thplinth Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 We all saw that Dave Cameron was pooing his breeks in the last week. He was nearly greetin twice on TV. He was desperate, as desperate as you can get. And desperate people do desperate things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningtings Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 He was desperate for a NO so that he can put his English government plans in place and to reduce the Labour Party input in said new parliament. A masterstroke by the Tories to be fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Why does that butterfly rebellion site use phrases like: separation from Great Britain? Makes it sound like it is written by a unionist. The other articles on there do not do this, making me think that one was written by someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jailender Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 http://wingsoverscotland.com/our-man-on-the-scene/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 He was desperate for a NO so that he can put his English government plans in place and to reduce the Labour Party input in said new parliament. A masterstroke by the Tories to be fair. Or it was a masterstroke by Salmond who got his preferences on both sides of the ballot and should be able to build a more robust foundation for the next attempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) http://wingsoverscotland.com/our-man-on-the-scene/ That seems fair reading it. edit: I would like to see what claims of vote rigging are out there excluding these youtube videos before putting it to rest. Edited September 24, 2014 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Just remember what you have seen this last few weeks. Don't trust these people, do not give them the benefit of the doubt. They are not innocent until proven guilty anymore they are guilty until proven innocent. Assume the worst until you can prove otherwise. The dust will settle and if any physical tampering of votes claims prove to have substance then they will be left standing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 http://wingsoverscotland.com/our-man-on-the-scene/ That's pretty well written and torpedoes just about every video I've seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Pete Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Wings is spot on - I was at the Fife count and there were only 36 No and around 180 Yes scrutineers. There was no way that votes would be rigged in favour of the No vote. The actual counters are made up of the general public and I would have said most were yes voters by their faces dropping as other regional results came in. In fife only one table out of 38 had a yes victory each table was a mix of several hundred postal votes and 5 or 6 ballot boxes. Most of the conspirecy stories are from people who have never actually been to a count and dont understand how many checks and balances there actually are. Some ballot boxes are counted 4 or 5 times until the number tallys with the quantity of names scored off at the polling station. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 I've had to start unfollowing a few people on twitter over this. Apparently me and WOS are "SNP gatekeepers". No, I've no idea, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 No disrespect to Wings but he would do well to end the rhetoric and sticking to hard but fair commentating. I have the utmost respect for what he achieved during the referendum but in the process, he whipped a fair number who find thinking difficult into an almost religious frenzy. I crossed swords with a couple on occasion and there was just no engaging with them. It's great to see an article on WoS that debunks a lot of paranoia going about because a lot of his readers are exactly the type of people who are regurgitating it. The bile, abuse and confrontational approach was divisive and will continue to be divisive. The support he attracted was testament to all the great stuff he did. The hatred he attracts was testament to all the bad stuff he did. The former outweighs the latter but he doesn't need the latter in order to find a receptive audience. I don't want to see him lose his edge toward the media and certain politicians, but it would be good to see be more respectful to those who disagree or have still to be persuaded. Like it or not, some of the people he has attracted are idiots. He can either continue to attract some idiots and continue to encourage idiotic stuff, or he can start leading by example and making his followers even better campaigners. The article of vote rigging is a perfect example of his influence when telling some Yes supporters as well as No supporters what they need to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 No disrespect to Wings but he would do well to end the rhetoric and sticking to hard but fair commentating. I have the utmost respect for what he achieved during the referendum but in the process, he whipped a fair number who find thinking difficult into an almost religious frenzy. I crossed swords with a couple on occasion and there was just no engaging with them. It's great to see an article on WoS that debunks a lot of paranoia going about because a lot of his readers are exactly the type of people who are regurgitating it. The bile, abuse and confrontational approach was divisive and will continue to be divisive. The support he attracted was testament to all the great stuff he did. The hatred he attracts was testament to all the bad stuff he did. The former outweighs the latter but he doesn't need the latter in order to find a receptive audience. I don't want to see him lose his edge toward the media and certain politicians, but it would be good to see be more respectful to those who disagree or have still to be persuaded. Like it or not, some of the people he has attracted are idiots. He can either continue to attract some idiots and continue to encourage idiotic stuff, or he can start leading by example and making his followers even better campaigners. The article of vote rigging is a perfect example of his influence when telling some Yes supporters as well as No supporters what they need to hear. He did a lot of good work for the Yes campaign but he's a fecking zoomer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 He did a lot of good work for the Yes campaign but he's a fecking zoomer. Im not denying the amount of good work he did for the Yes campaign but he also built up a considerable amount of ill will amongst No's/Undecided's as well as fueling idiotic Yes supporters to be equally divisive. All the good stuff he does does not rely on him being a total rocket which is why he's infuriating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 I'd argue that taking lessons in democracy from the Russians is pushing it. poachers make the best gameskeepers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goozay Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Just remember what you have seen this last few weeks. Don't trust these people, do not give them the benefit of the doubt. They are not innocent until proven guilty anymore they are guilty until proven innocent. Assume the worst until you can prove otherwise. The dust will settle and if any physical tampering of votes claims prove to have substance then they will be left standing. Deary me. Take a nice deep breath Fella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 So that will be one week tomorrow. Any sign of 'The Vow' yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Rigging can take place in multiple dimensions from the crude to the subtle. The crudest and most direct is physical vote tampering, but for the same reason it is simple it is also problematic. If physical vote tampering took place it would have to be large scale so you'd have to think of scenarios where that was possible, some scam so simple it almost defies your consideration... something that totally sidesteps all the controls in place. I do not have the voting controls expertise to identify these possibilities but trust me they will exist, they always do.. If there was a serious blind spot in the control framework or even just a weak spot you can be sure it was identified. Like I say cheating, lying and conning you is their modus operandi so why assume the vote was any different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Cheating and lying isn't vote rigging, it's modern politics, or at least Westminster style modern politics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angstgoose Posted September 24, 2014 Author Share Posted September 24, 2014 Rigging can take place in multiple dimensions from the crude to the subtle. The crudest and most direct is physical vote tampering, but for the same reason it is simple it is also problematic. If physical vote tampering took place it would have to be large scale so you'd have to think of scenarios where that was possible, some scam so simple it almost defies your consideration... something that totally sidesteps all the controls in place. I do not have the voting controls expertise to identify these possibilities but trust me they will exist, they always do.. If there was a serious blind spot in the control framework or even just a weak spot you can be sure it was identified. Like I say cheating, lying and conning you is their modus operandi so why assume the vote was any different. Exactly...like I said in my first and other posts...it's not just the possibility that tampering went on ( if it did ) but all the other factors they used to scare people into voting no. The referendum was only granted cos they ( Westminster ) thought it was a NO done deal ( Alex Salmonds words ) As it became evident that more and more people were siding with the YES campaign the 'dirty tricks' kicked into action. Got a NUMBERS CRUNCHING message from INDY 2.0 actually closer than you think: " NUMBER CRUNCHING: At INDY 2.0 we've noticed a strange habit developing in many online comments. Some of those who voted No are claiming (as part of a range of arguments) that the final count was 1.5 million for Yes and 2 Million for no. Now, I have no problem rounding certain figures up or down, but it surprised me that the Yes voters engaged in these online debates weren't immediately correcting these false figures. Letting these figures simply slide gives the impression that there is a whopping-but-not-that-whopping 500,000 vote difference between Yes and NO (1.5 Yes, 2.0 No) - meaning that just over quarter of a million No Voters would have had to shift to Yes for Yes to win. Not so! The figures, even if you round them DOWN, are 1.6 Yes and 2.0 No. 1.6 folks! Not 1.5. The actual figures are even more generous to Yes, so kind are they that you may not want to round them down ever again. 1,617,989 YES 2,001,926 NO Rounded up, these figures are: 1,618,000 YES 2,002,000 NO The difference between these two figures is clearly NOT 500,000 as many seem to believe (even many Yes folk seem to have accepted it as a fair approximation). The mathematically correct difference between the two figures is a far less impressive: 383,937 (or 384,000 rounded up) Now cut THAT in half and round it up slightly and you'll have a better idea of how close we got to a Yes victory on Friday! The answer is: 191,968 That means that all Yes needed was for 192,000 No voters to change their minds. Not bad when you consider that 3,600,000+ voted on the day. In other words, if we'd had less than 200 thousand extra votes for Yes...we would now have Independence. So why did they choose to show us a map that was almost entirely reddened by No? A rhetorical question, borne of frustration. Pick yourselves up Yes, dust yourself down, and reward yourself by calling this an incredible victory for an "impossible" movement. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Agreed. It was like losing a rugby game 20-16. The team with the 16 would only have to do a little better the next time to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 add to the list....those counters and polling station staff who are on video cheating Did the 'Wings Over Scotland' article (or anyone else) explain the above video? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Dod Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Did the 'Wings Over Scotland' article (or anyone else) explain the above video? It's in Russia, St Petersburg if I remember right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brant grebner Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Did the 'Wings Over Scotland' article (or anyone else) explain the above video?Seen a few claims that this is a video of an incident in Russia, with people claiming there is Cyrillic text visible.I can't see it, but the video is a repost and is extremely grainy. With regards to the vote being rigged, my folks were gaun on about Michael Meacher on the night of the vote before the polls closed, saying if it was going to be fixed it would be done through the postal votes. http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2013/07/blairites-are-up-in-arms-about-falkirk-because-they-fear-theyve-lost-their-monopoly-in-fixing-seats/ "Why did they never investigate how they got them selected, by getting the regional secretaries put in place at the start of the Blair regime to instruct local parties who the candidate preferred by the leadership was and telling them actively to canvass for that person, and if all else failed there were always the ballot boxes and postal votes that could be tampered with? " Labour have form for this in Glenrothes and elsewhere. Some electoral fraud took place last week. Whether it was done on a grand enough scale to swing the result, who knows? There are a lot of allegations flying about, but as the wings article says the videos are out of context and some were debunked on the night. We lost. Bleating about vote rigging is counterproductive. Without a smoking gun, we come across as churlish. We need to accept Yes failed because we went for 50 per cent plus one vote with a case that wisnae watertight on currency and the economics. We failed because we were up against a No campaign content to scaremonger and a hostile media who were unwilling to act as journalists by checking the information passed to them by No Thanks/UKOK/Better Together/Ermine and Red Leather. We should aim for landslide not minute majority. 200k votes won this and many of those who voted no are regretting this. There's a lot to be done and perpetually crying over the result is not going to help. Wipe your eyes. On your feet. Grab your stuff. Let's get started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 It's in Russia, St Petersburg if I remember right. Seen a few claims that this is a video of an incident in Russia, with people claiming there is Cyrillic text visible. Ahh, OK. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.