GRcade

[iup=3567081]Alvin Flummux[/iup] wrote:Why can't people get so energized about voting in normal elections?

Because the question posed in a general election isn't something the ordinary man in the street can, or want to, really have a strong, informed opinion on. There's a lot of conflated issues and no matter what you vote for they're probably going to just do what they want once they get into office anyway.

This is a much simpler question that just about any booze soaked pisshound can understand and interact with. Granted, it has a lot of attached questions, but there's a single core issue that's easy to grasp.

[iup=3567127]TheTurnipKing[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3567081]Alvin Flummux[/iup] wrote:Why can't people get so energized about voting in normal elections?

Because the question posed in a general election isn't something the ordinary man in the street can, or want to, really have a strong, informed opinion on. There's a lot of conflated issues and no matter what you vote for they're probably going to just do what they want once they get into office anyway.

This is a much simpler question that just about any booze soaked pisshound can understand and interact with. Granted, it has a lot of attached questions, but there's a single core issue that's easy to grasp.

And this is a big problem in my opinion as I think a lot of votes will just be using no brainpower at all and salmond is going for that .He has no actual plan for the currency ,income ,the EU and time frames to progress things if it is yes .He just seems to be psyching people up and hoping they say yes,sadly this is splitting people heavily in Scotland and creating an actual divide in a country supposedly united in salmond's eyes.

I haven't paid much attention to this whole thing, as to be frank I can't see it affecting my day to day life, but over the past few days I've been listening to some of the things Cameron and Co have been saying and they haven't got a single point which strikes me as a compelling reason for Scots to vote no. They seem to be sticking to scaremongering and "change is bad."


"Your mortgages will be held in a foreign country!"

To which the only sane response is "That's alright, they won't take our currency anyway!"

[iup=3567073]Meep[/iup] wrote:If Yes actually pulls off a victory it will be the most astounding triumph of democratic will I've ever seen. I mean, almost the entire media is on-board with Better Together (I think the Scottish Herald is the only publication that has come out for yes) and the UK government has rallied captains of industry to their cause (presumably motivated to protect their profit margins within the scandalously generous tax and land laws of the UK). IMO, it's pretty amazing that things are still so close. If it had been a fair fight then the yes side would be certain to win. If they still do in spite of the media and corporate machinery arrayed against them it will be quite the achievement.

In what way has it not been 'a fair fight'?

Many industries have had good economic and business reasons for supporting the No campaign. What are they supposed to do? Keep completely quiet so that the voting public are unable to make an informed decision? Should there have just been no information from either side?

Get this Scotland crap off my screen. That's my vote.

[iup=3567196]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3567073]Meep[/iup] wrote:If Yes actually pulls off a victory it will be the most astounding triumph of democratic will I've ever seen. I mean, almost the entire media is on-board with Better Together (I think the Scottish Herald is the only publication that has come out for yes) and the UK government has rallied captains of industry to their cause (presumably motivated to protect their profit margins within the scandalously generous tax and land laws of the UK). IMO, it's pretty amazing that things are still so close. If it had been a fair fight then the yes side would be certain to win. If they still do in spite of the media and corporate machinery arrayed against them it will be quite the achievement.

In what way has it not been 'a fair fight'?

Many industries have had good economic and business reasons for supporting the No campaign. What are they supposed to do? Keep completely quiet so that the voting public are unable to make an informed decision? Should there have just been no information from either side?

I am shocked that businesses would choose to back the side that they feel would be most financially beneficial to them. Surely they would accept lower profit margins just so that some people could paint their faces and shout freedom!

[iup=3567170]degoose[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3567127]TheTurnipKing[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3567081]Alvin Flummux[/iup] wrote:Why can't people get so energized about voting in normal elections?

Because the question posed in a general election isn't something the ordinary man in the street can, or want to, really have a strong, informed opinion on. There's a lot of conflated issues and no matter what you vote for they're probably going to just do what they want once they get into office anyway.

This is a much simpler question that just about any booze soaked pisshound can understand and interact with. Granted, it has a lot of attached questions, but there's a single core issue that's easy to grasp.

And this is a big problem in my opinion as I think a lot of votes will just be using no brainpower at all and salmond is going for that .He has no actual plan for the currency ,income ,the EU and time frames to progress things if it is yes .He just seems to be psyching people up and hoping they say yes,sadly this is splitting people heavily in Scotland and creating an actual divide in a country supposedly united in salmond's eyes.

Well, given that most of the power is currently in Westminster, I'd have thought that there isn't actually all that much for Salmond to do about most of this stuff until independence. Most of the issues depend rather heavily on what deals will be struck and what will be traded off. I could see the currency question and the matter of the nuclear defences being closely balanced. Equally likely, I could see an arrangement on currency being reached, trading off years of total fiscal autonomy for a currency union lasting x number of years.

An equally good question is why the Westminster doesn't appear to be presenting any plans and timetables for the eventuality that this goes ahead.

[iup=3567209]Return_of_the_STAR[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3567196]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3567073]Meep[/iup] wrote:If Yes actually pulls off a victory it will be the most astounding triumph of democratic will I've ever seen. I mean, almost the entire media is on-board with Better Together (I think the Scottish Herald is the only publication that has come out for yes) and the UK government has rallied captains of industry to their cause (presumably motivated to protect their profit margins within the scandalously generous tax and land laws of the UK). IMO, it's pretty amazing that things are still so close. If it had been a fair fight then the yes side would be certain to win. If they still do in spite of the media and corporate machinery arrayed against them it will be quite the achievement.

In what way has it not been 'a fair fight'?

Many industries have had good economic and business reasons for supporting the No campaign. What are they supposed to do? Keep completely quiet so that the voting public are unable to make an informed decision? Should there have just been no information from either side?

I am shocked that businesses would choose to back the side that they feel would be most financially beneficial to them. Surely they would accept lower profit margins just so that some people could paint their faces and shout freedom!

That is an absolute melter of a post, considering dozens of business leaders have also come out on the side of yes. You're better than that.

SchminkyPinky wrote:I have my fingers crossed for a no but I wouldn't say I'm confident that will be the result.

You traitor.

Are pubs in Scotland not open on a Friday or something?

[iup=3567245]Lucien[/iup] wrote:I think a Thursday night, all the pubs open through the night... great time for a vote.

Friday night is very calm... great time to reflect as a nation.

Eh?

I don't see anything wrong with my summation there. If you count up the publications backing no then "one sided" is putting mildly. I suppose this might explain why younger voters are more inclined to vote yes. They do not read old media and more influenced by social media, in which the yes campaign has had the edge in I think.

Is there any threshold by which the election has to be won by? Like could a single vote decide it or does it need to be a certain number of points each way to be considered a result?

[iup=3567262]Lucien[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3567254]Corazon de Leon[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3567245]Lucien[/iup] wrote:I think a Thursday night, all the pubs open through the night... great time for a vote.

Friday night is very calm... great time to reflect as a nation.

Eh?

Sorry, I'd have made it clearer but I'm walking with my phone.

My friend said pubs are being allowed opened later tomorrow because of the vote. I'm questioning the wisdom of that idea, whilst thinking Friday is the worst night (along with Saturday night) for this nation to deal with the result. Especially if it's a 'No' vote.

And they don't wanna be British

First thing Britons do is get pissed at any chance! If you loose drown the sorrows, if you win, drink it up.

I like it

There'll probably be riots whatever happens, to be honest. I'd be surprised if it passes peacefully based on how deep the divides are.

[iup=3567256]Meep[/iup] wrote:I don't see anything wrong with my summation there. If you count up the publications backing no then "one sided" is putting mildly. I suppose this might explain why younger voters are more inclined to vote yes. They do not read old media and more influenced by social media, in which the yes campaign has had the edge in I think.

Or maybe there's more support behind the No campaign in mainstream media because there are more reasons to vote No than vote Yes?
If it was reversed and newspapers/businesses had thrown their support behind the Yes campaign, would you still be declaring how unfair it was?

[iup=3567256]Meep[/iup] wrote:I don't see anything wrong with my summation there. If you count up the publications backing no then "one sided" is putting mildly. I suppose this might explain why younger voters are more inclined to vote yes. They do not read old media and more influenced by social media, in which the yes campaign has had the edge in I think.

Er... younger voters are more likely to vote no according to the reports I've seen. Which is surprising, I'll grant you.

[iup=3567287]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3567256]Meep[/iup] wrote:I don't see anything wrong with my summation there. If you count up the publications backing no then "one sided" is putting mildly. I suppose this might explain why younger voters are more inclined to vote yes. They do not read old media and more influenced by social media, in which the yes campaign has had the edge in I think.

Or maybe there's more support behind the No campaign in mainstream media because there are more reasons to vote No than vote Yes?
If it was reversed and newspapers/businesses had thrown their support behind the Yes campaign, would you still be declaring how unfair it was?

I certainly would. Sections of the media have behaved so disgracefully towards the yes campaign that they actually had the opposite effect on me and helped switch my vote from No to Yes.

[iup=3567291]Corazon de Leon[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3567287]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3567256]Meep[/iup] wrote:I don't see anything wrong with my summation there. If you count up the publications backing no then "one sided" is putting mildly. I suppose this might explain why younger voters are more inclined to vote yes. They do not read old media and more influenced by social media, in which the yes campaign has had the edge in I think.

Or maybe there's more support behind the No campaign in mainstream media because there are more reasons to vote No than vote Yes?
If it was reversed and newspapers/businesses had thrown their support behind the Yes campaign, would you still be declaring how unfair it was?

I certainly would. Sections of the media have behaved so disgracefully towards the yes campaign that they actually had the opposite effect on me and helped switch my vote from No to Yes.

Elements of the Yes campaign are equally guilty of that disgraceful behaviour though, perhaps even moreso.

The yes campaign is biased towards yes?