3 ms·

From my perspective, it's very much the opposite. The Yes campaign are fearmongering - I've seen cinema adverts from them which essentially try to claim that st

From my perspective, it's very much the opposite. The Yes campaign are fearmongering - I've seen cinema adverts from them which essentially try to claim that staying in the UK would be the death of our children's future. "Think of the children" is the argument of people who have no other argument. On the other hand, the No campaign are very open about the fact that they expect that Scotland can take more powers from the UK without becoming independent, which is a huge deal for those of us who consider ourselves British, and consider the UK to be our country which we have rights to.

brortao 12y ago
It happens on both sides, but my feeling is that the No campaign is hard to outdo when it comes to spreading fear[1]. Fair point about "think of the children" - though I'd say that it happens on both sides[2]. Not that there's a lack of arguments for independence - again, the Wee Blue Book I linked to above presents them quite well! [1]: http://wingsoverscotland.com/when-youre-happy-and-you-know-it/ http://wingsoverscotland.com/when-youre-happy-and-you-know-i... [2]: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/01/scottish-independence-better-together-campaign-posters_n_5746824.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/01/scottish-independ...
- adwf 12y ago
  Part of the problem there is in the nature of each sides campaign. The most common way to build an argument is to weigh up the pro's and con's, the upsides and downsides. The "Yes" campaign can promise the world on the upside, say that it'll all be amazing in the future, simply becuase nobody really knows what will happen. Whereas the "No" campaign can only say the upside is it will be exactly the same as today, just the boring status quo. So they've been kinda forced into negative campaigning just by the nature of the decision to be made. They could've tried some bribery perhaps, "Hey, we'll invest billions more in Scotland", but that would be really transparent on both sides and probably lose them more than they'd gain.

brortao 12y ago

It happens on both sides, but my feeling is that the No campaign is hard to outdo when it comes to spreading fear[1]. Fair point about "think of the children" - though I'd say that it happens on both sides[2]. Not that there's a lack of arguments for independence - again, the Wee Blue Book I linked to above presents them quite well! [1]: http://wingsoverscotland.com/when-youre-happy-and-you-know-it/ http://wingsoverscotland.com/when-youre-happy-and-you-know-i... [2]: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/01/scottish-independence-better-together-campaign-posters_n_5746824.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/01/scottish-independ...

adwf 12y ago
Part of the problem there is in the nature of each sides campaign. The most common way to build an argument is to weigh up the pro's and con's, the upsides and downsides. The "Yes" campaign can promise the world on the upside, say that it'll all be amazing in the future, simply becuase nobody really knows what will happen. Whereas the "No" campaign can only say the upside is it will be exactly the same as today, just the boring status quo. So they've been kinda forced into negative campaigning just by the nature of the decision to be made. They could've tried some bribery perhaps, "Hey, we'll invest billions more in Scotland", but that would be really transparent on both sides and probably lose them more than they'd gain.