The Yes Campaign spent too much time focusing on winning over Glasgow, Dundee and Labour voters. They seemed to forget that not all SNP voters are socialists, that over 400,000 people voted for the Tories at the last election and that Lib Dems voters existed at all.
Plus, people thought there was something fishy about Salmond and Sturgeon's economic arguments.
"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. ;-)
It may sound like I'm stating the bleedin' obvious, but I'll throw it into the pot anyway.
It could just be that a majority of Scots don't want independence.
Simplistic I know, but that really...... really.... may be what it comes down to.
I think your right the key for labour is a strong leader, and I think if that was the case, many would return to them.
I don't think Labour's main problem is the leader. I accept that from a telegenic, charismatic point of view Ed Miliband isn't exactly "A" material - but come on, none of them are. Even the savior of the hour, Gordon Brown, left Downing Street 4 years ago a broken, forlorn man - drained of every last drop of charisma or appeal he once had. David Cameron comes across as an overprivilidged blowhard bully and he looks like someone left a waxwork of Michael Schumacher in the sun for slightly too long. Nicholas Soames somehow manages to remain an MP despite posessing all the charm, wit, appeal and physical bulk of a rotting elephant carcas.
And even those few politicians who initially manage to present an outward appearance of being "normal" often wreck their image by their actions - case in point: Nick Clegg.
And as for being "weak" - well, Labour's last two leaders could hardly be accused of lacking willpower - for all the good it did them in terms of popularity amongst the party's traditional working class base in Scotland and elsewhere. This isn't Russia and the British population aren't duped quite so easily by the trope of the "strong man".
There's no one Labour leader - past or present - who can be singled out as the culpable party for the gradual erosion of support from the most disadvantaged communities; the very same communities that the party purports to defend. The problem in my view is policy. The one thing that correlates with the decline in traditional working class support for labour is the decline of the class itself - alongside Labour's adoption of Thatcherite policies that ocurred across the same period of time. Those voters haven't disappeared, but the ranks of the old working class has been thinned by two forces; firstly by the economics of the Thatcherism which considered unemployment to be irrelevant and secondly by the coming of a new generation into the workforce who'd grown up knowing nothing but Thatcherism and for whom social solidarity was nothing but an abstract concept in a history book. The first group became an underclass, the second grew up to become a group of individuals devoid of a class conciousness.
The reason why voters have turned away from Labour is very simple - it doesn't represent them and it's policies don't help them. In some cases it's policies actively work against their interests. People turning away from the Labour party in it's current state doesn't represent apathy, but a logical, common sense reaction.
If Labour wants to get a message through to the 45% of Scots who were willing to roll the dice - a very high number of whom are from it's central belt heartland - it cannot simply be the same old message we've had since 1979 from both red and blue camps. Policy has to change - and change radically.
Simple really, any political movement that has Rab C Nesbitt's wife as one of their main faces is hardly going to be taken seriously, Mary Doll was great entertainment at times but thick as pig shit , apart from that the bullying and intimidation by the Yessers and in particular Salmond was probably seen as unacceptable by most decent folk!
Oh, and they had no answers to every single question that was put to them!
Oh, and they had no answers to every single question that was put to them!
And they attacked the messenger that put those difficult questions towards them. Look at the bile aimed at Nick Robinson & the BBC, and Wee Eck not allowing press who opposed him to his resignation speech!
And they attacked the messenger that put those difficult questions towards them. Look at the bile aimed at Nick Robinson & the BBC, and Wee Eck not allowing press who opposed him to his resignation speech!
Your right, the Nick Robinson thing was quite unbelievable, they tried the same thing with Jackie Bird at the BBC for having the audacity to ask searching questions, it was a case of, if you don't agree with us we'll do our best to get you sacked from your job!
The North Korea support for Salmond tells you everything you need to know about how it could have been, thank god we're still free!
I honestly believe that a lot of people in Scotland voted yes because they were under the impression that their benefits would go up under the Utopia that Scotland would have become under Salmond and others voted yes because they'd watched Braveheart once too often!
Turnout seems to have been overlooked by the Yessers too, turnout in Glasgow and Dundee was 7-10% below the national turnout while in areas with big No votes it was usually higher than the national average exceeding 90% in Stirling.
For all the campaigning for the great welfare dependent unwashed it seems many couldn't be bothered to vote on the day.
Comments
Plus, people thought there was something fishy about Salmond and Sturgeon's economic arguments.
It may sound like I'm stating the bleedin' obvious, but I'll throw it into the pot anyway.
It could just be that a majority of Scots don't want independence.
Simplistic I know, but that really...... really.... may be what it comes down to.
I don't think Labour's main problem is the leader. I accept that from a telegenic, charismatic point of view Ed Miliband isn't exactly "A" material - but come on, none of them are. Even the savior of the hour, Gordon Brown, left Downing Street 4 years ago a broken, forlorn man - drained of every last drop of charisma or appeal he once had. David Cameron comes across as an overprivilidged blowhard bully and he looks like someone left a waxwork of Michael Schumacher in the sun for slightly too long. Nicholas Soames somehow manages to remain an MP despite posessing all the charm, wit, appeal and physical bulk of a rotting elephant carcas.
And even those few politicians who initially manage to present an outward appearance of being "normal" often wreck their image by their actions - case in point: Nick Clegg.
And as for being "weak" - well, Labour's last two leaders could hardly be accused of lacking willpower - for all the good it did them in terms of popularity amongst the party's traditional working class base in Scotland and elsewhere. This isn't Russia and the British population aren't duped quite so easily by the trope of the "strong man".
There's no one Labour leader - past or present - who can be singled out as the culpable party for the gradual erosion of support from the most disadvantaged communities; the very same communities that the party purports to defend. The problem in my view is policy. The one thing that correlates with the decline in traditional working class support for labour is the decline of the class itself - alongside Labour's adoption of Thatcherite policies that ocurred across the same period of time. Those voters haven't disappeared, but the ranks of the old working class has been thinned by two forces; firstly by the economics of the Thatcherism which considered unemployment to be irrelevant and secondly by the coming of a new generation into the workforce who'd grown up knowing nothing but Thatcherism and for whom social solidarity was nothing but an abstract concept in a history book. The first group became an underclass, the second grew up to become a group of individuals devoid of a class conciousness.
The reason why voters have turned away from Labour is very simple - it doesn't represent them and it's policies don't help them. In some cases it's policies actively work against their interests. People turning away from the Labour party in it's current state doesn't represent apathy, but a logical, common sense reaction.
If Labour wants to get a message through to the 45% of Scots who were willing to roll the dice - a very high number of whom are from it's central belt heartland - it cannot simply be the same old message we've had since 1979 from both red and blue camps. Policy has to change - and change radically.
Oh, and they had no answers to every single question that was put to them!
And they attacked the messenger that put those difficult questions towards them. Look at the bile aimed at Nick Robinson & the BBC, and Wee Eck not allowing press who opposed him to his resignation speech!
Your right, the Nick Robinson thing was quite unbelievable, they tried the same thing with Jackie Bird at the BBC for having the audacity to ask searching questions, it was a case of, if you don't agree with us we'll do our best to get you sacked from your job!
The North Korea support for Salmond tells you everything you need to know about how it could have been, thank god we're still free!
I honestly believe that a lot of people in Scotland voted yes because they were under the impression that their benefits would go up under the Utopia that Scotland would have become under Salmond and others voted yes because they'd watched Braveheart once too often!
For all the campaigning for the great welfare dependent unwashed it seems many couldn't be bothered to vote on the day.