So far, the 'No' campaign has been the richer one, mainly because of the Euromillions couple, and it shows. They have been the campaign with far more glossy brochures and the big billboards in expensive locations.
All that money clearly hasn't done much to get their message across if people don't even know which side they gave it to...
As far as I am aware anytime the UK has gone in to a recession it has usually been a Labour Government in charge.
Apart from the recession in the early 90s. And early 80s. And early 70s. And early 60s. And the mid-50s. Oh, wait, it seems the majority of recessions over the past century have been under the Tories...
I'm afraid the rabid extreme of British Nationalists are also doing their part to make the UK look bad. Did Cameron apologise when a rabid BritNat expressed a hope that Alex Salmond's elderly father would die?
Ah, the express finds someone with what even they clearly believe to be a false name posting on a facebook site that has nothing to do with the Labour party. How much political capital can they make out of this?
Yeah, it's an internet demographics thing. Yes is more popular with younger people, for a start, and is well in the lead in the (Scottish) politically engaged Twitter/ viral net stuff crowd.
Yeah, it's an internet demographics thing. Yes is more popular with younger people, for a start, and is well in the lead in the (Scottish) politically engaged Twitter/ viral net stuff crowd.
Plus you can vote > refresh the page > vote again > refresh the page > vote again etc etc etc.
So a determined person or group of people can skew the result.
Plus you can vote > refresh the page > vote again > refresh the page > vote again etc etc etc.
So a determined person or group of people can skew the result.
Not a fair poll at all.
Sounds like a web poll from the last decade, it's not exactly hard to set up such polls so they only allow one vote per computer/browser (simple cookie, although it can be circumvented if you delete the relevant cookies), IP, or registered user depending on how strict you want to be.
All that money clearly hasn't done much to get their message across if people don't even know which side they gave it to...
I think I'll put that down to my rushed early morning typing skills. I did of course mean the 'yes' campaign is the one who got their money and has (so far) had the more expensive campaign.
IMO, these endorsements, regardless of how well thought and argued, are unlikely to sway anyone who has already made up their mind. People tend to make up their mind, then find extra reasons to confirm they were right, and dismiss anything which challenges it.
It might give some of the 'don't knows' something to chew over. There will be some who have been leaning one way or another, but haven't quite been able to articulate why they think that way, and if it strikes a chord, a well reasoned statement by someone they like could help them firm up their own views.
In this case, it seems a lot of people are recognising the uneasy feeling that the sort of things they are genuinely wondering about are dismissed as 'scare mongering', as well as the fact that the referendum is far reaching, and it's foolish to think of it as whether or not we approve of the current Westminster government and all of their policies.
I think it's best to ignore the most extreme abuse she's received, because they are nasty people (and/or nuts). The same goes for those who are twisting what she's written to imply she was the one saying something nasty.
What I find a bit more disturbing is that some people who disagree with her are claiming this means she is OK with people needing foodbanks, or that she's a 'rich Tory' and doesn't give a stuff about ordinary people. It's not just that they can't have read her statement, or have terrible reading comprehension skills if they did. It's the sense that those who think differently from them must have terrible motives. I'm sure some are grandstanding, but there are a lot who genuinely can't get their head around a decent person having a different idea of what is best for the country they both love.
I only hope if the rest of the country has an EU referendum debate in the future that the discussion is more sober and based clearly on the facts supporting both sides.
I only hope if the rest of the country has an EU referendum debate in the future that the discussion is more sober and based clearly on the facts supporting both sides.
In your dreams .
Anyhoo the Scottish referendum debate was always going to be deeply divisive and highly emotive.
Dear old Jim Sillars has had to wade in and tell the cybernats to calm down.
Comments
Apart from the recession in the early 90s. And early 80s. And early 70s. And early 60s. And the mid-50s. Oh, wait, it seems the majority of recessions over the past century have been under the Tories...
Ah, the express finds someone with what even they clearly believe to be a false name posting on a facebook site that has nothing to do with the Labour party. How much political capital can they make out of this?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/record-view-far-not-good-3664714
Plus you can vote > refresh the page > vote again > refresh the page > vote again etc etc etc.
So a determined person or group of people can skew the result.
Not a fair poll at all.
Sounds like a web poll from the last decade, it's not exactly hard to set up such polls so they only allow one vote per computer/browser (simple cookie, although it can be circumvented if you delete the relevant cookies), IP, or registered user depending on how strict you want to be.
I think I'll put that down to my rushed early morning typing skills. I did of course mean the 'yes' campaign is the one who got their money and has (so far) had the more expensive campaign.
IMO, these endorsements, regardless of how well thought and argued, are unlikely to sway anyone who has already made up their mind. People tend to make up their mind, then find extra reasons to confirm they were right, and dismiss anything which challenges it.
It might give some of the 'don't knows' something to chew over. There will be some who have been leaning one way or another, but haven't quite been able to articulate why they think that way, and if it strikes a chord, a well reasoned statement by someone they like could help them firm up their own views.
In this case, it seems a lot of people are recognising the uneasy feeling that the sort of things they are genuinely wondering about are dismissed as 'scare mongering', as well as the fact that the referendum is far reaching, and it's foolish to think of it as whether or not we approve of the current Westminster government and all of their policies.
I think it's best to ignore the most extreme abuse she's received, because they are nasty people (and/or nuts). The same goes for those who are twisting what she's written to imply she was the one saying something nasty.
What I find a bit more disturbing is that some people who disagree with her are claiming this means she is OK with people needing foodbanks, or that she's a 'rich Tory' and doesn't give a stuff about ordinary people. It's not just that they can't have read her statement, or have terrible reading comprehension skills if they did. It's the sense that those who think differently from them must have terrible motives. I'm sure some are grandstanding, but there are a lot who genuinely can't get their head around a decent person having a different idea of what is best for the country they both love.
In your dreams .
Anyhoo the Scottish referendum debate was always going to be deeply divisive and highly emotive.
Dear old Jim Sillars has had to wade in and tell the cybernats to calm down.
http://www.1001campaign.com/campaign-news/open-letter-called-cybernats/
Salmond missed a trick there.
No, the cheesy grins were a giveaway.