"More establishment pish!" Predictable (and tedious) . The things I was concerned about as a 20 something are not the things I am concerned about as a 40 something. Which won't be the things I am concerned about as a 60 something (assuming I get that far) . That certain demographic groups have particular self-interests is HUMAN NATURE. And as already made perfectly clear, if those self-interests are contrary to yours in a democratic electoral contest, then it becomes a demographic numbers game.
"You have a lot to learn, I hope you have some years left to do it." There are always a lot of things left to learn. But from what I have seen on this article, the sum amount of those things is is far far less for me than it is for you.
As I said. RDBD your is essentially a simple numerical view of the world, the reality is a little more complex. We are not talking simple YES or NO views as if there is some kind of simple formula. The view and opinions, not to mention facts, in this debate are far too numerous and complex to atribute simply to an age demographic. 30% of the Scottish electorate are over 65, within that group the views and life experiences are wide and varied. The reasons for voting NO and YES (remember 27% of them voted YES) are equally varied. We also have a number of people (possibly quite large) who effectively refused to take part at all and just voted NO for it to go away. All of this is far too complex to be explained in your usual 'economic' manner.
"your is essentially a simple numerical view of the world, the reality is a little more complex." Yes, the same kind of "simple numerical view" that the Yes campaign was presenting as their economic case, when the reality is in fact a " little more complex" . Of those that voted, the age demographic stats was compelling for the over 55s. Of those that didn't, tough. I won't even bother speculating on the opinions of those who could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote on something so fundamentally important. Perhaps you also share the same opinion on changing the electoral process to kill this particular pathetic political fallacy forever.
" If I understood this comment I would reply." You need clarification on : - how statistically significant the number of over 55s voting no may have been - why I won't waste a moment speculating on the views of those who didn't vote "to what extent were you involved in the referendum?" The same extent as an apparently significant proportion of the Scottish electorate (though for a different reason) .
I think you misunderstand my comment on those that did not want to take part. I meant they did not want to take part in the debate. They did not want the referendum BUT they DID vote and it was NO for 'go away and leave me alone'. RDBD as I have said often and to many, through no fault of your own, your view of this referendum is tainted by the information that came your way. The picture you describe is not recognisable in relation to the reality. I therefore apologise for being off hand in my reply to you, I should have remembered the situation in England.
"as I have said often and to many, through no fault of your own, your view of this referendum is tainted by the information that came your way." Sadly for you, nope. I put myself in the position of a Scottish voter who wanted clarity on the economic case. As I was capable of independently getting the necessary info myself without reference to either side of the campaign, I duly did so. And having an adequate understanding of basic macro-economics and statistics, I put what I discerned against the (non)claims of both sides. I found the Yes campaign fundamentally wanting. So much so as to vote no.
OK I can only wonder that 'your economics' did not agree with 'our economics' but once again the value of this 'science' is thrown into doubt by the lack of agreement amongst leading economists and their dreadful track record in predicting anything. Whan you look at bodies like The Institute of Fiscal Studies it quickly becomes apparent how economists fail to understand the line between fact and speculation. From the same base arguments are formed that bear little resemblence to the core facts. THis is of course what you will acuse YES of doing although I have yet to be given an example. However these arguments are now history and the realities of the NO vote are now kicking in.
And the majority of the population Spurf. North and South of the border. Mostly because its proved itself true time and time again.
Is this thread still going? I'm beginning to see the appeal of Scotland's finest export please log in to view this image
England is England and Scotland is Scotland,sometimes separated by a common language! But you have to respect a nation's request to be "their own man",so to speak. I cannot understand if part of the Ukraine are Russian,why the Ukraine government doesn't let them be part of Russia.It would make the people happy,but not the politicians I suppose. I know the Southern Irish would like the whole of Northern and Southern Ireland being one,but try telling Northern Ireland that. Have you noticed how parts of the world are going back to being independent,tribal if you like. Makes you wonder what the world map will look like in 100 years.....and White Hart Lane.......perhaps it's better off not knowing!
Scotland's request isn't to be its own man bigsmithy, its request is to be part of the union as has just been proved.
True,Thor.But I think many would like to go independent......even some of those that voted for the union.
Yes bigsmithy many would as Spurf for some reason continues to point out but I would say that those who voted no meant it.
