Options

Why did "Yes" lose?

ZeusZeus Posts: 10,459
Forum Member
✭✭
"Yes" lost because not enough people voted for them of course. But why was this, when we were told they were virtually neck and neck with "No" two weeks out, and had the momentum?

Was it because Salmond & Co were outgunned, or outsmarted, by Westminster? Was it establishment, or media, bias? Did scare tactics intimidate a nervous electorate? Maybe the Scottish see there is wisdom in maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent? Perhaps the "No" campaign won the economic argument, and splitting the union was just too big a risk to take? Or is it just that David Beckham carries more political weight than Andy Murray, even in Scotland?

Thoughts and reflections welcome. ;-)
«13456789

Comments

  • Options
    vosnevosne Posts: 14,131
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cause Sturgeon and Salmond are arseholes.
  • Options
    ArcanaArcana Posts: 37,521
    Forum Member
    Well paradoxically I think that one 'rogue' poll that put YES in front did them no favours at all (at least in terms of winning).
  • Options
    AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Zeus wrote: »
    "Yes" lost because not enough people voted for them of course. But why was this, when we were told they were virtually neck and neck with "No" two weeks out, and had the momentum?

    Was it because Salmond & Co were outgunned, or outsmarted, by Westminster? Was it establishment, or media, bias? Did scare tactics intimidate a nervous electorate? Maybe the Scottish see there is wisdom in maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent? Perhaps the "No" campaign won the economic argument, and splitting the union was just too big a risk to take? Or is it just that David Beckham carries more political weight than Andy Murray, even in Scotland?

    Thoughts and reflections welcome. ;-)

    We were not told anything. The only poll that counts is the one on voting day.
  • Options
    Gary_LandyFanGary_LandyFan Posts: 3,824
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They lost because they tried to sell Independence using hopes and dreams rather than realism and facts!
  • Options
    MattNMattN Posts: 2,534
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Apart from one poll , No had been on top for the last 3 years.

    I think the yes campaign's publicity and social media blitz made the result seem closer than it ever was
  • Options
    gasheadgashead Posts: 13,822
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think it was the un-decided's that swung it towards a no vote. Although every (recent) poll showed yes and no as being neck and neck, every one of them made clear that the poll only included people who responded yes or no, and most polls suggested there was +/- 600,000 un-knowns, so there was always the potential for the vote to change significantly. It seemed to me that it was more likely to be definite no's who were afraid to come out and declare it in recent months, rather than definite yes's, so the No camp had lots and lots of 'hidden' votes.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 215
    Forum Member
    Maybe the polls weren't entirely accurate. People will often say one thing when polled and do the opposite when actually faced with the ballot paper. That's how Thatcher stayed in for so long when no one admitted to voting for her.
  • Options
    DerekPAgainDerekPAgain Posts: 2,708
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MattN wrote: »
    Apart from one poll , No had been on top for the last 3 years.

    I think the yes campaign's publicity and social media blitz made the result seem closer than it ever was

    This - it's going to be interesting to see if there is any fall out over campaign spending after the referendum. Been hearing rumours that both sides were creative in their accounting but the YES side may have "thrown the kitchen sink" at the media spend and hang the consequences.
  • Options
    CelticMythCelticMyth Posts: 3,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Because they had no coherent plan about what would come next. They drafted what appeared to be a wish list and told anybody who disagreed with it or questioned how they would achive it a "scaremonger" or a "bully" or a "liar". They refused to accept that they would not get most or any of what they wanted and so had no back up plan.
  • Options
    benjaminibenjamini Posts: 32,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Because we were being sold divisive nationalism and not an inclusive vision for all of Scotland IMO
  • Options
    Ashford SteveAshford Steve Posts: 2,110
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Annsyre wrote: »
    We were not told anything. The only poll that counts is the one on voting day.
    The whole issue was ignored by the mainstream - mostly London based - media until a matter of weeks before the vote. So, for the most part, people were kept pretty much in ignorance about many of the issues. Then 'Project Fear' kicked in, and, lastly, a panic measure caused the sudden announcement of all the promises of the very 'Devo Max' option which had been barred from the ballot paper. More than enough to persuade the undecided, who were always larger in number than the gap between 'Yes' and 'No' not to risk a journey into the unknown. :confused:
  • Options
    benjaminibenjamini Posts: 32,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    I think it was the un-decided's that swung it towards a no vote. Although every (recent) poll showed yes and no as being neck and neck, every one of them made clear that the poll only included people who responded yes or no, and most polls suggested there was +/- 600,000 un-knowns, so there was always the potential for the vote to change significantly. It seemed to me that it was more likely to be definite no's who were afraid to come out and declare it in recent months, rather than definite yes's, so the No camp had lots and lots of 'hidden' votes.

    I think the undecided were in fact No voters;-)
  • Options
    PinSarlaPinSarla Posts: 4,072
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They lost because they tried to sell Independence using hopes and dreams rather than realism and facts!

    Yep. The majority of people don't really give a toss about the vague promise of everything being 'better' in the future. People want to look out for what is best for them, and the prospect of rising interest rates, struggling to get finance for future purchases, thousands of job losses etc. outweighed this idea that the Yes camp tried to sell of there being thousands of new job opportunities (but from where?) and bundles of money magically appearing in iScotland's bank account.
  • Options
    vosnevosne Posts: 14,131
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The whole issue was ignored by the mainstream - mostly London based - media until a matter of weeks before the vote. So, for the most part, people were kept pretty much in ignorance about many of the issues. Then 'Project Fear' kicked in, and, lastly, a panic measure caused the sudden announcement of all the promises of the very 'Devo Max' option which had been barred from the ballot paper. More than enough to persuade the undecided, who were always larger in number than the gap between 'Yes' and 'No' not to risk a journey into the unknown. :confused:

    So people who voted No were fearful or ignorant? Grace, my boy, grace.
  • Options
    gasheadgashead Posts: 13,822
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    benjamini wrote: »
    I think the undecided were in fact No voters;-)
    Isn't that what I wrote? I think I got yes/ no blindness typing it. That's what I was getting at anyway.
  • Options
    benjaminibenjamini Posts: 32,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    Isn't that what I wrote? I think I got yes/ no blindness typing it. That's what I was getting at anyway.

    Sorry, I'm skimming through all the threads with a hangover and extreme tiredness :D
  • Options
    gemma-the-huskygemma-the-husky Posts: 18,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Too many Scots chickened out. They obviously like England looking after them. ;-)
  • Options
    vosnevosne Posts: 14,131
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Too many Scots chickened out. They obviously like England looking after them.

    Bollocks.
  • Options
    paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    Zeus wrote: »
    "Yes" lost because not enough people voted for them of course. But why was this, when we were told they were virtually neck and neck with "No" two weeks out, and had the momentum?

    Was it because Salmond & Co were outgunned, or outsmarted, by Westminster? Was it establishment, or media, bias? Did scare tactics intimidate a nervous electorate? Maybe the Scottish see there is wisdom in maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent? Perhaps the "No" campaign won the economic argument, and splitting the union was just too big a risk to take? Or is it just that David Beckham carries more political weight than Andy Murray, even in Scotland?

    Thoughts and reflections welcome. ;-)

    The first reason that stands out is that Salmond looked like someone who had not throught passed getting independence and not about what was going to happen afterwards. The Currency issue was just one example; Scotland could never get the independence it wanted while tying it's currency to another country or block in the case of the EU.

    So why take the risk of the change, the high possibility of economic failure.

    When many of the benefits will be delivered by devo-max without the attendant risks of independence.
  • Options
    MattNMattN Posts: 2,534
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes didn't come up with anything to win over the older vote that no had in the bag.

    They seemed to spend alot of time preaching to the converted in Glasgow
  • Options
    gemma-the-huskygemma-the-husky Posts: 18,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    vosne wrote: »
    Bollocks.

    I added a wink after the original post.

    but seriously, I cannot understand anyone voting no. If I were Scottish, I would 100% have voted yes, I think.

    One reason for voting no must be fear of the unknown, Is that the main reason? But independence hasn't damaged too many countries in the commonwealth, has it?
  • Options
    fainéantfainéant Posts: 2,654
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The whole issue was ignored by the mainstream - mostly London based - media until a matter of weeks before the vote. So, for the most part, people were kept pretty much in ignorance about many of the issues. Then 'Project Fear' kicked in, and, lastly, a panic measure caused the sudden announcement of all the promises of the very 'Devo Max' option which had been barred from the ballot paper. More than enough to persuade the undecided, who were always larger in number than the gap between 'Yes' and 'No' not to risk a journey into the unknown. :confused:
    Correct. Despite 10 months of scrutinising and challenging the Yes campaign proposals the gap was consistently closing away from an initially very safe margin for the No campaign. Then at the last minute with the balance tipping in favour of Yes and without any time for scrutiny, the extra powers peace-offering was just too convenient for the undecided to play safe and resist the urge to vote for change.
  • Options
    OrchideamOrchideam Posts: 5,487
    Forum Member
    MattN wrote: »
    Yes didn't come up with anything to win over the older vote that no had in the bag.

    They seemed to spend alot of time preaching to the converted in Glasgow

    This.

    I have family in the Borders and the Highlands, and none of them saw sight nor sound of anyone on behalf of Yes, they never moved out of their 'comfort zone'.
  • Options
    AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    The whole issue was ignored by the mainstream - mostly London based - media until a matter of weeks before the vote. So, for the most part, people were kept pretty much in ignorance about many of the issues. Then 'Project Fear' kicked in, and, lastly, a panic measure caused the sudden announcement of all the promises of the very 'Devo Max' option which had been barred from the ballot paper. More than enough to persuade the undecided, who were always larger in number than the gap between 'Yes' and 'No' not to risk a journey into the unknown. :confused:

    The people who had a right to vote have had two years to inform themselves with facts. Unless they are lazy idiots who wanted to be spoon fed nonsense by people with vested interests
  • Options
    jim_lyonsjim_lyons Posts: 1,451
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So I guess there will be no more "Scotland the brave" from now on?

    I actually had a bit of hope that the Scots had enough fire inside them to do something radical and exciting...Essentially I think they were scared stiff of going it alone.

    How can the rest of the UK respect Scotland at all, now? Oh, and good luck to the three main parties getting a settlement through that includes more powers for the Scots and the retention of the Barnett formula - if the political classes think we'll let them drive that through unscathed, then I guess they have yet again learnt nothing from this process.
Sign In or Register to comment.