Asturias56…I’m not so certain that your assertion that ‘nothing said on here or by the Govt in London has any effect’is strictly correct!!
During the lead up to the plebiscite on the Belfast Agreement in May 1998, the British Government became increasingly worried of the negative reaction to the Agreement in the so-called PUL areas of Northern Ireland. PUL is the ‘catch all’ for the ‘Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist’ community as opposed to the CRN community (Catholic, Republican, Nationalist). In my opinion a naive way to describe a complex situation (not all Protestants are necessarily Unionist and not all Catholics are Nationalist) but terms that have entered the lingua franca of political scientists and sociologists.
The British Government was very concerned that if the PUL community voted ‘No’ in the referendum, then the premise that Westminster (and Dublin) were implementing the agreement with cross-community support would be lost. Consequently, the ‘mandarins’ of the Northern Ireland Office divided those potentially recalcitrant members of the PUL community into two camps; the so-called ‘Hard Noes’ and the ‘Soft Noes’.
The ‘Hard Noes’ were those individuals who, come hell or high water, would vote against the implementation of the Agreement, and no argument, be it emotional, logical, financial, whatever, would change their minds. However, the ‘Soft Noes’ were those who prima facie were against the tenets of the Agreement, but could, for the greater good, be persuaded to vote for implementation! So it was these individuals who were ‘targeted’…not the most appropriate word in the Northern Ireland context, but I think you get my drift.
Consequently, the Government pulled out all the stops with a massive ‘hearts and minds’ advertising and information campaign to move the ‘Soft Noes’ into the ‘Soft Yes’ camp. They may still have reservations about the tenets of the agreement, but, held their nose and voted ‘Yes’. And as history shows, the Belfast Agreement was accepted in NI by 71% ‘Yes’ to 29% ‘No’. Even so, still a lot closer that the British and Irish Governments envisaged.
So what??? I feel that there is a similar scenario at play in Scotland. You have a grouping of ‘Hard No’ Scottish nationalists who could never, ever, be persuaded that remaining in the UK is beneficial for all parties. Then you have the ‘Hard Yeses’ who will always vote for the retention of the Union irrespective. However, I believe that the majority of Scots can be described as either ‘Soft Noes’ or their equivalent on the pro-Union side, the ‘Soft Yeses’. These are the people, who could be persuaded by dint of economic, security, and yes, even emotional arguments to vote to remain in the Union. It is these individuals that the pro-Union cause should be courting. Not with Private Fraser-like cries of ‘If you vote for independence y’er all doomed, I say, doomed’. But with calm, logically thought out counter arguments to the SNP’s ‘Greta Thunberg’ view of nationhood in the 21st Century viz ‘Don’t worry, if we all wish hard enough it will all turn out for the best and let’s not concern ourselves the actualities or realpolitik’.