Taking the medicine – disappointment in defeat

LEON NEAL/AFP/Getty Images

LEON NEAL/AFP/Getty Images

So Scotland voted No to independence – I’m disappointed.

I became engaged and excited at the prospect of an independent Scotland over the last few months, being a native, having done a reporting trip there, hosted a political debate and followed the campaigning with wonder and amusement at the creativity and verve on display.

The exercise threw up both of the core elements I address in Fraudcast News – how radical improvements to our governance systems might be possible and what sort of media coverage would help those come about.

I thought an independent Scotland might become an exemplar of more accountable, transparent government, a huge improvement on Westminster.

That was the main reason I was, and remain, an enthusiastic advocate for Yes.

My side lost – dang.

So I have to take the medicine I advocated a few months back for those on the losing side, as described in this blog post for the National Collective

This is the essence:

There is an end in sight to the referendum marathon – and a day-after that promises a large chunk of Scotland’s resident voters wake up on the wrong side of the result. The losers will include the angry, the anxious and deeply disappointed, with many seeking someone to blame. The winners’ challenge will be how to celebrate victory without rubbing neighbours’ noses in it. Whatever the outcome, “yes” and “no” voters will be picking up the pieces side by side.

You can read more here.

It is of course not the end of the world – which is why I’m now turning my attention back to climate change issues.

1 Comment

Filed under democracy, journalism

One response to “Taking the medicine – disappointment in defeat

  1. Maurice

    Makes me think of the Republic Referendum in Australia 1999.
    The media seems to portray this as “Australia rejects a republic and approves of continued monarchy”.
    Yet the polls, peoples’ opinions, and even the referendum question itself all pointed clearly to the fact that barely a quarter of the population want monarchy (at best). (Maybe another third couldn’t care less… 🙂 ) But the largest group wanted a republic.
    So the monarchist government of the day posed a question that effectively split the republic vote. A large slice of the “no” vote was republicans who wanted the opportunity to direct elect a president.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999#Alternative_methods_for_selecting_a_president

    Then with complicit media a concocted narrative was created that says to this day that “Australia rejects Republic”. (Guess who was convenor of the Monarchist camp? Hint: he used to work as a journo for The Bulletin, then went into politics… also has a reputation for blatant, outright lying.)

    Huh, what? ‘fraid it’s true…..
    Might be worth checking which side Crosby-Textor was barracking for in the Scottish Independence Referendum…. if you fancy a conspiracy…. I already guessed the answer so I’m not interested.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s