To ask all Scottish MNrs to work together 2

[siiiiiiiiigh]

Sorry, filled the last thread with this, thought I'd better be part of Team Scottish MN and work together for those of us on the old thread...

Here's Armando's thoughts. I vote him in for everything.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/scottish-referendum-massive-voter-turnout-means-politics-changed-for-ever

You missed out the option of some who weighed up the pros and cons and came to the decision it was neither in the short term nor the long term interest of Scotland to vote Yes.

My mil agonised over this. She's in her 90s and is sufficiently financially secure not to have to worry about her pension. She doesn't do social media, she did discuss it with her 2 sons and came to the conclusion that in the long term her grandchildren, great grandchildren and her country were better served by rejecting independence

I'm sorry, but if you said that about a younger woman on here, you'd be slated. She discussed it with her sons? Did they happen to be voting No as well? Why didn't they take her to meetings where she could hear both sides and make her own mind up? There have been meetings and speakers in the tiniest of village halls all around Scotland.

And of course I believe there are people who made a decision to vote No in the belief that it was the best thing for their nation. I was talking about people my age though - and I suspect that many of them didn't do much weighing up. This is partly due to our background - most people of my age were taught to revere the church, believe the politicians and trust the establishment. It's hard to overcome that.

Is there any stats on percentage of No voters who would perhaps voted Yes but went for the safe option in the end? I do think the heavy handed threats near the end must have swayed a few folk.

'most people of my age were taught to revere the church, believe the politicians and trust the establishment'

Yes, that is interesting and that has swung completely the other way for now among the young.

Interesting article by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763763/England-beware-The-Scots-punish-terribly-think-ve-conned-PETER-HITCHENS-returned-home-tearfully-left-boy-filled-powerful-sense-foreboding.html

at all this bring patronising about older people. My parents (I'm including steps) are all in their sixties.

I had an interesting discussion with my step dad (in his 60s - retired, very switched on and politically engaged) about my vote.

I thought that his perspective was interesting - he said, as someone who was well off and settled - the idea of voting yes appealed, because he likes the idea of change and could easily absorb any costs. But he also acknowledged the risks for people who are least able to do that - people on disability benefits, carers, the unemployed (for example) were too high.

I do think a lot of well off middle class yes-ers haven't considered that aspect. Or, I don't know, maybe they did and think it didn't matter or was a price worth paying?

The mock election in my sons school also returned a no verdict. At 16 I would have voted yes, hell I'd have rebuilt Hadrians wall if you asked me to. Just because I didn't believe wee Eck's fag packet maths doesn't mean I don't represent Scotland. As has been pointed out, since 55% of the rest of Scotland also voted no, I guess I do represent Scotland. In my family and in my immediate circle or friends, we all voted no. Therefore the yes vote does not represent the Scotland that I know. And so what? All this 45/55% shite really annoys me - 45% setting themselves up as saints and visionaries and 55% made out to be the scum of the Earth. There's a lot to be done to get a Scotland back together...if that ever happens. I can't help but think how it would be if the result had gone the other way - this guff of recounts/revotes would be met with derision and scorn. We'd be told that the people had spoken and to get on with it blah blah - well the people have spoken and there's a lot of toys being flung out of prams. As I read on this site earlier today, the yes campaign post referendum are more arrogant than they were pre referendum - totally agree.

bambambini the far from perfect ashcroft survey has 3% of No voters making their mind up on the day, 3% in the last few days, 3% in the last week, and 10% in the last month (some of those would have been before the new powers etc as much of it was in the last week really). Total 20% in last month

By comparison, the stats for yes (same order): 8/7/6/18 - total 39% in last month.

babyboomers, I can't see where you get the idea that it's disgraceful that someone discussed the election with her sons, and that they should have taken her to meetings where she could hear both sides and make her mind up. In fact, I think that, once again, it's incredibly patronising. Why shouldn't people discuss these things with their families? It was what was happening all over the country. And why did the mother have to be taken to meetings in order to get the information she needs? Where do you get off assuming she was incapable of reading a newspaper or listening to the radio and TV?

'Where do you get off assuming she was incapable of reading a newspaper or listening to the radio and TV?'

The BBC? And wasn't there only one newspaper that backed independence?

It is impossible to take a Daily Mail article seriously. Or any press article over the referendum for that matter. No matter which side you were on the quality of reporting was woeful.

75% of No voters were decided over two years ago and have never wavered. I just saw bad and irresponsible journalism, not heavy handed threats. It was very difficult to understand the underlying messaged for either campaign beyond the Yes and No.

Well, my great aunt in Scotland (she's 87) voted "no" because (as she put it) she'd seen the Union at its best. "We fought WW2 together, we built the Welfare State together, we built the NHS together, we built our education and legal systems on common principles together - but we're supposed to hate each other? Daft".

tilliebob that's a very good post. I'm perfectly happy with my vote and it matters to me not if the current lot in Westminster bugger around a bit more sorting it out. They will be gone at the next election. It would have been even worse under an independent Scotland with everyone fighting for position. Politics was not the reason I voted No.

2 million people felt that independence was the wrong thing for themselves, their families, communities, country. Those who wanted independence did not make their case. The case did not stand up to scrutiny. It might be hard to cope with, it might be galling, but it's true.

Surely it would be better to examine the case and the campaign rather than the separate decisions made by 2 million people and criticise them all.

I'm sorry, but if you said that about a younger woman on here, you'd be slated. She discussed it with her sons? Did they happen to be voting No

What are you on about? Why should she not discuss it with her sons? No doubt she discussed it with her friends as well. As it happens one of her sons has beenan SNP member for over 40 years , the other voted No.

Claig, what on earth are you talking about? Are you seriously trying to suggest that the BBC was the only TV or radio programme in Scotland that discussed the referendum?

And, in fact, if you knew anything about it you would realise that they gave plenty of air time to the pro-independence side of the argument.

Actually Baby mil got full on SNP propaganda from one of her sons. From her other one it was a brief discussion of little more than asking him what he and I were voting.

True, good point. But wasn't there a slant in editorial coverage for NO overall.

Meetings with speakers and activists give a different view from the mainstream media.

Never understood why a country becoming independent had to mean you hated each other and need to now. We fought WWII and won it with an ally who made war on us and made good on that threat for its independence. We do business with and have freedom on movement with great former enemies we went to war with.

Couldn't have said it better myself Rose

An article by George Monbiot on media bias during the campaign

"Perhaps the most arresting fact about the Scottish referendum is this: that there is no newspaper – local, regional or national, English or Scottish – that supports independence except the Sunday Herald. The Scots who will vote yes have been almost without representation in the media.

There is nothing unusual about this. Change in any direction, except further over the brink of market fundamentalism and planetary destruction, requires the defiance of almost the entire battery of salaried opinion. What distinguishes the independence campaign is that it has continued to prosper despite this assault."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists

I think he has got a good point, except about global warming, because on that all of the corporate media and BBC and celebrities are on board with the government and the UN that it is in fact real.

What is surpising and what shook the Establishment was that inspite of all the media sway, so many people still voted to leave the UK. I think that a lot of it is as babyboomersrock implied, that there has been a profound loss of deference and trust in politicians and how people are governed.

Can the politicians turn it round over the longterm? I don't think they can, because they will not give up real power to the people.

Jim Murphy, that politician lauded by the media, said that he was against proportional representation.

Unless they hand power to the people, then disenchantment will continue to grow and the divide between the people and the elites will continue to grow.

The same thing will happen in England too.

claig I had to stop reading it or watching the news as I found it so awful so wouldn't know about the editorials. I do think that from what I did see gave a very skewed picture on both sides. The Yes campaign I felt bad for as it ended up being totally dominated by an SNP message when I knew that there were other leading campaigners who did not want that and felt it took away from the overall message of self determination. There was a good interview with an older guy about it but I can't remember who.

And we got stuck with Alastair Darling which says it all really. If it was a purely political vote I wonder if the outcome would have been different. Most probably.

In the media to me it became about the politicians and not the people on both sides and that seems wrong.

The thing is that it was difficult for the more measured papers to support the Yes campaign simply because it didn't bear close examination. If, as a journalist, you know that one side's economic policy is poor, it would be dishonest to claim otherwise. They did give the Yes supporters every opportunity to explain it, they simply never stepped up to the mark.

That is rich coming from Monbiot.

I was about to give up buying The Guardian despite being a loyal reader for more than 30 years' as I was getting so fed up of its pro - yes stance.

I was surprised it finally came out as No although even after the editorial it still printed pro- yes / anti-no pieces by individual journalists.

The Scotsman gave Lesley Riddoch vast amounts of space before and after it stated its official position.

The Telegraph was overwhelmingly anti independence but no -one would expect it to be otherwise.

Yes, I think that Salmond made mistakes. He should have had stronger arguments in some areas. Even in his first debate with Darling, it looked like he had the brakes on, when he should have gone on the offensive. He knew what the No case was, he should have attacked it rather than tried to defend.

It was unnecessary to whip up the amount of hysteria about both sides which the British press is so good at doing. Forlorn hope I know, but some unbiased reporting once in a while wouldn't go amiss!

'I was surprised it finally came out as No although even after the editorial it still printed pro- yes / anti-no pieces by individual journalists. '

The Guardian is establishment through and through on nearly all issues including global warming. It always pretends it is even-handed, but in the end it is always establishment, just like the BBC.