I think the Yes campaign lost because they misconstrued critical analysis of their claims as "negativity", cautions about their insistence on getting their own way as "punishment" or "bullying", and didn't stop to consider that other people might have legitimate concerns and showed a lack of understanding and empathy for those did not swallow wholesale their vision of the future.
To take just one issue - the currency - it wouldn't have been an issue if prominent figures in the Yes camp hadn't spent so much energy insisting that they would get exactly what they wanted, and playing silly rhetorical games to obscure the truth, from their own supporters not least.
Every time they were pressed on a Plan B, they dodged - before finally admitting that they had a Plan B, but essentially being evasive about the details while insisting all the while that they *would* get Plan A, no matter what their opponents or the Westminster establishment might say, or think. "It's a bluff, they're lying" was the perennial refrain. Resorting to playground rhetorical games to shout down opponents and misrepresent their statements, as if admitting that a third country can use a currency is the same as agreeing that a formal currency union is both possible and desirable.
If you weren't a die-hard Yesser, such insouciant, high-handed and arrogant tactics were bound to look shady and evasive, and give people cause for concern - and this issue, among others, was bound to come back to bite the Yes camp on the backside come polling day.
And the stupid thing is that the Yes camp did not need to die in a ditch on the currency issue. What was so wrong with the option of starting a free-floating currency, initially pegged to Sterling if that's what was required, given that it was supposedly backed by a wealthy nation with vast natural resources? Why saddle oneself to a 'poorer' Sterling if the rest of the rhetoric is to be believed? Something didn't add up there.
Too many Yessers simply Did Not Get It, were either in blissful ignorance of or had an arrogant contempt for the 58 million people *outside* Scotland who - by and large - had about as much love for the idea of a Sterling area with an independent Scotland as they do for the euro, and for near-identical reasons.
When they were told this, they immediately leaped to the irrational conclusion that the UK parties were out to "punish" or "scare" Scotland, rather than considering for just one sliver of a moment that they took that position because they really, honestly believed that a currency union wasn't in anyone's interests.
Similar issues arise over EU membership. Irrespective of the UK's views on EU membership of an independent Scotland, the UK is but one of 28 member states. In the face of the more strident Yessers insisting that they can somehow bypass all the rules by which member-states must accede to EU membership, including the need for unanimity for which there is no workaround whatsoever that does not entail an illegal usurpation of national sovereignty - whether the UK was prepared to help or not was next to irrelevant. The UK occupies a privileged position in the EU, and a change in the status of the UK threatens that. The UK might not have been in a position to help Scotland, being way too worried about protecting its own affairs. Scotland's secession would have created a nightmare for the UK on that whole issue, and the UK wasn't likely to thank Scotland for it.
Too many of the more vocal online Yessers wanted to pretend that everything would be sweetness and light and hugs and puppies and took exception to it when others - whether Nay-sayers or undecideds or spectators - pointed out some rather obvious realities to them. Critics were constantly accused of being "negative", as if there's something wrong with saying "hang on a minute, your claim doesn't actually stack up". It smacked of anti-intellectualism and a contempt for critical thinking.
And that was a bad advertisement for the Yes camp, as it made them look less like an organisation with a rational proposition, and more like a mob of wishful thinkers, disengaged from reality or anything that might possibly represent any bump in the road to Utopia.
The opportunity for an independent Scotland was lost, in my view - not because their cause was unattractive, not because it lacked passion, not even because there weren't good rational bases for supporting independence - but because the 'generals' were too cocksure, an arrogance that betrayed their own ignorance and lack of empathy and failed to address enough voters' concerns.
I think the currency question was the main one and to be honest the yes campaign could have done much better.
As for the vow http://www.yesscotland.net/news/no-campaign-vow-unravels-within-24-hours
"Today, groups across the entire Yes movement issued an open letter to the people of Scotland urging them not to be fooled by last-minute “pledges” from the No campaign which are already falling apart.
It came as a growing number of Tory MPs at Westminster said they would fight tooth and nail to stop Scotland being given any more powers in the event of a No vote. One predicted there would be a “bloodbath” in the Tory party if more powers were given to Scotland".
You were offered snake oil and unfortunately you bought it.
Alex Salmond was selling snake oil in barrels for the campaign. Currency union:D
I think the currency question was the main one and to be honest the yes campaign could have done much better.
AFAIC the elephant in the room wasn't so much the pound but the lack of clarity about Scotland's future in the european union and whether or not that could only come with the euro.
With all the promises about higher standards of living and improved welfare wouldn't that have made Carlisle the new Calais as far as dodgy migrants are concerned? Plus, where were the answers to questions regarding simply transferring power from Westminster to Brussells?
The SNP were devoid of answers and relied to heavily on playing the anti-westminster/tory card instead with Salmond basically accusing anyone who rocked the boat of scaremongering, panicking etc etc etc . It looked (from my perspective) as if it was him that was panicking and showing signs of desperation because (particularly in the latter stages of the campaign) he was only answering questions by making negative statements about "down south" and the media.
I said all along that this referendum was 40 years too late coming and that when it did couldn't have come at a worse time what with all the turmoil with the economy and the eurozone, but Salmond put the blinkers on and chose to do an impression of James IV at Flodden Field and dived in regardless.
I think also that the mask started to slip towards the end and he gave the impression he was losing the plot. The fuss he made about the supposed leaking of market sensitive information by the Treasury was a misjudgement - this was at the press conference where his supporters applauded his answers to questions from overseas journalists which really isn't normal for press conferences, and there just seemed to be an air of triumphalism in the last couple of days, slightly reminiscent of Labour's Sheffield rally in 1992. Voters don't like politicians who overstep the mark in this way.
I think the Yes campaign lost because they misconstrued critical analysis of their claims as "negativity", cautions about their insistence on getting their own way as "punishment" or "bullying", and didn't stop to consider that other people might have legitimate concerns and showed a lack of understanding and empathy for those did not swallow wholesale their vision of the future.
To take just one issue - the currency - it wouldn't have been an issue if prominent figures in the Yes camp hadn't spent so much energy insisting that they would get exactly what they wanted, and playing silly rhetorical games to obscure the truth, from their own supporters not least.
Every time they were pressed on a Plan B, they dodged - before finally admitting that they had a Plan B, but essentially being evasive about the details while insisting all the while that they *would* get Plan A, no matter what their opponents or the Westminster establishment might say, or think. "It's a bluff, they're lying" was the perennial refrain. Resorting to playground rhetorical games to shout down opponents and misrepresent their statements, as if admitting that a third country can use a currency is the same as agreeing that a formal currency union is both possible and desirable.
If you weren't a die-hard Yesser, such insouciant, high-handed and arrogant tactics were bound to look shady and evasive, and give people cause for concern - and this issue, among others, was bound to come back to bite the Yes camp on the backside come polling day.
And the stupid thing is that the Yes camp did not need to die in a ditch on the currency issue. What was so wrong with the option of starting a free-floating currency, initially pegged to Sterling if that's what was required, given that it was supposedly backed by a wealthy nation with vast natural resources? Why saddle oneself to a 'poorer' Sterling if the rest of the rhetoric is to be believed? Something didn't add up there.
Too many Yessers simply Did Not Get It, were either in blissful ignorance of or had an arrogant contempt for the 58 million people *outside* Scotland who - by and large - had about as much love for the idea of a Sterling area with an independent Scotland as they do for the euro, and for near-identical reasons.
When they were told this, they immediately leaped to the irrational conclusion that the UK parties were out to "punish" or "scare" Scotland, rather than considering for just one sliver of a moment that they took that position because they really, honestly believed that a currency union wasn't in anyone's interests.
Similar issues arise over EU membership. Irrespective of the UK's views on EU membership of an independent Scotland, the UK is but one of 28 member states. In the face of the more strident Yessers insisting that they can somehow bypass all the rules by which member-states must accede to EU membership, including the need for unanimity for which there is no workaround whatsoever that does not entail an illegal usurpation of national sovereignty - whether the UK was prepared to help or not was next to irrelevant. The UK occupies a privileged position in the EU, and a change in the status of the UK threatens that. The UK might not have been in a position to help Scotland, being way too worried about protecting its own affairs. Scotland's secession would have created a nightmare for the UK on that whole issue, and the UK wasn't likely to thank Scotland for it.
Too many of the more vocal online Yessers wanted to pretend that everything would be sweetness and light and hugs and puppies and took exception to it when others - whether Nay-sayers or undecideds or spectators - pointed out some rather obvious realities to them. Critics were constantly accused of being "negative", as if there's something wrong with saying "hang on a minute, your claim doesn't actually stack up". It smacked of anti-intellectualism and a contempt for critical thinking.
And that was a bad advertisement for the Yes camp, as it made them look less like an organisation with a rational proposition, and more like a mob of wishful thinkers, disengaged from reality or anything that might possibly represent any bump in the road to Utopia.
The opportunity for an independent Scotland was lost, in my view - not because their cause was unattractive, not because it lacked passion, not even because there weren't good rational bases for supporting independence - but because the 'generals' were too cocksure, an arrogance that betrayed their own ignorance and lack of empathy and failed to address enough voters' concerns.
The opportunity for an independent Scotland was lost, in my view - not because their cause was unattractive, not because it lacked passion, not even because there weren't good rational bases for supporting independence - but because the 'generals' were too cocksure, an arrogance that betrayed their own ignorance and lack of empathy and failed to address enough voters' concerns.
The saddest thing is that not all the NO voters didn't believe in an independent Scotland. It was the cost of independence that the YES ignored. I personally feel that some of the NO voters wanted their country and nationality back, but not at the cost of ruin for their families.
I think the currency question was the main one and to be honest the yes campaign could have done much better.
As for the vow http://www.yesscotland.net/news/no-campaign-vow-unravels-within-24-hours
"Today, groups across the entire Yes movement issued an open letter to the people of Scotland urging them not to be fooled by last-minute “pledges” from the No campaign which are already falling apart.
It came as a growing number of Tory MPs at Westminster said they would fight tooth and nail to stop Scotland being given any more powers in the event of a No vote. One predicted there would be a “bloodbath” in the Tory party if more powers were given to Scotland".
You were offered snake oil and unfortunately you bought it.
So far the three party leaders have stuck to their vow, with Cameron announcing that all the things promised will be done and to the time table, and have started following that time table.
That Salmond has chosen to deliberately misrepresent the time table as being second reading by the 27th of March, when the Vow was for second reading immediately after the 2015 UK general election, speaks more of Salmond's character and integrity than Cameron's.
As for snake oil what do you think Salmond was selling when many of the things and policies he was promising for an independent Scotland were mutual exclusive and so impossible, and the fantasy land economic predictions. The question is would the Yes campaign have gandered more or fewer votes if the SNP Yes campaign had a credible vision for an independent Scotland.
AFAIC the elephant in the room wasn't so much the pound but the lack of clarity about Scotland's future in the european union and whether or not that could only come with the euro.
With all the promises about higher standards of living and improved welfare wouldn't that have made Carlisle the new Calais as far as dodgy migrants are concerned? Plus, where were the answers to questions regarding simply transferring power from Westminster to Brussells?
The SNP were devoid of answers and relied to heavily on playing the anti-westminster/tory card instead with Salmond basically accusing anyone who rocked the boat of scaremongering, panicking etc etc etc . It looked (from my perspective) as if it was him that was panicking and showing signs of desperation because (particularly in the latter stages of the campaign) he was only answering questions by making negative statements about "down south" and the media.
I said all along that this referendum was 40 years too late coming and that when it did couldn't have come at a worse time what with all the turmoil with the economy and the eurozone, but Salmond put the blinkers on and chose to do an impression of James IV at Flodden Field and dived in regardless.
There's a lack of clarity as to the UK's future in the EU.
If Cameron is returned as PM next year, there will be a in/out referendum in 2 years time.
While I think the answer would have still been a very narrow No without it, the plea by Gordon Brown the day before the vote in which he equated doubt and risk over the unknown together in a rational framework is probably what secured it for the No side and pushed them over the finishing line.
Depending on how you look at it, "If you have any doubts at all, you must vote no" could be seen as either hitting the electorate with a kind of rehashed Pascal's wager or asking voters whether they feel the yes side had met their burden of proof concerning the claim that an independent Scotland would be a better country - across all the different disciplines; social, economic, cultural etc...
While I think the answer would have still been a very narrow No without it, the plea by Gordon Brown the day before the vote in which he equated doubt and risk over the unknown together in a rational framework is probably what secured it for the No side and pushed them over the finishing line.
Depending on how you look at it, "If you have any doubts at all, you must vote no" could be seen as either hitting the electorate with a kind of rehashed Pascal's wager or asking voters whether they feel the yes side had met their burden of proof concerning the claim that an independent Scotland would be a better country - across all the different disciplines; social, economic, cultural etc...
I think the main reason was the majority of Scots could see that Salmond was peddling lies and dreams, and asking them to take a leap of faith, rather than giving anything based in actual facts. It was evident when you could see big SNP areas still voting no.
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?
I voted no because I like to be part of the UK. The thought of waking up and not being 'British' was an awful thought for me.
What if Scotland had been better off money wise? What about all the people in the UK who weren't. To me all people in the UK are my friends and neighbours.
We went through the recession together and now are coming out of it.
We have the same values and culture (OK I know we get worse weather than my friends in the South but - I can live with that).
We like the same kinds of food (apart from haggis!).
We help other countries (look how much the UK contributes to charities) who are less fortunate than us.
We have the same problems with getting jobs for our young ones, helping our elderly, benefit problems etc etc.
We're a landlocked country and to me we belong as one Kingdom.
We are so very lucky to be British and to have democracy, freedom of speech etc.
A lot of No Voters sold their souls for the English Gold.
Whats even more bizarre is in fact it is our Gold being given back to us as pocket money.
I would live to see how history reads in 40 years time when they once again vote No, but this time are defeated by the English vote to jettison Scotland as the Oil is no longer a factor.
It's like Brown, just thinking in the short term. Scotland had the chance to create a legacy, it now has only a slim chance to avoid a tragedy.
There's a lack of clarity as to the UK's future in the EU.
If Cameron is returned as PM next year, there will be a in/out referendum in 2 years time.
That's a big 'if' all on its own, and the outcome of the referendum will hinge on a range of arguments for and against membership of the EU, many of which may sound eerily familiar to those who have been involved in the recent campaign in Scotland.
On the face of it, going by available opinion polls, Scotland's decision to remain part of the UK makes a vote for retaining EU membership more likely - if marginally.
I think the main reason was the majority of Scots could see that Salmond was peddling lies and dreams, and asking them to take a leap of faith, rather than giving anything based in actual facts. It was evident when you could see big SNP areas still voting no.
Agreed, I think there was a laziness to the SNPs approach, which the phrase "scaremongering" was indicative of.
Take when Osborne came up in February and discounted a CU, Salmond promised a detailed rebuttal; what we got was name calling - bully and bluster.
Also I'm not aware of any costings done by SNP for independence. In fact the figure they offered of £1,000 better of turned out to be illustrative and not based on any grounding when FOI request went in.
Possibly if they had some ground work there would have been a detailed plan for voters to buy into.
A lot of No Voters sold their souls for the English Gold.
That "bought and sold for English gold" line is one that should be excised from the nationalist narrative following Thursday's vote. No more can it be said that Scotland is only a part of the UK due to the bribery of a few lords three centuries ago. The decision to join in Union was validated on Thursday, by a clear margin. Perhaps not clear enough to put the issue to bed for a lifetime, as some would like, and certainly not clear enough for the status quo to prevail; but when it came to it, the case for independence fell short.
The primary reason 'Yes' lost was because middle class Scotland was afraid of change and working class Scotland failed to vote in sufficient numbers.
It's no good blaming your fellow countrymen for failing to take advantage of an ambiguous opportunity. The vote was the Yes camp's to lose. If the argument for independence had been sufficiently compelling, nothing the UK establishment could possibly have offered would have been sufficient to match it. That Scotland stepped back from the brink owes as much to the attitude of the Yes camp towards its critics as to anything from the No camp. Not only did they fail to answer those critics adequately; they called them "negative", "scaremongering", "bullies" and even "traitors" or "anti-Scotland" for even daring to criticise. That's not a way to win hearts and minds.
The primary reason 'Yes' lost was because middle class Scotland was afraid of change and working class Scotland failed to vote in sufficient numbers.
They were not afraid of change. They had no idea what was involved in the change. There were too many unanswered questions . It's a funny thing but those with most to lose were the most reluctant to leap into the unknown, funny that.
That "bought and sold for English gold" line is one that should be excised from the nationalist narrative following Thursday's vote. No more can it be said that Scotland is only a part of the UK due to the bribery of a few lords three centuries ago. The decision to join in Union was validated on Thursday, by a clear margin. Perhaps not clear enough to put the issue to bed for a lifetime, as some would like, and certainly not clear enough for the status quo to prevail; but when it came to it, the case for independence fell short.
It's no good blaming your fellow countrymen. The vote was the Yes camp's to lose. If the argument for independence had been sufficiently compelling, nothing the UK establishment could possibly have offered would have been sufficient to match it. That Scotland stepped back from the brink owes as much to the attitude of the Yes camp towards its critics as to anything from the No camp.
CRAP
They offered further devo at the last moment - and muddied the water so much that scots felt they would lose money if they voted yes compared to the max devo option.
If that devo option had not come along you could make your assertion, now it is forever lost. This election was bought.
I also think there was concern that what was Scottish Home Rule became a fight for independence and was sliding inexorably towards overt nationalism which sits ill with many Scots.
The primary reason 'Yes' lost was because middle class Scotland was afraid of change and working class Scotland failed to vote in sufficient numbers.
im working class, i voted No. i voted No because no answered the question about the cost alone. we have just come out of a recession and yet we didnt know where the money was coming / where was it coming from
also Alex salmond was wiiling to risk using the pound without a currency union.
i have family who voted yes, and i sympathised with thier passion, and i dont think Tommy Sheridan , Elaine C Smith, Dennis Cannavan, Jim Sillers or Brian Cox helped thier campaign to be honest
Look, I'm used to dealing with people who don't have the best grasp of logic or reason, and writing "CRAP" in all-caps does not actually strengthen an argument. It merely makes you look childish. Do try harder.
They offered further devo at the last moment -
So they did, and a merry constitutional storm that has led us into, because English MPs are up in arms over it.
and muddied the water so much that scots felt they would lose money if they voted yes compared to the max devo option.
That so-called "muddying of the waters" was daring to question the Yes camp's Utopian proposals, the response to which was for the Yessers to call people "scaremongering", "negative", even "traitors" or "anti-Scotland" instead of engaging with people in a proper, civilised, respectful, rational debate. Again, it was the Yes camp's vote to lose, and the Yes camp blew it. Stop trying to blame other people. If the Yes camp had been honest and open about the uncertainties of its proposals and about the costs, they could have shown that they were mature enough to steer Scotland towards the status of an independent state. The appearance of wishful thinking and contempt for people who disagreed with them was probably their downfall.
If that devo option had not come along you could make your assertion,
I can still make it. I reiterate: if the Yes camp's proposition was so clearly compelling, there is nothing on Earth the No camp could have offered to match it.
now it is forever lost. This election was bought.
You are engaging in sheer speculation and have no rational foundation for that claim.
I think the single most important thing was Salmond's failure to sort out the currency question
If I had a few thousand in the bank I'd want to know if I was going to wake up one morning to find that my £10000 had been converted into 10000 Scottish Groats, each of which was worth 34p
Keep banging about 'it's Scotland's pound as well' was no answer because using the pound without currency union was just winning independence with one hand and handing most of it back to London with the other hand
Comments
To take just one issue - the currency - it wouldn't have been an issue if prominent figures in the Yes camp hadn't spent so much energy insisting that they would get exactly what they wanted, and playing silly rhetorical games to obscure the truth, from their own supporters not least.
Every time they were pressed on a Plan B, they dodged - before finally admitting that they had a Plan B, but essentially being evasive about the details while insisting all the while that they *would* get Plan A, no matter what their opponents or the Westminster establishment might say, or think. "It's a bluff, they're lying" was the perennial refrain. Resorting to playground rhetorical games to shout down opponents and misrepresent their statements, as if admitting that a third country can use a currency is the same as agreeing that a formal currency union is both possible and desirable.
If you weren't a die-hard Yesser, such insouciant, high-handed and arrogant tactics were bound to look shady and evasive, and give people cause for concern - and this issue, among others, was bound to come back to bite the Yes camp on the backside come polling day.
And the stupid thing is that the Yes camp did not need to die in a ditch on the currency issue. What was so wrong with the option of starting a free-floating currency, initially pegged to Sterling if that's what was required, given that it was supposedly backed by a wealthy nation with vast natural resources? Why saddle oneself to a 'poorer' Sterling if the rest of the rhetoric is to be believed? Something didn't add up there.
Too many Yessers simply Did Not Get It, were either in blissful ignorance of or had an arrogant contempt for the 58 million people *outside* Scotland who - by and large - had about as much love for the idea of a Sterling area with an independent Scotland as they do for the euro, and for near-identical reasons.
When they were told this, they immediately leaped to the irrational conclusion that the UK parties were out to "punish" or "scare" Scotland, rather than considering for just one sliver of a moment that they took that position because they really, honestly believed that a currency union wasn't in anyone's interests.
Similar issues arise over EU membership. Irrespective of the UK's views on EU membership of an independent Scotland, the UK is but one of 28 member states. In the face of the more strident Yessers insisting that they can somehow bypass all the rules by which member-states must accede to EU membership, including the need for unanimity for which there is no workaround whatsoever that does not entail an illegal usurpation of national sovereignty - whether the UK was prepared to help or not was next to irrelevant. The UK occupies a privileged position in the EU, and a change in the status of the UK threatens that. The UK might not have been in a position to help Scotland, being way too worried about protecting its own affairs. Scotland's secession would have created a nightmare for the UK on that whole issue, and the UK wasn't likely to thank Scotland for it.
Too many of the more vocal online Yessers wanted to pretend that everything would be sweetness and light and hugs and puppies and took exception to it when others - whether Nay-sayers or undecideds or spectators - pointed out some rather obvious realities to them. Critics were constantly accused of being "negative", as if there's something wrong with saying "hang on a minute, your claim doesn't actually stack up". It smacked of anti-intellectualism and a contempt for critical thinking.
And that was a bad advertisement for the Yes camp, as it made them look less like an organisation with a rational proposition, and more like a mob of wishful thinkers, disengaged from reality or anything that might possibly represent any bump in the road to Utopia.
The opportunity for an independent Scotland was lost, in my view - not because their cause was unattractive, not because it lacked passion, not even because there weren't good rational bases for supporting independence - but because the 'generals' were too cocksure, an arrogance that betrayed their own ignorance and lack of empathy and failed to address enough voters' concerns.
AFAIC the elephant in the room wasn't so much the pound but the lack of clarity about Scotland's future in the european union and whether or not that could only come with the euro.
With all the promises about higher standards of living and improved welfare wouldn't that have made Carlisle the new Calais as far as dodgy migrants are concerned? Plus, where were the answers to questions regarding simply transferring power from Westminster to Brussells?
The SNP were devoid of answers and relied to heavily on playing the anti-westminster/tory card instead with Salmond basically accusing anyone who rocked the boat of scaremongering, panicking etc etc etc . It looked (from my perspective) as if it was him that was panicking and showing signs of desperation because (particularly in the latter stages of the campaign) he was only answering questions by making negative statements about "down south" and the media.
I said all along that this referendum was 40 years too late coming and that when it did couldn't have come at a worse time what with all the turmoil with the economy and the eurozone, but Salmond put the blinkers on and chose to do an impression of James IV at Flodden Field and dived in regardless.
You're 100% bang on the money.
The saddest thing is that not all the NO voters didn't believe in an independent Scotland. It was the cost of independence that the YES ignored. I personally feel that some of the NO voters wanted their country and nationality back, but not at the cost of ruin for their families.
That Salmond has chosen to deliberately misrepresent the time table as being second reading by the 27th of March, when the Vow was for second reading immediately after the 2015 UK general election, speaks more of Salmond's character and integrity than Cameron's.
As for snake oil what do you think Salmond was selling when many of the things and policies he was promising for an independent Scotland were mutual exclusive and so impossible, and the fantasy land economic predictions. The question is would the Yes campaign have gandered more or fewer votes if the SNP Yes campaign had a credible vision for an independent Scotland.
This was not the reason there was a No vote. Trying to make it seem so is just using it as an excuse.
If Cameron is returned as PM next year, there will be a in/out referendum in 2 years time.
Even now, the yes crowd are refusing to accept a democratic voting process and still talking made up stuff as if it is factual.
In case you missed it, there was an in/out referendum a couple of days ago with Cameron as PM.
Depending on how you look at it, "If you have any doubts at all, you must vote no" could be seen as either hitting the electorate with a kind of rehashed Pascal's wager or asking voters whether they feel the yes side had met their burden of proof concerning the claim that an independent Scotland would be a better country - across all the different disciplines; social, economic, cultural etc...
I think the main reason was the majority of Scots could see that Salmond was peddling lies and dreams, and asking them to take a leap of faith, rather than giving anything based in actual facts. It was evident when you could see big SNP areas still voting no.
I voted no because I like to be part of the UK. The thought of waking up and not being 'British' was an awful thought for me.
What if Scotland had been better off money wise? What about all the people in the UK who weren't. To me all people in the UK are my friends and neighbours.
We went through the recession together and now are coming out of it.
We have the same values and culture (OK I know we get worse weather than my friends in the South but - I can live with that).
We like the same kinds of food (apart from haggis!).
We help other countries (look how much the UK contributes to charities) who are less fortunate than us.
We have the same problems with getting jobs for our young ones, helping our elderly, benefit problems etc etc.
We're a landlocked country and to me we belong as one Kingdom.
We are so very lucky to be British and to have democracy, freedom of speech etc.
Sorry - I'll get off my soapbox now.
Whats even more bizarre is in fact it is our Gold being given back to us as pocket money.
I would live to see how history reads in 40 years time when they once again vote No, but this time are defeated by the English vote to jettison Scotland as the Oil is no longer a factor.
It's like Brown, just thinking in the short term. Scotland had the chance to create a legacy, it now has only a slim chance to avoid a tragedy.
That's a big 'if' all on its own, and the outcome of the referendum will hinge on a range of arguments for and against membership of the EU, many of which may sound eerily familiar to those who have been involved in the recent campaign in Scotland.
On the face of it, going by available opinion polls, Scotland's decision to remain part of the UK makes a vote for retaining EU membership more likely - if marginally.
Agreed, I think there was a laziness to the SNPs approach, which the phrase "scaremongering" was indicative of.
Take when Osborne came up in February and discounted a CU, Salmond promised a detailed rebuttal; what we got was name calling - bully and bluster.
Also I'm not aware of any costings done by SNP for independence. In fact the figure they offered of £1,000 better of turned out to be illustrative and not based on any grounding when FOI request went in.
Possibly if they had some ground work there would have been a detailed plan for voters to buy into.
That excuse I can accept.
Makes me so mad >:(
That "bought and sold for English gold" line is one that should be excised from the nationalist narrative following Thursday's vote. No more can it be said that Scotland is only a part of the UK due to the bribery of a few lords three centuries ago. The decision to join in Union was validated on Thursday, by a clear margin. Perhaps not clear enough to put the issue to bed for a lifetime, as some would like, and certainly not clear enough for the status quo to prevail; but when it came to it, the case for independence fell short.
It's no good blaming your fellow countrymen for failing to take advantage of an ambiguous opportunity. The vote was the Yes camp's to lose. If the argument for independence had been sufficiently compelling, nothing the UK establishment could possibly have offered would have been sufficient to match it. That Scotland stepped back from the brink owes as much to the attitude of the Yes camp towards its critics as to anything from the No camp. Not only did they fail to answer those critics adequately; they called them "negative", "scaremongering", "bullies" and even "traitors" or "anti-Scotland" for even daring to criticise. That's not a way to win hearts and minds.
They were not afraid of change. They had no idea what was involved in the change. There were too many unanswered questions . It's a funny thing but those with most to lose were the most reluctant to leap into the unknown, funny that.
CRAP
They offered further devo at the last moment - and muddied the water so much that scots felt they would lose money if they voted yes compared to the max devo option.
If that devo option had not come along you could make your assertion, now it is forever lost. This election was bought.
im working class, i voted No. i voted No because no answered the question about the cost alone. we have just come out of a recession and yet we didnt know where the money was coming / where was it coming from
also Alex salmond was wiiling to risk using the pound without a currency union.
i have family who voted yes, and i sympathised with thier passion, and i dont think Tommy Sheridan , Elaine C Smith, Dennis Cannavan, Jim Sillers or Brian Cox helped thier campaign to be honest
Look, I'm used to dealing with people who don't have the best grasp of logic or reason, and writing "CRAP" in all-caps does not actually strengthen an argument. It merely makes you look childish. Do try harder.
So they did, and a merry constitutional storm that has led us into, because English MPs are up in arms over it.
That so-called "muddying of the waters" was daring to question the Yes camp's Utopian proposals, the response to which was for the Yessers to call people "scaremongering", "negative", even "traitors" or "anti-Scotland" instead of engaging with people in a proper, civilised, respectful, rational debate. Again, it was the Yes camp's vote to lose, and the Yes camp blew it. Stop trying to blame other people. If the Yes camp had been honest and open about the uncertainties of its proposals and about the costs, they could have shown that they were mature enough to steer Scotland towards the status of an independent state. The appearance of wishful thinking and contempt for people who disagreed with them was probably their downfall.
I can still make it. I reiterate: if the Yes camp's proposition was so clearly compelling, there is nothing on Earth the No camp could have offered to match it.
You are engaging in sheer speculation and have no rational foundation for that claim.
If I had a few thousand in the bank I'd want to know if I was going to wake up one morning to find that my £10000 had been converted into 10000 Scottish Groats, each of which was worth 34p
Keep banging about 'it's Scotland's pound as well' was no answer because using the pound without currency union was just winning independence with one hand and handing most of it back to London with the other hand