Talking about Indy again

Ok I see some people have missed the point of what I have been saying in the last few posts about voter psychology.

For the benefit of the people who do not understand what I am saying, here it is again:

People saying no to independence, do so on the basis that any problem is somebody else’s responsibility.  This is why they like to talk about how much they hate Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP.
They are choosing who to complain about when they vote.  Politics is like a spectator sport for most people, and they have no conception of how to make or visualise economic decision making, far less have any notion of how economic strategies are created and carried out.  I do, hence the rather conservative looking post yesterday.  The fact is, that the conservatives used to have a clue how to grow the economy.  They are going through a particularly sleazy patch at the moment, which is what happens every time they feel safe.
Therefore it is pointless to say independence will be great, we get to administer our own money, because any question that mistakes are their fault makes the entire idea utterly ghastly.

What people are failing to understand is that the half of the population who do not want independence see it as a threat.  A threat to their lives, their properties, the nature of Scotland, and most importantly their status.  You are not dealing with forward or outward looking people, you are dealing with people who want everything to stay the same.

As someone very familiar with people who are terrified of change, they will do anything to discredit you, your views, any question that you might be right will be rejected until it is far too late.  We need to burst that bubble.

So, my suggestion, as per my post yesterday, is a pre-prepared vision of how independence will work based on harsh reality, and based on the idea that these people will not in fact lose their houses, pensions, summer holiday, naff car, or tasteless furniture.  A brutal yet soporific vision of a realistic approach to economic growth which enables the disenfranchised poor, and does not empty the pockets of the workers, savers, property holders so that they do not fear change.

By far the biggest hurdle is assuring them that they will maintain their status.  Many people who have had more comfortable lives fear losing that more than anything, so I would suggest concentrating on the several thousand civil service jobs that will be created rather than simply saying we can grow the economy would be in order.  More money in circulation means more nice restaurants for them to eat at, and inflated property prices.  Try taking that tack, because the very nature of their resistance to change, is that they only understand the world as it applies to them.

If you still don’t understand that, I cannot help you. Sigh.