[Kyle]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Really, it doesn't matter whether someone is 100 years old or 16 years old as to this.

All have an equal right to decide what they see is the best way forward for them,from their perspectives, their experiences of life, how they want their Country to be.

Older people have lived longer and that is the only difference,older people have over the past few decades seen many people in just their teens and 20s killed and their lives lost, there are no guarantees as to life.
In these uncertain times where older people have seen in the past what can be achieved together with others,that was likely a factor as to how and why they voted as they did.

Younger people have a different view possibly overall of such things, so that swayed how they voted probably too.

I saw endless debates with the young voters and older voters, both sets of ages having undecided voters among them,with only a small issue likely swaying how they eventually voted.

Old people are not stupid and neither are young people,they are just all equal citizens of Scotland and now still the UK too.
They have every right,without criticism or insult,to decide how they cast their votes on any issue when asked to.

As fair and balanced as always My fellow Aquarian

[MTVN]

I think it was something like 71% of 16-17 year olds voted Yes but of the 18-24s a majority voted No

Shows how clever it was of Salmond to have the voting age lowered. Also shows the folly of youth perhaps

[user104658]

Older people are more likely to be scared and swayed by media bias (and they WERE scared and swayed by it, these opinions have been covered extensively in the run up to the referendum) and, contrary to the outdated belief that old = wise, elderly people are less likely to be assessing all of the argument because they are less likely to have access to anything other than mainstream media. Note that I say "less likely", not that this applies to all elderly people, but to say that it's not true is just... well... it's just incorrect. With the BBC and every major print newspaper being pro-union, the elderly population was immersed in that and voted accordingly.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Also shows the folly of youth perhaps

And that would be why the majority of 24 to 55 year olds - the VAST bulk of the working population - were a majority yes?

[James]

No-one knows how the age groups voted. It's not like you had to fill in your date-of-birth on the ballot paper.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

And that would be why the majority of 24 to 55 year olds - the VAST bulk of the working population - were a majority yes?

So given your gross assumption there, are you suggesting that over 55's shouldn't be allowed a vote, just because they may are may not align with your particular thinking?

Strikes me as a severe case of sour grapes, and an unwillingness to accept that others are entitled to an opinion different from your own

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Older people are more likely to be scared and swayed by media bias (and they WERE scared and swayed by it, these opinions have been covered extensively in the run up to the referendum) and, contrary to the outdated belief that old = wise, elderly people are less likely to be assessing all of the argument because they are less likely to have access to anything other than mainstream media. Note that I say "less likely", not that this applies to all elderly people, but to say that it's not true is just... well... it's just incorrect. With the BBC and every major print newspaper being pro-union, the elderly population was immersed in that and voted accordingly.

If we were to generalise you'd also tend to say that the youngest - the 16/17 year olds - are more prone to being swayed by questionable claims and emotional arguments without having full comprehension of the ramifications of their choice

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

And that would be why the majority of 24 to 55 year olds - the VAST bulk of the working population - were a majority yes?

More marginal in that age group than the 16-17 year olds though. I'd say the 18-24 year olds hesitancy is because they are the ones who would be most immediately affected by independence - naturally very concerned about job prospects etc.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by James

No-one knows how the age groups voted. It's not like you had to fill in your date-of-birth on the ballot paper.

True, the figures I'm using were just from a poll by Lord Ashcroft so they may not be entirely reliable: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/...ed-yes-4286743

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Older people are more likely to be scared and swayed by media bias (and they WERE scared and swayed by it, these opinions have been covered extensively in the run up to the referendum) and, contrary to the outdated belief that old = wise, elderly people are less likely to be assessing all of the argument because they are less likely to have access to anything other than mainstream media. Note that I say "less likely", not that this applies to all elderly people, but to say that it's not true is just... well... it's just incorrect. With the BBC and every major print newspaper being pro-union, the elderly population was immersed in that and voted accordingly.

Anyone can be swayed by media bias, in fact the older you get the more you know the media are used to sway voters and are more likely to be objective.
What does it matter what they have access to, would the internet be a better tool...facebook maybe?
I for one didn't say ALL older people are wise, it's as equally false as ALL younger voters being well informed.
Again you have no idea how anyone voted so this supposition is pointless.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

So given your gross assumption there, are you suggesting that over 55's shouldn't be allowed a vote, just because they may are may not align with your particular thinking?

Strikes me as a severe case of sour grapes, and an unwillingness to accept that others are entitled to an opinion different from your own

No, I'm only countering the claim that it was mainly the "young and naive" who voted "yes". There are strong indications that the young voted heavily yes, 18 to 24 voted more or less in line with the result (45/55 in favour of no), the reverse of that in the 24 to 55 bracket, and then the eldest bracket voting heavily "no". Most yes voted came from the adult working age population, not from the young and naive. That's all I was pointing out.

As for the "sour grapes" comment... All I can say is that to be so dismissive as to use terms like that, I can only assume you have absolutely no concept of the impact that this referendums outcome has and will have. It's not a bloody reality show where you "pick your favourite politician" - the events of the last week will affect the courses of the lives of several million people. So yeah... If Scotland now gets shafted by Westminster (which is looking like an increasing possibility) and that's the fault of unenlightened people being duped by fear and media bias, then "sour grapes" doesn't really cover it. It's unthinkable.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Anyone can be swayed by media bias, in fact the older you get the more you know the media are used to sway voters and are more likely to be objective.
What does it matter what they have access to, would the internet be a better tool...facebook maybe?
I for one didn't say ALL older people are wise, it's as equally false as ALL younger voters being well informed.
Again you have no idea how anyone voted so this supposition is pointless.

The Internet, Facebook, a peppa pig pop up story, alphabet spaghetti thrown indiscriminately at the wall... Any of these would have been a better tool for them to use than the mainstream media.

I suppose this can be hard to grasp if you haven't actually been living in Scotland for the last month or so. Every newspaper stand, every day, has had every front page plastered with pro-union rhetoric and propaganda and then more every evening on the BBC. Fear, ridicule and scare stories later side stepping into full page union Jack adorned spreads about the greatness of Britain.

This is not even coming from the perspective of someone who hoped for independence. This is coming from someone who simply believes that the press has a DUTY to report with impartiality. To report the facts and let people genuinely make up their own minds. I would have been just as dismayed had the papers been heavily pro-independence. The lack of balance has been like nothing I have ever seen before. On here we all talk about Endemol and their "selective editing" of housemates... It was that, on a national scale. To suggest that it doesn't have a major effect on voting patterns, and that it isn't likely to effect most the groups who are still most likely to use core television channels and mainstream newspapers as their news source (the over 55s) is just burying your head in the sand.

Younger, more tech-savvy people have a broader range of information resources and are therefore better informed. It is that simple. It doesn't apply to everyone - there are plenty of ignorant young people and plenty of very well informed elderly - but in general it's just a fact.

[Nedusa]

No sorry this issue is not going anywhere, quite the reverse in fact, with over 1.6 million people voting to leave the Union over 45% the question of independence will not go away and in fact will pick up even more votes as younger voters come of age in Scotland.

If you think everything will go back to the way it was then think again the UK in its current form is as good as over.




.

[LikeABoatOnWater]

What a nightmare, watched it from down under, knew we wouldnt be so lucky to get rid of Scotland, England should get a vote now and we can vote them out. The amount of money a scotish person gets from the government compared to a person from the northwest of England is disgusting, how dare they complain when they pretty much have the best deal in the uk, feck off ya moaning gits.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

As for the "sour grapes" comment... All I can say is that to be so dismissive as to use terms like that, I can only assume you have absolutely no concept of the impact that this referendums outcome has and will have. It's not a bloody reality show where you "pick your favourite politician" - the events of the last week will affect the courses of the lives of several million people. So yeah... If Scotland now gets shafted by Westminster (which is looking like an increasing possibility) and that's the fault of unenlightened people being duped by fear and media bias, then "sour grapes" doesn't really cover it. It's unthinkable.

With respect, it is you that is being dismissive of those who choose to vote in a particular fashion, and then attaching age to the agenda as well in a very disrespectful fashion.

In case you hadn't realised, and what I was indirectly pointing out, that whether a repeat referendum is held next week or in 20 years, you will always have the age distribution voting, with the same influences on their lives. So, unless you remove a section of the population from voting, you will always have the same factors involved.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

No sorry this issue is not going anywhere, quite the reverse in fact, with over 1.6 million people voting to leave the Union over 45% the question of independence will not go away and in fact will pick up even more votes as younger voters come of age in Scotland.

If you think everything will go back to the way it was then think again the UK in its current form is as good as over.

It won't even take that long, there's already a huge surge of people questioning their "no" vote due to uncertainty over what's actually going to be offered as "extra powers". If it's not extensive and actually useful to the average Scottish voter... if it's just lip service pieced together because "promises were made"... then if you held another referendum in a year the result would (easily) flip. Opinion polls are showing that the last minute deal brokered by Gordon Brown had a huge impact in the polling booth... if it turns out to be lies or even exaggerations then any future referendum would be as good as won for separation. What could a future Better Together campaign even campaign on, if their campaign this time around was revealed to be a pack of lies?

However, I'm sure there are people tucked away in a little room in Westminster, busily figuring out how to make it impossible or even illegal for another independence opportunity to ever arise... so by the time the population figures out that we're being screwed... it'll be too late to do anything about it. I think Scotland has missed it's one and only opportunity for positive independence. If it ever is a possibility again, it'll be because the UK as a whole is falling apart. This was the last chance to leave before the country is completely broken.

The only thing giving me any hope at the moment, is that it's sparked talk of devolution of regions in England which MIGHT at least be a start. The number one reason that I was in favour of independence was to get away from toxic "one city" London-based politics. If... IF... the UK as a whole can actually manage to successfully decentralize political power in a meaningful and effective way, then I'm not entirely adverse to the UK staying together.

I'm not anti-Union or a Nationalist. I just want people to actually have a say. I'm not content to be quietly ruled by a select elite of plum-mouthed multi-millionaires. I hoped (vaguely, I never truly believed it could happen) for independence because it's the only way I could see for at least a portion of the population to escape that. I don't really believe that the UK ever will.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It won't even take that long, there's already a huge surge of people questioning their "no" vote due to uncertainty over what's actually going to be offered as "extra powers". If it's not extensive and actually useful to the average Scottish voter... if it's just lip service pieced together because "promises were made"... then if you held another referendum in a year the result would (easily) flip. Opinion polls are showing that the last minute deal brokered by Gordon Brown had a huge impact in the polling booth... if it turns out to be lies or even exaggerations then any future referendum would be as good as won for separation. What could a future Better Together campaign even campaign on, if their campaign this time around was revealed to be a pack of lies?

However, I'm sure there are people tucked away in a little room in Westminster, busily figuring out how to make it impossible or even illegal for another independence opportunity to ever arise... so by the time the population figures out that we're being screwed... it'll be too late to do anything about it. I think Scotland has missed it's one and only opportunity for positive independence. If it ever is a possibility again, it'll be because the UK as a whole is falling apart. This was the last chance to leave before the country is completely broken.

The only thing giving me any hope at the moment, is that it's sparked talk of devolution of regions in England which MIGHT at least be a start. The number one reason that I was in favour of independence was to get away from toxic "one city" London-based politics. If... IF... the UK as a whole can actually manage to successfully decentralize political power in a meaningful and effective way, then I'm not entirely adverse to the UK staying together.

I'm not anti-Union or a Nationalist. I just want people to actually have a say. I'm not content to be quietly ruled by a select elite of plum-mouthed multi-millionaires. I hoped (vaguely, I never truly believed it could happen) for independence because it's the only way I could see for at least a portion of the population to escape that. I don't really believe that the UK ever will.

I agree with your sentiments , however independence does not necessarily depend on another referendum , a large enough SNP majority in the next election would allow an independence motion without the need for another ref. so things are not looking good for Dave and his mates.




.

[Josy]

People did have a say, and the result of it was them choosing to stay in the union.

And btw I find it very dismissive to keep posting that no voters were scared and that's what made them vote the way they did, that's absolute nonsense tbh, most no voters that I know where always voting no, it was nothing at all to do with any last minute offers from Westminster.

The yes campaign left a helluva lot of questions unanswered and if like the ones I know then most no voters found it better to stay in the union with a government that won't always be there instead of taking a huge risk wandering into unknown territory with permanent independence.

[the truth]

the bbc coverage was a disgrace as it has been for so very long...the endless pro institutional propoganda with the usual scare mongering from the establishment and veiled threats and pro monarchy drivel was nauseating
this clearly narrowed the gap and of course there was ballot rigging
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ount-petitions

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The Internet, Facebook, a peppa pig pop up story, alphabet spaghetti thrown indiscriminately at the wall... Any of these would have been a better tool for them to use than the mainstream media.

I suppose this can be hard to grasp if you haven't actually been living in Scotland for the last month or so. Every newspaper stand, every day, has had every front page plastered with pro-union rhetoric and propaganda and then more every evening on the BBC. Fear, ridicule and scare stories later side stepping into full page union Jack adorned spreads about the greatness of Britain.

This is not even coming from the perspective of someone who hoped for independence. This is coming from someone who simply believes that the press has a DUTY to report with impartiality. To report the facts and let people genuinely make up their own minds. I would have been just as dismayed had the papers been heavily pro-independence. The lack of balance has been like nothing I have ever seen before. On here we all talk about Endemol and their "selective editing" of housemates... It was that, on a national scale. To suggest that it doesn't have a major effect on voting patterns, and that it isn't likely to effect most the groups who are still most likely to use core television channels and mainstream newspapers as their news source (the over 55s) is just burying your head in the sand.

Younger, more tech-savvy people have a broader range of information resources and are therefore better informed. It is that simple. It doesn't apply to everyone - there are plenty of ignorant young people and plenty of very well informed elderly - but in general it's just a fact.

It's not that simple, who's to say the pretty young things will access this font of all knowledge, is there never bias in the tinterweb then?
It hasn't just been all over in Scotland but here too, I don't know where you've got this impression of the English wanting to shaft Scotland; or that all your elderly citizens are dribbling morons... the media maybe?

[Kizzy]

Youtube video

[the truth]

its the establishment that want to shaft the people, its nothing to do with english or scots

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

its the establishment that want to shaft the people, its nothing to do with english or scots

Exactly, I didn't say anything about the English wanting to shaft Scotland. The London-based oligarchy want to shaft all of us. Or rather, they HAVE been shafting all of us, for generations.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's not that simple, who's to say the pretty young things will access this font of all knowledge, is there never bias in the tinterweb then?
It hasn't just been all over in Scotland but here too, I don't know where you've got this impression of the English wanting to shaft Scotland; or that all your elderly citizens are dribbling morons... the media maybe?

There is but on both sides of the coin. Pro-union sites and groups are union biased, pro-indy sites are independence biased. But they are BOTH THERE to be seen and assessed. The papers had bias and all going one way. I don't mind if a newspaper print biased opinion pieces, so long as they then also print biased opinion pieces offering the alternate view. That DID NOT happen. It was all pro-union, and often so filled with scaremongering and hyperbole that it was actually laughable.

[James]

The similarities with Big Brother fans who make up conspiracies when a vote doesn't go their way are uncanny.

There must be some psychological effect going on, like the more passionate people get about something the more they can't accept that other people don't share the same viewpoint.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Exactly, I didn't say anything about the English wanting to shaft Scotland. The London-based oligarchy want to shaft all of us. Or rather, they HAVE been shafting all of us, for generations.

Yes, you did.

'So yeah... If Scotland now gets shafted by Westminster (which is looking like an increasing possibility)'