2007 - 2021

Better Together Campaign

better together_0This presentation by Rob Shorthouse is remarkable for a number of reasons, not least astonishing levels of assumption-making and self-deception (which we’ll explore fully in a subsequent blog). But thanks to eagle-eyed Alistair Davidson for spotting the admission about how ‘Better Together had “banks of people” at HQ organised in “twitter squads” (about 13m in)’.

But – but – check what he says about “the 30%” 5m in – far more important than the confirmation glee about BT dirty tricks. It’s by far the most important thing anyone who is pro-independence will reflect on this week or next.

The reality is that the Yes Movement has been (and is) talking (proudly and passionately) to the 45 not the 30%. As long as we do this we will fail.

This is uncomfortable but also undeniable.

Every action, every march, every tweet, every poster that ignores this simple fact is a complete waste of energy.

Comments (59)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. richard says:

    So BT on 40% increased to 55% gain of 15%, YES on 30% increased to 45% gain of 15% that means the undecided 30% broke right down the middle. What a shit campaign they actually ran. Always likely to win, despite themselves.

    1. True, the key point is still engaging people who dont but might agree with you not just those who already do agree

      1. Donald McGregor says:

        I agree too! And it wasn’t a great presentation – but interesting to imagine / foresee how some of that solidarity stuff from ref1 will surely play very poorly next time around?

        Like Richard says though – undecideds broke straight down the middle. Maybe that’s what will always happen, no matter what campaign is run?

        And does it mean that we really need to be addressing only the 15% that swayed to no? There needs to simply be a solid, bigger, block of decided yes when it kicks off again.

  2. Ali says:

    From his own data BT won half of the 30% we won the other half. BT had all of the MSM most of the money and the British state behind them. Yet we won half of these floating voters. Also from the opinion polls the majority of the 30% started not as neutrals but as soft Nos. Every opinion poll bears this out. This was great achievement. We made mistakes but we made fewer than the likes of Shorthouse who turned a large lead into a near defeat for his team. So lets not rewrite history. We didn’t achieve 45% vote by talking to ourselves. If thats what we did we’d have lost by a much bigger margin .
    I agree that for the past two years we have been talking to ourselves. And that has led to dramatic gains in GE and in the membership growth of independence supporting parties. We have maintained ourselves in the face of a defeat and are ready for the next round. Yes we will need to look outwards and convince soft Nos to join us when campaigning restarts and I have every confidence we can and will do this. The lesson I would learn is targeting those most likely to come to us. This may not be pensioners.

    1. Graeme Purves says:

      It may not be pensioners, but the fact remains that the failure to engage persuasively with the concerns of pensioners was one of the most glaring shortcomings of the Yes campaign. We need to do a lot better with this demographic next time. Older people are not intrinsically hostile to the idea of independence, but they need convincing reassurance about the security of their pension incomes.

      1. Andrew says:

        We could do worse than to look closely at how the Irish Marriage Equality campaign focused on pensioners – a big focus on getting older voices to talk about why they were voting Yes and a lot of messaging to younger folks to tell them to discuss with their older relatives why this was important for them. And BT got away too easily with their lies about pensions.

        Overall though not such a bad message for Yes2 to not get stuck in tribalism/self-righteousness and to build an open campaign that will win over the middle 30 or so.

      2. tartanfever says:

        ‘the fact remains that the failure to engage persuasively with the concerns of pensioners was one of the most glaring shortcomings of the Yes campaign’

        In the vast majority of elections pensioners don’t vote for change – they vote to protect their assets (pensions, savings, etc). The exception to the rule was Brexit, where they did vote to leave. They believed the leave campaign rhetoric – immigration, wasted money, too many EU regulations and influence, but only because they have had years of “Britishness’ directly broadcast at them.

        My opinion, don’t concentrate anymore or less on pensioners, concentrate on the younger vote and get them to persuade their grandparents. ‘You voted No and with the consequences, my life chances have been diminished with Brexit’ or ‘You deserve your pension, that was part of the state contract with you. I won’t get a state pension by the time I get to your age under the current political trajectory of the UK and I’ll have to pay for healthcare’

        It’s what I’d do anyway.

        1. MBC says:

          totally agree. The way to handle the pensioners is to get their grandchildren to talk to them. I know one pensioner – a Conservative voter – who voted Yes – because he is a decent guy, and he reasoned that since it was the younger generation that would have to live with the consequences, that he ought to respect their inclinations rather than his own. So he spoke to his kids and his grandkids and they were for Yes, so he voted Yes too. Total respect for the guy for doing that.

      3. Keith Muir says:

        Cant we just bribe the pensioners next time offer them a 3 or 5 year increase in pensions for voting yes. That guarantees better together would have to offer a similar deal a promise everyone including pensioners know they wont keep.

  3. ScotsEngineer says:

    You’re absolutely right about the middle 30%. What I don’t see is whether there has been any recognition within Yes, and in particular the SNP that this is where the campaign was lost.

    The 2min film is interesting 2y on. I remember it at the time and while identifying positively with many of the messages, the underlying “don’t risk it” was obvious and it seemed full of half-truths delivered by a Labour Party not in power then or now for an industrial and entrepreneurial Scotland that did exist before the Tories won in 79. It seems a bigger con trick now, and in fact refuels my anger at the Labour Party in Scotland, that they were taken in by the Tories and destroyed their political capital in the progress.

    1. Rab McKeith says:

      Indeed, labour presented the tory’s message to labour supporters knowing it to be false.

      That’s why darling picked up his honour, how ironic, a man with no honour is awarded an honour.

  4. ronald alexander mcdonald says:

    The Yes movement has to produce an innovative post oil economic plan , bearing in mind the large deficit.

    That, I believe, will make or break an Independence vote.

    1. Bert Logan says:

      There is no large deficit.

      There is only an MSM that has told you that. Figures controlled by Westminster, and some of the ‘leakage’ since 2014 has illustrated that there is nothing like the numbers they use.

      #indyref2 will be about a stronger media position, hammering the EU side, and offering a currency. There will be no national debt because we should walk from the pound.

      Of course, destroying that deficit myth will be one of those ‘things’. But the ‘stay with xenophobia’ ‘stay with isolation’ ‘stay with Tory forever’ ‘stay with NHS privatisation’.

      Meh – the SNP will not call this until Article 50 called, and that could be 4 years. Lets get prepared now.

    2. tartanfever says:

      ‘The Yes movement has to produce an innovative post oil economic plan , bearing in mind the large deficit.’

      Yes, but the UK has to do that to. Just ask a unionist, ‘what happens when the oil runs out – is the declining health post – brexit of the City of London really going to look after us ?’

      After all, look at the state of the post-industrial areas of North East England, the North West, the South West, South Wales and Northern Ireland – they haven’t benefitted from London as capital infrastructure spend is a small percentage of the capital’s and a highly inflated currency which works for the City kills any export led manufacturing industries that might give them some long term employment.

      How do we do this ? Simple, start writing and talking not about the UK and it’s constituent countries of Wales Scotland and N.Ireland but as regional areas with a London centre. Thats when the figures show a very different story to the one we are fed from the pro-UK organisations.

    3. Keith Muir says:

      What large deficit? 11 billion of your deficit are non cash items. No money is spent. Thats before you cut the ludicrous 2.5% of gdp defence spending.

  5. Margaret McNeil says:

    Donald McGregor is right to raise the point about how the solidarity stuff would play next time around. I see a golden opportunity to produce an updated version of the film used at the end – one which shows the reality of the Scotland’s position in the UK today.

  6. Graeme McCormick says:

    1. You thinkIndependence in everything you do as everything u do has an independence effect. You act as if you are already independent whether u are government ministers, parliamentarians, councillors or nationalists and emphasise the difference in a good way especially in reserved issues.

    2 you seek common cause with interest groups and people who may not be nationalists and build up a confidence over matters which might not appear constitional.

    3. You introduce a system of government revenue which increase public revenue but also reduces taxes substantially through a model of Annual ground rent charged per square metre and call for the end of the Barnet formula.

    4. You stop calling Scotland “wee” or “small”. It’s factually incorrect and diminishes us among those who think big is great.

    5 you provide UK service folk in Scotland with better lifestyles for their families than the MOD provides.

    6 you give every graduate of a Scottish university a voucher redeemable within 10 years of their graduation to help them start a business in Scotland. There would only be an outlay of the graduate started s business.

    7. You build a Clyde Global Port to develop shipbuilding and repairing and renewables as well as infrasturcture to connect both banks of the Lower Clyde.

    8 you give every farm time limited deemed planning consent for four homesteads of say 2 acres each to reverse rural depopulation. This would cost the public purse nothing.

    9 while Independence can raise people out of poverty you don’t play the social agenda hand to such an extent that you scare the Haves. As most folk are Haves you won’t win without most of them.


  7. Interpolar says:

    But what concerns, fears and hopes does this 30% have? In doing so, these have to be addressed. In all, they are probably considerably less left-wing than Bella in outlook, and may well be freaked out by some of the ideas promoted here. Accordingly, they must also be given a stake in independence.
    Of course, this should still not come at the cost of losing those (mainly by abstention) who voted Yes in 2014. Squaring the two will not be an easy task to pull off.

  8. Gary Elliot says:

    One of the fascinating things about this is that if the Pro Indy Campaign play it right we can take so much of BT’s previous messaging and use it in a “Scotland in the EU” way – strength, security, solidarity, working together etc etc that the “No” campaign would barely be left with anything.

  9. scottieDog says:

    Not enough answers in ref 1. Currency was a biggie as I always say to the point of sounding like a stuck record.

    We need to be talking now about how deficits are necessary to bud a nations infrastructure and how a sovereign currency is a must.

    I can cover the benefits of that with people in 30 minutes but it involves busting alot of neoliberal economic myths.

  10. Ian says:

    Spot on. Too many of the articles in BC/WoS are either debunking the ‘hit & run’ story of the day, therefore using their time arguably too late anyway since at least some damage will have been done, or preaching to the choir. I’ve never understood why the huge amount of evidence for the relentless incompetence that the UK economy has demonstrated say for the last seventy years, has not been shouted from the rooftops. This can be seen in high level ways such as the UK Trade Balance or Public Debt, or in the many detailed examples of why these two measures should be so bad. Can you think of any other country that you would see the Brexit shambles happening in. Or in which North Sea oil would be squandered. The relentless mismanagement of the UK economy is surely the main reason why Scotland needs to run it’s own affairs. Maybe pointing out the endless deficiencies of the management of the UK economy would be seen as being negative. This seems to me a bit like the archetypal dinner guest who when choking prefers to excuse themselves and go to the bathroom, where they then choke to death. The management of the UK economy has been a disaster and it needs to be exposed as such. That’s not negative it’s simply one of the major reasons we need to run our own affairs, otherwise like the dinner guest we’ll effectively commit suicide as well.

    1. Thanks Ian – except we are conscious of this and trying to first raise this issue and do something about it

    2. Doug Daniel says:

      “I’ve never understood why the huge amount of evidence for the relentless incompetence that the UK economy has demonstrated say for the last seventy years, has not been shouted from the rooftops.”

      Probably because it sounds a bit odd to be shouting about how incompetently an economy is being run when you’re simultaneously demanding to be in a formal currency union with it. I think we deprived ourselves one of our best arguments for independence because of this, although at the same time, I’m not convinced folk were quite ready to believe the argument that the UK was the true economic basket case. Fortunately, there will be no such problem next time, since it would appear the currency union angle has been kicked into touch.

      1. Ian says:

        Pre 2014 I agree that this argument was weakened by the ‘use the pound’ plan, even if that was possibly only intended to settle the markets for a few years before something else was introduced. But post 2014, which is what I’m really talking about, the currency options surely do not include anything to do with the UK pound. Besides the currency that is used is not the be all and end all. How resources are used are in my view much more important and it is with regards to that that the UK economy can be viewed as having been a dismal failure for a very long time. Selling national assets (oil, public companies, public housing etc) is not a sustainable and productive way in which to run a county. As long as the UK continues to try to be a great power (Trident, wars) living largely in the past it will be doomed to continue to follow the downward economic and social spiral of the past seventy years. Who in their right mind would want to be part of that? So lets make it as visible as possible and get the 30% who are open to switching to Yes to do so.

  11. scottieDog says:

    The talk obviously ignores the large amount of fire power that BT had – the British state and state media.

    It was never a balanced playing field. Had it been, BT would have list I reckon even work the flaws of YES.

  12. Lochside says:

    Yes the 30% is important, but Rob Shitehouse isn’t. This video is a sales pitch, and a very poor one, for a self deceiving liar. Look at his points about ‘best of both worlds’…’more powers’…erm…the ‘VOW…. LIE!…erm….security of pensions, defence, etc. etc….LIE!
    And as for social media, facebook and twitter…yeah ‘banks’ of twatterati liars backing up ‘debates’ engineered by our ‘Loyal’ media to publicly crucify outnumbered ‘YES’ spokespeople in front of heavily engineered ‘NO’ audiences…that took some engineering…but by the British State.

    This charlatan can’t even count…’Six million people in Scotland ‘…maybe he forgot he was including the bogus million postal votes. He got one thing right: the turnout was remarkable, in that the visible thousands of ‘YES’ voters were matched by……nobody ..except stage managed Labour get togethers with their tory mates. Unfortunately, the 30% of Scottish middle class, elderly and loyalists plus 10% English settlers were never going to vote ‘YES’ anyway..nevermind Rob Shortarse and his cronies message…and became the silent majority when the vote was counted..but the only ones who celebrated were the Red and Blue Tories….now all sadly deposed…oh and I forgot about the ragged arse ones in George SQ….Yeah those that like to burn their country’s flag.

    The 30% undecided split into those who were angry at the message coming from the media mafia of BBC, STV and all the 17 x newspapers plus Gordon Brown’s unprecedented live message on BBC…in complete breach of purdah and the BBC’s own Charter for ‘balance’. One half realised it was propaganda on a titanic scale and voted ‘YES’ , the other half played safe and settled for the status quo..or so they thought.

    I think that pathetic film that Rob Shortfarse’s was so proud of would make a great ‘short’ (in recognition of it’s author’s name) for the next REF..but this time with subtitles stating ‘LIE’ underneath each frame with a short statement of how each statement has been totally refuted by subsequent events.’ And.’..(see what I did there?).. I think Gordy Broon’s bit should have ‘Lying Cunt’ specially emblazoned underneath his slack jawed performance.

    The revelation that Neil Oliver’s statement created 7 million twats (sorry did I mishear?) across the globe figured. YES we need to win over the 30% in the middle, but we will do it by taking every stinking lie that this shyster highlighted in his cringeworthy presentation and turning it on its head, by telling the truth.

  13. David says:

    What hit me during Indy1 was the Yes and SNP were always having to be ‘reactive’. A pronouncment or claim would come from Westminster or by an ex Diplomat, ex MP or what-have-you and while that one was being corrected or answered, the next pro-union claim was out there.
    Lots and lots of time was spent doing this and it made pro-indy camp look always on the back foot and running to catch up.

    Not sure what can be done about this but the experiences and lessons from Indy1 must be reflected in a new approach to Indyref2.

    As someone else pointed out, the 45% we got was nothing short of astonishing given the forces ranged against us. We were within 6% of a Yes vote – 6% !. We will do it next time.

    1. Colin Mackay says:

      Because we were on the back foot as the Indy Ref came about so quickly.(nothing could be done about that)
      Exactly why we should be building now, watertight answers on economy, pensions and tax backed up with research and then solid foundations for the future. Needs to begin right now and from everyone, not only The SNP who will deliver the referendum but don’t have the freedom to do this.
      Why can’t we all get together and crowdfund research into economy/currency, through Commonweal perhaps? Build on what research is available and get people on board with the expertise required, not only looking at Plan A, but B and C too. From there figure out the best way to go and then look at why we have arrived there and what criticism it may be open to.

    2. tartanfever says:

      ‘Yes and SNP were always having to be ‘reactive’. A pronouncment or claim would come from Westminster or by an ex Diplomat, ex MP or what-have-you and while that one was being corrected or answered, the next pro-union claim was out there.’

      And that is the real power of the media. They choose who to put on and when and what the story is. There is nothing you can do about this.

      Think about it now. How often do you see Jeremy Corbyn getting his chance to speak up against the never ending deluge of anti-Corbyn voices interviewed on news programmes or press articles ? It’s the same strategy.

      Here’s a rhetorical question.

      Do you think anyone in Scotland would have been persuaded to vote Yes in 2014 if all they watched was BBC news coverage ?

      Obviously the answer is No. So why didn’t the SNP/Yes movement start playing tough/awkward with them? There are approaches you can use that would have been far more effective than the compliancy we gave to media.

  14. Gordon Bickerton says:

    Neil Oliver is a television presenter, archaeologist and author. He is best known as a presenter of several BBC documentary series, including A History of Scotland, Vikings and Coast. His long hair is a distinguishing feature. Wikipedia

    Not a historian then?

    Typical of the lies perpetrated, we will be better prepared for ref2.
    So many of us in the class of ’14 were new to this. Now we’re battle hardened + the lies of BT are easy to quote, we have proof.

  15. john young says:

    Why has there been an inquiry into the media lies and abuse of Jeremy Corbyn yet nothing about their actions in the run up to indy1.?

    1. Gordon Bickerton says:

      Our present system of UK government allows ignoring rules, (Cameron’s pay off of advisors) goes unchallenged by Westminster.

      1. c rober says:

        And why then has there not been calls for those in power during the Mcrone report about denying Scotland independence and truth about the value of NSO?

        Surely this is worthy of the World court , and would therefore be a tool in the box with Indy 2?

        If Holyrood want to be taken seriously then its something they should be pursuing , thorn in the side politics , warfare against Westminster.

  16. S Tilbury says:

    I think some people here may be slightly missing the point. No one, least of all Bella, is suggesting that BT ran a good campaign that we should try to emulate in any way. But the point about the campaign being aimed at the 30% of persuadables really is a crucial one.

    There is a second crucial point too. That 40% who were in the bag for No at the start of the campaign might have been peed off by the BT campaign for not being “British” enough, but I doubt anyone at BT was seriously worried their votes would be lost. I think we on the Yes side have more of a problem there because our original 30% most certainly includes a contingent of ideological purists who appear willing to shoot themselves in the foot, and our half of the middle 30% includes some of the RISE types who clearly displayed similar inclinations earlier this year.

    So I think the Yes2 campaign has a very difficult path to tread, and the starting point is that we cannot – must not – assume that we are starting with a baseline of 45%. Once the shape of the post EU UK is clear then the canvassing work must start again from scratch. No assumptions, nothing taken for granted. And we might have to let some of the more intransigent of the 45% go for the sake of the bigger picture.

    1. MBC says:

      But isn’t that just the point? The ‘baseline of the new post Brexit UK’ isn’t at all clear and will not be for some years. We have been in the EU 43 years. Those who voted No last time voted for the status quo. It wasn’t an anti-Scottish vote, it was a safety-first vote for security and stability.

      Bonker Britain post Brexit isn’t safety or security. So how will these folks now jump?

      We have to get the word out that we are far safer determining our own future rather than being at England’s beck and call, for whatever it decides.

  17. Awkwardboy says:

    So thats how you take 70% support at the begining and grind it down to the winning 55.4%, interesting.

  18. against feudalism says:

    The media has not ceased the campaign of lies and innuendo against Independence, and will not while we are a threat. I don’t think any of us were prepared for the bile that was ‘better together’, but having seen it in 2014 and the general election, we saw how it failed in the EU referendum. Crying wolf too many times turned on them.

    But, it is up to us to have all our ducks in a row, currency, central bank, national debt vs. tax income/expenditure, civil service etc. Why we don’t have a more radical form of land Reform ready yet, I do not know? LVT or AGR would seem to be a ‘no brainer’ to me.

    Aspects of the Danish property law seem sensible, 5 years of residency before you can buy property, punitive tax on ‘holiday homes’ etc.

    There should be nobody in Scotland ‘afraid’ of Independence ( well, apart from the land owners ).

    1. c rober says:

      What about the little known Lux law on only natural born residents can vote in elections? Would have thought though the EU would have something to say about that. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-luxembourg-foreigners-idUSKBN0ON0PH20150607

      That rules out 480k English born voters if argued to be used in Indy 2 , and surprisingly is around the numerical difference that was needed for a swing to 51 percent for yes. But we also have a population that is made up of other nationals , Indian , Asian , Eu , that perhaps would have been an indy asset. But I am sure that the SNP have number crunchers up to the task…. cough.

      I suspect though that for the pensioner vote this time around project fear will be turned in on itself , where Holyrood and the SNP will offer up the proof and numbers that only indy can protect those things that matter , an easy job considering the lies during BTPF , ie nhs cuts and privatization , lower pensions , increased pension age and private pension pots dropping 30 percent , tax office job losses , and frigates being mothballed.

      Once article 50 is triggered , hopefully the SNP have learned why they failed first time around , which will result in 45 or so p45s.

      Expecting the EU to aid indy is not an option , if anything the three major Partners seem to have circled the wagons , Spain with a Catalan precedent , France and Germany looking to be the next big financial hub thus preventing Scotland from being it. So this would make sense to go for the option I mentioned in another topic , the EU II of consisting of NI , Norway , Faroe , Denmark , Iceland and so on…. and with it increased and better trade deals for all of those countries.

      1. S Tilbury says:

        Exclude English born voters and you lose this Yesser along with quite a few others I know. Maybe have a think about that?

        1. c rober says:

          I know S , hence my comment , supposedly 25 percent of the 480k voted for yes , mostly Students and or ex Students that studied in Scotland , hence my argument that it may not be as good as some think that post the maths on other sites.

          The other immigrant community , if English born can be considered immigrant lol , is that of the Indian continent , whom in the majority seemed to be yessers , as were the poles whom came in next demographically.

          Just highlighting that there is an EU precedent here with regard to Luxembourg , not advocating its use , as it can also backfire just as easily being a tool . No offence meant.

          1. MBC says:

            Do the math. If there was an 85% turn out amongst the 480,000 English born, and 75% of them voted No, that’s 306,000 No votes. So, OK, another 306,000 No votes becoming Yes votes might have pipped it (as 2.01 million voted No; 1.6 million voted Yes). Except…. no segment of the electorate ever voted 100% for one position! So it’s mathematically unreasonable to anticipate that these 306,000 No votes would have become Yes votes, had the voters been less prejudiced against Scotland, or more prejudiced in favour of the UK. We might hope to have persuaded half that number (153,000) but that wouldn’t have taken us across the threshold.

            Nope, sorry, but the single biggest group that damned us was the 1 million pensioners aged 65+. On an 85% turnout, that’s 850,000 pensioner votes cast. If 75% of them voted No that’s 637,000 No votes.

            But the plain fact remains that if every other age group and sector had voted over 60% for Yes, it would have swept away these large No votes. Instead of blaming pensioners and the English born, we need to look at Scots born under the age of 65! That’s the group that failed!

          2. c rober says:

            MBC , i never meant changing their minds , persuading them , but the removal of votes instead. The Lux model.

            Something that does make the maths a lot more appealing and an even closer call. taking 360k from 2.1 million , but at the same time taking away 120k from 1.6, meaning 1.8m and 1.5 ish respectively… a 300k change needed is better than a 500k one. Mathematically its a 3x gain for 120k loss.

            But you are right there is still a major hurdle with the pensioner vote and importantly the affluent working voter , however with Aberdeen and the oil price in the meantime that mindset will change with the ability to have NSO levers in Holyrood instead of Westminster , even more so if Trident enables gas fracking on the Clyde powering Hunterston and where those jobs could be reallocated during low oil price.

            The only way for change there is to protect pensions , the Nhs , to formulate a currency and a state central bank…. without those answers I fear that the result will actually widen in the no camp. And should the SNP state that without indy a return to paid prescriptions must happen to safeguard reduced income for Hospitals , the SNP need to know that it will be warfare on Holyrood at every oppotunity for the devolved powers to fail.

            We need to remind pensioners of private pensions going to the wall weekly , and that late life care will have to be funded , private or social assited living , where Westminster will call for the removal of homes or increase inheritance tax instead to fund it.

            But should we also be asking whether the age of pensioners as a voting force should be prevented in the future? In the next 30 years they will be even more so the mass of the voting population , making democratic mandates that affect them , for protecting pensions and increasing working taxes to maintain their income from an ever dwindling working population due to lower birth rates and preventing immigration?

          3. MBC says:

            For goodness sakes, you can’t seriously be suggesting that older voters should not be allowed to vote!? The key issue is communication and education, not age. Most of the over 65s don’t do social media or blogs, they were getting their ‘information’ from the MSM. There was nothing wrong with their brains, it was their technology/information source. But that gap is narrowing, and more should be done to get pensioners online. In many countries they help the oldies with getting au fait with the new technology. Second, in that generation, only 5% ever went to university, now nearly 50% of 18s go. But the number of those educated to degree level increases with younger age groups. But the quickest route to the oldies is through the heart – get their grandchildren to plead with them not to deny them their future. The future of the young should not be sacrificed for the ignorance of the old. But in this case the ignorance of the old was caused by rapid and revolutionary changes in technology.

          4. MBC says:

            PS I’m 64 and I voted Yes. I am friendly with a 98 year old, sharp as a tack, but not online, so not informed, and I was telling her all about TTIP, and about the corporations being able to sue elected governments in secret courts if this goes ahead, and she very gladly signed the petition. Once I explained it to her, she was as incensed as any 18 year old! Intergenerational communication is very important, but how many kids bother with their grandparents? Can’t they spare them five minutes now and then? That’s all it would take.

          5. c rober says:

            MBC > I know ban the pensioner is wrong , but I have just thrown it out there , to show that there is talk of such a thing , and as reported the Lux model…. where would it stop , is it Turkish Democracy? In my larger family there is many pensioners , were most are working class irish scots that chose indy , and not for their grandchildren as a primary concern.

            You will probably know already I do just do a devils advocate at times , or cat among the pigeons to harness a point , usually the one at the extreme end sometimes to show the stupidity of the argument itself. However I have read and heard many Indy supporters suggesting both the Lux resident model by birth as a voting criteria , and of course many that blame the oap for self service since 14.

            I often mention logans run and solyent green , but we do have to ask sooner rather than later when will the point of no return happen with age related mandated democracy , and protection based voting over the generations under them thus expected to fund a lifestyle promised to them their entire working life.

            You are right though education to come into the fold is probably the best option , hence why I suggested it above , to show the absurd lies of Brexit and Indy were one and the same can only be gained by wanting to be educated.

            But many of my Scottish neighbours , are in an affluent area which has neither time for change nor any other mindset than Old gaurd tory.

            As long as Holyrood and the SNP sit back and take it , not redressing the legal process against the media themselves , then it will always be that way , so why no change for punitive measures and a non self adminstered press complaints body by Holyrood considering they make legislation?

  19. tartanfever says:

    How many people reading this article believe that the ‘No’ campaign started off with a low 40% ?

    Yes, exactly, absolutely no-one. This is a man trying to show that his campaign gained support rather than lose it for his own career.

    The one thing BT were excellent at was winding us up and wasting our time by diverting attention away from our agenda. It looks like they’re still doing it quite effectively.

    With that in mind, where’s the bloody article ‘mobile phone roaming charges going through the roof on Brexit’ that I can show to my unionist neighbour as an example of whats coming down the line when we leave Europe ?

  20. MBC says:

    What a loathsome little t**d. Sorry. Scotland the door mat.

  21. MBC says:

    I don’t think a single voter was persuaded by the more powers for Scotland lie. I think they were persuaded by fear – fear of what independence might mean and comfort in better the devil you know – and loathing of the SNP and nationalism, in part because they hadn’t a scoobie about what the Yes campaign was about. I am still meeting No voters who had no grasp of the choice we faced, so politically disengaged were they and ingrained in their prejudices about nationalism and Scotland. Too wee, too poor, too stupid, etc. Politicisation only went so far.

    I hear what you are saying Mike about the undecideds and I agree there is no point us being in a Yes bubble, we have to reach out. But I think the number of undecideds won’t be 30% next time round, the debate normalised the idea of independence.

    The fact is Mike that not everbody lives and breathes politics. Some people just want a shallow, comfortable life where they don’t have to think too much. Sad but true. If you make them think they hate you for it. These are the folks who will vote for the status quo come what may.

  22. Hugh Loughlan says:

    It concerns me that some people in the independence movement are prepared to look at ways of excluding the right of some resident groups to vote. I believe that silencing, for example, people not born in Scotland is dangerous. We shouldn’t be looking for ways to gag people who don’t agree with independence at the same time as railing against the MSM for doing just thatin reverse. Equally, I find the notion that older people failed the YES movement disturbing. Many people simply weren’t persuaded. The task for any supporter of independence is to persuade but not to blame or marginalise. It is true that not everyone lives and breathes politics nor that they embrace the idea that it might matter in their lives. However, it is my experience of the first referendum that many moved towards the idea that politics actually matters. For me that is the starting point. Let’s talk to each other as equals and avoid the trap of seeing supporters of the status quo as unthinking or fearful.

    1. c rober says:

      But it was already done , the exclusion of Scots born living in England , and whom wanted it that way again? Where that result of no was assured.

    2. Alf Baird says:

      It concerns me that people born elsewhere yet permitted to live and work and vote in this nation should then take it upon themselves to actively seek to thwart this nation’s and its peoples’ right to independence. Surely a more respectful stance toward a ‘host’ nation and its people would be for them to abstain, if they could not personally bring themselves to contemplate or stomach Scottish nationhood.

      1. MBC says:

        That’s what I thought too. The moral thing to do would be to abstain – unless of course you had committed yourself for life to live in Scotland, put down roots here, and you believed all the BT crap that the UK was the best deal for Scotland.

  23. Alf Baird says:

    This is just so sad, that any ‘Scotsman’ could so willingly seek to plan to subvert Scotland’s nationhood, merely on the basis of spuriously advocating supposed personal greed and a highly dubious ‘risk free’ security for the 30%, which is surely now all gone to the wind anyway. Neil Oliver ffs – what a pratt is he. Yet no words can describe Rob Shorthouse. Post independence such people will be remembered, if at all, as utterly utterly despicable.

    1. MBC says:

      Don’t give up on Neil Oliver. A No voter called Neil Oliver posted here recently and said he had been re-thinking since the EU ref and might now vote Yes. If it’s the same Neil Oliver, respect! My sister also voted No, she has a string of English friends from when she worked at the BBC in London, and rubbed shoulders with the luvvies. That kind of glamour is probably the best of British, liberal, and cosmopolitan. But it only exists in a London bubble. The real Neil Oliver admits he tends to leave practical stuff up to his wife – he is an easy-going type who has probably not really thought that much about the reality of the UK in 2016 and Scotland’s predicament in it, but the EU result and the appalling campaign seems to have opened his eyes.

      1. Neil L Oliver says:

        Hi, as I tried to indicate in my signature by the use of “Neil L Oliver”, I am not the “Neil Oliver” of TV fame. I am also an English born, Scottish living person with career based in Scotland who wishes to stay here. I voted no for many reasons that were justified.I do feel that as someone who was eligible to vote I had a moral duty to do so.

        I am not regularly involved in politics and do just want a quiet life,but I strongly object to being described as “sad” by a poster above. If Yes campaign had made its case on the currency and financial future I might have voted differently. Emotionally I was with the Yes campaign, but the grey areas of future management of Scotland lead me to vote no.

        Brexit has changed things, we now have a lot of the insecurity that was talked about in the Scottish Independence campaign anyway. Today’s UK is not the one we voted for. The case for Scottish independence is on the table again, but still has to be made to that crucial 30%.

        Discussions such as this are crucial, but don’t forget you’re on the internet, everyone can read it. You need to win my vote, so be careful how you dismiss me and people like me.

  24. lordmac says:

    If you want independence you first have to create the body parts, and fund its, secret creation, then you call for the whole of the UK to get you evicted , by using the ferage , Johnston tactics, telling just the English, how much a burdon the Scottish, are to them, how much we cost them in taxes then let them rattle this about there head, and they will want to get rid. if they believed in what it cost them you don’t need to quote figures, just the begging state or burdon and the English will drop you like a Stone Lie If you. Like just like them. And. Mention how many jocks that are stealing there jobs, and you will have your independence delivered and the Scottish vote would be a bonus. As for jobs and costs, then if they came back and stated they need Scotland, it then would prove we are not a burdon and we could manage on our own and no spin or think tank could breach us going it a lone.

    1. c rober says:

      Most of the diatribe I read on other groups and forums is exactly what you mention , scrouingin scots , wee krankie usually in the same sentence , with the added cherry of the English should have a vote to too to become England once more.

      Sounds all so similar to 30 years of blaming the EU , and that fart eventually turned into a shart.

  25. old battle says:

    Scottish politics is served with 63 MSPs & 56 MPs , a considerable resource when all their support staff, funding, civil servants and party members are added.
    What I want to see is a joint yes joint task force from both MPs and MSPs with a primary and urgent focus on preparing a Post-Indi Sustainable Micr0-Economic Development Plan for each and every constituency.
    Let this be a community project with genuine public participation ensuring that the various demographics are well represented.

  26. Scotfree says:

    Given that this sleekest individual life has been the packaging of lies do you really believe he would tell the truth to such an audience but rather bluster his own importance. His ridiculous numbers introduction doesn’t look so convincing when you correct some of the figures and add a few missing ones.
    For a start
    the starting figure for yes was more like 20%(on that basis his campaign effectively failed)
    His campaign had potentially unlimited funding from
    The British Government
    The City of London
    The E U, and so on
    The official campaign was a small part of concerted media campaign of
    All the press
    BBC and ITV
    Driving an MI5 inspired financed and inspired Fear campaign, including apparently innocuous propagandist inserts on talk shows, documentaries (such as Andrew Marr Scottish Writers and of course Neil Oliver last minute intervention and the much publicised Vow from Gordon Brown
    Since the referendum we have seen the collapse of the labour party, the collapse of the European argument, the collapse of the pound argument, and the reality of a Scotland and a Nationalist elected but not yet controlled Scotland.
    The main effort should be
    To rebuild the momentum of the yes movement
    To gain control of the message via
    Gaining control of the MSM particular by bringing the BBC under the control of the Scottish parliament
    Continuing and expanding new social media such as this
    The main message should be directed at the youth, demographically the No campaigners have already lost their majority since the referendum and even that support will weaken with the new reality of British politics sinks in with 0.05% representation in the Brush Government.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.