Polarised Bears

[Bluedell 5,329]

N

Can I just point out that before the campaign began, support for Independence hovered between 25 and 28%. When we finished the campaign, support for Independence had risen to 45%.

 

So I'd say that the Nationalists did a pretty good job of convincing quite a few people - particularly in the face of a tsunami of lies, threats and blackmail from the No side, pumped out and published by their lapdogs at the BBC and in the MSM.

 

The good news is that the genie is out the bottle and the 45% aren't going anywhere. Indeed, as the lies of the No campaign come home to roost and people see that they have been conned by the three stooges, the momentum will begin to build for the next referendum.

 

Even better news is that 20,000 people have joined the SNP since Friday - and that makes us the third largest party in the UK.

 

Independence has been delayed for a few years, that's all.

 

The relative success of the yes campaign was based on lies and misinformation. It's concerning that so many people can be so easily taken in by it when it's clear the yes sets had no answers to how anything was to be paid for or a proper answer to the most basic of questions. There's a lot of gullible people out there.

[Chibmark 15]

N

 

The relative success of the yes campaign was based on lies and misinformation. It's concerning that so many people can be so easily taken in by it when it's clear the yes sets had no answers to how anything was to be paid for or a proper answer to the most basic of questions. There's a lot of gullible people out there.

 

I'd disagree and say that the success of the Yes campaign was that inquisitive people did their own research and came up with the conclusion that we weren't 'Better Together', more like 'Better Apart'. I wasn't swayed by Salmond vs Darling, Sturgeon vs Davidson, the wholly unexplained 'social justice' tag and the Nats 'when all else fails shout FOODBANKS', I based my choice on who would be better running Scotland's economy and what Scotland's economy actually produces. Take Oil away and we still have a pretty good economy. When you understand that Westminster needs to ensure that London and the SE works efficiently in spite of the rest of the UK citizens, then you reach the conclusion that the one-size-fits-all doesn't suit Scotland, let alone, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff or Belfast.

 

When you look at all our Northern European neighbours and you see Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland all with a richer GDP per head than Scotland, most without being punished with this wholly volatile commodity which is oil then you ask why? The UK as a political system is a busted flush. We've been technically insolvent since the 60's and carrying on in the UK just seems to me to be pointless. All we are all doing is propping up a political system that has long since became irrelevant to a lot of people.

 

I'd say the Yes failed because they failed to appeal to the middle-class and a lot of the Yes propaganda read like something off an Oxfam advert.

 

Back to the OP too, the whole Rangers 'off the field' problems has really pissed me off, make no bones about it. Since the Mail first reported that Rangers were being investigated for tax irregularities, it's been one thing after another. This coupled by a seemingly totally non self-aware Rangers support singing the most ridiculous songs, it just really disenfranchises me from wanting to associate myself with Rangers. I'll always be a Rangers fan, but as I get older and wiser, the notion of emotionally investing in wanting 11 men to score goals so I can then listen to the Union Order sing about the Shankhill, Bobby Sands or how they want to shove things up my arse, then you start to question if it's really worth it.

 

I spent the weekend with my family going into town and took a walk up the Conic hills in Balmaha, whereas last season, I'd have spent a significant portion of one of those days watching Ian Black chopping down a mechanic and Lee McCulloch playing long balls up to Jon Daly, I'd have bought my son a Rangers strip and a meal deal thinking stupidly, that the money would go to Rangers. I'd then get the subway into the town and listen to some mutant talk about how much he hates Celtic. (BTW - the two guys in the George Square video, the one who doesn't take out his false tooth is who I'm talking about).

 

It's all rather depressing. I'm a football man, I'm into my politics and economics. I just don't want to mix them all up.

[Rangersitis 0]

Absolute nonsense.

 

Rather than rhetoric its a requirement of the parties which call themselves Pro-Unionist.

 

One of the aspects of the campaign was that Yes very cleverly managed to grab hold of the mantle of social justice - if you didnt hear reference to foodbanks' date=' child poverty or the bedroom tax during the course of the debate then you were not watching the same debates which I was. Labour were labelled "Red Tories" or in darlings case "a front man for the tories".

 

They clearly have considerable ground to make up as evidenced by RPB's stats above.[/quote']

 

Did you check those stats for accuracy? The 28% figure quoted was used to demonstrate a dramatic upsurge in support for the separatists, however, what he omitted to say was that those polls had undecided at 30%+.

 

Puts things into perspective.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I'd disagree and say that the success of the Yes campaign was that inquisitive people did their own research and came up with the conclusion that we weren't 'Better Together', more like 'Better Apart'..

 

Seriously? Just because you did that doesn't mean others did.

 

I had people telling me on facebook that their children's friends were voting yes because of English football fans, ffs.

 

Your conclusion doesn't stack up for me given the demographics of voting,

 

Over the past few years, I've noticed that members of certain Rangers websites can get entrenched in their views very quickly over certain issues and it seems their views are formed because of the website they are a member of, and it borders on hysteria (on both sides). I think something similar happened over the past month or so.

[Juancornetto 1]

Seriously? Just because you did that doesn't mean others did.

 

I had people telling me on facebook that their children's friends were voting yes because of English football fans, ffs.

 

Your conclusion doesn't stack up for me given the demographics of voting,

 

Over the past few years, I've noticed that members of certain Rangers websites can get entrenched in their views very quickly over certain issues and it seems their views are formed because of the website they are a member of, and it borders on hysteria (on both sides). I think something similar happened over the past month or so.

 

The idea that 45% of votes were made because of some kind of mass hysteria is laughable. Lots of people voted for lots of different reasons and to say otherwise is rather naive. By your logic the other 55% of votes were cast with absolute cast iron logic and by on the ball politicos....both positions are equally without basis.

[buster. 4,808]

Absolute nonsense.

 

Rather than rhetoric its a requirement of the parties which call themselves Pro-Unionist.

 

One of the aspects of the campaign was that Yes very cleverly managed to grab hold of the mantle of social justice - if you didnt hear reference to foodbanks' date=' child poverty or the bedroom tax during the course of the debate then you were not watching the same debates which I was. Labour were labelled "Red Tories" or in darlings case "a front man for the tories".

 

They clearly have considerable ground to make up as evidenced by RPB's stats above.[/quote']

 

Let's try this another way.

 

How and from where (London and/or Edin.) is this "requirement" actually achieved ?.............(a rough & general overview)

 

What specific parties will be involved ?

[Bluedell 5,329]

The idea that 45% of votes were made because of some kind of mass hysteria is laughable. Lots of people voted for lots of different reasons and to say otherwise is rather naive. By your logic the other 55% of votes were cast with absolute cast iron logic and by on the ball politicos....both positions are equally without basis.

 

I never said that 45% of votes were. You did notice me saying "in the past month or so"?

 

However I do think that a percentage of those who made up their minds late did so based on momentum and without properly considering the pros and cons.

 

Oh, another example of someone voting yes was because they didn't like the "better together" rep that appeared at their door. Voting to separate the country because of one random person at their door?

[Juancornetto 1]

I never said that 45% of votes were. You did notice me saying "in the past month or so"?

 

However I do think that a percentage of those who made up their minds late did so based on momentum and without properly considering the pros and cons.

 

Oh, another example of someone voting yes was because they didn't like the "better together" rep that appeared at their door. Voting to separate the country because of one random person at their door?

 

Funny, most No voters I spoke to cited Alex Salmond as the reason they were voting that way. I don't mean one example, I mean thousands, probably tens of thousands. As you say, there are a lot of gullible people out there.

[Scott7 5,153]

They didn't like him because he is a purveyor of snake oil. People saw through him and the rest of the natmob hogwash.

[Scott7 5,153]

I'd disagree and say that the success of the Yes campaign was that inquisitive people did their own research and came up with the conclusion that we weren't 'Better Together', more like 'Better Apart'. I wasn't swayed by Salmond vs Darling, Sturgeon vs Davidson, the wholly unexplained 'social justice' tag and the Nats 'when all else fails shout FOODBANKS', I based my choice on who would be better running Scotland's economy and what Scotland's economy actually produces. Take Oil away and we still have a pretty good economy. When you understand that Westminster needs to ensure that London and the SE works efficiently in spite of the rest of the UK citizens, then you reach the conclusion that the one-size-fits-all doesn't suit Scotland, let alone, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff or Belfast.

 

When you look at all our Northern European neighbours and you see Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland all with a richer GDP per head than Scotland, most without being punished with this wholly volatile commodity which is oil then you ask why? The UK as a political system is a busted flush. We've been technically insolvent since the 60's and carrying on in the UK just seems to me to be pointless. All we are all doing is propping up a political system that has long since became irrelevant to a lot of people.

 

I'd say the Yes failed because they failed to appeal to the middle-class and a lot of the Yes propaganda read like something off an Oxfam advert.

 

Back to the OP too, the whole Rangers 'off the field' problems has really pissed me off, make no bones about it. Since the Mail first reported that Rangers were being investigated for tax irregularities, it's been one thing after another. This coupled by a seemingly totally non self-aware Rangers support singing the most ridiculous songs, it just really disenfranchises me from wanting to associate myself with Rangers. I'll always be a Rangers fan, but as I get older and wiser, the notion of emotionally investing in wanting 11 men to score goals so I can then listen to the Union Order sing about the Shankhill, Bobby Sands or how they want to shove things up my arse, then you start to question if it's really worth it.

 

I spent the weekend with my family going into town and took a walk up the Conic hills in Balmaha, whereas last season, I'd have spent a significant portion of one of those days watching Ian Black chopping down a mechanic and Lee McCulloch playing long balls up to Jon Daly, I'd have bought my son a Rangers strip and a meal deal thinking stupidly, that the money would go to Rangers. I'd then get the subway into the town and listen to some mutant talk about how much he hates Celtic. (BTW - the two guys in the George Square video, the one who doesn't take out his false tooth is who I'm talking about).

 

It's all rather depressing. I'm a football man, I'm into my politics and economics. I just don't want to mix them all up.

 

Paragraphs 1 and 2, naw. Paragraph 3 mibbees. The rest aye.