech from Perth later the same day.

You have your dates wrong, Brown's new powers announcement was on the 8th which was beamed live on BBC uninterrupted for 50 minutes

Salmond's speech in Perth was on the 17th

alastair

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You have your dates wrong, Brown's new powers announcement was on the 8th which was beamed live on BBC uninterrupted for 50 minutes

Salmond's speech in Perth was on the 17th

Well - if it's the 8th Gordon Brown speech you're referring to, rather than the 17th one (which most believe to have been a persuasive one), the Dimbleby interviews didn't happen until the 16th, so there was ample time for Salmond to take apart the Brown pitch - on the box.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

alastair wrote: »

Not sure who you're blaming here - the uninformed, or the media? I'm pretty sure most people were aware that independence would have required an electoral process.

I'm blaming both. The media for portraying Salmond as the sole leader of the campaign and the uninformed for not informing themselves. I have numerous family members in Scotland and they have all told me of having conversations with people who were voting No simply because they didn't want Salmond to be in charge of Scotland.

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I'm blaming both. The media for portraying Salmond as the sole leader of the campaign and the uninformed for not informing themselves. I have numerous family members in Scotland and they have all told me of having conversations with people who were voting No simply because they didn't want Salmond to be in charge of Scotland.

The media portrayed Salmond as the leader of the Yes campaign, because he was the closest thing to a leader it had - just as Alistair Darling was for the No side. That was to be expected. Just as when Gordon Brown appeared and seemed to be the man of the moment, he became the 'new leader' of the No camp, as far as the media were concerned.

As to voting no because you didn't want Salmond as PM - if the referendum had gone the Yes way - wouldn't Salmond have been in with rather a good shot of being the first Independent Scotland's PM? It's not an unreasonable assumption to make - even if you're fully informed.

A Dub in Glasgo

alastair wrote: »

As to voting no because you didn't want Salmond as PM - if the referendum had gone the Yes way - wouldn't Salmond have been in with rather a good shot of being the first Independent Scotland's PM? It's not an unreasonable assumption to make - even if you're fully informed.

Not an unreasonable assumption but a pretty idiotic reason to vote No to independence

alastair wrote: »

Well - if it's the 8th Gordon Brown speech you're referring to

Of course it is the one I am referring to

alastair

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Of course it is the one I am referring to

Which would be before the Dimbleby interviews - so lots of TV time to 'to retort on the Brown 'new powers' speech'.

alastair

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Not an unreasonable assumption but a pretty idiotic reason to vote No to independence

Agreed - but you can't really pin that on the media then, can you?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

alastair wrote: »

As to voting no because you didn't want Salmond as PM - if the referendum had gone the Yes way - wouldn't Salmond have been in with rather a good shot of being the first Independent Scotland's PM? It's not an unreasonable assumption to make - even if you're fully informed.

You could assume a lot of things. If it had been a Yes vote it probably wouldn't have been a huge margin which means you've got nearly 2 million people who aren't going to vote SNP. Even in the Yes camp there wasn't a huge percentage of them who were SNP supporters.
The only guarantee that there would have been from a Yes vote was the Scottish people having the opportunity to have a Government that they actually elected.

philstar

kieran--f wrote: »

This video is completely unrelated to the referendum and the celtic supporters are merely singing celtic symphony a song recorded by the Wolfe Tones to celebrate the men who fought the war of independence, it dosen't attack anyone in anyway

bollix, its to do with the troubles and its to do with the provos,

its used to goad the other side..and its also offensive to victims of IRA violence having to listen to that sh!t

kieran--f wrote: »

i'm proud the Scots will wave our flag at games,

the scots most celtic supporters don't see themselves as scottish ..when do you ever see a Saltire flown at celtic park amongst the fans???

kieran--f wrote: »

back to the youtube search and try again for a video where yes voters act in a sectarian manner (note: find a video of actual yes voters this time) you won't find one because these people are open minded folk who want the best for scotland and were willing to take a risk to build a better nation.

:rolleyes:

and the NO voters don't want whats best for scotland??

and a video of a few rangers NEDS acting the twat doesn't represent the views of 2 million no voters....so don't try to make this out to be a simplistic black & white catholic vs protestant, celtic vs rangers, unionist vs nationlist issue ..because it isn't

sorry the result didn't suit the sinn fein agenda but hey thats democracy

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You could assume a lot of things. If it had been a Yes vote it probably wouldn't have been a huge margin which means you've got nearly 2 million people who aren't going to vote SNP. Even in the Yes camp there wasn't a huge percentage of them who were SNP supporters.
The only guarantee that there would have been from a Yes vote was the Scottish people having the opportunity to have a Government that they actually elected.

The numbers, parties, and electorate are little different to those that voted the existing Scottish parliament in, and who is the largest party and First Minister there? No-one suggested there was a guarantee of any outcome, but, given the political realities on the ground, it's hard to claim that the prospect of Salmond as the first Scottish PM if it had gone to a 'yes' was unreasonable.

A Dub in Glasgo

philstar wrote: »

bollix, its to do with the troubles and its to do with the provos,

its used to goad the other side..and its also offensive to victims of IRA violence having to listen to that sh!t

So, philstar, what has it got to do with the Independence Referendum in Scotland?

A Dub in Glasgo

alastair wrote: »

The numbers, parties, and electorate are little different to those that voted the existing Scottish parliament in, and who is the largest party and First Minister there? No-one suggested there was a guarantee of any outcome, but, given the political realities on the ground, it's hard to claim that the prospect of Salmond as the first Scottish PM if it had gone to a 'yes' was unreasonable.

It is just as reasonable to suggest that the SNP, having obtained Independence, would fracture and would not form the next Scottish Government. I think we have already ascertained that is is pretty idiotic of Labour voters to vote No based on their hatred of one of the leaders of the Yes campaigners

philstar

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So, philstar, what has it got to do with the Independence Referendum in Scotland?

i'm replying to kiernan--f

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

alastair wrote: »

The numbers, parties, and electorate are little different to those that voted the existing Scottish parliament in, and who is the largest party and First Minister there? No-one suggested there was a guarantee of any outcome, but, given the political realities on the ground, it's hard to claim that the prospect of Salmond as the first Scottish PM if it had gone to a 'yes' was unreasonable.

Voting in people to the Scottish Parliament is a different thing entirely to electing a Government with full powers.
Labour were still the biggest party in Scotland in the last General Election. So I think it's more reasonable to assume there would be a Labour government elected in an independent Scotland. Or there would have been had they handled their No campaign separately and not been hand in hand with the Tory's these last few months. Now they'll suffer the same fate now as the Lib Dems did after the last GE.

kieran--f

philstar wrote: »

bollix, its to do with the troubles and its to do with the provos,

its used to goad the other side..and its also offensive to victims of IRA violence having to listen to that sh!t



the scots most celtic supporters don't see themselves as scottish ..when do you ever see a Saltire flown at celtic park amongst the fans???



:rolleyes:

and the NO voters don't want whats best for scotland??

and a video of a few rangers NEDS acting the twat doesn't represent the views of 2 million no voters....so don't try to make this out to be a simplistic black & white catholic vs protestant, celtic vs rangers, unionist vs nationlist issue ..because it isn't

sorry the result didn't suit the sinn fein agenda but hey thats democracy

I often see Saltires at Celtic Park, many of the supporters have Irish grandparents so identify as Irish too (nothing to do with topic though).
We were originally talking about Glasgow and not the whole 2 million voters, in Glasgow many of the no voters voted no because of the influence of religion and football carried down to them by their parents. I even saw a better together poster with a poppy saying "they died for our union" clearly to appeal to these Glaswegians who voted to ensure there kids remain in crappy council estates.
Any of the other 2 million voters who knew what there vote meant didn't vote for what is best for scotland as a whole instead they voted for what is best for themselves (the status quo). The rest were english living in scotland, old folk who only watch the BBC and people who were clueless. I know someone who voted no because he didn't want to go through the hassle of getting another passport.

Even if you get offended by Celtic symphony it still was never sung by yes voters on the streets unlike rule Britannia and songs related to Sands/Famine etc.
Sinn Fein have nothing to do with this but its probably expected you would bring them into the discussion too, what next?

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Voting in people to the Scottish Parliament is a different thing entirely to electing a Government with full powers.

That's true.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Labour were still the biggest party in Scotland in the last General Election.

For a different parliament, under a different electoral system, of course.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

So I think it's more reasonable to assume there would be a Labour government elected in an independent Scotland.

Or possibly not, given that they haven't produced a majority in the Scottish parliament, with a PR system - which would also be the electoral model for the independent Scottish parliament.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Or there would have been had they handled their No campaign separately and not been hand in hand with the Tory's these last few months. Now they'll suffer the same fate now as the Lib Dems did after the last GE.

You can't blame Labour for making up their own minds where they stood on splitting the union.

philstar

kieran--f wrote: »

I often see Saltires at Celtic Park, many of the supporters have Irish grandparents so identify as Irish too

few and far between

kieran--f wrote: »

We were originally talking about Glasgow and not the whole 2 million voters, in Glasgow many of the no voters voted no because of the influence of religion and football carried down to them by their parents. I even saw a better together poster with a poppy saying "they died for our union"

and whats wrong with that?

kieran--f wrote: »

clearly to appeal to these Glaswegians who voted to ensure there kids remain in crappy council estates.

and if they voted yes they'd be any different?? i doubt it

kieran--f wrote: »

Any of the other 2 million voters who knew what there vote meant didn't vote for what is best for scotland as a whole instead they voted for what is best for themselves

but sure thats the way most people vote throughtout the western world.. they vote for whats best for themselves and their familes, i.e. a secure financial future

kieran--f wrote: »

I know someone who voted no because he didn't want to go through the hassle of getting another passport.

one person

kieran--f wrote: »

Even if you get offended by Celtic symphony it still was never sung by yes voters on the streets unlike rule Britannia and songs related to Sands/Famine etc.

those songs were sung by drunken rangers neds on fri night after the referendum and had next to nothing to do with the wider NO campaign...

---

you know maybe at the end of the day the majority of Scottish genuinely have an affiliation with the UK in general, and want to remain within it...can you not accept that??

efb

So Scotland, what was in the box?

kieran--f

philstar wrote: »

few and far between



and whats wrong with that?



and if they voted yes they'd be any different?? i doubt it



but sure thats the way most people vote throughtout the western world.. they vote for whats best for themselves and their familes, i.e. a secure financial future



one person



those songs were sung by drunken rangers neds on fri night after the referendum and had next to nothing to do with the wider NO campaign...

---

you know maybe at the end of the day the majority of Scottish genuinely have an affiliation with the UK in general, and want to remain within it...can you not accept that??

Do you see any saltires here...



The poppy poster is blatant propaganda using the lives of soldiers to help the better together campaign.

So you admit that the no voters voted for their own financial security and not what was best for the future Scotland?

This affiliation thing with the uk (meaning England) in general I do find hard to understand, you seem to find the idea that some scots affiliate with Ireland hard to understand in contrast

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

alastair wrote: »

You can't blame Labour for making up their own minds where they stood on splitting the union.

Scottish Labour didn't make up their own minds though, they went with Westminster. They didn't even allow their party members to have an opinion. The Greens took a vote among their party and it was decided the majority were in favour of Independence so that would be the official party line. Those members of the party who were against it were told they could feel free to express their own opinions if asked. Labour members were told they were No and any party members who tried to express an alternative opinion were openly heckled by other party members.

And even if they had voted and were all in favour of saying No they really didn't need to go arm in arm with the Conservatives and basically do all their work for them. The Tories can't get any lower in the opinions of Scottish people, Labour can, and will.

Jelle1880

kieran--f wrote: »

Do you see any saltires here...

The Saltire is included in the Union flag. The way Yes tried to hijack the Saltire in some attempt to make No voters look less Scottish was sad.

The poppy poster is blatant propaganda using the lives of soldiers to help the better together campaign.

So you're denying that there is a significant amount of people in the No camp that genuinely care about the troops ?

So you admit that the no voters voted for their own financial security and not what was best for the future Scotland?

Why would someone vote against their personal interests and for something that they had no certainty about ?

This affiliation thing with the uk (meaning England) in general I do find hard to understand, you seem to find the idea that some scots affiliate with Ireland hard to understand in contrast

All over the world people associate themselves with a country, an ethnicity.
Why is associating yourself with the UK bad ?

karma_

Jelle1880 wrote: »

The Saltire is included in the Union flag. The way Yes tried to hijack the Saltire in some attempt to make No voters look less

Wait... they 'hijacked' their own flag in an independance bid?

What flag do you think the Yes side should have used?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Jelle1880 wrote: »

All over the world people associate themselves with a country, an ethnicity.
Why is associating yourself with the UK bad ?

I don't know what point other people are trying to make but the way I see it there is no issue with identifying yourself as British, or as Scottish or as anything else. My problem, in respect to what we're actually discussing here, is that some people would have used this identification as the sole reason for voting Yes or No without giving any thought at all to any of the positives or negatives that could come from either result.

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Scottish Labour didn't make up their own minds though, they went with Westminster. They didn't even allow their party members to have an opinion. The Greens took a vote among their party and it was decided the majority were in favour of Independence so that would be the official party line. Those members of the party who were against it were told they could feel free to express their own opinions if asked. Labour members were told they were No and any party members who tried to express an alternative opinion were openly heckled by other party members.

That's a difference between how the two parties always operate - nothing new for this particular issue.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

And even if they had voted and were all in favour of saying No they really didn't need to go arm in arm with the Conservatives and basically do all their work for them. The Tories can't get any lower in the opinions of Scottish people, Labour can, and will.

Again - their choice about how they engaged with the No campaign. Did you have similar criticisms of the SSP or the Greens 'arm in arm' with the SNP, as part of the Yes alliance?

Madam

alastair wrote: »

That's a difference between how the two parties always operate - nothing new for this particular issue.


Again - their choice about how they engaged with the No campaign. Did you have similar criticisms of the SSP or the Greens 'arm in arm' with the SNP, as part of the Yes alliance?

I don't think you can compare SSP and the Greens with the might of the Tory's, Lib Dems, Ukip and Labour together - in the end the way I see it we(the yes voters)were vastly outmanouvered - it wasn't really a fair fight. In the end it was old boys network who won the day:( One things for sure in Glasgow the Labour party will miss being in power in that city for the foreseeable future.

Madam

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I don't know what point other people are trying to make but the way I see it there is no issue with identifying yourself as British, or as Scottish or as anything else. My problem, in respect to what we're actually discussing here, is that some people would have used this identification as the sole reason for voting Yes or No without giving any thought at all to any of the positives or negatives that could come from either result.

As with any election really:)

alastair

Madam wrote: »

I don't think you can compare SSP and the Greens with the might of the Tory's, Lib Dems, Ukip and Labour together - in the end the way I see it we(the yes voters)were vastly outmanouvered - it wasn't really a fair fight. In the end it was old boys network who won the day:( One things for sure in Glasgow the Labour party will miss being in power in that city for the foreseeable future.

The 'might' of the combined forces of the Torys, Lib Dems, and UKIP in Scotland isn't that impressive tbh.

If the Yes campaign couldn't take on that bunch, with Labour, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a fair fight. From my perspective, the Yes campaign did remarkably well, elevating the prospect for independence much further than anyone could have imagined a couple of years ago.

Madam

alastair wrote: »

The 'might' of the combined forces of the Torys, Lib Dems, and UKIP in Scotland isn't that impressive tbh.

If the Yes campaign couldn't take on that bunch, with Labour, then I'm not sure what you'd consider a fair fight. From my perspective, the Yes campaign did remarkably well, elevating the prospect for independence much further than anyone could have imagined a couple of years ago.

Of course it was a well fought election just not a fair one is all I'm saying. In the end(don't get me started on folk who gave a postal vote before the devo max promises)but the pro union parties knew who their core fear voters were(over 65's) and boy did they go for it. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/7-fascinating-insights-into-why-scotland-voted-against-indep#3yxsytf

alastair

Madam wrote: »

Of course it was a well fought election just not a fair one is all I'm saying. In the end(don't get me started on folk who gave a postal vote before the devo max promises)but the pro union parties knew who their core fear voters were(over 65's) and boy did they go for it. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/7-fascinating-insights-into-why-scotland-voted-against-indep#3yxsytf

That link suggest that the No voters had their minds made up well before the campaign, so how were they scared by No tactics?:

Madam

alastair wrote: »

That link suggest that the No voters had their minds made up well before the campaign, so how were they scared by No tactics?:

How long is 'well' before the campaign - 1 week or 2 or maybe even 2 or three days before?

alastair

Madam wrote: »

How long is 'well' before the campaign - 1 week or 2 or maybe even 2 or three days before?

As the graphic indicates - 72% of No voters had their minds made up at least a year before the vote - compared to only 48% of Yes voters.
It also suggests that very few No voters were swayed by the Devo Max offer, or by the representations of the Banks/Businesses etc.

So, if the poll is accurate - the Yes campaign was very successful, while the No campaign was comparatively poor, winning fewer voters, and the last couple of days - with the peak of economic scaremongering and devolution-max bribery, saw more voters go into the Yes camp than No. Hardly tallys with the narrative the Yes camp have made with regard to the effective unfairness of the No campaign strategy.