gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Numbers matter. A percent of the population could make it 49-51 in favour for No, and vice versa.
Referendum on Scottish Independence
- Thread starter really
- Start date
Viregel
, The Rt. Hon.
Problem was that the Yes vote wasn't actually ahead; it assumed that more Yes than No voters would turn out to vote.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Social media. Without social media few Scots would have understood how it worked and very few Yes-favourable issues would have generated any awareness, and Yes would have stuck somewhere around 35% if not declined.
The 'extra powers' stuff you mention illustrates several important points. The politicians didn't actually have to lie about extra powers, because their media allies did the lying for them. It also highlights their weakness. No did not win because of this, but because they will be perceived as having lied the SNP will have a pretext to hold another referendum (though there are now rumours of a plan by Jack Straw to make Scottish secession & referendums illegal).
Viregel
, The Rt. Hon.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Probably all Scots are rebellious even if they don't know this.
Anyway - the UK can preemptively crush all of them, just in case.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Coalition of intellectuals, dissidents, social media activists, and politicians who backed Yes have begun to be styled The 45ers.
It's primarily a reference to 45% who voted Yes, but also alludes to Occupy Wall Street, the 2nd Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 (which attempted to restore the Stuarts & dissolve the Union), and to the title used by the defeated of the unsuccessful 1848 revolutions -- ominously perhaps, all of these were failures.
It's primarily a reference to 45% who voted Yes, but also alludes to Occupy Wall Street, the 2nd Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 (which attempted to restore the Stuarts & dissolve the Union), and to the title used by the defeated of the unsuccessful 1848 revolutions -- ominously perhaps, all of these were failures.
Quackers
The Frog
Pangur Bán;13464090 said:
So how many Yes-Scots acknowledged this position? And how many were in prominent positions of influence and could make policy to infect these debates?
Forgive me for saying this, but the CyberNat "Black Watch" divison didn't appear to be "organic" to me. I remember going on the Pro-Unionist Guardian Newspaper site and even under articles where Scotland wasn't mentioned you could find a "Yes" and a Saltire with a little message for independence.
Whenever it was a column or an article on Independence you can bet your house that the first comment was going to be another cybernat, with about 100 recommends in 10 minutes! Typically they had the "yes" logo and spoke from a hymn sheet of talking points. I ocassionally found this to be true on BBC HYS and The Telegraph Newspaper site.
Go on, the debate is over. Tell us a secret. Are you on some ScotsBlog mailing list and they told their footsoldiers to push into every online debate? To recommend / upvote Scottish Yes POV?
Quackers
The Frog
The only times i've heard it being used are by the Russian government and the Chinese one over the last five or six years. Surely the moral Westener doesn't use such tactics?
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
I don't understand your question, can you clarify?
The people you are talking about were / are as 'organic' as any other of hundreds of internet groups definable by common ideological allegiance. They've been around since the beginning of social media, and were around before but had no voice. If you compare BBC articles fronted on the UK or main page with those fronted only on Scottish pages, you'll see they are vastly outnumbered by those who express the opposite views ('Cyberbrits' as their opponents will call them)--though that's a side-effect of population. There is no need for co-ordination, because people are attracted to the same topics, they friend each other and follow each other's activities independently, and so forth.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
What's wrong with such tactics? If someone is convinced by a certain policy or strategy, why wouldn't they talk about it on social media, or even down the pub? I'm sure Farage does a lot of talking down the pub.
I've even seen a pub displaying a UKIP poster outside.
I've even seen a pub displaying a UKIP poster outside.
What's the difference between politically-motivated (motivated by whatever means) people pushing their agendas on the internet individually and people doing it coordinated as a group?
Nothing, except the latter is much more effective. It's not any less sincere.
Nothing, except the latter is much more effective. It's not any less sincere.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
The latter is much less effective since motivation would be much lower, it limits participation, and it can be discredited more easily by assigning personality to its agency.
Most effective of all of course is what you actually have with establishment media AND social media. People behave organically according to pre-existing structures, but a level of co-ordination by elites gets it going in the direction desired by elites. The individuals act like cattle in a stampede, the elites like the wolves who set it off.
Well clearly what we've learned today,
Is that people should not have any say,
For when they are given the power to choose,
They'll make the correct side lose,
And all the smart elites very angry!
The solution is obvious and clear,
A move back to the more austere,
With one king in charge,
The peasants cannot in large,
Make such a mistake as here!
We could get rid of the media establishment,
And all referendums would be decided in 90 percents,
All the commons would feel good,
Except for those who understood,
That in democracy everyone's opinion is correct.
Is that people should not have any say,
For when they are given the power to choose,
They'll make the correct side lose,
And all the smart elites very angry!
The solution is obvious and clear,
A move back to the more austere,
With one king in charge,
The peasants cannot in large,
Make such a mistake as here!
We could get rid of the media establishment,
And all referendums would be decided in 90 percents,
All the commons would feel good,
Except for those who understood,
That in democracy everyone's opinion is correct.
Pangur Bán;13464271 said:
Only already highly motivated people would sign-up, ideally, and there's no shortages of believers.
Not necessarily even talking about paid shilling here. Just a group of politically-active internet warriors with free time, or volunteers for a political party, or whatever, flooding a forum or comment section strategically.
And you can discredit it but you could say the same and more for highly influential things like commentators and polls and whatnot.
We are the Bri need I go on? It's just the lads having a bit of fun. We are amused!
Don't worry, Salmond vaguely said something about 20 years and 20 years, more or less, is what it took for the Scottish Parliament to materialise after the Tories shelved the project as a matter of principle. In 20 years, if the trend for younger voters leaning heavily towards Yes continues, then you can have another referendum.Pangur Bán;13463288 said:
Oh dear.
Pubs were where our early leaders met to plot our revolution! They were the political meeting houses of their time.
Also, the USMC was formed in a pub. Tun Tavern, November 10th, 1775.
Similar threads
