You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[quote=seosamh77]Just be aware that minus the over 65. The vote was actually 54% yes.
BS.
According to the [url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Equality/Equalities/PopulationMigration ]2012 stats[/url] there were 930,000 over 65s in Scotland. According to [url= https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/512890984255205376/photo/1 ]Lord Ashcroft[/url] 73% voted No, 27% voted Yes.
If every single one of those over 65s voted, that's 679,000 No votes and 251,000 Yes votes. If you subtract those from the totals then you have 1,323,000 No votes and 1,367,000 Yes votes from under 65s, which is just under 51% Yes.
However it seems rather unlikely that all of them voted - if we assume an 85% turnout to match the overall turnout (in reality I suspect the turnout was lower, though I can imagine arguments for it being higher, in reality we'll never know), that's 577,000 No votes and 213,000 Yes votes. Subtract those from the totals and you're left with 1,425,000 No votes and 1,405,000 Yes votes from under 65s, which is 50.4% No.
So even without the over 65s you want to dismiss, Scotland voted No. Blame those pesky 18-24s.
There will come a day when there will be no financial gain for the UK in Scotland and maybe the truth will out regarding how loyal the UK will be to Scotland.
Well, as soon as we English stop getting our weekly brown envelope of cash marked "TRIBUTE EXTRACTED FROM CELTIC VASSAL STATES", I reckon support for Union with Scotland might plummet. But until then, we're right by you.
Well, maybe behind you. Holding a whip. But definitely in close proximity whatever happens.
There will come a day when there will be no financial gain for the UK in Scotland and maybe the truth will out regarding how loyal the UK will be to Scotland.
do you think the Welsh won't want to stick with you in a successful Union?
sherry - Member
I think the media coverage and scare tactics pre voting was disgraceful. It makes me question the morality of Britain.
??
Are we really free democratic thinkers?
Yes, if you are discriminating enough not to swallow BS.
There was a clear agenda for the no campaign and I fear it was shear financially driven.
No need to be afraid - it wasn't.
The facts are for me, the government lied in the past and continues to lie.
One things for sure, AS managed to redress the balance and some. A whole campaign based on lies and deceit.
seosamh77 » Just be aware that minus the over 65. The vote was actually 54% yes.
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. What's your point?
grum - MemberWhat's your point?
Once the Logan's Run Act 2015 is passed, Scotland will be independent.
What's your point?
Obvious answer I would have thought.....that with a bit of jiggery-pokery, a few votes added here, a few deducted there, you can always end up with the "correct" election/referendum result.
Either that or he's suggesting that voting should be restricted to persons 16-65 years of age.
I'm not sure.
Re the media, even if you ignore the BBC's coverage, which and is quite incredible, only one national paper supported a Yes vote. That's not exactly representative of a 55/45 split in the vote. In a world where many (most) people don't bother to do their own research, the media has enormous power. It seems they now use that power to further the agenda of their wealthy owners, or the westminster in the case of the bbc. Sadly, I'll never be able to take anything in the mainstream media entirely at face value again.
In a world where many (most) people don't bother to do their own research, the media has enormous power.
If the coverage was so biased, and the media wield so much power, then why was the vote not representative of this? Perhaps because traditional media outlets aren't as powerful as you're assuming?
unknown
Sadly, I'll never be able to take anything in the mainstream media entirely at face value again.
You've got the right perspective from now on, consider it an "enlightenment".
Kit we'll never know what the vote would have been had the media coverage been truly neutral. Just because the vote was 45/55 you can't say the media didn't have a major influence.
Once the Logan's Run Act 2015 is passed, Scotland will be independent.
🙂
Re the media, even if you ignore the BBC's coverage, which and is quite incredible, only one national paper supported a Yes vote. That's not exactly representative of a 55/45 split in the vote. In a world where many (most) people don't bother to do their own research, the media has enormous power. It seems they now use that power to further the agenda of their wealthy owners, or the westminster in the case of the bbc. Sadly, I'll never be able to take anything in the mainstream media entirely at face value again.
You seem to be forgetting that the most powerful press-owning oligarch was pro-independence. I wonder why?
You're right about not taking anything in the media at face value though. Whenever I've seen a news article about something I have personal knowledge of it's always been wildly innacurate.
In a world where many (most) people don't bother to do their own research
If people cant be bothered to do research on important issues such as independence, you could argue they shouldnt be allowed to vote. Oh, i voted for him because I liked his shoes.....
Just because the vote was 45/55 you can't say the media didn't have a major influence.
Nor can you say it did. Anything about media influence is speculation, unless there's a survey of media consumption vs voting habits. Is there?
So are you taking up the armed struggle?
😆
sesamesam77 earlier:
[img] 
[/img]
Oh, i voted for him because I liked his shoes.....
How do you think the Home Secretary got to the top of the political ladder ?
Aesthetically pleasing footwear.
[img] 
[/img]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7020807.stm
You seem to be forgetting that the most powerful press-owning oligarch was pro-independence. I wonder why?
Who?
Unknown - so we have all the mainstream media (ex the Dirty Digger) apparently lined up against Salmond including the largely supportive Herald. On top of that he did the extraordinary trick of uniting three mainstream political parties, the UK and Europe, technocrats, businessmen in many sectors, international organisations and their chief representatives etc...
So what happened
1 A conspiracy?
2 A coincidence?
3 the fact that they were [b]all[/b] able to see that the Emperor was wearing no clothes?
The so-called biased media, allowed a campaign based on a completely false narrative around the NHS, currencies, debt, policy options, inequality, you name it, to be delivered without health warnings or much critical comment. Now I love freedom of speech, but only because it allows you to test the (flawed) assumptions on which nonsense spouted by the likes of Salmond, Farrage, Griffen and Co is based. But unchallenged reporting of BS is itself a massive source of bias. And in this case, it almost worked but for the canny silent majority who would not be bullied and others whose critical faculties were on high BS alert.
The BBC today are reporting a riot in George square by unionist/loyalist thugs as a"clash between rival supporters". Go on twitter, look at the photos then read the BBC article and tell me it's not biased. If that doesn't convince you try comparing it to the coverage of Jim Murphy getting an egg thrown at him or milliband being sworn at. There was also an academic study a while back which showed a systematic bias against yes on the BBC. Can't be arsed looking it up but it was by Glasgow caley iirc.
The no campaign's new powers bribe timetable included a step that should have happened yesterday but didn't, have you seen much coverage of that? The no campaign lie didn't last a day, that's a huge deal but not in the media.
The referendum's over, it's done, but my eyes have been opened. The media had an agenda on this and from now on I'll assume they have an agenda on everything else.
my point is clearly stated on the last page.ernie_lynch - Member
What's your point?
Obvious answer I would have thought.....that with a bit of jiggery-pokery, a few votes added here, a few deducted there, you can always end up with the "correct" election/referendum result.Either that or he's suggesting that voting should be restricted to persons 16-65 years of age.
I'm not sure.
Bigjim 😆
😆 no fear, no scaremongering, no media bias. Youse a ****ing hilarious at times! 😆 I'm especially loving how the Sunday herald has morphed into the herald...
Interesting view from Irvine Welsh...
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/20/irvine-welsh-scottish-independence-glorious-failure ]Scotland's finest hour?[/url]
my point is clearly stated on the last page
Not really. If it was clear people would get it.
What you're trying to suggest is if there is another referendum in 30 years time then these people over 65 who have a No stance woundnt be around, so there would be a higher proportion of Yes voters.
What you're forgetting is in 30 years time there will another generation of over 65's who will have the same opinion that its not worth the risk, as they wont be around to see any benefits after the difficult transitional years.
an academic study
You are right, no need to bother looking it up.
That's it chew, you tell me what I think....seems to be what youse are good at, thinking for silent majorities.
Going by last night in Glasgow I can understand why you hold them in such contempt mind.
BTW what I actually take from it is that pensions is where it was lost. It was allowed to put doubt in the minds of pensioners that their pensions would go down. Instead of highlighting the pittance they actually get.
The media had an agenda on this and from now on I'll assume they have an agenda on everything else.
Don't want to be patronising but that's a given, surely? No-one sets up a newspaper because they want to inform people... it's about power and control of information. Media's always been like that.
Read Hack Attack by Nick Davies about the NOTW caper if you want to understand just how agenda/commerce driven all our media owners are and see that you basically can't trust any of the mainstream media sources... but have hope that social media is taking that power away.
Worth reading George Orwell 1984 too if you want to understand how propaganda works
That's it chew, you tell me what I think
Well if you could clearly articulate what you do think, I wont have to 😉
Unknown, if you don't like the BBC bias then stop paying for it. Amazed at the number of people who complain about it yet still fork out with a monthly direct debit.
what I actually take from it is that pensions is where it was lost. It was allowed to put doubt in the minds of pensioners that their pensions would go down.
Maybe these folk have been around long enough to spot when someones spouting off BS, whereas the youngsters are more easily led?
Maybe these folk have been around long enough to spot when someones spouting off BS, whereas the youngsters are more easily lead?
Maybe they've had any sense of ambition and freedom of mind sucked out of them by being exposed to Westminster longer than anyone else.
I was wrong, it was university of west of Scotland. Still on the first page of Google for "Glasgow caley BBC bias" though.
[url= https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report ]link[/url]
Feel free to ignore everything else I wrote though.
I'd love to stop paying for it but unfortunately I'll legally obliged to pay for our "fair and impartial" state broadcaster.
Of course I've always been aware that papers and channels put their own slant on things but these past months it's been so stark that I've been shocked. The BBC is the really disappointing one.
Maybe they've had any sense of ambition and freedom of mind sucked out of them by being exposed to Westminster longer than anyone else.
These are the people who have shaped Westminster into how it is now. If they didnt like it they've had long enough to change it.
legally obliged aye, in reality they've no power to do much about non payment.unknown - MemberI'd love to stop paying for it but unfortunately I'll legally obliged to pay for our "fair and impartial" state broadcaster
Stop paying for it.
apologies for giving you too much credit. 😉Chew - Member
That's it chew, you tell me what I thinkWell if you could clearly articulate what you do think, I wont have to
I was wrong, it was university of west of Scotland. Still on the first page of Google for "Glasgow caley BBC bias" though.
linkFeel free to ignore everything else I wrote though.
Research from over a year ago however..
I think there's a fair bit of deliberate misunderstanding going on here. It's at least as reasonable to assume that the next 65+ generation will hold onto their current views as it is to assume they'll feel the same as the current 65+ generation.
Blimey, if the losing is this bad at 55:45 imagine what we would be subjected to if it was really close.
(In addition to experience, I would imagine that the 65+ folk could see through the pension BS)
Research specifically on the referendum coverage and given the BBC denied bias as the time, reasonable to assume their editorial policy went unchanged.
The other point to remember is that in 10-15 years time there will be 10-15 years less oil to use...and that was largely what this was about. I suspect by that stage the possiblity that the North Sea won't be proving quite so valuable might influence a few votes in the future.
It's true, you can't trust the media....
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/glasgow-riots-dishonest-social-media-users-accused-of-fuelling-panic-with-pictures-from-london-riots-9745736.html ]including 'social' media[/url] 😉
Blimey, if the losing is this bad at 55:45 imagine what we would be subjected to if it was really close.
Yes, remind me which side lost the democratic vote. I think it was the one who shouted the loudest. They still haven't stopped.
Blimey, if the losing is this bad at 55:45 imagine what we would be subjected to if it was really close.
With respect, I've accepted the result but what I'm saying is my eyes have been opened to the influence of the media. That has wider implications for all of us.
Are you just going to make jibes or will you address the points I've made on BBC bias?
Empty vessels......
I have addressed them here and before, and with respect, have chosen to disagree.
In the context of a campaign of completed deceit and lies, it's not even the central point.
Comparing live coverage on CH4 news with what was being suggested on here last night, told me quite enough about bias.
I wonder if you'll see things the same way when the bias doesn't happen to agree with you.
It's at least as reasonable to assume that the next 65+ generation will hold onto their current views as it is to assume they'll feel the same as the current 65+ generation
Absolutely, but from that all you're saying is that people may change or they may not.
Without putting words into Seosamh's mouth, he was inferring that people wont change there mind.
I was suggesting that as people get older they become more risk adverse and so you'd see the same demographic trends and people would change there mind.
We could both be wrong.
Study history and you learn to understand and live with bias. It's pretty simple.
Agreed, my point was that's it's foolish to simply assume seosamh is wrong and disingenuous to pretend not to understand him.
Edit, reply was to chew.
Study history and you learn to understand and live with bias. It's pretty simple.
You won't have to live with it, the BBC isn't biased remember?
It's true, you can't trust the media....
including 'social' media
A mainstream news outlet which is losing money and influence because of social media, putting out a story suggesting social media can be manipulated. Never 🙂
Then again, in the list of cognitive biases in Wikipedia is this gem 🙂
Hostile media effect: The tendency to see a media report as being biased, owing to one's own strong partisan views.
Agreed, my point was that's it's foolish to simply assume seosamh is wrong and disingenuous to pretend not to understand him.
I do understand, I just dont agree. Theres a big difference.
We all understood what AS was saying, we just didnt agree. Everyones free to express their opinion. It doesnt mean i have to support it.
You can't have it both ways.
Either the SNP and AS in particular masterminded the cornering of Westminster, forcing the offer of Devo Max (which in all likelihood will amount to hot air) or... they failed to convince the Scotch public of the benefits of independence, against a woefully inept BT campaign.
A pending or already established failure.
Your (UK resident) ancestors will shake their heads in disbelief.
On a few points. If you think Scotland doesn't contribute more than it takes from the UK your deluded. If main stream media doesn't influence voters then your crazy! Fear is a very powerful tool and it was the main one in the no campaign.
I'm not too clued up on Welsh politics, but anyone who wants the best for their country would want to run there own affairs in my point of view. External control has proven time and again that it is not in the controlled nations best interests.
As for the BBC, I will never buy a licence in my life again. If I don't like a product or information I should have the choice not buy it. I hate there agenda on current and foreign affairs. The only way to get them to notice that the public have a voice is to hit them financially. No other private company can be enforced they way they can! Why is that hmmm....
BTW what I actually take from it is that pensions is where it was lost.
Which might be a valid point if it wasn't that your figures were wrong and the under 65s actually voted No. As I showed up there - is everybody ignoring it due to too many numbers?
If I don't like a product or information I should have the choice not buy it.
You already have that choice. I assume you'll never consume any of their output ever again?
If you think Scotland doesn't contribute more than it takes from the UK your deluded.
...and there we have it. Even Yes supporters think the Scottish Government is deluded
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888
is everybody ignoring it due to too many numbers
I tend to ignore your posts irrespective of numbers
HTH
On a few points. If you think Scotland doesn't contribute more than it takes from the UK your deluded.
They looked at this on More Or Less (but of course that's on the BBC so can't be believed) - their conclusion? It depends how you look at it.
It's possible there's a slight flow of money from Scotland but it's not really significant if it exists at all.
I tend to ignore your posts irrespective of numbers
HTH
Bit uncalled for.
aracer - Member
BTW what I actually take from it is that pensions is where it was lost.
Which might be a valid point if it wasn't that your figures were wrong and the under 65s actually voted No. As I showed up there - is everybody ignoring it due to too many numbers?
You are actually correct. Its if you count the over 55s. I obviously picked that up wrong.
Which I don't think invalidates my points about pensions and media.
This point concerning over 55 pensioners?
It was allowed to put doubt in the minds of pensioners that their pensions would go down.
Sherry +1. Absolutely sick of newspapers etc constantly vilifying yes supporters , and the endless stream of errors from the BBC, which I put down to budget cuts coupled with the constant requirement for BBC Scotland to refer to London when making a policy decision,the frequent covering of the referendum on a party political basis ie with 3 from the no side and 1 from Yes. The straw that broke the camels back for me was the coverage last saturday which presented the yes rally in Buchanan St as being a couple of dozen people when the reality was there were thosands. So cancelled my licence last Saturday.
Bit uncalled for.
What was? 😕
pensions eventually affect everyone.aracer - Member
This point concerning over 55 pensioners?
Tbh the referendum is over. Is there any will to discuss this without point scoring?
I know we've done to death about pensioners and how they were sucked in by the evil media and threats about their pensions
but according to the final poll (and bearing in mind here that there was no formal exit poll, so it seems to be the closest we've got) The pensioners were not the only group who voted majority No, in fact it appears that the only group who voted majority Yes were the 25-39's males
It also indicates that there were more problems with Yes campaigners acting unreasonably at polling stations than No campaigners...
I assume you guys will stop reading all the national papers and watching any sport, drama, current affairs etc. They all saw through AS and made no hiding of where they stood.
No sneaking in for a quick watch of the 6N or BBC news on your computers.
The Courier will keep you happy I am sure.
Personally I watch all media. One reports things others wont on an issue by issue basis. You eventually get accustomed to spotting the bullshit.
I dont pay for it mind, **** that! 😆
With regards to the bbc their bias has been known to me for a long, long time.
Thm I actually very much agree with your point about history earlier.
Ah, theft.
Probably, ive never paid a license fee, never will.
"With the benefits and privileges of being in government the SNP controlled the legislative timetable. They spent large amounts public money, through publications and other means, on preparing the ground for the referendum. Some would even say that this part of the process involved a not-so-covert politicisation of parts of the Scottish civil service in the nationalist cause.
With the backing of multi-millionaires and billionaires the SNP had the money to outspend every other party combined, with cash left over to recruit and aid many splinter groups in support of their cause, giving the impression of broad political support for the break-up of the UK where none had existed before.
With an unpopular Tory Government in Westminster they had the perfect scapegoat to blame for every ill. They controlled the question on the ballot paper and they controlled the timetable and the timing of the vote. They chose a long campaign and a date to benefit from the feel-good factor from the Commonwealth Games and to coincide with the publicly-funded celebration of the anniversary of the battle at Bannockburn. They benefited from having the slickest election team and most expensive software to target voters and promise them whatever it took to persuade them to vote Yes.
There has never been, nor ever will be again, such a perfect confluence of factors in favour of the SNP gaining its dream result. Even so, they failed to get a majority. The inescapable fact is that, despite almost every factor being weighted in favour of the Yes campaign, the Scottish people turned out in vast numbers to reject independence."
The damning conclusion that just about wraps it up.
Ninfan your link also shows that people were more likely to find yes supporters acting reasonably at polling stations
All this talk of media bias, and yet none on the fact that the vote was purposely tilted in the favour of a Yes vote, by the fact that only current residents of Scotland could vote.
So people who aren't Scottish by any definition but happen to currently be living there (they could be from anywhere in the EU) were allowed to vote, but people who were born in Scotland but now happen to live and work in other parts of the UK were not allowed to vote.
The reason for this (this is purely my theory), is that the SNP know that the majority of those Scottish people who now happen to be living and working in other parts of the UK would probably want to vote No due to the fact being part of the Union works for them (or something like that).
Tbh the referendum is over. Is there any will to discuss this without point scoring?
I dunno - you're the one trying to make points about the older people voting the wrong way because they're scared. Or am I just supposed to let you get on with posting any old rubbish - BTW your 54% suggestion doesn't stand up for under 55s using the Ashcroft figures either - I make it 51% Yes assuming equal numbers voting for each year of age.
according to the final poll
Interesting, and significantly different to the [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll ]Lord Ashcroft poll[/url] (which had a rather higher proportion of over 65s voting yes). I wonder why the difference, or is it just that all these polls are unreliable?
Dream on THM 😆
I will, and on that note, good night. Sleep well!
So much anti Scottish sentiment in here saddens me. Used to really enjoy here but given that my presence is so evidently loathed, I can only think that I should leave.
So much anti Scottish sentiment in here
Really? Some anti-SNP sentiment, but that's hardly the same thing.
Just as us non-Scottish people didn't want Scotland to leave, we don't want the Scottish to leave. (ninja edit) I also love Scotland and the Scottish
Where's the anti-Scottish sentiment? I love Scotland.
There may be some truth in some of the stuff Yes supporters are saying but stating it as if it's fact is ridiculous. So are some of the patronising at best and nasty at worst generalisations about No voters and their motivations.
If anyone can produce any evidence for any of their assertions I'm all ears.