How The Referendum Was Won

[Robroysboy]

The Postal Ballot at the Scottish Independence Referendum

How The Postal Ballot Was Rigged

The only way the ‘McTernan’ plan could have worked is if a UK Government Agency such as MI5 carried it out. You or I, or any political party, could not have done this, but for MI5 it was child’s play. Of course, this means accepting that senior politicians in the UK who control MI5 were prepared to treat Scotland’s democratic institutions with utter contempt and act behind our backs in this despicable way. Yes we think that is entirely possible where the stakes are high enough.

So how was it done? MI5 have access to Government and Local Government computer files (as well as many others) Therefore when the process began on the 26th to the 28th of August the ‘main’ PB papers were sent out. MI5 would have had the computer file records of that.

After a few days each count area would have arranged PB Opening Sessions, not to count the votes, but to check the validity of the papers returned. These would all have been checked and recorded (on computer) So after the first 10 days the local count areas (and MI5) would have a list of those who had voted so far, and therefore those who hadn’t.

On the 4th of September a second posting of PB papers were sent out, these were all the late additions and would be highly likely to vote so they would be of less interest to MI5, however following this posting there would be another three days of PB Opening sessions, and again records updated and recorded (on computer).

With still a week to go before polling day, the computers would contain a record of virtually everyone who was going to vote in the PB from the ‘main’ list. This would be known by MI5 in London without the help or involvement of one single official in Scotland.

Now the McTernan plan can be implemented. Each count area can be examined to see what the PB registration is and what the calculated turnout is with 90% of it known. If it is the normal high turnout for Argyll (63% last GE) or perhaps slightly higher, MI5 can calculate how many additional PB papers it can produce to put through the system. In Argyll with a high PB registration it might be possible to go over the national target and go for 30% or above of the count to compensate for areas where they can’t be so successful because of low registration.

The rest is easy. Again there is no requirement for any assistance from any ballot official in Scotland. MI5 can produce the required number of ballot papers, of the right paper with the right Local Authority stamp, with the correct number, name, address and date of birth. They can even produce the correct signature from the computer image which will pass through the Local Authority checking computer. All they need to do then is to get their own staff to deliver the papers to the correct post boxes in the correct areas of Scotland in a sensitive way and bingo, the job is done.

The Prime Minister can be informed that the objective has been achieved and McTernan can be tipped off in time for him to appear on the BBC, 4 days before the ballot boxes are opened and tell us which way the postal vote is going. Ruth Davidson probably had no idea why the Prime Minister was so confident that the postal vote was strongly No, but she knew that he was. When she could not contain herself and blurted out her confidence in front of the BBC cameras, she had to struggle to explain how she had this information and came up with her ridiculous story which accused her own party supporters of criminal acts.

This is a much more obvious explanation for what happened than any other view, particularly the official one.

[bonzo]

Spooks it wiz lost because 55% of the voting population ur shitebags

[Ormond]

Spooks it wiz lost because 55% of the voting population ur shitebags

Strongly disagree. I believe a massive chunk yes. But I believe it was fixed to make sure of more than 50%

[Bzzzz]

Strongly disagree. I believe a massive chunk yes. But I believe it was fixed to make sure of more than 50%

I agree, from what I saw at the Edinburgh count the postal vote figures were astounding and completely against any demographic we had seen from either sides canvasing. It was rigged, of that I have no doubt whatsoever. One day it will be proven.

[weekevie04]

I dinnae ken, but I think a majority of 'Scots' actually voted yes.

Maybe I move in Nationalist circles, or maybe all those Yessers I ken were actually much like the OAE sketch and ticked the No vote in booth.

I don't know if we as a nation voted Yes, but I do believe that most Scottish born people voted yes, maybe not by much, but at least our conscience is clear in that sense. We're all Scotland' story and so on....

I don't think it was rigged, surely we would be on the streets if so?, but it was most certainly the rUKs that won it. Not a racist, just what I heard/seen/read, and maybe it was our fault for not convicing them, or maybe they won't ever be convinced.

Spent a week in Plaid Cymru heartlands, and many of the Plaid supporters are so envious of our engagement, they think we'll be gone in 5-10 years, and see us as as a guiding light to their own national movement.

[Rossy]

While I believe that postal voting is a flawed system, I don't believe there was any conspiracy.

More people voted No, it's as simple as that.

One of the tendencies of the Yes campaign was to talk to the converted, and that combined with a strong social media presence, gave the impression (to those who wanted to believe...me included) that the Yes vote was much stronger than it actually was.

The Yes campaign lost simply because it didn't do enough to persuade people on the currency and economy, nothing more.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Rossy

[aaid]

While I believe that postal voting is a flawed system, I don't believe there was any conspiracy.

More people voted No, it's as simple as that.

One of the tendencies of the Yes campaign was to talk to the converted, and that combined with a strong social media presence, gave the impression (to those who wanted to believe...me included) that the Yes vote was much stronger than it actually was.

The Yes campaign lost simply because it didn't do enough to persuade people on the currency and economy, nothing more.

This

[Alibi]

I don't know whether Yes would have won without any fiddling of the vote having been done but I do know that the private canvassing in my area showed it to be about 50:50, which is wildly different from the 2:1 against result. I would be surprised if there hadn't been some dirty tricks but it is possible that all they did was increase the margin from say 50.1/49.9 to 55:45. They needed to get something they could claim was "overwhelming" and if they didn't attempt to fiddle the result I would be extremely surprised.

[Armchair Bob]

In my personal life - in Edinburgh Naw City - I didn't know that many Yes voters. So the result was horrible, but not hard to believe that it reflected reality.

[euan2020]

lot of folk in my home town (inverurie) were no's - i would say the majority

[deecie]

My entire family also voted incorrectly.

Pricks.

[Rossy]

In my personal life - in Edinburgh Naw City - I didn't know that many Yes voters. So the result was horrible, but not hard to believe that it reflected reality.

lot of folk in my home town (inverurie) were no's - i would say the majority

I saw somewhere (can't remember if it was on here, or Facebook or wherever) the results from every polling station in Fife.

In some areas...central Fife, Glenrothes and parts of Kirkcaldy mainly, Yes did very well. In other areas.....north-east Fife, Dalgety Bay, Aberdour, parts of Dunfermline...the results were brutal.

It didn't suprise me that in Fife, the No's took it by pretty much the same percentage as Scotland as a whole.

For the next referendum, these 'No' areas are the one's that canvassing needs to concentrate on. Instead of the Yes campaign patting themselves on the back and saying 'look, we got 300 supporters into a meeting in Rosyth', they need to out and around the half million pound houses 5 miles away in Aberdour.

[Orraloon]

My entire family also voted incorrectly.

people.

And you still consider them "family"? I would have disowned them by now.

[hunchy]

Could they have done some dirty tricks to make sure of the win yes

Did they do some dirty tricks. Don't know

Yes its is possible for them to scue results to suit the establishment but I couldn't say for sure that they did. Wouldn't surprise me though as I think they would have done anything to make sure of the result. Just look at the lies and mistruths that were told and the way they twisted things

[aaid]

My understanding of this conspiracy is that it predicated on the following facts.

1. There were an unusually large number of postal vote applications.

2. The Postal vote turnout out was unusually high.

3. The final result didn't tally with what Yes activists were seeing from canvass returns.

This has then been cooked up to suggest that MI5 were going around stuffing post boxes around Scotland with fake postal votes in the final few days of the campaign having worked out who had already voted.

This falls down on so many levels but the most obvious one is this. There were 800,000 postal votes sent out, of these 737,000 were returned and of those 15,000 were spoiled. Given that No polled around 400,000 more votes than Yes.

To affect the result, this would have meant that the *real* postal vote turnout would have to have been around 50% which doesn't bear comparison to the overall turnout and engagement.

The - impressively high - postal vote turnout of 92% doesn't look so unbelievable when compared to the overall turnout of 85%.

I don't think that a breakdown of postal votes by Yes/No has been provided, however, everyone at the counts has said that they were in favour of No by a large margin. A much more realistic explanation of this is that there is a definite correlation of general demographic of people who would use a postal vote and those who voted No - the elderly, non-urban, wealthier.

This is just a big exercise in cognitive dissonance and ignores the simple truth that Yes lost because the arguments were not strong enough in key areas, most importantly currency and economy.

Much more productive to focus on coming up with stronger arguments on these than on conspiracy theories.

Edited July 23, 2015 by aaid

[deecie]

And you still consider them "family"? I would have disowned them by now.

It appears to have happened the other way round.

[thorbotnic]

It was shy Tories that did it. Just the same at GE 2015.

[scotlad]

I don't know whether Yes would have won without any fiddling of the vote having been done but I do know that the private canvassing in my area showed it to be about 50:50, which is wildly different from the 2:1 against result. I would be surprised if there hadn't been some dirty tricks but it is possible that all they did was increase the margin from say 50.1/49.9 to 55:45. They needed to get something they could claim was "overwhelming" and if they didn't attempt to fiddle the result I would be extremely surprised.

That's very much my take on it too. Knowing how the UK state operates it seems almost inconceivable that there wouldn't have been some kind of black ops deployed. Whether it was enough to affect the overall result - who knows. What I do know is there were holes in the Yes case; if we go again then it'll have to be tighter.

[Maq]

lot of folk in my home town (inverurie) were no's - i would say the majority

Aye, absolutely the majority there. Shitebags. Some of my best pals. Shitebags to a man though

[Dave78]

My understanding of this conspiracy is that it predicated on the following facts.

1. There were an unusually large number of postal vote applications.

2. The Postal vote turnout out was unusually high.

3. The final result didn't tally with what Yes activists were seeing from canvass returns.

This has then been cooked up to suggest that MI5 were going around stuffing post boxes around Scotland with fake postal votes in the final few days of the campaign having worked out who had already voted.

This falls down on so many levels but the most obvious one is this. There were 800,000 postal votes sent out, of these 737,000 were returned and of those 15,000 were spoiled. Given that No polled around 400,000 more votes than Yes.

To affect the result, this would have meant that the *real* postal vote turnout would have to have been around 50% which doesn't bear comparison to the overall turnout and engagement.

The - impressively high - postal vote turnout of 92% doesn't look so unbelievable when compared to the overall turnout of 85%.

I don't think that a breakdown of postal votes by Yes/No has been provided, however, everyone at the counts has said that they were in favour of No by a large margin. A much more realistic explanation of this is that there is a definite correlation of general demographic of people who would use a postal vote and those who voted No - the elderly, non-urban, wealthier.

This is just a big exercise in cognitive dissonance and ignores the simple truth that Yes lost because the arguments were not strong enough in key areas, most importantly currency and economy.

Much more productive to focus on coming up with stronger arguments on these than on conspiracy theories.

This is the hard to swallow truth folks.

[tartandon]

This is the hard to swallow truth folks.

plus, does anybody have any stats on the turnout in the recent Westminster elections? specifically, what was the ratio of overall turnout to postal vote turnout? I would guess that the ratio would be pretty similar to the Referendum.

I love a good conspiracy theory about the moon landing, JFK etc. But rather than diverting effort into conspiracy theories on the referendum (even if they were true), we're better served doing all we can to fight for a second indyref. But more importantly, we need to make sure that when we have the next one we will be certain of getting a Yes vote.

The Westminster results were great. Lets build on these and march forward rather than finger pointing and shifting blame over the failed vote in September.

[euan2020]

Aye, absolutely the majority there. Shitebags. Some of my best pals. Shitebags to a man though

aye - glad i am in Cape Town - no have to put up with them, or get in arguments in bars

[weekevie04]

Out of my close circle of pals, it was something like 9-2 to Yes. One of those No voters is now a "Yes in the next one". So although there isn't a referendum soon, it's encouraging to know.

I'm realy encouraged by the engagement still with many friends who had no interest up to the referendum. I don't know if it's where they live, but hearing/seeing lots of things for us to be encouraged about regards another ref. Still lots of Yes stickers up, and see a few "I'm still Yes" things going.

Now will be interesting to see what the SNP do for May. I think even with the promise of another referendum, the SNP would win enough votes.

I like Rossy's post. I was in that part of Fife yesterday and the contrast from Aberdour, Inverkeithing, Dalgety Bay to Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy is quite something!

Edited July 24, 2015 by weekevie04

[aaid]

plus, does anybody have any stats on the turnout in the recent Westminster elections? specifically, what was the ratio of overall turnout to postal vote turnout? I would guess that the ratio would be pretty similar to the Referendum.

I love a good conspiracy theory about the moon landing, JFK etc. But rather than diverting effort into conspiracy theories on the referendum (even if they were true), we're better served doing all we can to fight for a second indyref. But more importantly, we need to make sure

Since you ask. I got the previous figures from the Electoral Commission website. They don't seem to have done a full breakdown of the 2015 GE yet however for comparison I've looked at the 2010 GE and 2011 Holyrood (Constituency) numbers. Outside of the increased turnout in the Referendum there's nothing to suggest any major differences.

Electorate (millions); %age Postal; %age Overall Turnout; %age Postal Turnout

2010 GE; 3.863; 13.2%; 63.0%; 83.0%

2011 HR; 3.950; 14.1%; 50.4% ; 76.0%

2014 Ref; 4.283; 18.6%; 84.5%; 92.5%

Edited July 24, 2015 by aaid

[flynnyboy]

Since you ask. I got the previous figures from the Electoral Commission website. They don't seem to have done a full breakdown of the 2015 GE yet however for comparison I've looked at the 2010 GE and 2011 Holyrood (Constituency) numbers. Outside of the increased turnout in the Referendum there's nothing to suggest any major differences.

Electorate (millions); %age Postal; %age Overall Turnout; %age Postal Turnout

2010 GE; 3.863; 13.2%; 63.0%; 83.0%

2011 HR; 3.950; 14.1%; 50.4% ; 76.0%

2014 Ref; 4.283; 18.6%; 84.5%; 92.5%

Good post mate. It seems pretty consistent with the percentages with the other recent big elections to have a higher percentage of postal votes.

As much as it pains me to say the people living in Scotland voted no. I use that term "the people living in Scotland" in a considered manner. I firmly believe, and have read many article to back it up the scots in Scotland voted yes in a higher percentage than voted no. That's democracy for you and everyone choosing to live here deserves a say in their future. Whether or not they voted from a position of knowledge or were lead by the undoubted mass media bias is another matter.

I agree with others, this was lost purely because of the yes campaign's handling of the currency issue. It was completely half arsed and allowed the already biased media and opponents of the yes vote, mostly self serving politicians or self loathing unionists to jump all over it. We should've had the courage of our convictions and muted a Scottish currency. It made financial sense.

I'll never forget that night. I flew out on holiday the following day, a pre planned celebration or get the feck out of the country and calling my old man before leaving, who was in tears saying he'll never see independence was the most emotional i think I've ever been.

The next campaign will learn from the lessons of the last and start from a much stronger position. We will be independent with 15 years. I hope my auld man lives to see it.