-
The point is, if your outraged by the abuses of Vote Leave and the way the Tories have handled Brexit, you should ultimately be just as outraged by the way Better Together conducted themselves: much of it was anti democratic and even if it can't be proven that Cambridge Analytica was involved and contracted (the only reason we know what happened with Brexit is because of a whistle blower, and even then it's hardly been pursued by anyone other than a couple of journalists), it's known that they had meetings with them, and regardless of that they definitely broke purdah with campaign activities and their 'vow' of what would be a federalised arrangement for Scotland (that was published on the front page of all major newspapers in the days before the actual referendum) was immediately torn up a matter of hours after the referendum result.
Pointing to participation rates or turnout doesn't change any of that, and is a poor excuse for what amounts to some very shady and questionable behaviour by Cameron and the Unionist parties, and what you say about 'changing the status quo will always be harder' really isn't much of an explanation.
deleted-
what you say about 'changing the status quo will always be harder' really isn't much of an explanation.
Sorry I should have been clearer. A radical shift in the status quo will inevitably be met with more resistance and vice versa - hence the lack of objections.
Re purdah, few remainers complain about quasi-use of Govt funds to back the remain campaign, so it's pretty consistent cognitive dissonance. Regardless in IF1 I think, arguably broke purdah is a more actuate than definitely.
hugo7
Yeah it does sound pretty partisan.
You seem to be conflating leaving the Union with remaining in the EU - it's the other way around leaving = leaving, remain = remain. Changing the status quo will always be harder and met with greater resistance.
The remain strategy was almost exactly the same - safer in the EU, safer in the Union (or project fear if you prefer). Yes the UK Govt effectively used its resources to push the Union, but it did the same in the for Brexit, and in IndyRef1 the Scottish Govt also did the same. Because it "worked before" is one of the reasons for a weak remain campaign.
The Indy side laid out pretty detailed plans for people to weigh up, so I don't think it's a stretch to say people were better informed.
Admittedly the result was fairly close 55.3% Vs. 44.7%, but importantly not only was it the highest turnout ever in the UK (84% vs 72%), it included 16&17yo.
Out of interest, do you have any basis for the Cambridge Analytica claim? The only things I've found are some rumours that they tried to pitch for business. So would be curious to read more.