Lancet Fluke
Well-Known Member
Len Rum said:Cameron 'taken a gamble and won'?gordondaviesmoustache said:You make some good points, especially about changing comparisons with the Republic, but I disagree with your last point. I think Cameron had little choice in setting the bar at 50%. A 55% yes vote in a 60% super majority would have been a truly awful and divisive outcome.mad4city said:Sorry, my mistake.
And you're right about the result being what Scotland wanted and no more.
Personally, I think had this vote been taken ten or fifteen years ago, when the economy was booming and the Yes Campaign could've urged the electorate to look at how there'd never be a poor day in post-independence Ireland again, they'd have won by a landslide.
In a close run thing, especially during economically straitened times, people may say one thing but in the privacy of the ballot box their wallets speak louder than their idealism. That ultimately was the tipping point for me.
On a side note, how stupid was Cameron not to demand that any Yes vote would need to be carried by a super majority (say 60%, at least)? He's a lucky boy to still be in a job this morning. Imagine the fall out had either side won by one percent.
He's taken a gamble and won, although not as big a gamble as some thought. I've previously posted on this thread on the power of the privacy of the ballot box. I always expected the power of conservatism to win the day in the end. In stable, western countries change is often viewed with some suspicion.
More like 'was given a winning hand and nearly blew it'.
It was a winning hand until that drippy **** Darling got involved.