# The Scottish independence referendum polling thread



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2014)

View attachment 47229

OK, so I've waited till 2014 to kick this off. I thought that after last night's broth, haggis and whisky it was as good a time as any to start the discussion about this potential moment of consequences for the UK.

To (re?)start the discussion....here goes...some polling to help the Nats with their tender heads this morning....



> ALEX Salmond is within reach of victory in the independence referendum, according to an exclusive poll showing that support for the cause has grown dramatically by five percentage points over the last four months.
> 
> The largest swing towards a Yes vote recorded so far in the campaign is revealed today in an ICM survey for Scotland on Sunday, which has found that *support for independence has grown from 32 per cent to 37 per cent since September.*
> 
> The surge in those backing Yes was accompanied by a corresponding *drop in No support by five percentage points from 49 per cent in September to 44 per cent currently*.



and...



> The poll also found that when the 19 per cent who said they didn’t know how they would vote were excluded, support for *Yes is at 46 per cent compared with 54 per cent who said they would vote No.*
> 
> There was more good news for Yes Scotland, *when the “don’t knows” were pressed further on their views on independence. When they disclosed how they were “most likely” to vote, the results were factored into the equation and the pollsters found that support for independence stood at 47 per cent compared with 53 per cent in favour of No.*



Game on?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 26, 2014)

I hate to go all Pogo on your arse, Brog, but there's already a thread, with poll, here: 
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/will-you-vote-for-independence.287096/page-34

It's currently sitting at 34 pages, with 996 replies and 76,809 views.  It is, therefore, a not inconsiderable pre-existing discussion.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I hate to go all Pogo on your arse, Brog, but there's already a thread, with poll, here:
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/will-you-vote-for-independence.287096/page-34
> 
> It's currently sitting at 34 pages, with 996 replies and 76,809 views.  It is, therefore, a not inconsiderable pre-existing discussion.



That's alright Danny. 
I seem to be doing this more and more.
I clearly need to concentrate.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2014)

But that polling did look interesting.

OK, only one poll and all that, but....


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> But that polling did look interesting.
> 
> OK, only one poll and all that, but....


Yes, if the Don't Knows were persuaded to join the Yes camp, and also to turn out on the day. That's a few Ifs, but it does suggest things could be more interesting than hitherto imagined.  John Curtice is saying that Yes needs to concentrate on winning the economic argument, since that's what most peopleare saying will influence them.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, if the Don't Knows were persuaded to join the Yes camp, and also to turn out on the day. That's a few Ifs, but it does suggest things could be more interesting than hitherto imagined.  John Curtice is saying that Yes needs to concentrate on winning the economic argument, since that's what most peopleare saying will influence them.



Almost certainly true, but that £500 better off/worse off polling question was tragically poor polling methodology.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2014)

I've added the word polling to the title, so the thread _*might *_have a useful life outside of the ranty, argument style one? I suspect that there will be a great many polls on this over the coming 8 months or so.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Almost certainly true, but that £500 better off/worse off polling question was tragically poor polling methodology.



The justification is: "The £500 figure was a best guess for an amount of money big enough to have impact on a person's material well-being, symbolic of an improvement in an individual's standard of living, but not so large as to completely override everything else." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25846914


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 26, 2014)

Are you asking Scots or the board in general, and if the latter, are you asking what would be better for Scotland or for narrow South British interests? As far as I'm concerned they'd be mad to leave and we'd be well rid.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The justification is: "The £500 figure was a best guess for an amount of money big enough to have impact on a person's material well-being, symbolic of an improvement in an individual's standard of living, but not so large as to completely override everything else." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25846914



Yeah, I'm just rather suspicious of poll findings based on the notion of 'handing someone' £500, however metaphorically.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> Are you asking Scots or the board in general, and if the latter, are you asking what would be better for Scotland or for narrow South British interests? As far as I'm concerned they'd be mad to leave and we'd be well rid.



Anyone; on any basis.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 26, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> As far as I'm concerned they'd be mad to leave and we'd be well rid.


Go on, tell us why you think both.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 26, 2014)

I want Scotland to stay in the UK but would probably vote for independence were I living in Scotland.

I'm aware that I haven't got back to danny with a well thought out justification for this position


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2014)

Hope this is the right thread for this - If the yes campaign won, what would it actually mean? Would it be full independence (ie. own currency, or poss the Euro, separate armed forces, etc) or is it a kind of devolution max? I remember there was some debate/discussion around this question a bit back but I don't remember hearing how it had been resolved. So what would the changes be?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Hope this is the right thread for this - If the yes campaign won, what would it actually mean? Would it be full independence (ie. own currency, or poss the Euro, separate armed forces, etc) or is it a kind of devolution max? I remember there was some debate/discussion around this question a bit back but I don't remember hearing how it had been resolved. So what would the changes be?


There's a huge website/document on what the SNP proposes, should they form the first government. 

Some of it will depend on post referendum negotiations with Westminster, though, notably the currency issue. The SNP wants a Sterling Zone, at least initially. That is SNP policy, though, and not necessarily what shape independence would take. 

This is all discussed in some detail on the other thread.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 26, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Go on, tell us why you think both.



Because Scotland is economically dependent on the rest of the UK: it's by far its biggest export market, as it were. It does very well out of the Barnett formula and - like everywhere else in Britain - is effectively subsidised by the London economy. It may have financial services and high tech industries but the investment in these is based on Scotland being part of the UK, the only genuinely independent industry you have is the oil stuff in Aberdeen which will decline when North Sea oil runs out. If you leave the UK but keep the pound you are vulnerable to a Euro-style monetary policy  crisis - the same applies of course if you join the Euro. If you invent your own currency then you are at the mercy of the international money markets, which may not trust the groat.

Why are we better off without you? As I said, it's a subsidised satrapy which doesn't provide much value to the UK as a whole. However I suppose you're electorally useful as you tend to distrust mad libertarian parties and send down a good chunk of Labour MPs. So I suppose I'd be sad if you left.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2014)

Anthony at YouGov starting to pick through the new Scots polling sees something unusual with the poll response from the young. Big polling blooper or real change of sentiment?



> ...the swing since September is strongly concentrated amongst young people. *Amongst over 45s there’s no change, amongst people aged 25-44 support for YES is up 6 points, amongst under 25s it’s up 33 points (!)*. That rings a few alarm bells, but as ever, one shouldn’t read too much into very small subsamples – it could mean ICM had a weird sample that gave them a weird results, or that they had a weird group of under 25s but the overall sample was fine, or that there genuinely is a big shift towards YES amongst younger voters. We shall see.
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8601


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2014)

Yes, the fact that the swing is entirely amongst the under 44s is odd - and as Curtice points out, they had to count each 16-24 year old as two participants as they simply couldn't get enough of that age group to take part, so a small swing here would be magnified.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2014)

If the polling is to be trusted, then it's going to be a pretty close vote. That means as near as makes no difference half the Scottish people will end up with a situation they didn't want. Which half of Scotland ends up disappointed will depend on the floating voters, ie the people who care the least.

Democracy is shit. Or the thing we have that passes for it anyway.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 26, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> Because Scotland is economically dependent on the rest of the UK: it's by far its biggest export market, as it were. It does very well out of the Barnett formula and - like everywhere else in Britain - is effectively subsidised by the London economy. It may have financial services and high tech industries but the investment in these is based on Scotland being part of the UK, the only genuinely independent industry you have is the oil stuff in Aberdeen which will decline when North Sea oil runs out. If you leave the UK but keep the pound you are vulnerable to a Euro-style monetary policy  crisis - the same applies of course if you join the Euro. If you invent your own currency then you are at the mercy of the international money markets, which may not trust the groat.
> 
> Why are we better off without you? As I said, it's a subsidised satrapy which doesn't provide much value to the UK as a whole. However I suppose you're electorally useful as you tend to distrust mad libertarian parties and send down a good chunk of Labour MPs. So I suppose I'd be sad if you left.



Let us suppose for the moment that you are right, and Scotland is in receipt of a net subsidy from London (your claim is not that it is from the rest of the UK, but from London) – you are not right (See for example: 1., 2.), but let us for a moment suppose you are – what do you think is the fundamental difference between Scotland, a country you imply uniquely incapable of providing an economy to sustain its populace, unlike the other countries its size and smaller?  Why is Scotland incapable of making a go of it?

The truth is that if there is indeed a net subsidy from London – if, mark you – then this is a state of affairs Scotland finds itself in _as part of the Union_.  The Scotland we see today is a Scotland that is part of the UK, a product of 300 years of Union.  Why then do you not decry the Union, rather than insisting Scotland is incapable of independence? The Union is clearly failing Scotland if it has reduced it to such a level of dependency, unlike the other independent countries its size and smaller.

This line that Scotland is simply not able to support itself is a line that Better Together repeatedly deploys, and even many Unionists feel it is not credible or useful.

A far better tack is the point made some years ago now by Gordon Brown, that Britons together can be proud, for example, of their role in creating the National Health Service.  It’s an appeal to intra-British solidarity; those post-war institutions - wrought by the struggles of the ordinary people of these islands - are indeed achievements we should value.

Except, of course, many (north and south of the Border) will rightly say that the government in Westminster is now intent on dismantling that very Health Service.  There, one might say, following Gordon Brown’s logic, goes one more reason for maintaining the Union.

As an aside, I’ve seen the figures suggesting “London” subsidises the rest of the UK.  They are, though, very crude figures.  They are based on the tax take per head.  What they do not take into account are the jobs and infrastructure in London that the UK tax payer pays for: the jobs in Whitehall, including rafts of high paid mandarins; bodies with huge staff details in London, such as the Cabinet Office, Crown Prosecution Service, Department for Communities and Local Government, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty's Treasury, Ministry of Justice, UK Statistics Authority, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, boundary commission of England, Home Office, Ministry of Defence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for Work and Pensions, Department of Health, Department for Transport, Department for Education, department for Culture, Media and Sport, DFID, Attorney General's Office, Treasury Solicitors, Government Equalities Office, The Supreme Court.  Those employees pay tax, yes, but their wages and departments are paid for by the whole of the UK.

That's without the considerable BBC presence still in London, the Unions with headquarters in London, the charities and NGOs with headquarters in London and so on.

What about the infrastructure that serves London?  The Olympic stadia and infrastructure? The rail networks feeding London? The Channel tunnel? The Millennium Dome?  And what food does London produce?  And so on.

London does not subsidise the UK, it is an integral part of it.  It is indivisible from it, whether that be the UK as it is today, or a possible future UK without Scotland.  London could not go it alone.  Scotland could.

1.  http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

2.  http://newsnetscotland.com/index.ph...conomist-says-scotland-subsidising-rest-of-uk


----------



## Frankie Jack (Jan 26, 2014)

As Jackie Baillie said * This is not about whether Scotland could go it alone – of course it could – it is about whether or not it should. It is about whether separatism is in Scotland’s best interests. I don’t believe it is.*

http://www.jackiebaillie.co.uk/save-the-date-national-campaign-coming-to-dumbarton


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2014)

Two referendum polls today:-

Survation’s first referendum poll in the Mail on Sunday had topline figures of:-

*YES 32%, NO 52% and don’t know 16%*, 

very similar to the recent YouGov and Ipsos-MORI polls. Given it’s Survation’s first Scottish referendum poll we obviously don’t have any changes from last time.

More interesting are the figures from TNS-BMRB which have:-

* YES on 29% (up 2 points since December), NO on 41% (unchanged).* 

The change is small in isolation, but looking at the broader trend from TNS there does appear to be a gradual increase in Yes support. In August they has Yes on 25%, October on 25%, November 26%, December 27%, now 29%.

Usual source.​


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2014)

Two more Scots polls, one post Osborne's intervention...

Firstly, the pre-Osborne methodology...


> The figures in TNS’s poll are:-
> 
> _YES 29%, NO 42%, 29% don’t know – entirely unchanged from their previous poll in mid-January._
> 
> Given the fieldwork was conducted prior to Osborne’s intervention though, this clearly doesn’t answer the question.



and...the more interesting one (albeit with a methodological caveat...)..



> ...a new Survation poll in the Daily Mail. This was conducted on Monday and Tuesday, so after Osborne’s intervention and at the time Alex Salmond was actively responding. Topline figures there are:_
> 
> *YES 38%, NO 47%, Don’t know 16%*.
> 
> Survation’s previous poll was showing YES on 32%, NO on 52%, so prima facie it looks as though there has been a significant shift towards YES.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2014)

Getting closer....

ICM/Scotland on Sunday poll numbers....

*"No" 42% (-4), "Yes" 39% (nc), DN/WNV 19% (+4).

(Exc DN/WNV = "No" 52% & "Yes" 48%)
*
Front page...







e2a :
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
Follow
Of those surveyed in ICM #ImdyRef who were *born in Scotland there's a 2% lead for YES. English born voters split 58-28 to NO*

5:14 AM - 20 Apr 2014


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2014)

...and now Anthony @ YouGov has put up the Survation poll...

The second poll for Survation has topline figures of:-




> *YES 38%(+1), NO 46%(-1). Without don’t knows the YES vote is at 45%.*
> 
> This is a slight move towards YES since Survation’s previous poll a week and a half ago, but looking more widely it’s more of a “no change” poll, Survation also showed YES on 45% in March and February.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2014)

Latest Scots Indep poll from ICM...



> New ICM  #IndyRef poll sees sharp reverse for YES.
> 
> *Yes 34 (-5), No 46 (+4), DK 20 (+1).*



Which seems to fly in the face of the 'theory' that improving Westminster fortunes for the tory vermin would drive an increase in the 'Yes' vote.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Latest Scots Indep poll from ICM...
> 
> 
> 
> Which seems to fly in the face of the 'theory' that improving Westminster fortunes for the tory vermin would drive an increase in the 'Yes' vote.


Also Sunday Times/Panelbase have:

Yes 40% (n/c)
No 47% (+2)


----------



## weltweit (May 18, 2014)

Good, I want a no vote! but there is a lot of time to go till the actual vote.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Good, I want a no vote! but there is a lot of time to go till the actual vote.


 Oh, come on...you've been reading/posting about polling long enough not to fall into that trap, haven't you?

This from YG might help....



> ICM in the Scotland on Sunday have figures of YES 34%(-5), NO 46%(+4). This looks like a sudden big shift to NO, but I suspect a lot of that is a reversion to the mean. ICM’s last Scottish poll was the one showing the NO lead shrinking to just 3 points… I suspect that one was just a bit of an outlier and this is a return to normality.



and then, for good measure....



> My view is that the best way of seeing what is happening is still the rather laborious and imprecise process of looking at trends in individual pollsters:
> 
> Taking them one at a time, and excluding don’t knows so they are comparable,
> *
> ...


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Good, I want a no vote! but there is a lot of time to go till the actual vote.



And all the last-minute impulse voters are going to vote "Yes."  I reckon Salmond's got it in the bag.


----------



## kebabking (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> And all the last-minute impulse voters are going to vote "Yes."  I reckon Salmond's got it in the bag.



i think the same, its not what i want, but from what i see the 'no's are already committed while pretty much anyone who 'doesn't know', but who subsequently decides will be deciding 'yes' - add that to the utterly woeful Better Together campaign, and the hugely effective polictical machine that is the SNP - and i think its going to be divorce.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

Split the DK's. NO wins. What is the compelling reason why DK becomes YES? Why wasn't it there before. DK's are, _at this stage - after a year of PR_, conservatives  (or they wouldn't be DKs), so more likely to go NO.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Split the DK's. NO wins. What is the compelling reason why DK becomes YES? What wasn't it there before. DK's are, _at this stage - after a year of PR_, conservatives  (or they wouldn't be DKs), so more likely to go NO.


 Unless folk are suggesting there's a "shy Yes" voter phenomena happening when polled?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Unless folk are suggesting there's a "shy Yes" voter phenomena happening when polled?


Any shy vote would be the other way i think - which ones the youthful vibrant vote, the one you don't agree with and just nod as you walk by type vote?


----------



## Favelado (May 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Unless folk are suggesting there's a "shy Yes" voter phenomena happening when polled?



It's not likely is it? People aren't likely to feel bad about admitting it - a la 1992 General Election exit poll fuck up.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Any shy vote would be the other way i think - which ones the youthful vibrant vote, the one you don't agree with and just nod as you walk by type vote?



Maybe. I'm not really very clued up about the shy voter concept, but considering that the polling producing these numbers are almost all the product of internet panels or phone calls, it can't really be down to the psychology of wanting to give the ''correct answer'' to the pollster person. Maybe inherently conservative folk are embarrassed by their (nationalist) radicalism?


----------



## kebabking (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Split the DK's. NO wins. What is the compelling reason why DK becomes YES? What wasn't it there before. DK's are, _at this stage - after a year of PR_, conservatives  (or they wouldn't be DKs), so more likely to go NO.



i think its a psychological thing rather than a policy/political thing - the DK's are DK's because its too hard to make a decision either way (again, divorce..), and they've still got time to kick this unwelcome decision off into the long grass, but come polling day they won't have that option, they will, assuming they vote, have to make a decision, and i think the people (broadly) who do decide, _and who then make the effort to go out to the polling station_, will vote for something rather than against something.

does anyone know of any reseach into the DK's from previous elections - do they vote, do they vote in the same way as the rest of the popultion?


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

kebabking said:


> i think its a psychological thing rather than a policy/political thing - the DK's are DK's because its too hard to make a decision either way (again, divorce..), and they've still got time to kick this unwelcome decision off into the long grass, but come polling day they won't have that option, they will, assuming they vote, have to make a decision, and i think the people (broadly) who do decide, _and who then make the effort to go out to the polling station_, will vote for something rather than against something.
> 
> does anyone know of any reseach into the DK's from previous elections - do they vote, do they vote in the same way as the rest of the popultion?


It may well be a psychological thing - but to be DK a year after doesn't suggest an willingness to step gladsome into a bold new world. It suggests fears, conservatism (on the referendum) and a non-YES stickiness. What's going to make these DKs take a leap into the dark that they have shown themselves reluctant to take thus far?


----------



## kebabking (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ...What's going to make these DKs take a leap into the dark that they have shown themselves reluctant to take thus far?



i think actually your wording hits the nail on the head: in order to take a leap in the dark you need to get up off the chair - those who decide 'yes' 7.30pm on the 14th sept will jump up and go out to vote, those who either decide 'no', or still find it impossible to decide, will just stay at home.

i fully realise this is all very fluffy and not _quite_ the empirical stuff you excell at, but i've just 'got a feeling'...


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

kebabking said:


> does anyone know of any reseach into the DK's from previous elections - do they vote, do they vote in the same way as the rest of the popultion?



There is stuff out there, particularly referring to the 1992 polling issue, but it all tends to relate,obviously, to elections contested by parties, so very little of the analysis appears to cross-over very effectively to the rather unique case of the indyref.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> There is stuff out there, particularly referring to the 1992 polling issue, but it all tends to relate,obviously, to elections contested by parties, so very little of the analysis appears to cross-over very effectively to the rather unique case of the indyref.


Yep, I think this is very much a non-precedent thing as regards modern polling.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What's going to make these DKs take a leap into the dark that they have shown themselves reluctant to take thus far?



The visercal, impulsive, irrational, romantic patriotism to which the Celts have shown themselves susceptible throughout history.

They might not express it to a pollster.  But they will act on it.  Want to bet?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> There is stuff out there, particularly referring to the 1992 polling issue, but it all tends to relate,obviously, to elections contested by parties, so very little of the analysis appears to cross-over very effectively to the rather unique case of the indyref.



this the first time the plebscite has been extended to 16+ as well? I think it is and thats going to be an unpredictable factor


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> this the first time the plebscite has been extended to 16+ as well? I think it is and thats going to be an unpredictable factor


 
Good point. Looking at some of the tabs for Indyref polling, DK % are, unsurprisingly higher for the younger demographic cohorts. Interesting.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Good point. Looking at some of the tabs for Indyref polling, DK % are, unsurprisingly higher for the younger demographic cohorts. Interesting.




I really don't know how to call the under 18  vote here- on the one hand there might be a tendency to vote tribal, split along rangers/Celtic/what mum and dad vote for/what my favourite newsmag advise/have read up and fuck the westminster dem lines (very simplistic descriptor but ykwim). Or perhaps it could go the other way and see that vote share going on gut and/or nationalist lines. Which would suggest DK's becoming 'yes' on the day.

However the chips do fall I'm fascinated to see how things pan out in the 16-18 vote share.

And maybe, just maybe if that vote share swings it significantly the age limit for GE might lower someday. I never understood how you are entitled to the lowest rate of min wage at 16 but not allowed to vote in the polity your labour funds till 18. Its undemocratic.


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2014)

> *This afternoon, we took the biggest bet we have fielded yet on YES in the Scottish Referendum, £5,000 at 3/1*. That’s now 11/4 as a result. The bet was taken in one of our shops in Scotland. This will be a much bigger betting event than the Euros.



Ladbrokes


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

Oddly tiny amount - a mighty £15 000 profit!!!!


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

So, a jock kipper...what impact will that have on SNP tactics and the ref itself?


----------



## weepiper (May 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> So, a jock kipper...what impact will that have on SNP tactics and the ref itself?













etc.


----------



## weepiper (May 26, 2014)

Also, this facebook event has gained about 6 thousand attendees since yesterday


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Also, this facebook event has gained about 6 thousand attendees since yesterday


 Good work Nigel.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2014)

And the fall-out from the UKIP success continues....Darling again shows the deft touch of the 'No' campaign...



> Alistair Darling, certainly seems to be fighting back in an interview with _New Statesman _editor Jason Cowley in this week's magazine. *Darling decries Scotland's first minister Alex Salmond's "North Korean response" to Scottish Ukip voters*, challenges him to a debate, and laments the "culture of intimidation" among Scottish nationalists.
> 
> *Alex Salmond's behaving like former North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il*
> 
> He said on the BBC that people voted Ukip in Scotland because English TV was being beamed into Scotland. *This was a North Korean response. This is something that Kim Jong-il would say.* And this is the same BBC for which we all pay our licence fee, and we all enjoy the national output as well as the Scottish output.









Should edge another few % towards 'Yes'.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2014)

Oh yes, and I nearly forgot Monday's Ipsos MORI poll..



> .......a new Scottish referendum poll from Ipsos MORI. Their topline voting intention figures were:-
> 
> *YES 36%(+4), NO 54%(-3)* – changes are since MORI’s last quarterly poll.
> 
> A movement towards YES, though MORI generally show one of the largest leads for NO, so even with that movement it leaves NO a chunky lead. Full details are here.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 4, 2014)

brogdale said:


> And the fall-out from the UKIP success continues....Darling again shows the deft touch of the 'No' campaign...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Salmond should dress like that just for the laughs.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 7, 2014)

Breaking news from (PR) South Norwood....

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/...s-referendum/story-21176151-detail/story.html



> THE South Norwood Tourist Board (SNTB) has announced a referendum over whether SE25 should leave Croydon - and join bonnie Scotland.
> 
> Associates of the SNTB have asked residents to vote on September 11 – at polling stations around South Norwood a week prior to the Scottish independence vote – on whether the area should go tartan.
> 
> ...


----------



## timoxensis (Jun 8, 2014)

let them go, i don't care...


----------



## Frankie Jack (Jun 8, 2014)

timoxensis said:


> let them go, i don't care...


I cannot tell you how relieved I am to read that.


----------



## timoxensis (Jun 8, 2014)

Just my view lol..  

I don't see how Scotland leaving the UK would damage England.  It's just petty emotionalism not matter of fact...and the Union only came into being due to convenience.  Scotland was a shitty colonial power and England feared a Franco-Scottish alliance if England went to war with France.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 8, 2014)

timoxensis said:


> Just my view lol..
> 
> I don't see how Scotland leaving the UK would damage England.  It's just petty emotionalism not matter of fact...and the Union only came into being due to convenience.  Scotland was a shitty colonial power and England feared a Franco-Scottish alliance if England went to war with France.



When you laughed out loud, was it a big one? Or just a chuckle? What type of laugh do you have? Is it like a Sid James filthy one or all haughty like a Blackadder 2 courtier?

Were you lying? Maybe you DIDN'T really laugh out loud.

Run us through how it really happened.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Jun 8, 2014)

timoxensis said:


> Just my view lol..
> 
> <snip> Scotland was a shitty colonial power and England feared a Franco-Scottish alliance if England went to war with France.



A shitty colonial power? Not sure whether to LOL or


----------



## timoxensis (Jun 8, 2014)

er.... Darien Scheme and other failed attempts...not interested in a discussion of poor history with you though..


----------



## Frankie Jack (Jun 8, 2014)

Fuck off then.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 8, 2014)

timoxensis said:


> Scotland was a shitty colonial power


This perspicacious insight into pre 1707 Scottish foreign policy is relevant to the here and now because why? Once shitty always shitty? And what else does that hold for? The pre 1707 Scottish colonial trading lairds wore powdered wigs. Perhaps I wear a powdered wig? And I understand many of the lairds took snuff. Perhaps I take snuff? 

And that shittiness in colonial matters 300 years ago. What does it disqualify me from now, do you know? Should I put it on my CV?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 8, 2014)

If I was Scottish, I'd vote yes just to fuck the bedroom tax off.


----------



## timoxensis (Jun 9, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> This perspicacious insight into pre 1707 Scottish foreign policy is relevant to the here and now because why? Once shitty always shitty? And what else does that hold for? The pre 1707 Scottish colonial trading lairds wore powdered wigs. Perhaps I wear a powdered wig? And I understand many of the lairds took snuff. Perhaps I take snuff?
> 
> And that shittiness in colonial matters 300 years ago. What does it disqualify me from now, do you know? Should I put it on my CV?



er...if you like....you may get a good historian job at a Russel Group uni...

My point was related to this angst/whining over Scottish independence being just emotionalism and not anything matter of fact....  England/Scotland united due to convenience not mutual love or brotherhood.....Unless you want to colonise Panama and seize the Canal for Scotland, be my guest..

Fact is an advanced economy like the UK doesn't and shouldn't be exporting oil/gas en masse.  To say we need Scotland in the Union for our collective benefit is not true...

Hence why I said they can go, I don't give a shit...


----------



## JTG (Jun 9, 2014)

What's your point caller?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 9, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The pre 1707 Scottish colonial trading lairds wore powdered wigs. Perhaps I wear a powdered wig? And I understand many of the lairds took snuff. Perhaps I take snuff?


You mean you don't! You've shattered my image of you Danny.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 9, 2014)

timoxensis said:


> er...if you like....you may get a good historian job at a Russel Group uni...
> 
> My point was related to this angst/whining over Scottish independence being just emotionalism and not anything matter of fact....  England/Scotland united due to convenience not mutual love or brotherhood.....Unless you want to colonise Panama and seize the Canal for Scotland, be my guest..
> 
> ...


Still not sure what you're on about, really.

But I agree that people in the rUK being sad "to see the Scots go" is bizarre.  We wouldn't be going anywhere.  We'd simply no longer share a government.  And if anyone thinks that not sharing a government precludes cultural exchange, friendship, or sense of family, then that's a sad statement on them rather than on anything else.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 9, 2014)

Mind you, getting back on topic, the polling isn't looking good for the Yes campaign.  There was a period in the spring where the momentum was with Yes: the gap was narrowing, and if the trends had continued, Yes was on course to overtake No by August.  But the rate has slowed, and though the gap may be in single figures it's still a gap, and Yes is still consistently behind.

The dismal, dismissive, reactionary No campaign has plumbed the depths of ethnic nationalism, sowing confusion and division, and it appears to be working.  To what longer term effect, we don't yet know.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 9, 2014)

Do you mind if I imagine you in a powdered wig from now on Danny?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 9, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Mind you, getting back on topic, the polling isn't looking good for the Yes campaign.  There was a period in the spring where the momentum was with Yes: the gap was narrowing, and if the trends had continued, Yes was on course to overtake No by August.  But the rate has slowed, and though the gap may be in single figures it's still a gap, and Yes is still consistently behind.
> 
> The dismal, dismissive, reactionary No campaign has plumbed the depths of ethnic nationalism, sowing confusion and division, and it appears to be working.  To what longer term effect, we don't yet know.



The real question for me is what happens to all the new people the RIC and the leftier bits of the Yes campaign claim to have organised? It seems that they have genuinely tapped into a pool of people who desire radical progressive social change and believe they have a chance to bring it about or at least create easier conditions for it to flourish.

It seems to me there are two dilemmas for after September.

1. The No vote wins - how to deal with disillousionment, how to convince people that it's not the end, but actually just a different position and that social change is still possible? 

2. The Yes vote wins. How do RIC et al use that moment to build power that can in some way that can promote their agenda within a Scotland in which the SNP is triumphant and still at least until after the Scottish general election in 2016 presenting itself as social democratic?

In both cases from what I have seen (including speaking to RIC activists in Scotland) it seems that they are pinning all their hopes on independence in a way that precludes any real possiblilty of change as part of Britain.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 9, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Still not sure what you're on about, really.
> 
> But I agree that people in the rUK being sad "to see the Scots go" is bizarre.  We wouldn't be going anywhere.  We'd simply no longer share a government.  And if anyone thinks that not sharing a government precludes cultural exchange, friendship, or sense of family, then that's a sad statement on them rather than on anything else.



sorry Danny, thats either disingenuous, unimaginative, or niave.

if Scotland and the rUK are different states then the people who live in both states will have some loss of amenity - in defence for example, people in rUK will be much less well defended because their Air Defence system will stop at Berwick, rather than 200 miles north of Shetland, and the people who live in Scotland will have their protection massively reduced because, while their AD system will still extent 200 miles north of Shetland, they will have almost no capability to enfore it. both sides lose.

heres another example - i live in England, my eldest daughter lives in Scotland, she only gets to see me because a Scottish Sherriff enforces the judgement of an English Judge. moreover, going to see her is, as you can imagine, an expensive and time consuming business - if when i book hotel rooms, or pay for dinner, or buy cinema tickets or petrol, or visit the cash machine in Glasgow i have to pay a surcharge to my bank for using Scottish currency, then that may impact on my ability to afford the whole thing on such a regular basis - thus my daughter see's her father less.

would i, for example, decide to fill up in Carlisle instead of waiting till i get to Glasgow so the fuel duty and VAT goes to the rUK government instead of the Scottish Government? if i buy £45 worth of deisel in Carlisle the tax helps pay for the services i and my family recieve at home, if i buy it in Glasgow that money is lost to us. 

i am by no stretch of the imagination suggesting that Scotland is going to become a failed state without westminster oversight, or that either side will be building pillboxes at Gretna, or that the relationship won't settle down to the normality thats the case between France and Belgium for example, but anyone who suggests that there will be no negative consequences of one country becoming two, even if the seperation/divorce goes smoothly, is deluding themselves.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 9, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> In both cases from what I have seen (including speaking to RIC activists in Scotland) it seems that they are pinning all their hopes on independence in a way that precludes any real possiblilty of change as part of Britain.


I think you're right.  I think the main failing, ideologically, of RIC is that it pins its hopes on change through parliamentary activity.  _Westminster has failed us, so we need a different parliament._ That's where the disillusionment will come from either way.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 9, 2014)

kebabking said:


> would i, for example, decide to fill up in Carlisle instead of waiting till i get to Glasgow so the fuel duty and VAT goes to the rUK government instead of the Scottish Government? if i buy £45 worth of deisel in Carlisle the tax helps pay for the services i and my family recieve at home, if i buy it in Glasgow that money is lost to us.


If your notion of cultural exchange, friendship or sense of family is predicated on your petrol purchasing habits when visiting another country, then you, my friend, are the poorer for it, and I'm sorry for you.


----------



## treelover (Jun 9, 2014)

Apparently, the 'better together' campaign launch is in Maryhill, a deprived part of Glasgow, where they say they have "growing support", is this an old unionist area?


----------



## treelover (Jun 9, 2014)




----------



## treelover (Jun 9, 2014)

> "It is now confirmed that not only did No. 10 ask Obama to make the statement, they set up the BBC to ask the question that prompted it."... Craig Murray is (yet again) bang on the money. Why is this just allowed to happen with little or no noise? Let's ensure they know exactly how we feel on the 29th folks. I'd urge everyone who is confirmed for this to share and invite as many people as possible.
> 
> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/06/bbc-lawbreaking/



FFS, what is happening with the BBC?, its the same of course with its reporting on benefit issues, reform, its losing people who would usually defend it.


----------



## agricola (Jun 9, 2014)

treelover said:


> FFS, what is happening with the BBC?, its the same of course with its reporting on benefit issues, reform, its losing people who would usually defend it.



Its not that inexplicable; the BBC has a gun against its head over the licence fee, very few supporters in the wider media who are worth anything, and the main parties are either looking to do it in or - at best - are not that bothered about protecting its independence.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 9, 2014)

treelover said:


> Apparently, the 'better together' campaign launch is in Maryhill, a deprived part of Glasgow, where they say they have "growing support", is this an old unionist area?


It's a Labour area. Patricia Ferguson is constituency MSP and Ann McKechin is the MP (see her name in treelover's list of shame).


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 9, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Mind you, getting back on topic, the polling isn't looking good for the Yes campaign.  There was a period in the spring where the momentum was with Yes: the gap was narrowing, and if the trends had continued, Yes was on course to overtake No by August.  But the rate has slowed, and though the gap may be in single figures it's still a gap, and Yes is still consistently behind.
> 
> The dismal, dismissive, reactionary No campaign has plumbed the depths of ethnic nationalism, sowing confusion and division, and it appears to be working.  To what longer term effect, we don't yet know.




I've been wondering about the polling too. I haven't followed recent trends as closely as you or brogdale have, but the gap looks as if it remains significant enough to make further moves towards a Yes lead look difficult. I always thought that the dismal negativity of the No campaign would put people off them more though.

I did hear one theory put though, when I was chatting with my political friends recently (none of them Scottish, but one of them Welsh!). Which is that there might be a bigger element of 'Yes'-sympathising that won't come to anything in the end -- more people than we're aware of who would _consider_ Yes, and identify with the positives of Yes,  but might vote No on the day out of uncertainty, concern about consequences etc. So perhaps negativity might be having more of an impact for more people than we'd like.

just speculating really but I'd be interested in peoples' thoughts.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 9, 2014)

I voted 'Other' btw because as people might remember from the other big thread, I have very mixed feelings about what would be good for Scotland but not so much for South of the Border. But I'll let that part of the discussion lie for now, I've said enough already


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 9, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I did hear one theory put though, when I was chatting with my political friends recently (none of them Scottish, but one of them Welsh!). Which is that there might be a bigger element of 'Yes'-sympathising that won't come to anything in the end -- more people than we're aware of who would _consider_ Yes, and identify with the positives of Yes,  but might vote No on the day out of uncertainty, concern about consequences etc. So perhaps negativity might be having more of an impact for more people than we'd like.
> 
> just speculating really but I'd be interested in peoples' thoughts.



That's a very good point, just like many people sympathise with the Greens (or the BNP for that matter) and the like but tend not to vote for them on the day as they either see it as a wasted vote or don't quite trust them to actually run stuff.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 11, 2014)




----------



## equationgirl (Jun 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It's a Labour area. Patricia Ferguson is constituency MSP and Ann McKechin is the MP (see her name in treelover's list of shame).


Ah yes Ann McKechin. She who ignores emails about Atos-related motions yet thinks nothing of claiming for the tiniest item she buys for her Pimlico flat. Expenses make interesting reading.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 12, 2014)

kebabking said:


> sorry Danny, thats either disingenuous, unimaginative, or niave.
> 
> if Scotland and the rUK are different states then the people who live in both states will have some loss of amenity - in defence for example, people in rUK will be much less well defended because their Air Defence system will stop at Berwick, rather than 200 miles north of Shetland, and the people who live in Scotland will have their protection massively reduced because, while their AD system will still extent 200 miles north of Shetland, they will have almost no capability to enfore it. both sides lose.



Is this really a pressing matter? Are we expecting regimental strength Backfire incursions the morning after? The GIUK gap will almost certainly remain policed by the rUK air force anyway as it's important to NATO and the new Scottish air force is going to have nothing beyond a nugatory capacity to do anything for a very long time.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 12, 2014)

kebabking - this is just hysterical nonsense.



> i live in England, my eldest daughter lives in Scotland, she only gets to see me because a Scottish Sherriff enforces the judgement of an English Judge.



What?



> decide to fill up in Carlisle instead of waiting till i get to Glasgow so the fuel duty and VAT goes to the rUK government instead of the Scottish Government? if i buy £45 worth of deisel in Carlisle the tax helps pay for the services i and my family recieve at home, if i buy it in Glasgow that money is lost to us.



You actually think that is important?

If your daughter is seriously thinking about voting on the referendum because of any of these rather silly things you have just thought up, then that'll be a real shame.  Fundamental constitutional change in the UK or "kebabking's ability to use an ATM in Scotland without being charged a modest surcharge?"


----------



## brogdale (Jun 12, 2014)

Smithson has a piece on the latest Survation polling showing a closing Y/N gap and a rider that appears to support the notion of an positive correlation between tory fortunes and the 'Yes' vote...



> *YES 39 (+2)
> NO 44 (-3)
> DK 17 (NC)
> Without DKs YES 47 NO 53*
> ...








With some caveats...



> This form of conditional voting intention question asked immediately after the standard one can be said to be leading. It is hard to frame wording that doesn’t do this. The very fact that it is being put is suggesting to respondents that this might be an issue with their referendum voting choice.
> 
> Whatever this type of finding is going to be picked on and highlighted in the coming three months. Voting YES is going to be presented as a means of avoiding a Tory government. The question is whether this will resonate enough to tip the outcome in that direction.


----------



## geminisnake (Jun 12, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> kebabking - this is just hysterical nonsense.
> 
> What?



No it's not. Not having a go but you don't seem to know about the differences in the Scottish and English legal systems re custody. A lot of English law has no jurisdiction in Scotland, so it's good for kebabking that he has got a decent Scottish judge. That judge could have just said 'tough'.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 13, 2014)

How many people have been refused visitation rights based on their place of residence?


----------



## timoxensis (Jun 13, 2014)

JTG said:


> What's your point caller?



That we in England don't really need to care if Scotland gets independence.  There's no reason I can damage us economically, and it's only emotive crap like "we're stronger together" which is the issue.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 13, 2014)

A £400k bet was placed on "No" this week. It certainly helps when no less a figure than JK Rowling calls you splitters a bunch of Voldemortists.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 14, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> In both cases from what I have seen (including speaking to RIC activists in Scotland) it seems that they are pinning all their hopes on independence in a way that precludes any real possiblilty of change as part of Britain.



Well, for me I do think I will become much more active in Scottish politics in the event of a Yes.  The UK is thoroughly undemocratic, and independence is the only real way Scots can bring real change to Britain.

I think this is true for every area except London (that strong decentralisation movements are the only way smaller regions can exert any influence).  If Londoners came out and demanded change, they'll get something and so they would have to lead any mass movement. 

Scots can be ignored, we are miles away and a 'special case' when it suits Westminster (and an 'integral part' of Britain for the purpose of the referendum campaign).  Also, with the Tories really wanting to undermine devolution, I think if there is a No, we could be looking at a very messy Anglo-Scottish relationship over the course of decades.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 14, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> A £400k bet was placed on "No" this week. It certainly helps when no less a figure than JK Rowling calls you splitters a bunch of Voldemortists.



Saw a good post on facebook... "No surprise Rowling supports No, she's been peddling fiction for years."


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 15, 2014)

Dairy Queen said:
			
		

> The UK is thoroughly undemocratic, and independence is the only real way Scots can bring real change to *Scotland*.



Corrected for you 

Far from convinced there'll be any positive changes for the rest of the UK if Scotland goes yes. The reverse if anything, as I fear it.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2014)

Getting closer....








> Two new referendum polls this weekend see the gap between YES and NO getting narrower. ICM for Scotland on Sunday has, after the exclusion of DKs:-
> 
> *YES up 3 to 45% with NO down 3 to 55%.*
> 
> ...


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 15, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Corrected for you
> 
> Far from convinced there'll be any positive changes for the rest of the UK if Scotland goes yes. The reverse if anything, as I fear it.



I think there would be beneficial changes for the rest of the UK.

http://www.conservativehome.com/the...uld-cameron-resign-if-scotland-votes-yes.html


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2014)

The latest shenanigans for those who haven't been following things very closely.

Kevin McKenna's move from very anti to pro is also interesting to note.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/14/better-together-mistakes-scottish-independence


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2014)




----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2014)

If, like me, you live if fUK*...the only way to watch tonight's jockdebate is here...apparently.

* "future UK" aka rUK


----------



## The Pale King (Aug 5, 2014)

STV player seems to be down...I am getting no joy anyway


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2014)

The Pale King said:


> STV player seems to be down...I am getting no joy anyway


Snap.
Crap innit...all of us in fUK can't even hear/see the debate.


----------



## The Pale King (Aug 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Snap.
> Crap innit...all of us in fUK can't even hear/see the debate.



It's shit! Surely they could've foreseen there'd be a huge amount of interest, even shared with a few other sites...I am getting by on newspaper liveblogs, doesn't look like they're gonna get it fixed ...Cock up or conspiracy?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 5, 2014)

The Pale King said:


> It's shit! Surely they could've foreseen there'd be a huge amount of interest, even shared with a few other sites...I am getting by on newspaper liveblogs, doesn't look like they're gonna get it fixed ...Cock up or conspiracy?



This works http://zattoo.com/watch/stv Wouldn't use an email address you care about to register though


----------



## The Pale King (Aug 5, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> This works http://zattoo.com/watch/stv Wouldn't use an email address you care about to register though



Cheers


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2014)

Fucking hell; already regretting tuning in.


----------



## The Pale King (Aug 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Fucking hell; already regretting tuning in.



me n aw - like Sturgeon v Lamont round two so far.


----------



## Ponyutd (Aug 5, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>



"the Scotch"


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2014)

Ponyutd said:


> "the Scotch"


 Slange Var


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 5, 2014)

Or _slàinte mhòr/mhath _


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Or _slàinte mhòr/mhath _


 So that's a double?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> So that's a double?


Why not? Mine's a single malt. I'm rather partial to Islay whiskies.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Why not? Mine's a single malt. I'm rather partial to Islay whiskies.


 You like it peaty, eh? I tend to stick to the more accessible Highland malts.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You like it peaty, eh? I tend to stick to the more accessible Highland malts.


Bruichladdich is less peaty but yes, I quite like the peaty ones. That said, I quite like Speyside malts too (but not Glenfiddich).


----------



## brogdale (Aug 6, 2014)

So Salmond fucked up a bit? 

Certainly seemed a bit un-hinged in the small section I was able to catch once STV had sorted itself out.

The immediate polling (from Anthony @ YG)..



> *UPDATE:* ICM’s instant poll crowns Darling the winner – 56% for Darling, 44% for Alex Salmond. The figures are, incidentally, very close to the sort of NO/YES figures ICM report in referendum voting intentions. We’ll know properly when we see ICM’s tables, but I suspect we may find that people who were voting YES anyway thought Salmond won, people who were voting NO anyway thought Darling won.
> 
> *UPDATE2:* Full figures including don’t knows were Darling 47%, Salmond 37%, Don’t Know 15%. Sample size was 512.
> 
> *UPDATE3:* Tabs are here. People’s perceptions of who won were, as suspected, largely in line with their pre-existing dispositions towards independence, though not entirely. Amongst people who were voting NO before the debate people thought Darling won by 83% to 6%. Amongst pre-debate YES voters people thought Salmond won by 72% to 16%. Amongst people who said they were don’t knows, Salmond was slightly ahead – 44% to 36% (albeit, there were only 63 don’t knows, so we’re talking about the difference of 4 or 5 people). Bottom line is that there was no big knockout blow here – the large majority of both sides thought their own “champion” won, don’t knows were pretty evenly split.


----------



## AnandLeo (Aug 6, 2014)

Simple fallacy in the Scotland independence debate that neither party is addressing is that; the objective of campaign for Scottish independence is separation from British rule from London and incorporating the awed European Union rule from Brussels – notwithstanding the contention to retain the currency of Sterling Pound.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 6, 2014)

AnandLeo said:


> Simple fallacy in the Scotland independence debate that neither party is addressing is that; the objective of campaign for Scottish independence is separation from British rule from London and incorporating the awed European Union rule from Brussels – notwithstanding the contention to retain the currency of Sterling Pound.


Could you insert some grammar, please, so that we can understand your point?


----------



## gosub (Aug 7, 2014)

I  think it means its a bit of a misnomer calling it Independence to want most of your laws carved out in Brussels and London dictating fiscal policy.  Which apparently no one is addressing.....only they are.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 7, 2014)

gosub said:


> I  think it means its a bit of a misnomer calling it Independence to want most of your laws carved out in Brussels and London dictating fiscal policy.  Which apparently no one is addressing.....only they are.



Yeah, but it does give the jocks the right to be governed by tories that are not called tories.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 29, 2014)

Yes have clawed it back pretty much to where they were before the TV debates...

albeit with a pollster more favourable to Yes...


> As can be seen the NO lead is back down to where it was before the first debate in early August – a 6% margin for NO.
> 
> The YES campaign will be delighted to be making up the ground lost – the big question is whether they can go forward from here.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 29, 2014)

Who has the shy vote in Scotland at the moment? I suspect given the buzz and enthusiasm from the Yes camp, No voters will be far shyer when it comes to polling? If there is a shy vote at all.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 29, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Who has the shy vote in Scotland at the moment? I suspect given the buzz and enthusiasm from the Yes camp, No voters will be far shyer when it comes to polling? If there is a shy vote at all.


Do you mean people who say they're going to vote one way to appease the asker but in reality will vote the other? Not sure there is one, everyone I've spoken to about it has been quite firm about which way they're voting and willing to back that up in discussion. I don't know many don't knows but the ones I do know are going around asking other people how they're voting rather than hiding their lights under a bushel iyswim


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2014)

My experience, too. Everyone is keen to discuss the referendum. Met some "don't knows", but never an "I'm not saying".


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 1, 2014)

danny la rouge weepiper 

Is it not possible that Spanky Longhorn might? have a point about shy voters all the same? I mean in terms of responding to opinion pollsters specifically? 

I only raise the question, don't really know myself.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> danny la rouge weepiper
> 
> Is it not possible that Spanky Longhorn might? have a point about shy voters all the same? I mean in terms of responding to opinion pollsters specifically?
> 
> I only raise the question, don't really know myself.


There is a possibility, I suppose, but I really have no idea which side it might be.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 1, 2014)

its a phenomena that caught pollsters with thier pants down during that shit era when major got in. Of course it could happen again, psephology is art not science (half the time). But it doesn't seem likely. Shyness isn't a noted trend amongst scottish voters now is it.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 1, 2014)

_"In the polling booth God can see you but Stalin cannot!"_


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its a phenomena that caught pollsters with thier pants down during that shit era when major got in. Of course it could happen again, psephology is art not science (half the time). But it doesn't seem likely. Shyness isn't a noted trend amongst scottish voters now is it.


Exactly.  You can see why people didn't want to admit they were voting Tory.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 1, 2014)

In this case though, I suspect it is the No vote that is diminished by unwillingness to admit: the bullying by Yes is well-attested.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 1, 2014)

Oh look: Wee Eck's privatising the SNHS.



> Alex Salmond has been accused of “rank hypocrisy” and “duplicity” over his campaign on the NHS after it emerged that the health service in Glasgow has awarded a major contract to a private slimming company.
> The First Minister has repeatedly claimed in recent weeks that the only way to save the health service from privatisation in Scotland is a Yes vote in the independence referendum.
> His political opponents said he was scaring the vulnerable with lurid warnings while at the same time “nodding through NHS contracts to independent providers”.
> The Telegraph has learned that Weight Watchers, the US-based international weight loss company, has won a two-year contract to provide 4,000 overweight patients with weight management guidance in the west of Scotland.



I don't have a problem with this as long as it's properly managed - after all, Weight Watchers are specialists - but Salmond's timing is very poor.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> In this case though, I suspect it is the No vote that is diminished by unwillingness to admit: the bullying by Yes is well-attested.


Oh shut up. That's nonsense and you know it. There has been outrageous behaviour on both sides, but the stuff coming from Yes gets far more press and attention because the media is overwhelmingly biased to No.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 1, 2014)

I love all these lefties in support of raising new borders between the working classes. If anyone is in doubt of the idiocy of leftists jumping on the Yes bandwagon, they should have a read at what full time ball bag Billy Bragg wrote about it.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Oh shut up. That's nonsense and you know it.



Unfortunately I well know that it's not nonsense.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> In this case though, I suspect it is the No vote that is diminished by unwillingness to admit: the bullying by Yes is well-attested.


Like the 80-year-old Yes leaflet that had his arm broken by a No supporting thug, or the death threats to Yes supporting politicians?

There is no monopoly of idiots on either side.  Although there's more coverage given to eggs thrown at Jim Murphy than to anything No nutters do.

I have never met any shy No voters.  Quite the reverse.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Unfortunately I well know that it's not nonsense.


Really? I hope you're not basing this opinion on media reports. Take for example this article in the Herald today (which I've c+p'ed because it's paywalled)



> FEARS of "absolute carnage" outside polling stations on Referendum Day amid a growing atmosphere of intimidation have been raised by the No camp.
> 
> The suggestion comes after Yes Scotland was accused of organising "street mobbery" to shout down leading Unionist Jim Murphy, who warned the campaign had taken a "sinister turn".
> 
> ...



In particular this paragraph:


> Yesterday, a 55-year-old man was charged over an alleged assault on a woman after a disturbance between Yes and No campaigners in Glasgow. The incident involved about 30 people in Argyle Street on Saturday afternoon.The man has been released and a report will be sent to the procurator-fiscal.



In the context of the rest of the article (which is mostly hysterical nonsense from Jim Murphy) that looks like it was an assault by a Yes campaigner on a No voter, doesn't it? In fact it was quite the opposite. In fact it was a member of BNP offshoot 'Britannica' who are No campaigners and he kicked a female passer-by (it's not clear whether she is a Yes or No voter) in the stomach then got back on his mic and called her 'junkie scum' to the assembled crowd. But why let fact get in the way.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 1, 2014)

I wasn't referring to Murphy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2014)

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/dads-fury-son-narrowly-avoids-4141853

*Yes campaigner Dad's fury as son narrowly avoids chair thrown from balcony by No supporter*


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 1, 2014)

I dont know how to do the shout out thing but id be particularly interested to hear toggles take on this piece of gritty social realism from the NO campaign

seriously..this is a real ad. its not a piss take.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 1, 2014)

can't they all kill each other, that would bring some small dark joy into my world.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> I dont know how to do the shout out thing but id be particularly interested to hear toggles take on this piece of gritty social realism from the NO campaign
> 
> seriously..this is a real ad. its not a piss take.




toggle


----------



## revol68 (Sep 1, 2014)

the No campaign is fucked because Labour are never going to actually talk about shit like the labour movement and british workers struggles. Saying that a cynic might assume the No campaign is being run by secret Yes folks, it's been so hilariously bad.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> I dont know how to do the shout out thing but id be particularly interested to hear toggles take on this piece of gritty social realism from the NO campaign
> 
> seriously..this is a real ad. its not a piss take.




You can have mine if you like


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 1, 2014)




----------



## weepiper (Sep 1, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/dads-fury-son-narrowly-avoids-4141853
> 
> *Yes campaigner Dad's fury as son narrowly avoids chair thrown from balcony by No supporter*


http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...-attacked-by-mob-outside-tynecastle-1-3527125



> Stewart Dredge, a 59-year-old grandfather from Currie, was left with a cut above his eye amid claims he was punched and headbutted by a stranger.
> 
> Mr Dredge, secretary of Edinburgh Pentlands SNP, said Hearts Supporters for Independence had been campaigning peacefully outside the stadium during the Falkirk game when they were targeted.
> 
> He said: “It was fairly traumatic, a really serious incident. Some of the other people were upset. One lad from East Calder was punched in the face for trying to film it on his phone. His mouth was swollen, and he was very tearful and upset.”


----------



## toggle (Sep 1, 2014)

I'm fairly sure you can already guess at some of it Casually Red

I support the Yes campaign for Scotland, I've also discussed my support for devolution of power to a Cornish assembly and I'm writing a thesis on the Cornish response to the Irish Home Rule  debates. I've spoken openly about how I think that the supporters of the union are recycling the same arguments that were seen in the debates over Irish Home Rule in the 1886 and onwards election campaigns. The sneering, the barely concealed bigotry, they can't stop with that shit, even though they have been told by some of their own supporters that they drive support towards devolution since that period.And I can't seperate my feelings about this campaign from my understanding of the history of anti devolution and suffrage campaigns.





			
				my thesis draft said:
			
		

> The Liberal Unionists usually preferred an approach stating that union was better for both nations, but tended to be focused very much on the rights of England, with little consideration of the needs of Ireland. AV Dicey, one of the LUPs most prominent political writers and theorists, firmly believed that a significant portion of the political and social unrest among Irish people was caused by overt racism. Dicey was to state that:
> _
> if Englishmen could learn to speak and think of Irishmen with the same respect and consideration due their fellow citizens, if they could cease to jeer at Irishmen now as not more than a century ago they used to jeer at Scotchmen, the Union would soon become something more than a mere work of legal ingenuity. _
> 
> He believed that this ‘jeering’ was manipulated by the nationalists into a power base for their cause, that if attacks were to stop, there would be more contentment in Ireland and the spectre of nationalism would dissipate. This position became a cornerstones of early Liberal Unionist policy, ‘killing home rule with kindness’.[2]



that quote in the middle is from AV Dicey - England's Case against Home Rule. I think he was wrong in stating that the jeering against Scottish people had gone away. But i thought this highlights how these people are incapable, as they have been for a long time, of concealing their distaste for the idea of people from the Celtic nations running their own country and how they have learned fuck all in the 100 years since parliament voted to grant Home Rule to Ireland.

I know that isn't quite the response you were expecting first off, but I think ti's important to address the reasons this is quite that bad.  the level of shit that is this video is because not only is it aimed at women, it's aimed at Scottish women, lesser creatures on two counts.

As for the feminist perspective-

Although I don't tend to follow major election campaigns from this century in huge detail, this level of patronizing is something that I'm used to reading. because it does not usually belong in this century. The attitude is more reminiscent of the campaigns aimed at the 4th reform act era women voters. The kind of stuff that every party now, other than UKIP know they have to keep one hell of a lid on. and even they have to disaprove of when their candidates gob off.


it's very much situating women in the domestic sphere, where they belong because of their inclinations and abilities. they don't really want to vote, they are happy to leave all that bother of politics to the menz. Ideas that didn't apply to a lot of actual women by the time Millicent Fawcett dissociated herself from the Liberal Unionists and went back to only campaigning on women's suffrage in the 1890s. many women knew then that they did not want to be held solely into the domestic, thy wanted a public role and they took a public role.

They knew that then, but the shit that was told to women then has been brought back. and i can't help but see a resurrection of 100 year old bullshit as proof that the people running this campaign are bigoted fuckwads.that this proves how little respect they have, not only for women, but for the scottish people in general. 

is there anything I need to add to clarify my position?


----------



## toggle (Sep 1, 2014)

actualy, i'm tempted to write that up without the fucking and shitting and send it to one of my mates who is involved in The Celtic League for them to publish


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 1, 2014)

revol68 said:


> I love all these lefties in support of raising new borders between the working classes. If anyone is in doubt of the idiocy of leftists jumping on the Yes bandwagon, they should have a read at what full time ball bag Billy Bragg wrote about it.




'raising new borders' capital sets and works existing borders and removes them when it wants workers. This might be about nationalism for some of them, I'm in it to see the conservatives take a beating. Thats realpolitik. By all means keep fighting the no borders cause, maybe get me some free unicorns and a 12 inch penis while you are at the big shop of shit-that-will-never-happen-in-our-lifetime.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 1, 2014)

If you thought that ad wasn't bizarre enough, here's their new poster campaign


----------



## toggle (Sep 1, 2014)

you clearly don't have single and childless people in scotland


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 1, 2014)

nope..very helpful answer actually . Cheers


----------



## weepiper (Sep 1, 2014)

toggle said:


> you clearly don't have single and childless people in scotland


We do, but their opinions are obviously worthless. Good little Tory breeders, that's what we need.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 1, 2014)

I like how its only recently that the unionists have decided to roll out_ 'I fucking love scotland, I really do. proper love it. Like my mum and peas'_


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2014)

I don't love "Scotland".  That's a meaningless piece of mawkish tawdry gobshite.

But I am surprised by the implication that I don't love my family if I vote Yes.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 1, 2014)

I bet all those families are hard working.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 1, 2014)

Has this man  fallen  off a tin of fucking shortbread ...or what ? Hes like some yank tourist gone mad at Edinburgh castle or something.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> If you thought that ad wasn't bizarre enough, here's their new poster campaign
> 
> View attachment 60349



Is that Andy Coulson on the right?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 1, 2014)

Twitter photoshoppers have been busy already


----------



## ddraig (Sep 1, 2014)

that middle one is genius!


----------



## Quartz (Sep 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Twitter photoshoppers have been busy already
> 
> View attachment 60355



For some people, retaining Trident is a very good reason to vote No.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 1, 2014)

toggle said:


> you clearly don't have single and childless people in scotland





weepiper said:


> We do, but their opinions are obviously worthless. Good little Tory breeders, that's what we need.



Clearly my flat became an independent republic overnight and my vote became worthless. Good to know, isn't it, that the government only values the nuclear family option and wants to ignore anyone who doesn't fit that mould.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> For some people, retaining Trident is a very good reason to vote No.



is that a brand of hoover or cereal ?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 1, 2014)

actually feel sorry for that one... getting hit with tumbleweeds the whole day is no fun at all


----------



## scifisam (Sep 1, 2014)

Tangential question: my mother always indentified as Scottish despite being born in the East End of London. Her parents were of the generation where you might move to England, but you never really left Scotland; they mixed with mostly scottish people. Their accents were so strong that I had to be an interpreter for my grandad in his later life.

If there's a yes vote, I'm still half Scottish, right?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> actually feel sorry for that one... getting hit with tumbleweeds the whole day is no fun at all



Yes East Lothian went to the local Sunday Market and got 247 people to pose with a Yes sign.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 1, 2014)

scifisam said:


> Tangential question: my mother always indentified as Scottish despite being born in the East End of London. Her parents were of the generation where you might move to England, but you never really left Scotland; they mixed with mostly scottish people. Their accents were so strong that I had to be an interpreter for my grandad in his later life.
> 
> If there's a yes vote, I'm still half Scottish, right?


Sure. Just like I'll still be half English


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 1, 2014)

thats it..im convinced the No campaign is actually a Whitehall ploy to throw the scots out..theyre *trying* to lose this 

wtf ????  where the hell did they find hm ??? and whats he even on about ??




seriously not fair..we got the black and tans ..partition..plastic bullets  SAS and all sorts. Flipping scots get *sausage roll boy*


----------



## slainte (Sep 1, 2014)

Hmm as Bill Hicks would have said....we aren't losing the cure for cancer there..are we...


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2014)




----------



## toggle (Sep 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Twitter photoshoppers have been busy already
> 
> View attachment 60355
> 
> ...


major problem, is when you vote yes, we get trident. or rather Plymouth gets the subs and the nukes get shunted into falmouth harbour. 

did the tories want to see cornwall's campaigns for devolution given a huge boost? because this shit will unite cornwall. not only those of us who live here, but also the illegal second home voters (illegal, cause the bastards are plural voting) who will worry about loosing value when this shit fucks the industry that 1/4 of people here are employed by. 

these cunts specialise in own goals


----------



## toggle (Sep 1, 2014)

own goals to the point i sometimes wonder who the secret entryists into the tories is and how far they've got up the food chain


----------



## geminisnake (Sep 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> actually feel sorry for that one... getting hit with tumbleweeds the whole day is no fun at all



She is a Dundee Labour councillor and a particularly obnoxious one at that. She has been highly abusive to anyone who hasn't asked the 'right' questions, though how one knows what the right ones are I don't know.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2014)

scifisam said:


> If there's a yes vote, I'm still half Scottish, right?


No, the referendum result will alter your genealogy.  

(Actually, you'd automatically be a Scottish citizen, if you wanted).


----------



## Quartz (Sep 1, 2014)

toggle said:


> own goals to the point i sometimes wonder who the secret entryists into the tories is and how far they've got up the food chain



The SNP will be the natural harbour for the Tories as the SNP seeks to differentiate itself from Labour as a party of government. After all, many Tories are heading for that other nationalist party, UKIP.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> The SNP will be the natural harbour for the Tories as the SNP seeks to differentiate itself from Labour as a party of government. After all, many Tories are heading for that other nationalist party, UKIP.


Sorry, Quartz, but this is nonsense.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 1, 2014)

revol68 said:


> I love all these lefties in support of raising new borders between the working classes. If anyone is in doubt of the idiocy of leftists jumping on the Yes bandwagon, they should have a read at what full time ball bag Billy Bragg wrote about it.



do shut up . Your pining for unicorns and one world _my little ponies_  is a puerile irrelevancy. Theres basically zero opposition to neo liberalism in Westminster and similarly negligible support for it in Scotland. Nothing will change under the status quo ...absolutely nothing. An independent scotland will have a real left alternative to the SNP as an opposition..while the SNP themselves despite a lot of faults arent dyed in the wool neo liberals like labour . The neo liberals win in Britain because whether labour or tory theyve convinced people theres no alternative..that leftism is loony.

An independent scotland has a real opportunity to show there is an alternative to neo liberalism and it works. Thats something the working class in england need to see as well in order to start believing it again. Even to see and hear a vibrant left opposition openly articulating a socialist alternative just up the road from them . That has ten times more chance of galvanising them to seek real social change than your one world ballsology . Which is just a smokescreen for old fashioned unionism anyway .

Plus itll finish the scum labour party off for good ..that has the chance to change englsh poltcs for the better...an entire neo liberal political class...an entrenched  mafia  will have been upended  . its long term effect on the loyal brethren over here will be interesting to see too .

itll be every bit as good for the English working class as the scots. And that way they can end up with a lot more in common than a dopey union jack .


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> thats it..im convinced the No campaign is actually a Whitehall ploy to throw the scots out..theyre *trying* to lose this
> 
> wtf ????  where the hell did they find hm ??? and whats he even on about ??
> 
> ...


----------



## geminisnake (Sep 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> The SNP will be the natural harbour for the Tories as the SNP seeks to differentiate itself from Labour as a party of government. After all, many Tories are heading for that other nationalist party, UKIP.



Are you aware that the SNP is the Scottish NATIONAL party, NOT the Scottish Nationalist party?? Many people from the south don't seem to be able to grasp this.
There is a difference.


----------



## toggle (Sep 1, 2014)

toggle said:


> actualy, i'm tempted to write that up without the fucking and shitting and send it to one of my mates who is involved in The Celtic League for them to publish


and done


----------



## toggle (Sep 1, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Are you aware that the SNP is the Scottish NATIONAL party, NOT the Scottish Nationalist party?? Many people from the south don't seem to be able to grasp this.
> There is a difference.



Absolutely. 

I know a fair few of the major figures in MK and words do not suffice in expressing how much contempt they have for UKIP.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 1, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Are you aware that the SNP is the Scottish NATIONAL party, NOT the Scottish Nationalist party?? Many people from the south don't seem to be able to grasp this.
> There is a difference.



I'm fully aware of the difference, thank you. But politics tends to split into two major groupings. One right of centre and one left of centre. We see that in Westminster, Washington, etc. So, after independence, where are Tory voters going to go? Going alone will be courting oblivion even more than now. The SNP is the obvious choice, because it's Not Labour. But the SNP will have to woo them; it won't be able to take their votes for granted. And in the fullness of time, those ex-Tories will change it as they rise up the ranks.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 1, 2014)

Do we all have to pretend that Alex Salmond's gobbling of Donald Trump's cock didn't happen?  I wouldn't be too hopeful of a post-independence socialist utopia.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 1, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Sorry, Quartz, but this is nonsense.


I think that the plonker may be right for a change. The SNP has always had economically  and socially conservative wings and is not Labour. Any post independence Scotland will no doubt see a reorganisation of politics, it will take many years but either the Tories will settle for being a small rump destined to always be a junior coalition party (which some will be happy with) or the more ambitious and pragmatic will look for a new home, the only two options as I see it would be to form a new party altogether that would presumably be another small pointless party maybe like Irelands old PDs or they will join a larger party capable of winning power, even majority power - there are only two of them in Scotland.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I'm fully aware of the difference, thank you. But politics tends to split into two major groupings. One right of centre and one left of centre. We see that in Westminster, Washington, etc. So, after independence, where are Tory voters going to go? Going alone will be courting oblivion even more than now. The SNP is the obvious choice, because it's Not Labour. But the SNP will have to woo them; it won't be able to take their votes for granted. And in the fullness of time, those ex-Tories will change it as they rise up the ranks.


It does, but the centre is not fixed. The centre is father left in the UK than in the US and it seems to also be further left in Scotland than England.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 1, 2014)

scifisam said:


> It does, but the centre is not fixed. The centre is father left in the UK than in the US and it seems to also be further left in Scotland than England.



Very true. But that centre line wanders.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> while the SNP themselves despite a lot of faults arent dyed in the wool neo liberals like labour .



John Swinney worked in the corporate strategic planning department, in a senior role, of a venerable Scottish mutual organisation, at the time said org was lifting its skirts to the most lucrative corporate raider it could find. Alex Salmond was an oil economist for RBS. Maybe they've changed? (Nicola Sturgeon I like - I've underestimated her in the past, but that's not a mistake I'll be making again)


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 2, 2014)

thought this was a good article...pretty much covers all the points raised here including the UkiP angle

basically that the referendum itself is politicisng a younger generation and having them openly articulate the kind of scotland they want ..creating real expectations and demands. That actual politics is being discussed everywhere and its ensuring scots dissatisfaction with Westminster isnt going the ukip route lke south of the border but somewhere much more progressive

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/scottish-independence-yes-vote-turnout-polls

as regards former tory supporters theyll be that toxic that anyone affording them a political home will become an object of derision with the Scottish electorate. its a small country and harder to blend n ..theyre despised and people know who they are . offering them a home will cost you dear ..no reason why any political faction would commit that type of hari kari.

As regards Salmond and co the central plank of the entire debate has been Scottish resources for the benefit of the Scottish people and scottsh people beng better off socially. if they take the neo liberal route theyll be slaughtered in no time . Theres no glorious independence war for them to hide behind..no civil war loyalties . No doubt theyll get a honeymoon period of thanks but the pressure will be on them to deliver from early on. Both from pro and anti union camps


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 2, 2014)

The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland in the 2010 general election according to Wikipedia compared to 19.9% for the SNP.
In the 2009 Euro elections they got 16.8%
They got 16.6% in the Scottish parliamentary elections of 2011 during the most vicious government in a while

I'm not convinced the Tories are toxic in Scotland - in fact they represent a significant constituency


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think that the plonker may be right for a change. The SNP has always had economically  and socially conservative wings and is not Labour. Any post independence Scotland will no doubt see a reorganisation of politics, it will take many years but either the Tories will settle for being a small rump destined to always be a junior coalition party (which some will be happy with) or the more ambitious and pragmatic will look for a new home, the only two options as I see it would be to form a new party altogether that would presumably be another small pointless party maybe like Irelands old PDs or they will join a larger party capable of winning power, even majority power - there are only two of them in Scotland.


There will be reorganisation, but I don't think it'll be the way you envisage.


----------



## geminisnake (Sep 2, 2014)

Quartz said:


> So, after independence, where are Tory voters going to go?



Who cares? Iirc the Tories got approx 16% of the Holyrood vote, many of them are aging, some of them are going to disappear. Some of them might give up on voting, what's to say there won't be a Scottish Conservative party? They may well keep voting for them. 

Where have all the English left wing voters gone?? Who do they have to vote for?? The SNP aren't going to have to court any extra votes imo, well they have to court mine coz I'm not a fan. 
Who are all the Lib Dem voters going to vote for? There are more than 2 political parties in most European countries. Have you ever seen a German ballot paper? They're massive! 
The SNP are not going to get overrun by Tories any time soon, but as to who they switch allegiance to, if they do at all, how the heck would I know? I have studied political figures for years and honestly the Tories ARE a dying bred in Scotland.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 2, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Who cares? Iirc the Tories got approx 16% of the Holyrood vote, many of them are aging, some of them are going to disappear. Some of them might give up on voting, what's to say there won't be a Scottish Conservative party? They may well keep voting for them.
> 
> Where have all the English left wing voters gone?? Who do they have to vote for?? The SNP aren't going to have to court any extra votes imo, well they have to court mine coz I'm not a fan.
> Who are all the Lib Dem voters going to vote for? There are more than 2 political parties in most European countries. Have you ever seen a German ballot paper? They're massive!
> The SNP are not going to get overrun by Tories any time soon, but as to who they switch allegiance to, if they do at all, how the heck would I know? I have studied political figures for years and honestly the Tories ARE a dying bred in Scotland.



I'm very familiar with the political systems in countries with PR elections - and am aware that Scotland can and will accommodate more than two (or three) parties - however I'm not convinced the Tories are currently a viable force - but that doesn't mean their steadyish 14 - 19% support is going anyway or that there isn't a very strong Tartan Tory element within the SNP anyway, the fact is as the party of nation and capital in a post-independence Scotland the SNP would be their natural home although I'm sure there will always be a rump of unionist Tory freaks, the go-getters will want to shape the new Scotland and there will be only one party where they can do that, especially in the likelihood that both SNP and Labour would refuse to form a coalition with the Tories at Holyrood.

The ideological core of the SNP is framed around independence - once that is achieved they become another ideology free party, the economics won't allow them to be social democrats. Even if they have to tack left on some issues due to what's popular with the electorate.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 4, 2014)

Monbiot writes some right shit:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 4, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland in the 2010 general election according to Wikipedia compared to 19.9% for the SNP.
> In the 2009 Euro elections they got 16.8%
> They got 16.6% in the Scottish parliamentary elections of 2011 during the most vicious government in a while
> 
> I'm not convinced the Tories are toxic in Scotland - in fact they represent a significant constituency



That's tactical voting.  Look at the number of votes for the SNP in 2011 and compare it to 2010.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> That's tactical voting.  Look at the number of votes for the SNP in 2011 and compare it to 2010.


Really? That's what's left after tactical voting doesn't work surely - that's their hardcore. Their core vote. The rest of it is elsewhere voting tactically. So + a bit to that 20%.

Why compare it to SNP vote unless you're going to demonstrate something?


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 4, 2014)

Not sure that is correct.  At General Election time the Tories and Labour get saturation coverage on all major media outlets.

Why compare? The argument was that the Tory vote is only marginally worse than the SNP vote and are therefore not toxic.  Despite the media attention they can't even muster the same as a political party that does not get any media coverage at all.

I realise the collapse of the Lib Dems had an effect in 2011, but it is interesting that these votes never go to the Tories.  The implication here is that the Tories represent a significant constituency is probably true, but it depends what is meant by 'significant'.  Are Lib Dems significant in Scottish politics?   They only marginally beat the Greens in 2011 (despite a lot more media attention).  Are UKIP significant in UK politics (they are reaching 16% of the vote in opinion polling)?


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 5, 2014)

The Scottish Tories will run south of the border, scared of becoming lamppost decorations.  It's up to Northumbrians and Cumbrians to herd them further south, we'll see them out of Yorkshire, if everyone else joins in maybe we can chase them into the sea, or worse the Isle of Wight.


----------



## Ungrateful (Sep 5, 2014)

Proportionality, which Tories hate south of the border, saved their skins North of the border. In the Scottish Parliament they have representation consistent with their support and worth Tories still voting for them. In Westminister elections they had to gerrymander a constituency (the odd shaped one for David Mundell, that takes in rural-ish bits from the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Lothian) to ensure they got one seat. Oddly outside the SNP, Scottish Tories have had a run of pretty effective Scottish party leaders. I hate them and all they stand for, but Annabel Goldie and Ruth Davidson are articulate and have presence in the way completely missing from Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders.

I'd marginally prefer Independence over the continuation of the Union (not that it'll make significant difference either way). However, despite the appallingly inept 'Better Together' campaign - and good media performances recently from Alex Salmond and a lively grassroots 'Yes' Campaign - it looks increasingly unlikely. The bookies (on oddschecker) initially made Independence the rank outsider in a two horse race. The odds did come in a little (though not very far, following the second TV debate), but have started to drift away from independence again.  Bookies rarely get it wrong. Best odds for Independence: 3/1 (25% chance); Best odds for No: 3/10 (76%) - most bookies have it 1/4 (80% chance).


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 5, 2014)

Not just Borders, they did it in Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh.  That made their wipeout doubly impressive.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 6, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> That's tactical voting.  Look at the number of votes for the SNP in 2011 and compare it to 2010.



What? Tactical voting is when you vote for a party you don't support in order to beat a party you hate, at the expense of the party you would prefer.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 6, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I realise the collapse of the Lib Dems had an effect in 2011, but it is interesting that these votes never go to the Tories.  The implication here is that the Tories represent a significant constituency is probably true, but it depends what is meant by 'significant'.  Are Lib Dems significant in Scottish politics?   They only marginally beat the Greens in 2011 (despite a lot more media attention).  Are UKIP significant in UK politics (they are reaching 16% of the vote in opinion polling)?



Yes UKIP are significant in UK politics, particularly English if they are polling that much, of course they are! You only have to look at the number of councilors, of the recent defection, and all the media coverage to see a significant presence.

16%+ support for the Tories in Scotland makes them a very significant presence as a political party, and probably (given their association with unionism) nowhere near reflective natural support for either social conservatism or economic liberalism in Scotland - which only has one realistic outlet beyond them and that's the SNP.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 6, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What? Tactical voting is when you vote for a party you don't support in order to beat a party you hate, at the expense of the party you would prefer.



Labour Party (not most voters) hate the SNP, SNP party and voters don't necessarily hate Labour/Liberals.  Most prefer them to the Tories.  Will be interesting to see if that changes in the next few months/years.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2014)

There's been murmurings of a panelbase poll carried out for the YES team that has been hushed up - panelbase don't seem happy about this as they seem to feel it reflects badly on them - anyway, upshot is that it's being published either tonight. It could be bad for YES or it could be them playing silly buggers and building up tension.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 6, 2014)

Yes I read a mention of that Yes poll rumour yesterday,but you've put more a bit detail on it. A poll like that couldn't really be hushed up anyway could it? Bracing myself for a tsunami of Scottish news tomorrow now ..


----------



## brogdale (Sep 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> There's been murmurings of a panelbase poll carried out for the YES team that has been hushed up - panelbase don't seem happy about this as they seem to feel it reflects badly on them - anyway, upshot is that it's being published either tonight. It could be bad for YES or it could be them playing silly buggers and building up tension.


Panelbase have generally produced the highest 'Yes' scores, and (excluding the DKs) their last effort on 15/08 produced Y48:52N...so, given recent movement, a Y lead is certainly feasible.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 6, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Labour Party (not most voters) hate the SNP, SNP party and voters don't necessarily hate Labour/Liberals.



Er I know


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 6, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Yes I read a mention of that Yes poll rumour yesterday,but you've put more a bit detail on it. A poll like that couldn't really be hushed up anyway could it? Bracing myself for a tsunami of Scottish news tomorrow now ..



The UK government hushed up what were effectively massive polls of Scottish social attitudes.  Maybe they hushed up two of them.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 6, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> The UK government hushed up what were effectively massive polls of Scottish social attitudes.  Maybe they hushed up two of them.


Do you mean this poll?


> This week’s we’ve also seen the latest data from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey. This is an academic project, so by the standards of media polling the figures are very old – the fieldwork was between the 12th May and 17th July – but they are worth noting because of the quality of the fieldwork.
> 
> ... (snipped) ...
> 
> The SSA survey found referendum voting intentions in the May-July period were YES 25%, NO 43%, Don’t know 32%, a squeeze question pushed those don’t knows to YES 33%, NO 51%, DK 15%. Excluding don’t knows that the equivalent of YES 39%, NO 61%.


which was also reported in he Guardian (although there search engine is so bad I can't find the link at the moment).

Not very effective hushing up.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 6, 2014)

redsquirrel 

No that is an academic thing that Glasgow University do every year.  I think that is actually funded by the Scottish Government, but could be wrong. I couldn't find an in-depth technical paper on social attitudes survey, so can't figure out what the figures mean.

This one was never published.   I am certain there was a much bigger (or several) one as well near the start of the year.  Basically, the UK government have spent the same amount of money that would be required to conduct a research programme on the scale of the social attitudes survey, and never published it.  The SNP or even Wings over Scotland(!) refuse to publish two polls and there is outrage.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2014)

YG have one for the times tmw and murdoch is bragging it's going to be shocking for britain  - which suggests a good YES lead to me.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> YG have one for the times tmw and murdoch is bragging it's going to be shocking for britain  - which suggests a good YES lead to me.



Yeah, I saw that.  He also made a reference to giving Cameron and Miliband blackeyes if Scotland votes Yes.  I really hope that means that one of his papers will back Yes.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 6, 2014)

I just had a look at the betting prices, which showed a mixed picture of shortening and lengthening odds for each side. Will the odds be based purely on money wagered, or will they be using forecasting/modelling data too?


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 6, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I just had a look at the betting prices, which showed a mixed picture of shortening and lengthening odds for each side. Will the odds be based purely on money wagered, or will they be using forecasting/modelling data too?



As far as I can tell, a mixture of both.  It certainly responds to polls and not just bets.  There is one huge bet in London that could be skewing things (nearly 50% (£800,000) of all bets placed (approx £2m)).


----------



## poului (Sep 6, 2014)

Does Murdoch still support independence or has he changed tack?


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 6, 2014)

poului said:


> Does Murdoch still support independence or has he changed tack?



Murdoch is very strange character.  As far as I can tell, he does not really care.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 6, 2014)




----------



## The Boy (Sep 6, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I just had a look at the betting prices, which showed a mixed picture of shortening and lengthening odds for each side. Will the odds be based purely on money wagered, or will they be using forecasting/modelling data too?



both, basically.  the aim is to set prices such that the book returns a profit regardless of outcome.  they will change prices reactively as bets are placed, and proactively when predictive models suggest - for example if polls start returning clear majorities on favour of yes.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 6, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> There is one huge bet in London that could be skewing things (nearly 50% (£800,000) of all bets placed (approx £2m)).



not really.  those three bets are at such massively short odd that they will be absorbed pretty easily.

edit: that £2M figure is just for one bookie, presumably. twice that has been staked on betfair, and the odds there are broadly in keeping with the high street bookies (allowing for commission).


----------



## brogdale (Sep 6, 2014)

Revenge, pure and simple. Whatever hurts those that tried to hurt his precious...I mean snuggling up to Farage ffs...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/07/nigel-farage-talks-rupert-murdoch-ukip

Sorry, was meant to be in response to poului above


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Murdoch is very strange character.  As far as I can tell, he does not really care.



He wants to back the winner.  He´s finally figured out that YES is going to win.  Took him long enough...


----------



## brogdale (Sep 6, 2014)

From Murdoch's twitter...



> Scottish independence means huge black eye for whole political establishment, especially Cameron and Milliband.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 6, 2014)

...and...



> Scottish poll reflects world-wide disillusion with political leaders and old establishments leaving openings for libertarians and far left.




Good news for far left libertarians, then?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Sep 6, 2014)

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency



> The City clearly believes Scotland is necessary to prop up the economic status quo. But this isn’t just a question of yes or no – the Scottish referendum is an opportunity for the whole UK to force open a debate about our hideously imbalanced economy: its failure to create decent jobs, its hopeless dependency on debt, and above all the damaging impact of the City of London.



Oh dear.....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> He wants to back the winner.  He´s finally figured out that YES is going to win.  Took him long enough...


Hmm I must admit if he is pushing the indie line maybe yes will win, as you say he only backs winners


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Hmm I must admit if he is pushing the indie line maybe yes will win, as you say he only backs winners



I´ve been telling everyone that YES has it in the bag for months now.  But no one ever listens to _me...._


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I´ve been telling everyone that YES has it in the bag for months now.  But no one ever listens to _me...._


I take it on a case by case basis sometimes you're right sometimes you're wrong


----------



## miktheword (Sep 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Revenge, pure and simple. Whatever hurts those that tried to hurt his precious...I mean snuggling up to Farage ffs...
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2014)

Panelbase poll now released:

Yes: 44%
No: 48%
Undecided: 8%

Excluding undecideds@

Yes: 48%
 No: 52%


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 6, 2014)

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/06/latest-scottish-referendum-poll-yes-lead/


----------



## The Boy (Sep 6, 2014)

Fuck me, some of the comments under that article are hilarious


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 6, 2014)

It looks like the Labour/Tory base are going full loon.  We've had it here for a while, it looks like England is catching up   Oh god, I want a yes vote.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 6, 2014)

The Boy said:


> Fuck me, some of the comments under that article are hilarious





> The best way to resolve the UK issues is within the UK, a soviet styled revolution removing the Elites from power and handing it to the people.



Never a truer word has been spoken.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I take it on a case by case basis sometimes you're right sometimes you're wrong



Well_ I´m _pretty impressed with myself anyway.

It´s going to be _really _funny from now on, as Milliband and company start to panic.  They´ll campaign for ¨NO¨ with increasing desperation, not realizing that the public will be delighted to do anything the political establishment tells them not to.  And so their hole will get bigger and bigger.  This is starting to look like a landslide.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 7, 2014)

gimesumtruf said:


> http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/06/latest-scottish-referendum-poll-yes-lead/


I am stunned/excited by this. Unless there is a major gaffe by Salmond, the increasingly irate 'Fuck those ungrateful Scots' comments from the English right will just drive more people to the Yes camp.

Edit:


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 7, 2014)

MAD-T-REX said:


> I am stunned/excited by this. Unless there is a major gaffe by Salmond, the increasingly irate 'Fuck those ungrateful Scots' comments from the English right will just drive more people to the Yes camp.



I'm sure they will be more than welcome.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 7, 2014)

(((((Berwick Rangers fans )))) Schengen for the sake of the wee gers.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 7, 2014)

MAD-T-REX said:


> the increasingly irate 'Fuck those ungrateful Scots' comments from the English right will just drive more people to the Yes camp.


You mean this sort of thing?












OK, boss.  We'll do as you say, boss.

Fuck off, Millie.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 7, 2014)

It might work I suppose, folk in polling booths bricking it.  That's a worry for me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2014)

so murdochs come out for Team Yes. We all know he only plays for Team Murdoch really, but while pro indy people do have to share a political space with the piss stinking vampire can't we get a few weeks of wall to wall smearing against the No side, up to and including hacking their blowers and hiring grubby PI's to root through their bins/underwear drawer?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 7, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> polling booths


They're not called that any more.  They're called Aye Pods.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 7, 2014)

A new YouGov poll of Scotland in tomorrow’s Sunday Times has YES nudging ahead in the referendum race. Courtesy of Tim Shipman at the Sunday Times, the topline figures excluding don’t knows are YES 51%(+4), NO 49%(-4).

The last month of Scottish polls from YouGov have been remarkable. Almost exactly a month ago, before the two debates, YouGov were showing a 22 point lead for the NO campaign, YES 39% NO 61%. This was fairly typical of their polls for most of the campaign, which had been floating at around about a 40-60 split. Since then three polls in a row have shown sharp movements towards the YES campaign, culminating in today’s poll giving the YES campaign a tiny lead.

*51%-49% is, of course, well within the margin of error, the smallest lead you can get once rounded to integers. It doesn’t mean YES will necessarily win, and as ever it’s only one poll*. There’s at least one other poll to come tonight, which may or may not echo the Yes lead. What will be fascinating to see is how a campaign that has, up to now, show a consistent NO lead for months changes in response to polls showing YES could actually win. Will people recoil from the risk of it _actually_ happening? Will it enthuse people now it could be a reality? I’ll update later with the other polls.

*UPDATE:* There is also a new Panelbase poll out tonight, conducted for the Yes Scotland campaign. Throughout most of the campaign YouGov have tended to show some of the largest leads for NO, Panelbase have tended to show some of the smallest leads for NO. Given the movement towards YES in YouGov’s recent polls many people reasonably expected that Panelbase would be the ones to show YES ahead, in fact they still show a small lead for NO. Topline figures with changes from the last Panelbase poll in mid-August are YES 44%(+2), NO 48%(+2), Don’t know 8%(-4). Without don’t knows it’s YES 48%(nc), NO 52%(nc). In contrast to the collapsing NO position in YouGov, Panelbase are showing no real change – strange. We should have TNS and Survation polls in the coming week (and should be due an ICM at some point), so we’ll see what trends others pick up.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8957


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 7, 2014)

As Mike Smithson points out... YouGov have a habit of hyping political events. E.g. 'Cleggmania'.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...itical-earthquake-the-cleggasm-in-april-2010/

Some YouGov changes can be put down to methodology adjustments. It was not until mid-August that the firm began including 16- and 17-year-olds in its sample, a group allowed to vote for the first time. Also introduced was a special weighting to deal with the excess of respondents born outside Scotland which its surveys, for no obvious reason, seem to pick up. Given that they are generally hostile to the change, scaling down their views will help the yes percentage.

The next week should see a plethora of surveys from five or six firms. The ones I am looking out for are TNS-BMRB, expected on Wednesday, and Ipsos-MORI because their fieldwork is not carried out online. Attention is being paid to how polling samples are weighted to ensure balance. For general election polls, many firms ask how respondents voted in 2010 and use that as their reference point. For the referendum polls, the 2011 Holyrood election, in which the SNP did well, is being used by some pollsters, leading to the criticism that the views of SNP supporters could be being disproportionately inflated.

The challenge we have is that there are no precedents to fall back on. The only comparable example is the Quebec referendum in 1995 when the separatists went into polling day with leads of up to 7% – and lost.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...olls-yougov-over-60s-vote-is-vital?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 7, 2014)

A lot of it boils down to - when you're running polls like this, they're based on assumptions of turnout, and if turnout is significantly above that, then it's basically anyone's guess - especially with a campaign like this where it's been framed as progressive/Yes v conservative/No (small c conservative).  The higher turnout _should_ favour yes, just as lower turnout _should _favour No, as it'll be just the usual suspects voting.  Think the main thing for this is to look at the trend, which is definitely closing.  S'gonna be tight.  I've gone from assuming it's gonna be no, to... _maybe, just...maybe, no, don't even think about it in case you jinx it_.  (And all of this after being anti-independence most of my life, too, until the last 4-5 years.)


----------



## brogdale (Sep 7, 2014)

Seems to me that the Yes team need to promote more media coverage of the increasing anxiety and (reported) panic within the square mile of the 'dark-star' wrt to an Aye vote. I know, if I had the vote, the thought of discomforting financial capital would act as an additional and gratifying motivator in the ballot booth/"aye-pod".

As soon as there was mention of bank concerns about the value of Sterling(pound), interest rate rises and the like the Yes numbers did appear to start climbing significantly.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 7, 2014)

This sort of thing should help...



> The Treasury is to clash with the European Union in a last-ditch effort to overturn a draconian cap on bankers’ bonuses, arguing in Europe’s top court that rules limiting rewards are an unjustified intrusion.
> 
> Government lawyers will on Monday lay out objections to the rules, which have been widely criticised by those in the City who argue it puts London’s financial sector at a disadvantage to New York’s and Hong Kong’s.
> 
> As part of a systematic overhaul of EU banking rules designed to stabilise the financial system, bonuses are being capped at 100pc of banking salaries, or 200pc with shareholder approval.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...st-ditch-effort-to-overturn-EU-bonus-cap.html


----------



## hipipol (Sep 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> This sort of thing should help...
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...st-ditch-effort-to-overturn-EU-bonus-cap.html


do recall that it is UK citizens are bailing out Scottish domiciled banks to the tune of billions
If they are prepared to accept that debt, perfect
The vote to become a cross between Iceland and Slovenia suits the land of my birth well
Trivial, backward and soon to be bankrupt
Bring it on
The sooner the better


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

hipipol said:


> do recall that it is UK citizens are bailing out Scottish domiciled banks to the tune of billions
> If they are prepared to accept that debt, perfect
> The vote to become a cross between Iceland and Slovenia suits the land of my birth well
> Trivial, backward and soon to be bankrupt
> ...


As rational and well constructed an argument as ever


----------



## brogdale (Sep 7, 2014)

hipipol said:


> do recall that it is UK citizens are bailing out Scottish domiciled banks to the tune of billions
> If they are prepared to accept that debt, perfect
> The vote to become a cross between Iceland and Slovenia suits the land of my birth well
> Trivial, backward and soon to be bankrupt
> ...



Do you have a say in the referendum, then?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 7, 2014)

Classic Mail. I will bet good money that its editorial on the day of the vote will be 'Our boys will have died for nothing if you vote yes.'


----------



## weepiper (Sep 7, 2014)

MAD-T-REX said:


> Classic Mail:


Daily Mail, by any chance?


----------



## Favelado (Sep 7, 2014)

The S*n already has its "A-JOCK-AYLPSE" headline ready to go.


----------



## hipipol (Sep 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Do you have a say in the referendum, then?


no
dont live there any more


----------



## hipipol (Sep 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> As rational and well constructed an argument as ever


brilliant aint it?
coherence
never my strongest suit


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 8, 2014)

Interesting piece about the Scottih Independence opinion polls and their methodology in yesterday's Obs. By Mike Smithson, here.

He points out a couple of technical warnings about how some polls/some samples might risk slightly exaggerating the strength of Yes.

I'm not in denial that Yes has significantly strengthened its position recently, but the above is worth a read anyway ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm not in denial that Yes has significantly strengthened its position recently


No, Will, you're in denial that you're in denial.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

lol at the tories realising they could lose this one and by the ignominy of electorally speaking, a gnats chuff hair.

To battle stations! pass me the beer mat and we'll doodle out some half arsed devo max proposals, because chaps, saying they won't be allowed to look at the Moon come indy has not worked.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

not just the tories either, 'red' ed with his interesting border proposals. Armed guards for christrs sake. Outsourced to G4S and three weeks down the line they've shot someone who was trying to get home to sheffield but has a scots accent from his family.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

Not sure why the queens that bothered either, its not like Yes Scotland will be doing the righteous thing and liquidating all royal lands and assets and distributing them to the people on a 'to need/ to ability' basis.

She'll still be allowed up there to shoot things and wander about looking miserable in a wax jacket.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Interesting piece about the Scottih Independence opinion polls and their methodology in yesterday's Obs. By Mike Smithson, here.
> 
> He points out a couple of technical warnings about how some polls/some samples might risk slightly exaggerating the strength of Yes.
> 
> I'm not in denial that Yes has significantly strengthened its position recently, but the above is worth a read anyway ...


He's noted elsewhere that the raw data figures for the YG poll had a significant lead for NO, but that the new weighting they adopted 4 polls ago (when the swing they record started) changed that massively in favour of yes. In a sample of 1084 that had 475/538 to YES,they re-weighted to read 514/489 for No. That's essentially re-allocating 10% of the results to from NO to YES. This new weighting is based on place of birth.

Anthony wells is also suggesting (i suspect after this piece was circulated over the weekend) that swings such as this are in reality people from the side on the slide simply not bothering to respond anymore. I checked this against the AV referendum polling and it doesn't seem to fit - but i'm n ot so sure that's such a good comparison. It does seem to ft the Quebec vote though, which may also be a better one to look at for a number of reasons.

Edit: on that Quebec comparison see here.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> In a sample of 1084 that had 475/538 to YES,they re-weighted to read 514/489 for YES. .



Should that first 'yes' be a 'no', or am I suffering more badly than I thought from sleep deprivation?


----------



## youngian (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> You mean this sort of thing?
> 
> OK, boss.  We'll do as you say, boss.
> 
> Fuck off, Millie.






danny la rouge said:


> You mean this sort of thing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not sure why the Nats are so tetchy about the future border policy of a country it so desperately wants to be a foreign state. The SNP should be first to tell us that England's future border policy is none of their business but they seem to be trying to reassure voters in Scotland with their clairvoyant powers that there won't ever be one. How do they know this and why do they want a sovereign Scottish border force to be manage English immigration? Which would be the consequence of not having a border with England.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2014)

The Boy said:


> Should that first 'yes' be a 'no', or am I suffering more badly than I thought from sleep deprivation?


Oops, yes, second figure should read for NO.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

youngian said:


> Not sure why the Nats are so tetchy about the future border policy of a country it so desperately wants to be a foreign state. The SNP should be first to tell us that England's future border policy is none of their business but they seem to be trying to reassure voters in Scotland with their clairvoyant powers that there won't ever be one. How do they know this and why do they want a sovereign Scottish border force to be manage English immigration? Which would be the consequence of not having a border with England.




theres no reason for a border crises. If people want to move to scotland like what they already do, then they will. Where is the necessity for an internal border here? For some reason I just don't see some mass english immigration into scotland in the case of indy. Why would their be? How would there be? it's not like hordes of min wage zero hour contract workers are going to flock to scotland to sign on in slightly less hostile environs for claimants.


----------



## treelover (Sep 8, 2014)

Apparently thousands of Orangemen and their supporters from Northern Ireland will flood Edinburgh this Saturday, that can't really go well.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> Apparently thousands of Orangemen and their supporters from Northern Ireland will flood Edinburgh this Saturday, that can't really go well.


' And there will be no hooliganism, there will be no vandalism, there will be no bevvying because the world is watching us, and it is our responsibility to conduct ourselves with responsibility, and with dignity, and with maturity.'
There's a concerted effort to ignore this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

youngian said:


> why do they want a sovereign Scottish border force to be manage English immigration? Which would be the consequence of not having a border with England.


Not necessarily. The other option is to share England's immigration policy. Does beg some questions, though. If an 'independent' Scotland wants to share a head of state, open border, and currency with the rest of the UK, which effectively means sharing many of its economic, foreign, and immigration policies, among others, that does rather beg the question: what exactly is 'independence'? Sounds rather more like dependence to me.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

youngian said:


> Not sure why the Nats are so tetchy about the future border policy of a country it so desperately wants to be a foreign state.


You're not sure why the threat of border guards where none are necessary gets people's backs up?


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2014)

weepiper said:


> ' And there will be no hooliganism, there will be no vandalism, there will be no bevvying because the world is watching us, and it is our responsibility to conduct ourselves with responsibility, and with dignity, and with maturity.'
> There's a concerted effort to ignore this.



Upper Clyde Work-in, 1972?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 8, 2014)

youngian said:


> Not sure why the Nats are so tetchy about the future border policy of a country it so desperately wants to be a foreign state. The SNP should be first to tell us that England's future border policy is none of their business but they seem to be trying to reassure voters in Scotland with their clairvoyant powers that there won't ever be one. How do they know this and why do they want a sovereign Scottish border force to be manage English immigration? Which would be the consequence of not having a border with England.


 
I've found in mainland Europe you can often wander from one country into another via another couple of 'em without noticing so I'm not sure why this vote result could mean a massive wall lined with machine gun nests,


----------



## Wilf (Sep 8, 2014)

By the way, is there a moratorium on polls when we get into the final week?  Quick search yielded nothing.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 8, 2014)

Wilf said:


> By the way, is there a moratorium on polls when we get into the final week?  Quick search yielded nothing.


Ipsos-Mori have one coming out on the 17th. Also an ICM one (I think) due this Thursday


----------



## Wilf (Sep 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> I've found in mainland Europe you can often wander from one country into another via another couple of 'em without noticing so I'm not sure why this vote result could mean a massive wall lined with machine gun nests,


 There's some half built wall we could use.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 8, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Ipsos-Mori have one coming out on the 17th. Also an ICM one (I think) due this Thursday


 Ah, cheers.  Had it in my head that UK General Elections had at least an informal agreement on that.  Obviously not (or not adopted for the Ref).


----------



## Ungrateful (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not necessarily. The other option is to share England's immigration policy. Does beg some questions, though. If an 'independent' Scotland wants to share a head of state, open border, and currency with the rest of the UK, which effectively means sharing many of its economic, foreign, and immigration policies, among others, that does rather beg the question: what exactly is 'independence'? Sounds rather more like dependence to me.


 
I agree with the analysis, especially this 'Independent' Scotland will also remain part of the WTO, NATO, IMF as well as being tied to the remnant of the UK. Kind of hard to see what it is independent from. However as it represents, however spectrally, a move towards decentralization of powers and provides a progressive (albeit largely symbolic), kick-in-the teeth for the governing classes, I still, just support independence.

However as pedant, I have to point out that you mean 'raise the question' not 'beg the question'. To 'beg the question' is to be guilty of circular reasoning (e.g. I know the Bible is the truth because the Bible says so...') And so my contribution to is rightly ignored for being so dull and pernickety.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

Ungrateful said:


> I agree with the analysis, especially this 'Independent' Scotland will also remain part of the WTO, NATO, IMF as well as being tied to the remnant of the UK. Kind of hard to see what it is independent from.


All countries are subject to treaties.  The UK is currently a member of those organisations and more.  Is it not independent?  I'm amused by this line of argument - "don't vote Yes, because you aren't getting enough independence".  We get it a lot from people who would vote No to any amount of independence.

We can't instantly create a world that doesn't exist; we have to deal with the one that's here now.  Does that mean nobody can demand greater autonomy or self determination?  No, it doesn't.


----------



## Ungrateful (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> All countries are subject to treaties.  The UK is currently a member of those organisations and more.  Is it not independent?  I'm amused by this line of argument - "don't vote Yes, because you aren't getting enough independence".  We get it a lot from people who would vote No to any amount of independence.
> 
> We can't instantly create a world that doesn't exist; we have to deal with the one that's here now.  Does that mean nobody can demand greater autonomy or self determination?  No, it doesn't.


 
Agreed, but I am not arguing for 'no'. I am in favour of 'yes' even though the autonomy on offer is largely illusionary, just as it is for any relatively powerless individual within any capitalist nation state (UK or 'independent' Scotland).

Your response, is rich and I have enormously sympathy with it, but it raises (Not 'begs') all sorts of adjacent ones: What does greater self-determination mean in this context? Which self is being the determinant? A bourgeois self or a socialist one, a fixed, chauvinist self or a fluid adaptable one? And who represents and manages this self or selves? Is it even desirable to have a political goal written in the rhetoric of independence, when we are vulnerable, dependent creatures? And as French and Gordon have noted in their excellent piece and presentation, what is it that is being omitted or marginalized in the debate around independence? Largely it revolves still around the fundamental legitimacy of liberal, state forms, even though they are now (large or small) restructured to maintain a particular form (or forms) of neo-liberal capitalism. Of course a 'No' Vote  reinforces all the reactionary social structures and ideological presuppositions.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

tbf the simplest and most convincing argument for indy is the one salmond and others have made repeatedly- to stay together means once more being saddled with policies and decsions from a government you didn't vote for.

Leave aside that its not a real democracy anyway, we have no right of recall, no quorums, fptp, targetted swing seats, parachuted minions to safe seats etc. Forget that for a minute, it doesn't make sense even by what they please to call democracy to have scotlands voters constantly boyed off by westminster blu/red tories. I'm sure the sins of the SNP will find them out and scotland will have to see what it can do there. It's re-arranging furniture in my opinion, whereas pro-union hysterics like toynbee and so on are acting like its fucking partition


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

Ungrateful said:


> Agreed, but I am not arguing for 'no'. I am in favour of 'yes' even though the autonomy on offer is largely illusionary, just as it is for any relatively powerless individual within any capitalist nation state (UK or 'independent' Scotland).
> 
> Your response, is rich and I have enormously sympathy with it, but it raises (Not 'begs') all sorts of adjacent ones: What does greater self-determination mean in this context? Which self is being the determinant? A bourgeois self or a socialist one, a fixed, chauvinist self or a fluid adaptable one? And who represents and manages this self or selves? Is it even desirable to have a political goal written in the rhetoric of independence, when we are vulnerable, dependent creatures? And as French and Gordon have noted in their excellent piece and presentation, what is it that is being omitted or marginalized in the debate around independence? Largely it revolves still around the fundamental legitimacy of liberal, state forms, even though they are now (large or small) restructured to maintain a particular form (or forms) of neo-liberal capitalism. Of course a 'No' Vote  reinforces all the reactionary social structures and ideological presuppositions.


I agree with you.  And refer you to the very long thread in the Scotland forum.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

> The next Scottish polls are being eagerly awaited to see if they will confirm the shift to yes recorded in the YouGov one for the Sunday Times, or if they will show it was just a blip.
> 
> However, the Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill has been told there is little relief on the horizon for Alistair Darling and the no campaign: that the next poll to be published on Tuesday will confirm the trend.
> 
> How will the markets react to that?



http://www.theguardian.com/politics...eferendum-live#block-540dc236e4b0678f1b1106d6


----------



## weepiper (Sep 8, 2014)

It's a TNS poll due out tonight according to a Mail journo I follow on twitter.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 8, 2014)




----------



## J Ed (Sep 8, 2014)

That's it, I'm putting a bet on the Yes vote


----------



## ddraig (Sep 8, 2014)

i've been thinking about a bet for a few months and the odds have tumbled now!


----------



## Sue (Sep 8, 2014)

Wilf said:


> There's some half built wall we could use.


Which is, of course, in England. Personally I'd be happy to include bits of Cumbria/Northumbria but...


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

Sue said:


> Which is, of course, in England. Personally I'd be happy to include bits of Cumbria/Northumbria but...



Maybe ceding parts of Cumbria and Northumbria to Scotland in return for them giving up the right to use the Pound is part of Cameron's cunning negotiating plan. Then they can build a proper line of defence for Miliband's armed border guards to occupy


----------



## weepiper (Sep 8, 2014)

Looks like the TNS poll has it at a dead heat when you remove the undecideds  which when you consider the context of the previous TNS polls is a pretty massive swing to Yes


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 8, 2014)

Wilf said:


> There's some half built wall we could use.



It's a nice land-grab for Scotlnad if that wall becomes the border.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2014)

23% DK? Hmmm.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 23% DK? Hmmm.


face-to-face polling.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

weepiper said:


> It's a TNS poll due out tonight according to a Mail journo I follow on twitter.



If the TNS-BMRB is as juicy as the journo twitter-teasing suggests that would represent significant support for the YG 'Yes' lead. TNS polling that is usually latched onto the end of commercial market research and therefore conducted face-to-face. This reduces the chance of skewing by self-selecting, online panel members.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2014)

weepiper said:


> face-to-face polling.


Their past ones have the exact same DK figure or even higher - 27% in july!. There's 6% rise for YES and a 6% drop for NO (but not that large a fall as it was from a previous rise). But that DK is so high it muddies the water.


----------



## Flavour (Sep 8, 2014)

Just going to wade in here after many years of absence to say how ridiculous I have found the arguments of people who want Scotland to stay in the UK. Most of those I've spoken to will go as far as to admit that they know they want Scotland to stay in the UK "for selfish reasons" and this is not seen as even slightly suspect.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

Ladbrokes' blogger 's take on the state of play...



> The odds of a “photo finish” with the margin of victory being less than 1% have now hit 8/1 – you could have got 33/1 when we first quoted that possibility last month.
> 
> The YES vote percentage line has moved up from 43.5% to 47.5% in less than a week, which means our central projection is that NO will still win this by about 5%. I guess we are still relying on the political science here, which suggests that it is more likely that undecideds will break for NO. That’s because uncommitted voters in these sorts of referenda have shown a tendency to move toward the status quo, although some suggest that it is better to look as it as people heading toward the _least risky option_. It’s possible that the YES camp have done a good job of pointing out that a NO vote has many risks as well, notably on EU membership and the NHS. Perhaps that will tilt the balance in the favour of independence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Ladbrokes' blogger 's take on the state of play...




possibly something in that last bit- salmonds second round with Darling was judged a resounding win and he spent a lot of time hammering home the NHS, welfare state, bedroom tax and trident. In contrast to the first 'leaders debate' he won the argument as well as the crowd.

I'd really love to see some post-vote analysis done on how many women switched to yes after that awful eat your cereal advert. When its this close things as minor as that suddenly factor I suppose


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

Am I missing something here? Has there been some sort of rabbit-holey-rift in the fabric of time?



> Gordon Brown has revealed plans to rush new tax and welfare powers for Scotland through Westminster before the next election, in an effort to stop Labour voters backing independence.
> 
> The former prime minister said Labour wanted draft legislation ready by the end of next January, only four months after the referendum on 18 September, as part of an urgent effort by the no campaign to regain control of the independence debate.



Wtfuckingfuck?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...don-brown-tax-welfare-powers-timetable-labour


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Am I missing something here? Has there been some sort of rabbit-holey-rift in the fabric of time?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's an entirely predictable response, no? Offer something approaching 'devomax', or certainly 'devomore'. Whatever the result of the referendum, this is a result for everyone wanting more devolution.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 8, 2014)

It seems like (yet another) a stupid move for the BT campaign, it just makes them look like their panicking and rushing around like headless chickens. I can't believe it's a move that will win over voters. 

I think that BT might even beat the "Yes to AV" and anti-UKIPists as the most counter effective campaign in recent history, managing to turn as many people to Yes and the pro-indepenence group. Even single move it's made has been utter rubbish.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 8, 2014)

A poster on another message board likened the independence process to the divorce process. Before things are finalised one party is prepared to give more and more; once the decision is final they screw the other for every last penny. But it doesn't really matter in the long term.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 8, 2014)

Quartz said:


> A poster on another message board likened the independence process to the divorce process. Before things are finalised one party is prepared to give more and more; once the decision is final they screw the other for every last penny. But it doesn't really matter in the long term.


That poster sound alike an idiot


----------



## Quartz (Sep 8, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> That poster sound alike an idiot



The poster is a Pakistani lawyer, so has a very different perspective.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2014)

That TNS poll data. (pdf)

From quick skim whilst watching football it seems that of those DKs NO has 16% and YES 12% - the rest are proper DKs.

Both sides seem equally likely to vote.

31% think YES will win 45% think NO.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 8, 2014)

a sage mate's opinion for what it's worth who usually turns our right on most things....just looked up the bookies more money still going on a no so better odds on a yes. When I was up in Edinburgh for the festival a month ago most of the older Scots I cahtted to in queues or on the street seemed to favour No whereas younger folk were undecided or tentative Yes. 


_"Re the Scottish - yes, the balance is shifting, with Darlings inept performance in the second debate to blame, I would say. However, I still reckon there is a hidden lump of secret No voters than will keep them in the union. My argument is the same as with the Tories  - who always do better than the polls suggest.

The current 51/49 split in the media is ridiculous as it doesn't include don't knows, The real result (which is very hard to find, by the way is 47/45)

Everyone who is inclined to say "Yes" shouts it from the rooftops and says so in polls

Saying "No", however sensible, feels a bit sheepish, and cowardly. In a poll, its might feel easier, and even truthful to say you don't know.

I also think it discounts individuals within peer groups saying yes, but privately voting no.

In a nutshell, I think you can almost add the "don't knows" to the "no"s (I'm beginning to sound like Donald Rumslfed) 

The media is doing a very poor job here in analyzing a situation quite different to the normal bi party arguments, and are being unsophisticated in their thinking

Thats what I think, anyway.

PS. If I was Scottish, I's be tempted to vote yes"_


----------



## Dowie (Sep 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> Apparently thousands of Orangemen and their supporters from Northern Ireland will flood Edinburgh this Saturday, that can't really go well.



They're going to have a bit of an identity crisis if Scotland leaves the union...


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's an entirely predictable response, no? Offer something approaching 'devomax', or certainly 'devomore'. Whatever the result of the referendum, this is a result for everyone wanting more devolution.



Maybe, if you've in Government...and a member of the cabinet etc....but Brown talking about what Labour want to rush through?  Wtf...how stupid do they think folk are?


----------



## treelover (Sep 8, 2014)

No campaign are offering a Devo max package now to stop the Yes momentum which includes control over some welfare inc housing benefit, 1.7 billion, if that happens, then Universal Credit can't work in Scotland as it is wrapped up in with JSA, etc when calculating levels of benefit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Maybe, if you've in Government...and a member of the cabinet etc....but Brown talking about what Labour want to rush through?  Wtf...how stupid do they think folk are?


He's not. He's talking about something this tory govt wants to rush through. As I understand it, Brown's proposal has cross-party support in Westminster. I agree that it smacks of panic, but it looks like a genuine concession. Some form of devomax isn't on the ballot, but it is on the agenda now. 

It is quite a bizarre situation - Labour will be drafting the legislation, but with tory backing.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's not. He's talking about something this tory govt wants to rush through. As I understand it, Brown's proposal has cross-party support in Westminster. I agree that it smacks of panic, but it looks like a genuine concession. Some form of devomax isn't on the ballot, but it is on the agenda now.
> 
> It is quite a bizarre situation - Labour will be drafting the legislation, but with tory backing.


It certainly has whiff of panic about it, and is so patronising as to be almost unbelievable. Irrespective of any promised concession, for a government to abdicate policy to the opposition and attempt to pass off policy as Labour's should be signal enough that a Yes vote is essential to break the system for good.

Pretty shameful & desperate stuff.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Their past ones have the exact same DK figure or even higher - 27% in july!. There's 6% rise for YES and a 6% drop for NO (but not that large a fall as it was from a previous rise). But that DK is so high it muddies the water.


YouGov (and Panelbase) on the other hand have DK values of ~10% so that's not a common factor between the two organisations that have shown a move to yes.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 8, 2014)

this is a good one


----------



## youngian (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> theres no reason for a border crises. If people want to move to scotland like what they already do, then they will. Where is the necessity for an internal border here? For some reason I just don't see some mass english immigration into scotland in the case of indy. Why would their be? How would there be? it's not like hordes of min wage zero hour contract workers are going to flock to scotland to sign on in slightly less hostile environs for claimants.


All it takes is for the Daily Mail to find out a couple of suspected terrorists to come to London via Prestwick and the Tories especially will be playing saloon bar politics and call for getting tough on border policies. The other problem is that new EU member states have to sign up to Schengen and it is unlikely that the EU establishment which takes a dim view of separatism is going to do Salmond any favours. The chances of Westminster tolerating an open border with the Schengen area are next to nil.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> It certainly has whiff of panic about it, and is so patronising as to be almost unbelievable. Irrespective of any promised concession, for a government to abdicate policy to the opposition and attempt to pass off policy as Labour's should be signal enough that a Yes vote is essential to break the system for good.
> 
> Pretty shameful & desperate stuff.


Even more desperate, they_ still_ haven't got their stories straight.  Ed Balls has been saying this evening that there _isn't_ cross party agreement on enhanced devolution.  And he seems quite emphatic.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-09-08/no-cross-party-manifesto-on-powers-for-scotland/


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's not. He's talking about something this tory govt wants to rush through. As I understand it, Brown's proposal has cross-party support in Westminster. I agree that it smacks of panic, but it looks like a genuine concession. Some form of devomax isn't on the ballot, but it is on the agenda now.
> 
> It is quite a bizarre situation - Labour will be drafting the legislation, but with tory backing.




with ten days before decision day they've left it a it late to start offering real stuff rather than telling scotland what they can't have in the event of a yes!


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> with ten days before decision day they've left it a it late to start offering real stuff rather than telling scotland what they can't have in the event of a yes!


And we can't emphasise this enough: hundreds of thousands of postal votes have already been cast!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

youngian said:


> The other problem is that new EU member states have to sign up to Schengen.


They do... until they don't. If the vote is yes, expect to see this rule waived with some expedient reason for an exemption found.


----------



## poului (Sep 8, 2014)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

One possible reason they might find to exempt Scotland from Shengen might be monetary union with the fUK. That Chomsky link spoke about this - how, effectively, the eurozone's economic policies are dictated by the Bundesbank. But the UK's aren't, and I would think that quite an easy case could be made for Scotland maintaining an open border only with the country whose central bank will be dictating its monetary policy. If the UK stands up for this, and it will, the rest of the EU will allow it.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Seems to me that the Yes team need to promote more media coverage ...



Tricky.  Much of the media is of a "no" persuasion.


----------



## youngian (Sep 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They do... until they don't. If the vote is yes, expect to see this rule waived with some expedient reason for an exemption found.



What is an independent Scotland's leverage and who would grant it favours?

There is no love for seperatism among most member states. And certainly not Brussels where the quivalent of the SNP is virtually a neo-Fascist party that wants Belgium completely dissolved. States which have their own seperatist movements like Spain and Italy have no reason to give the SNP an easy time. If Salmond is concerned Westminster will play hardball he hasn't seen the half of it. Schengen wouldn't do Scotland much harm anyway but it they think a future Tory Tea Party led by May or Johnson wouldn't close the border think again.

Also 85 per cent of the UK would still be in tact and will survive another day its Scotland that is in for a rocky ride.



danny la rouge said:


> You're not sure why the threat of border guards where none are necessary gets people's backs up?



Why would border guards get up the backs of nationalists?


----------



## Combustible (Sep 9, 2014)

youngian said:


> What is an independent Scotland's leverage and who would grant it favours?



It wouldn't just be the leverage of Scotland but the rest of the UK aswell. Both politically and logistically, a manned border is something both the UK and Scotland would want to avoid and would be unpopular. But any UK government would find it very difficult politically to have an open border with a Schengen country due to immigration fears so either way forcing Scotland to join Schengen would increase the risk of UK withdrawal, something the EU definitely doesn't want.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2014)

Combustible said:


> It wouldn't just be the leverage of Scotland but the rest of the UK aswell. Both politically and logistically, a manned border is something both the UK and Scotland would want to avoid and would be unpopular. But any UK government would find it very difficult politically to have an open border with a Schengen country due to immigration fears so either way forcing Scotland to join Schengen would increase the risk of UK withdrawal, something the EU definitely doesn't want.



If Ireland has an opt out from Schengen then why couldn't an independent Scotland have one?


----------



## Combustible (Sep 9, 2014)

The UK and Ireland opted out of the Schengen when it was signed but new member states are obliged to join. It is similar with the Euro, the UK and Denmark were able to opt out of their obligation to join at the time of the Maastricht treaty but new member states are theoretically obliged to adopt the Euro, although that is harder to enforce.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

What's this, then?


----------



## ddraig (Sep 9, 2014)

dishonesty and slyness? surely not


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

ddraig said:


> dishonesty and slyness? surely not


Not to mention, actually undermining the validity of his own polls.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 9, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Not to mention, actually undermining the validity of his own polls.


I was just thinking that. It's a fucking astonishing thing to say - and gives an insight into how he gets his pollsters to operate.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I was just thinking that. It's a fucking astonishing thing to say - and gives an insight into how he gets his pollsters to operate.


How is it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 9, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I was just thinking that. It's a fucking astonishing thing to say - and gives an insight into how he gets his pollsters to operate.


It must have occurred to a few people. The thought certainly occurred to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

What are you (two) suggesting here?

All that's happened is that the vile Ashcroft has made a crap joke.  It doesn't effect the results the professional pollsters that he hires come up with (and they haven't even done one for Scottish independence).


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What are you (two) suggesting here?
> 
> All that's happened is that the vile Ashcroft has made a crap joke.  It doesn't effect the results the professional pollsters that he hires come up with (and they haven't even done one for Scottish independence).


I understand it's a joke. But the subtext is "you can't trust the accuracy of my polls", despite the lengths he went to recently to explain why his had the best validity. He is saying: "my polls are not designed to elicit truthful responses". 

Now I'm well aware that his polls are just as valid as any well designed poll, but his joke undermines the perception.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What are you (two) suggesting here?
> 
> All that's happened is that the vile Ashcroft has made a crap joke.  It doesn't effect the results the professional pollsters that he hires come up with (and they haven't even done one for Scottish independence).


 What Danny said really.  In terms of the public face of the game Ashcroft is playing, he should probably keep it zipped given that he's commissioning the polls.  I'd go slightly further than what Danny said in fact, thesubtext is 'I don't like the results of my poll, so I ask you not to believe it'.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I understand it's a joke. But the subtext is "you can't trust the accuracy of my polls", despite the lengths he went to recently to explain why his had the best validity. He is saying: "my polls are not designed to elicit truthful responses".
> 
> Now I'm well aware that his polls are just as valid as any well designed poll, but his joke undermines the perception.


He hasn't done any polls on Scotland that could possibly be undermined - he hasn't done any polls on scotland that could "my polls are not designed to elicit truthful responses" could possibly refer to. The subtext is not what you suggest - it's far more nakedly political and it's that the unionists who are supposed to be defending the union - esp those ion his party - are caving under pressure to such an extent that even YES voters can now squeeze something out of them. It's got nothing to do with polls or pollsters or how they operate. And it most certainly is not saying anything about the way that his polls are designed. Far too much reading-in being done here i think.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

Wilf said:


> What Danny said really.  In terms of the public face of the game Ashcroft is playing, he should probably keep it zipped given that he's commissioning the polls.  I'd go slightly further than what Danny said in fact, thesubtext is 'I don't like the results of my poll, so I ask you not to believe it'.


He's not done any polls.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's not done any polls.


 Oh, right.   Well, anyway, if he had...


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's not done any polls.


Thought he had.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

I'm surprised he hasn't really given his poll junkie nature. Maybe he thought there was a political risk if he was seen to be taking an interest.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm surprised he hasn't really given his poll junkie nature. Maybe he thought there was a political risk if he was seen to be taking an interest.


Just had a search, and you're right - he hasn't.  Ah, well.  Just a crap joke, then.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 9, 2014)

Huh, Ed Milliband asking the English to fly the Saltaire, "To show the Scots what they'd be missing if the vote yes"  http://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-saltire-across-the-uk-scotland-independence

And then this headline: 
*Cameron, Clegg and Miliband to make emergency visit to Scotland *

They announced this on facebook apparently


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Huh, Ed Milliband asking the English to fly the Saltaire, "To show the Scots what they'd be missing if the vote yes"  http://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-saltire-across-the-uk-scotland-independence
> 
> And then this headline:
> *Cameron, Clegg and Miliband to make emergency visit to Scotland *
> ...




'saltire' every day is a schoolday. As someone pointed out on the other thread 'OK mr milliband, I'll just go rifle through my giant flag collection then?'


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2014)

next to news of royal babby saving the union, this is getting farcical


----------



## Belushi (Sep 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> next to news of royal babby saving the union, this is getting farcical



I'd been working under the assumption that like me the leaders didn't really care either way.  Turns out they really are that bloody complacent they thought it was in the bag.

Loving the panic though


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Huh, Ed Milliband asking the English to fly the Saltaire, "To show the Scots what they'd be missing if the vote yes"  http://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-saltire-across-the-uk-scotland-independence
> 
> And then this headline:
> *Cameron, Clegg and Miliband to make emergency visit to Scotland *
> ...



Considering how unpopular they all are, surely this will give the Yes campaign a boost?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 9, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Loving the panic though


 
Not even on the 'yes' side of things myself, really, but I agree it's hilarious.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Considering how unpopular they all are, surely this will give the Yes campaign a boost?


 
But but but... Miliband is going!!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

The NO vote is solid. It's DKs on the move. If they were the sort of people who could be enthused/scared to vote no by a personal appearance/plea from these three they would have been by now and so not be DKs. But they have no one and nothing with which to appeal to Dks. And what they think they have and what they are now relying on is precisely what is driving the DKs to YES.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 9, 2014)

They've tried threats, now it's promising to change. What's next? Begging, Tears?


----------



## Favelado (Sep 9, 2014)

I'd like Scotland to vote Yes, the Queen to die the day after, and then Cameron to resign the day after that.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I'd been working under the assumption that like me the leaders didn't really care either way.  Turns out they really are that bloody complacent they thought it was in the bag.
> 
> Loving the panic though


Likewise


----------



## 8ball (Sep 9, 2014)

Belushi said:


> They've tried threats, now it's promising to change. What's next? Begging, Tears?


 
There'll be a half-assed suicide attempt before the week is out at this rate...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2014)

ma says she read Cameron says he will step down as leader in the event of a yes vote. Bet he'll hang on till the GE though, the swine


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2014)

8ball said:


> There'll be a half-assed suicide attempt before the week is out at this rate...




Should scotland be expecting 3am rambling text messages


----------



## kebabking (Sep 9, 2014)

i am prepared to drive to Glasgow, get drunk and stand in the street in the dark hours and sing 'all by myself..'.

i shall save the union.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 9, 2014)

kebabking said:


> i am prepared to drive to Glasgow, get drunk and stand in the street in the dark hours and sing 'all by myself..'.
> 
> i shall save the union.


 
I'll bring my keyboard...


----------



## kebabking (Sep 9, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'll bring my keyboard...



do you know where i could get a smoke machine and some disco lights - and a stick-on curly mullet?


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> next to news of royal babby saving the union, this is getting farcical


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 9, 2014)

Belushi said:


> They've tried threats, now it's promising to change. What's next? Begging, Tears?



depression then acceptance


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 9, 2014)

Milliband has shown how totally useless he is with this campaign. He's simply teamed up with the tories, where he could, with a little wit and imagination, have pushed a distinctive Labour argument for 'no' - distancing himself, for instance, from Osborne's pathetic bullying tactics.

But no. No distinctive message at all. In fact, his message seems pretty clear - 'we are the tories too'.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

Brown - the Scottish vote went up under him whilst collapsing elsewhere - has a better chance of dragging DKs to no out of fear. He's been doing some potentially effective NHS stuff based stuff today. But all that's going to be pissed on when people see the three stooges and think about what they will do to the NHS.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Milliband has shown how totally useless he is with this campaign. He's simply teamed up with the tories, where he could, with a little wit and imagination, have pushed a distinctive Labour argument for 'no' - distancing himself, for instance, from Osborne's pathetic bullying tactics.
> 
> But no. No distinctive message at all. In fact, his message seems pretty clear - 'we are the tories too'.


It'd have to be a fair bit more than a little bit of wit and imagination. It'd have to be a series of lies. And when you do that you're setting your campaign up as a simple narrative of lies unfolding.They didn't offer anything better out of tactical choice but because they have nothing better to offer.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Brown - the Scottish vote went up under him whilst collapsing elsewhere - has a better chance of dragging DKs to no out of fear. He's been doing some potentially effective NHS stuff based stuff today. But all that's going to be pissed on when people see the three stooges and think about what they will do to the NHS.


Indeed. People know that Brown isn't in power - he's a backbench opposition MP, shortly to retire. He can't deliver anything.

The people who _can_ deliver something, no matter how inconsequential, are these three wankers.


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 9, 2014)

Ironic metaphor time: 
https://skynews.grabyo.com/g/v/P25wqfTO9M3
Downing street try to raise a Saltire to show support for the Union.  It falls off the flagpole.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2014)

Kissinger has come out for No 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ce-is-neck-and-neck-with-nine-days-to-go-live



> I have always been a strong advocate of the special relationship. Not so much because of the power of Britain but because I thought it was important for America and important for the structure of the world to have another country that independently designed its policy but, because of its own convictions and a maybe different tradition of foreign policy and a longer experience with geopolitics, worked on common conclusions.
> 
> I thought that that was important for us who would otherwise be stuck as an island between Eurasia and Europe.
> 
> ...


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Kissinger has come out for No
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ce-is-neck-and-neck-with-nine-days-to-go-live



Ze bombing vill begin at midnight. Kiss your dykes and bridges goodbye, Schottland.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2014)

iamwithnail said:


> Ironic metaphor time:
> https://skynews.grabyo.com/g/v/P25wqfTO9M3
> Downing street try to raise a Saltire to show support for the Union.  It falls off the flagpole.



Everything Westminster has done since that first poll showing a lead for Yes has made me feel happier and happier I've put a bet on for Scotland going, thanks Liblabcon!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Ze bombing vill begin at midnight. Kiss your dykes and bridges goodbye, Schottland.


That said, ISIS have come out for yes.


----------



## Flavour (Sep 9, 2014)

It would not be at all surprising to hear Cameron et al using that in their race to the finish line - "A weaker UK is exactly what _they_ want and will open up us to even greater risks both at home and abroad"...


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That said, ISIS have come out for yes.


Do we have the view from Pyongyang yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

Flavour said:


> It would not be at all surprising to hear Cameron et al using that in their race to the finish line - "A weaker UK is exactly what _they_ want and will open up us to even greater risks both at home and abroad"...


They already have and the RIC types have said that this a reason for a YES vote. I'm not sure how many people are voting with the role of imperialism uppermost.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

killer b said:


> Do we have the view from Pyongyang yet?


Unless they start beheading scots they are out the game.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Sep 9, 2014)

What would be the best way to sabotage the upcoming "love bombing" attempt whereby the Unionists/Liblabcons plan to mobilise English people to say"don't go"? (Based on the Quebec campaign)


----------



## Favelado (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> What would be the best way to sabotage the upcoming "love bombing" attempt whereby the Unionists/Liblabcons plan to mobilise English people to say"don't go"? (Based on the Quebec campaign)



Letting it happen.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Sep 9, 2014)

HeHe. Certainly if they go about it like the Beeb news did tonight - "ordinary Chesterfield folk" making ignorant and resentful remarks....


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> What would be the best way to sabotage the upcoming "love bombing" attempt whereby the Unionists/Liblabcons plan to mobilise English people to say"don't go"? (Based on the Quebec campaign)


----------



## angusmcfangus (Sep 9, 2014)

_Daniel Wright-Miller
Fuck off Scotland.. We're all voting yes!_


----------



## tim (Sep 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Everything Westminster has done since that first poll showing a lead for Yes has made me feel happier and happier I've put a bet on for Scotland going, thanks Liblabcon!




I haven't seen so much wonderful political panic since the seventies.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

tim said:


> I haven't seen so much wonderful political panic since the seventies.



Another three oxbridge people.


----------



## tim (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Another three oxbridge people.



Ah yes,chaps  from  that halcyon era  when all you needed to join the ruling elite was an Oxford or Cambridge degree.These days you're no one if you're not an old Etonian


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 10, 2014)

Belushi said:


> They've tried threats, now it's promising to change. What's next? Begging, Tears?


 
it was tears and begging!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nail-SNP-lie-health-not-safe-Westminster.html

20 BetterTogether points to Belushi


----------



## slainte (Sep 10, 2014)

Hmm I am really pissed with the entire UK press so anti Scottish Independance. And looking at the BBC of course they went around to other countries to ask what was thought of the matter and again as per usual they left off Ireland whom naturally they should be asking as Ireland broke away now approaching  100 years..so for my English chums a extract from and Irish newspaper...sorry its got to be done to balance the don't break up the Union bollox.

If I can fit into another post as I just tried and it doesn't allow me


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 10, 2014)

next up, late night drunken text messages and vaguely threatening ramblings on the ansaphone.


----------



## slainte (Sep 10, 2014)

Okay fuck off then I will just have to post the link...hmmm looks around to see if there is some Censor at work...

http://rt.com/op-edge/184785-ireland-scots-independence-popularity/


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 10, 2014)

not you, slainte , i meant the next tactic from the BetterTogether shower.


----------



## slainte (Sep 10, 2014)




----------



## slainte (Sep 10, 2014)

Sorry ..I actually wasn't referring to you geniunely..more and out loud protest at a post limit preventing me to post into forum..


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2014)

Member of what? The world?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2014)

slainte said:


> View attachment 60885


That's not an argument, is it? It's an appeal to nationalist emotion. It's also a load of old balls.


----------



## slainte (Sep 10, 2014)

Hmm point stands ..it seems all the press is anti independence and publishing this..

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-25844448


Eh really lets ask everywhere except our nearest neighbour...right fuck off then 

 the BBC have this ..and skip asking the Irish Republic...whom broke away ..would have thought that would be ideal to gauge.

Be honest the view of Being British is pretty much a lie isn't it as its all about England has been ..this event might shake things up a bit.

My views are only that my views but lets see what comes

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/0...nt-to-talk-about-scotlands-independence-vote/


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 10, 2014)

Salmond should go down to Westminster while the three cunts are north of the border and do a speech or something, just to fucking embarrass them.


----------



## krink (Sep 10, 2014)




----------



## krink (Sep 10, 2014)

just realised these should be in the song thread, fuck it.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/10/scottish-independence-poll-no-vote-lead



> A new opinion poll on Scottish independence has found the no vote back in the lead at 53% of voters, suggesting the sudden surge in backing for independence has subsided.
> 
> Only days after a spate of polls suggested the referendum race was neck and neck, the Survation poll for the Daily Record has found that the no vote is now at 53%, giving the pro-UK campaign a six point gap over yes.
> 
> That is the same margin given by Survation two months ago. Including the 10% of voters still to decide, the survey of 1,000 voters found that 47.6% plan to vote no on 18 September, with 42.4% voting yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2014)

One minute reflecting reality. The next denying it. Oh these treacherous pollsters.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/10/scottish-independence-poll-no-vote-lead


did they by any chance ask different people?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 10, 2014)

The depressing thing for Yes is that the fieldwork for that seems to have been done in the last 5 days or so (according to the other thread) - when BT was in full headless chicken mode.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Salmond should go down to Westminster while the three cunts are north of the border and do a speech or something, just to fucking embarrass them.


don't you think the terrible trio are fucking embarrassing themselves anyway?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2014)

krink said:


> just realised these should be in the song thread, fuck it.



the muslamic rayguns one was better


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> don't you think the terrible trio are fucking embarrassing themselves anyway?



Not enough it seems


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Not enough it seems


don't worry, it's early days yet. they have yet to plumb the depths of human degradation, as they doubtless will in the next week.


----------



## co-op (Sep 10, 2014)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> What would be the best way to sabotage the upcoming "love bombing" attempt whereby the Unionists/Liblabcons plan to mobilise English people to say"don't go"? (Based on the Quebec campaign)



Jeremy Vine's phone-in today was meant to be a Love-Bombing opportunity but in the half hour I heard basically every single English caller was either very sensible and rational and said it's up to the Scots, none of our business or they were resentful and pissed off and basically fuck off and the sooner the better. 

Love-Bombing isn't going to swing it I think.


----------



## Sue (Sep 10, 2014)

co-op said:


> Jeremy Vine's phone-in today was meant to be a Love-Bombing opportunity but in the half hour I heard basically every single English caller was either very sensible and rational and said it's up to the Scots, none of our business or they were resentful and pissed off and basically fuck off and the sooner the better.
> 
> Love-Bombing isn't going to swing it I think.


I'm still waiting to be lovebombed. I mean I can't vote but I certainly sound like I might be able to...

Obviously not by David Cameron etc though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 10, 2014)

co-op said:


> or they were resentful and pissed off and basically fuck off and the sooner the better.


Genuine question, why would people be resentful? The Independent was saying yesterday there'd be a anti Scottish "backlash". Why? Against what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2014)

'fuck you then you ungrateful cunts'

fostered by a generalised notion that we support and nurture scotland out of the goodness of english hearts. Seriously. Thats the tabloidy line


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 10, 2014)

On the way home from work today I had the misfortune to look over people's shoulders at what they were reading in the Metro and the Standard (spits) Anyone would think it was the apocolypse approaching....the headlines were ridiculously over the top 'End of GB' / 'Hearts, Minds and Souls' Seriously, I wanted to puke.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 10, 2014)

Sadly the innate conservative caution of a majority of the Scots electorate means it will be a No and then this will never be allowed to happen ever again. And funnily enough post election Devo Max cheques will bounce. Yes campaigners need to go into overdrive methinks.

No is odds on whearas Yes is 2/1 or thereabouts. 

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome


----------



## redcogs (Sep 10, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Genuine question, why would people be resentful? The Independent was saying yesterday there'd be a anti Scottish "backlash". Why? Against what?



Isn't the answer that many people down in England prefer resentful blaming to having to think rationally?	Decades of free market economics has really damaged the social democratic values that were once reasonably prominent.  Resentful blaming of the immigrant, the benefit claimant, the single mum, the disabled.. its all part of the same sickness.  Such prejudice is not nearly as common in Scotland IME.


----------



## Dowie (Sep 10, 2014)

Can anyone explain if it is definately going to be a case of an independent Scotland being considered a 'new' state and the rest of the UK being the continuing one per say rather than simply splitting in two? Though I'd rather they stuck with us the SNP seem to be taking the approach that they're already EU members etc.. In some respects surely they have a point - Scotland and England(with Wales tagging along) already existed as independent nations, they then joined together in a union if that union ceases to be then surely they're both back to being two independent states that have both been around for hundreds of years... Scotland isn't a 'new' state per say and its already within the EU, elects MEPs and is populated with 5 million EU citizens... If the union is being disolved then why does the larger state get to claim everything? I'm really not sure it is as simple as they'll have to apply again, there will be borders, Spain will block them etc... Obviously that is the line that is being spun from the No campaign and the Yes campaign has perhaps an overly optimistic view too. It just seems very hypocritical that an organisation that's trying to expand and promote free trade, democracy etc.. would potentially alienate and make things difficult for a group of people who are already a part of it and have simply exercised a democratic right to self determination.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 10, 2014)

Dowie said:


> Can anyone explain if it is definately going to be a case of an independent Scotland being considered a 'new' state and the rest of the UK being the continuing one per say rather than simply splitting in two? Though I'd rather they stuck with us the SNP seem to be taking the approach that they're already EU members etc.. In some respects surely they have a point - Scotland and England(with Wales tagging along) already existed as independent nations, they then joined together in a union if that union ceases to be then surely they're both back to being two independent states that have both been around for hundreds of years... Scotland isn't a 'new' state per say and its already within the EU, elects MEPs and is populated with 5 million EU citizens... If the union is being disolved then why does the larger state get to claim everything? I'm really not sure it is as simple as they'll have to apply again, there will be borders, Spain will block them etc... Obviously that is the line that is being spun from the No campaign and the Yes campaign has perhaps an overly optimistic view too. It just seems very hypocritical that an organisation that's trying to expand and promote free trade, democracy etc.. would potentially alienate and make things difficult for a group of people who are already a part of it and have simply exercised a democratic right to self determination.



The simple answer is that there is no legal precedent so no one knows what will happen.

On one side of the spectrum is that the European community says "ah, well" come and join us round the fire - we know you well, you already practice our laws etc...

The other side of the spectrum is that the European community demands that Scotland apply for full membership of the EU under the current process.  There are a number of key requirements that would then be incumbent on Scotland (which it does not currently fulfill) and which would have far reaching effects.

The first is that Scotland would have to use the Euro.  To see the issues that arise from this, look to the Eurozone since roughly 2010 and more specifically Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Greece etc... (and, in a different way, Germany for having to bail them out).  This is clearly part of the wider currency debate but is the peculiarly EU aspect to it.

The second is that Scotland would have to join the Schengen zone.  If Scotland were then to take a different line on immigration policy, to provide the most salient example among many, it would most likely have to leave the Common Travel Area, and, depending on the details of Scotland's new policies, varying degrees of border control would have to be implemented.  This would have effects that are difficult to quantify right now but are unlikely to be positive in the short to medium term.

The third is that Scottish membership would have to be unanimously approved by all the other 28 member states.  Scotland is in a weak negotiating position on this front because there are other member states that are not so keen on the ideas of referendums of self-determination that, even, in fact, view the idea of such nationalistic principles as being redundant within an increasingly federalised European Union.  Consequently, on most negotiating points with the EU, or more to the point, the influence of individual member states, Scotland will be holding a weak hand.  For instance, it is very difficult to imagine Scotland arguing for the kind of rebate that the UK currently enjoys.

Finally, Brussels moves at the glacial pace of a continental bureaucracy.  Given that the new Juncker Commission was only proposed yesterday and is yet to be confirmed, it is difficult to see the admission of Scotland as being a high priority in Brussels any time soon.  Taking account of the EU world's general caution, it is certainly not inconceivable for Scotland's admission to be delayed by a minimum of 2 or 3 years and perhaps only being resolved at the end of the Commission's term in 2019.

However, this is politics, so any settlement would likely compromise at some point along the spectrum between "get comfy" and "obey the rules", however with the EU looking Eastwards first and foremost and having established a very well worn accession route by now, there would seem to be very little room for maneouvre for an independent Scotland.

(e2a - hyprocritical, that's EU stock in trade!)


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 11, 2014)

strictly speaking shouldn't the Yes Campaign be the Aye Camapaign ?


----------



## redcogs (Sep 11, 2014)

"The English, especially, will wonder why our leaders feel the need to suck up to a nation that sponged off our largesse consistently over the past 307 years, yet is still not satisfied".   This is from the obnoxious Daily Wail's Simon Heffer.  Unfortunately it seems to typify the attitude of many in England, who have often drunk deeply from the privatised well of Thatcherite free marketism (including most nauseatingly, the Labour Party) and found it satisfyingly acceptable.   Fuck the poor, fuck the elderly and disabled, piss on those with too many bedrooms (unless they are named saxe coburg gotha windsor), and especially fuck the foreigners..


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

Regional/political breakdown of the survation poll with the 6% lead for NO.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 11, 2014)

Galloway wades in for the No side..

http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/george-galloway-argues-against-scottish-independence/


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Galloway wades in for the No side..
> 
> http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/george-galloway-argues-against-scottish-independence/


He was supposed to be official NO spokesman on Question Time tonight but, he says, the SNP forced the BBC to boot him.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 11, 2014)

If I was in the Yes campaign I'd start projecting pictures of Cameron's stupid ham-face on to prominent buildings everywhere.  Hammer it in to people that they have a chance never to have to bow down before Eton again.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He was supposed to be official NO spokesman on Question Time tonight but, he says, the SNP forced the BBC to boot him.


Good, he's a rape apologist. Fuck him.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 11, 2014)

redcogs said:


> "The English, especially, will wonder why our leaders feel the need to suck up to a nation that sponged off our largesse consistently over the past 307 years, yet is still not satisfied".   This is from the obnoxious Daily Wail's Simon Heffer.  Unfortunately it seems to typify the attitude of many in England, who have often drunk deeply from the privatised well of Thatcherite free marketism (including most nauseatingly, the Labour Party) and found it satisfyingly acceptable.   Fuck the poor, fuck the elderly and disabled, piss on those with too many bedrooms (unless they are named saxe coburg gotha windsor), and especially fuck the foreigners..


"The English"


----------



## weepiper (Sep 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Regional/political breakdown of the survation poll with the 6% lead for NO.


The overlay is pretty meaningless as the Lib Dems got wiped out in Scotland in 2011


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

New YG poll tonight apparently.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He was supposed to be official NO spokesman on Question Time tonight but, he says, the SNP forced the BBC to boot him.


If that's true (which I doubt, actually.  More likely someone else became available), then it gives me more respect for the SNP than I previously had. I wouldn't share a platform with the rape-apologist low-life either.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> If that's true (which I doubt, actually.  More likely someone else became available), then it gives me more respect for the SNP than I previously had. I wouldn't share a platform with the rape-apologist low-life either.


BBC deny it anyway. Galloway says he's turning up whatever.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> New YG poll tonight apparently.


There's an ICM poll for the Guardian due out sometime this weekend too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2014)

the pollsters must be proper coining it over this


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

weepiper said:


> There's an ICM poll for the Guardian due out sometime this weekend too.


They just confirmed that they have one out tmw now. Maybe this is an extra one on top of one planned for weekend. Not sure but would be surprised if they have one friday and saturday.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 11, 2014)

If there is a yes vote and it screws things up for the rest of the uk then there may well be a backlash.
 Nationlism isnt entirely rational at the best of times
  If it appears people are paying for the scots then bad things will happen


----------



## 8ball (Sep 11, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Nationlism isnt entirely rational...


 
This is up there with your 'automatic weapons are not appropriate playthings for small children' comment.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> BBC deny it anyway. Galloway says he's turning up whatever.


 
Will be interesting.  The Yes campaign hasn't had to deal with a decent orator yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

8ball said:


> Will be interesting.  The Yes campaign hasn't had to deal with a decent orator yet.


He'll never make the studio.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2014)

soapbox outside the building


----------



## ska invita (Sep 11, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Galloway wades in for the No side..
> 
> http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/george-galloway-argues-against-scottish-independence/


not exactly wading in as he's a been a very vocal NO for years now
my memory of his case last time i heard it was that he's ultimately driven by an old school socialist big state vision - the working class does better by uniting across borders and regions
its an interesting argument that i havent heard much of over the campaign
by contrsat my main desire is more meaningful democracy at every level, and Scottish independence achieves a degree of that, and its not something I think GG, who doesnt wince much at hardman dictators and other big state units (if they share his politics), cares about


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> soapbox outside the building



I think you mean "litter tray".


----------



## RedDragon (Sep 11, 2014)

Bloke on a rickshaw (possibly a disgrunted scotch person), welcomes Labour's MP's arrival to Glasgow.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 11, 2014)

Pity he didn't geta couple of mates rigged out as Imperial Stormtroopers.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> Bloke on a rickshaw (possibly a scotch person), welcomes Labour's MP's arrival to Glasgow.




That's amazing.

Anyone know when the new yougov poll is released?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

ITV Border have a an ICM poll out for south of Scotland. NO 67% YES 33%


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2014)




----------



## The Boy (Sep 11, 2014)

Hardly surprising, tbf.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ITV Border have a an ICM poll out for south of Scotland. NO 67% YES 33%


the Borders/Dumfries was always going to be a low Yes vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

ITV Border have a an ICM poll out for south of Scotland. NO 67% YES 33%


----------



## The Boy (Sep 11, 2014)

Two in one evening?
:wow:


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 11, 2014)

Galloway' was part of the Spectator's Edinburgh Independence Debate.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...pendence-is-the-greatest-threat-to-edinburgh/


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 11, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> Bloke on a rickshaw (possibly a scotch person), welcomes Labour's MP's arrival to Glasgow.




There is another one .... I didn't know the Edinburgh Fringe was still on - tartan Jimmy hatS off to him for his stunt though.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 11, 2014)

J Ed said:


> That's amazing.
> 
> Anyone know when the new yougov poll is released?


We didn't have to wait for the last one as Murdoch leaked it by strong hinting. I'm assuming it's normal service resumed as we've not heard from the dirty digger this time?


----------



## treelover (Sep 11, 2014)

> Aye or Nae
> 
> It's Dave, Red Ed and the Laird big John
> Love bombing Scotland "we love you”
> ...



posted by Mark LG on Guardian CIF


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Genuine question, why would people be resentful? The Independent was saying yesterday there'd be a anti Scottish "backlash". Why? Against what?



no-one is resentful, as far as i can see.  a few people are a bit jealous, or sad.  but everyone i've ever spoken to has been either an enthusiastic Yes (and wishes they could move to Scotland) or a Please-Don't-Leave-Us-With-The-Tories No.


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 11, 2014)

JEsus.  Put on 'Scotland Decides', Galloway is doing some real damage to yes, as much of a roaster as he is.  But what the fuck's that hat about?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

To yes?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 11, 2014)

iamwithnail said:


> Galloway is doing some real damage to yes


Naw he's naw. He's getting booed by the weans, the weans who are remarkably well-informed and politically aware, so far.


----------



## treelover (Sep 11, 2014)

iamwithnail said:


> JEsus.  Put on 'Scotland Decides', Galloway is doing some real damage to yes, as much of a roaster as he is.  But what the fuck's that hat about?




He just described the Tory as "my conservative colleague'' what is happening up there?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 11, 2014)

treelover said:


> He just described the Tory as "my conservative colleague'' what is happening up there?



What's wrong with that? If they're both unionist it's legit. ETA - this is about the clash of two nationalisms, class is not an issue in the referendum.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 11, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Naw he's naw. He's getting booed by the weans, the weans who are remarkably well-informed and politically aware, so far.



That they are!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

YG poll following their one with a YES lead over last weekend:

Yes 48 (-3)
No 52 (+3)


----------



## brogdale (Sep 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> YG poll following their one with a YES lead over last weekend:
> 
> Yes 48 (-3)
> No 52 (+3)


Margin of error territory, but not a bad shout for the actual result...I'd think.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

Really key thing is this poll has only 4% now yet to make mind up.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 11, 2014)

Good. No complacency in the final week.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2014)

Two polls from opinium coming up as well - sat and weds.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2014)

killer b said:


> Do we have the view from Pyongyang yet?





butchersapron said:


> Unless they start beheading scots they are out the game.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tive-about-scottish-independence-9726768.html


----------



## JTG (Sep 11, 2014)

I do wonder whether polling orgs have begun to take into account the high registration rate (and therefore presumably a higher turnout expectation) which accounts for the recent correction in polls.

It could come down to getting the vote out on the day...


----------



## 8ball (Sep 11, 2014)

JTG said:


> It could come down to getting the vote out on the day...



I think getting the vote to stay in is the best strategy for the Yesses.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 11, 2014)

JTG said:


> I do wonder whether polling orgs have begun to take into account the high registration rate (and therefore presumably a higher turnout expectation) which accounts for the recent correction in polls.
> 
> It could come down to getting the vote out on the day...


I don't know about the latest YG but the previous polls that showed the swing to YES were done using the methodology as earlier ones giving NO a good lead. There was a slight change in their methodology but the effect that had was negligible (1%).


----------



## JTG (Sep 11, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't know about the latest YG but the previous polls that showed the swing to YES were done using the methodology as earlier ones giving NO a good lead. There was a slight change in their methodology but the effect that had was negligible (1%).


This is the vaguest thing ever but I read something, somewhere in the last day or two explaining that they'd changed their weighting. That's all I have


----------



## Wilf (Sep 11, 2014)

tonight's is 52-48 for no.


----------



## rekil (Sep 12, 2014)

killer b said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tive-about-scottish-independence-9726768.html


Quality journalism.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 12, 2014)

JTG said:


> This is the vaguest thing ever but I read something, somewhere in the last day or two explaining that they'd changed their weighting. That's all I have


They did change this  weighting back the beginning of August but that was before the sharp move to YES they've observed.


----------



## belboid (Sep 12, 2014)

Bloody hell, watching that 'debate' last night makes me want both sides to lose.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2014)

> YouGov released its latest poll figures last night, but YouGov’s president Peter Kellner now has an article on YouGov’s website explaining the figures, and why he thinks support for no has risen over the last week.
> 
> The whole thing is well worth reading, http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/12/scotlands-yes-bandwagon-stalls/ but here’s an excerpt.
> 
> ...


----------



## weepiper (Sep 12, 2014)

ICM poll for the Guardian due out at 12.30.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2014)

ICM/Guardian

YES - 49
NO - 51

With DKs:
Yes 40
No 42
DK -17%


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2014)

its still such a high number of DKs at this late stage....is there any analysis of what the DKs will do on Thursday? Will they refrain from voting because they dont know, or are they expecting to make a decision one way or another


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2014)

87%+ have said they are certain to vote.


----------



## Sue (Sep 12, 2014)

ska invita said:


> its still such a high number of DKs at this late stage....is there any analysis of what the DKs will do on Thursday? Will they refrain from voting because they dont know, or are they expecting to make a decision one way or another



One of my sisters is a genuine DK. She says she'll definitely be voting on Thursday though.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2014)

> Reason why 17% DKs in ICM phone poll compared with 4% YouGov is that the latter are members of polling panel & therefore more engaged
> 12:39 PM - 12 Sep 2014


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2014)

> Dan Hodges ✔ @DPJHodges
> Follow
> People commenting on the 17% "undecideds" in the ICM poll. They're not undecideds. They're No voters.


might be truth in that


----------



## weepiper (Sep 12, 2014)

ska invita said:


> might be truth in that


or, it might be total conjecture.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2014)

There is not and never has been any truth in anything dan hodges says, has said, or will ever say on any political subject whatsoever.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2014)

weepiper said:


> or, it might be total conjecture.


it might be, of course.

cant define why exactly but i can see a logic to the assumption - in that more DKs will go No

-something along the lines of if you havent made up your mind for Yes by now more than 50 percent will default to the safer option of No -to vote Yes if you DK would require a last minute step of faith - on average i think more people wont do that than will


...all chat in the wind of course


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2014)

So Dan Hodges, after predicting UKIP would be destroyed in the euro elections (they topped the poll) and that the tories would easily win in clacton (UKIP lead by 44% on polling) and a host of other similarly ill-judged predictions, now reckons that NO will win by 19%. 

Don't all rush to the bookies at once.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2014)

i dont think all 17% are No, but I think it wouldnt be surprising that more than 50% of them go No.
I like surprises though


----------



## belboid (Sep 12, 2014)

A majority of DK's will go 'No' 

There will be an element of 'shy voting' - as we used to get with the tories and now do with the LibScum - and that's more likely to be with the No's (and their damend negativity, and toriness).  But more significantly, DK's are people who haven't been convinced.  If you are not convinced with the choices on offer, you'll stick with the status quo, and the status quo is No.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2014)

belboid said:


> A majority of DK's will go 'No'
> 
> There will be an element of 'shy voting' - as we used to get with the tories and now do with the LibScum - and that's more likely to be with the No's (and there damend negativity, and toriness).  But more significantly, DK's are people who haven't been convinced.  If you are not convinced with the choices on offer, you#ll stick with the status quo, and the status quo is No.


That's the way things normally pan out - and i suggested the other day that this was why i think NO are likely to win. But in the YG polls that saw the rise in YES vote over the last few weeks, the DKs were splitting i think it was 2/1 for YES. They have only 4% saying DK now though so even if that rate continued (and you have to think this last 4% are going to be at least 50/50) then they're running out of road if the 4% lead is accurate. But, frankly, with the 3% MOE all this could be totally wrong anyway.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 12, 2014)

belboid said:


> A majority of DK's will go 'No'
> 
> There will be an element of 'shy voting' - as we used to get with the tories and now do with the LibScum - and that's more likely to be with the No's (and there damend negativity, and toriness).  But more significantly, DK's are people who haven't been convinced.  If you are not convinced with the choices on offer, you#ll stick with the status quo, and the status quo is No.


 As with all of this, we don't know and the pollsters don't know, but yes I suspect there's a fair bit in that. DKs as 'not provens'.  Hope it's yes, but I have a feeling the yes vote may end up slightly _lower_ than the figures shown in the polls (for the reasons you suggest).


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's the way things normally pan out - and i suggested the other day that this was why i think NO are likely to win. But in the YG polls that saw the rise in YES vote over the last few weeks, the DKs were splitting i think it was 2/1 for YES. They have only 4% saying DK now though so even if that rate continued (and you have to think this last 4% are going to be at least 50/50) then they're running out of road if the 4% lead is accurate. But, frankly, with the 3% MOE all this could be totally wrong anyway.


I just think it's too close to really call, and the 97% registration rate along with expected high turnout, means we're in territory the polls haven't dealt with before.

I would say one thing, though.  There are a lot of people saying that "all these habitual non voters aren't registering to keep things the way they are".  Maybe not.  But just maybe they are.


----------



## toggle (Sep 12, 2014)

ska invita said:


> its still such a high number of DKs at this late stage....is there any analysis of what the DKs will do on Thursday? Will they refrain from voting because they dont know, or are they expecting to make a decision one way or another



don't knows would be more likely to vote for the status quo or not vote than vote yes according to the stuff i've read on voter behavior patterns.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I just think it's too close to really call, *and the 97% registration rate along* with expected high turnout, means we're in territory the polls haven't dealt with before.
> 
> I would say one thing, though.  There are a lot of people saying that "all these habitual non voters aren't registering to keep things the way they are".  Maybe not.  But just maybe they are.



That's incredible really, does it show us that Scotland is different than England or under different circumstance are the English capable of such engagement?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2014)

No. The English have more in common genetically with crabs than with Scottish people.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> That's incredible really, does it show us that Scotland is different than England or under different circumstance are the English capable of such engagement?


Butchers got there first with the sarcasm.

It's circumstances.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No. The English have more in common genetically with crabs than with Scottish people.



So _that's _what's under the kilt. . .


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2014)

> Last Sunday I made another visit to Scotland, where I’ve been working on a series of Guardian films titled Britain’s in Trouble, which will appear online next week. I started in Falkirk, at a yes meeting on an out-of-town housing estate. The star turns were the pro-independence actor Elaine C Smith, and Alan Bissett, a loquacious playwright and author who grew up locally. The event drew well over 300 people


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...as-usual-finished-falkirk-clacton-disaffectedsimial

Of course its not going to be genetic or something, but I do think something has changed here over time that will make it difficult to see a  similar phenomenon where 300 people turn up for a political meeting on an out of town estate.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> I do think something has changed here over time that will make it difficult to see a  similar phenomenon where 300 people turn up for a political meeting on an out of town estate.


Yes, of course there is. You already know what it is.  It's the widespread realisation that whatever party you vote for, they're all neoliberals representing business interests, and your own life will not change.

Notice, what's happening in Scotland is not an election, it's a referendum.  We aren't talking about changing the government, but about completely binning Westminster.  People are hoping that this will mean we can start again and create something better.  (I personally think a lot of people are going to be disillusioned if they're expecting real change to come from parliamentary democracy. The work we have to do is to keep people engaged creatively outside of parliamentary politics.  But that wasn't your question).


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2014)

The anti UKIP protest looked a lot smaller than was expected.


----------



## youngian (Sep 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So Dan Hodges, after predicting UKIP would be destroyed in the euro elections (they topped the poll) and that the tories would easily win in clacton (UKIP lead by 44% on polling) and a host of other similarly ill-judged predictions, now reckons that NO will win by 19%.
> 
> Don't all rush to the bookies at once.


And they're not laying odds on who Hodges will blame for a Yes vote


----------



## elbows (Sep 12, 2014)

Sorry if this has already been well covered, but while I was reading some drivel about Andrew Marr's new book (fiction), this bit stuck out:



> He is watching the polls very closely, but is also mindful of the fact that “what the polls are not measuring at the moment is a very powerful voter-registration campaign on the council estates and the poorer parts of the big cities, being run by radical pro-independence groups. They are registering huge numbers of new yes voters so I think it’s probably even tighter than the polls suggest.”
> 
> On the yes side he is particularly interested in the “sense that ‘all we want is a slightly more social democratic, slightly fairer state and we can’t get that any longer from Westminster so we have no alternative.’ That is probably the most powerful yes campaign argument. What’s been going on in Scotland is, in a sense, a major populist revolt against Westminster, and if it can happen in Scotland it can happen elsewhere.” It needs, he believes, to be taken very seriously; it may need the great shock of losing Scotland for the point to definitively be made.



http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...-a-journalist-has-to-be-devious-head-of-state


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> The anti UKIP protest looked a lot smaller than was expected.


Than was expected by whom?  Yes campaigners decided to stay away because everything they do is misrepresented by the press.


----------



## JTG (Sep 12, 2014)

ICM poll was telephone as opposed to web based YG - could account for increased DKs I guess


----------



## ska invita (Sep 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> That's incredible really, does it show us that Scotland is different than England or under different circumstance are the English capable of such engagement?


i think it goes to show how meaningful this referendum is - far beyond the SNP and right here right now politics
over recent years theres been a lot said about how apathetic people in Britain are about politics, especially the young - it was never true, more a case that the majority are increasingly clued up to how meaningless their democratic power is. The degree of social change on the plate in the vote is truly consequential, and not surprisingly the voting public is responding accordingly. If standard elections in the UK involved real social change the appetite would be the same.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 13, 2014)

If you like your conspiracy theories cooked up with a tartan flavour then Wayne Madsen's your man - apparently Yes is 11 points ahead and a false flag event is looming along with a rigged election with the usual suspects of the Rothschilds and Soros fiddling away behind the scenes ! Perfidious Albion indeed.

http://m.strategic-culture.org/news...ans-for-scotland-independence-referendum.html


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Than was expected by whom?  Yes campaigners decided to stay away because everything they do is misrepresented by the press.




Last time didn't go to well !


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2014)

This last week has been incredible watching it all and despite capitals interventions, the celebs, the march of the (labour) m.p's , gives a slight glimpse of what politics could be like here, the grassroots stuff is inspiring.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 13, 2014)

"Another blow for the 'Yes' vote? First the banks threaten to flee an independent Scotland, now it appears the Loch Ness Monster has relocated south of the border!"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ter-relocated-south-border.html#ixzz3DBNjcvFV


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2014)

wrong thread.


----------



## youngian (Sep 13, 2014)

DLT


----------



## RedDragon (Sep 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> wrong thread.


There's too many of these threads its become confusing 

Are we going to see QE2 doing a QE1 speech on the banks of Loch Lomond?


----------



## 8den (Sep 13, 2014)




----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2014)

youngian said:


> DLT



Dave Lee Travis?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 13, 2014)

Times of the expected results, population % and the Tories rating of how pro yes they are. I suspect their rating are gash: Eilean Siar 2, Glasgow 5? The fuck are they sniffing...


----------



## weepiper (Sep 13, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> View attachment 61024
> 
> Times of the expected results, population % and the Tories rating of how pro yes they are. I suspect their rating are gash: Eilean Siar 2, Glasgow 5? The fuck are they sniffing...



Yeah, those 'yes ratings' are very questionable... this is Buchanan St in Glasgow half an hour ago


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> View attachment 61024
> 
> Times of the expected results, population % and the Tories rating of how pro yes they are. I suspect their rating are gash: Eilean Siar 2, Glasgow 5? The fuck are they sniffing...


Where's that from?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where's that from?


It came to me second hand but was allegedly posted on twitter by a conservative "@cllrdmeikle "
https://twitter.com/cllrdmeikle
Has been taken down now.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> It came to me second hand but was allegedly posted on twitter by a conservative "@cllrdmeikle "
> https://twitter.com/cllrdmeikle
> Has been taken down now.


Ta. Would be interesting to see the whole document it's from.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 13, 2014)




----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 13, 2014)

> Mr. Harper told reporters in London last week that Canadians find the concept of Scotland and England separating “inconceivable”.
> 
> “We think, from a Canadian perspective, that a strong, united United Kingdom is an overwhelmingly positive force in the world,” he said.



http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...-alex-salmond-says/?google_editors_picks=true

Once again, our prime minister does not speak for all Canadians.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ta. Would be interesting to see the whole document it's from.


Apologies, it was from a Credit Suisse briefing and tweeted by a tory. 

Elsewhere


> There is something slightly odd about the links being widely made between the large capital outflows from the UK in July and August to fears that Scotland would vote for independence.
> 
> At the time, opinion polls and bookies' odds were showing a very high probability of Scots voting to stay in the union. There was no evidence of investors being anxious about Scottish independence then.
> 
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29190397


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Apologies, it was from a Credit Suisse briefing and tweeted by a tory.
> 
> Elsewhere
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29190397


No need for apologies! I just saw it a few times last night but no one seemed to know where it came from apart from that tory councilor and wondered if you had some more info.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

*Sky News Newsdesk* @SkyNewsBreak
Update - Survation telephone poll for 'Better Together' campaign suggests 54% of Scottish voters say 'no' to independence and 46% say 'yes'


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 13, 2014)

James Matthews (Sky's Scotland Bureau Chief) just tweeted



> BREAKING: Survation poll puts No-54/Yes-46



That's the first for a while that has the difference greater than the margin of error (I think)

Edit: Dammit beaten, I know it's not a race, but dammit!!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> James Matthews (Sky's Scotland Bureau Chief) just tweeted
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And i literally hadn't checked it since this morning, just turned it on after the football and there it was, like they were waiting for me:

With DKs included it's

40.8% YES 
versus 47.0% NO.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 13, 2014)

The full pdf of the Survation poll for those that like tables

http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Better-Together-Voting-Intention-Tables.pdf


----------



## Sue (Sep 13, 2014)

It's going to be interesting to see the effect of the current crop of 'business and jobs fleeing, financial meltdown' stories. Think this could have the opposite effect intended if they're not careful.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 13, 2014)

Sue said:


> It's going to be interesting to see the effect of the current crop of 'business and jobs fleeing, financial meltdown' stories. Think this could have the opposite effect intended if they're not careful.



The Survation fieldwork was done from the 10th to the 12th, so right bang in the middle of those stories. It's just one poll, obviously.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

This survation onw  must be seen as a stand-alone poll rather than a continuation of their series as it's a phone poll rather than an on-line one. So we can't say the vote is up or down for either side, just that this is what this poll found.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2014)

*Society Disagrees Scotland is “Better Together”*

"From my analysis, it looks like the Yes campaign will beat the No campaign on polling day. As I write this I am personally very disappointed as I think Scotland would be stronger in the union. We predicted it correctly for the Mayor of London, and Obama vs Romney – so we do have a track of calling these things."

http://blog.majesticseo.com/research/scottish-election-poll/


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2014)

I really want Scotland to choose its own way although there is no guarantee it will be a progressive one, but personally i' m very worried that it may be a Tory England though I'm aware plenty on here have said that won't automatically follow, surely the political centre of gravity will move to the right.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> I really want Scotland to choose its own way although there is no guarantee it will be a progressive one, but personally i' m very worried that it may be a Tory England though I'm aware plenty on here have said that won't automatically follow, surely the political centre of gravity will move to the right.


Why would the political centre of gravity in England move at all?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

Latest ICM rumours are (ICM well leaked last time):

YES - 54%
NO - 46%


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


>



That's him reporting the rumour as fact mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

And thiis what it's based on - it's supposed to be a bit from the ST piece on their/ICM polling:







Here is the article.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 13, 2014)

There is only one poll that matters.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

ICM poll now confirmed.

Stop saying stupid things weltweit.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

25-30% smaller sample size than normal for some reason.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

Opinium:

NO 53
YES 47


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

So, one more to come today, but so far:

54/46 NO
56/48 YES
53/47 NO


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 13, 2014)

The ICM 'Yes' poll has major caveats:

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/icm-put-yes-ahead-perhaps/


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2014)

If Yes lose, there is going to be a lot of genuine anger about how big business intervened in the last week, etc.


----------



## Flavour (Sep 13, 2014)

The ones who really sicken me are the people on the marginalized remnants of the "Socialist" left who are supporting NO. SPGB, Socialist Appeal etc


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 13, 2014)

> an ICM survey of 700 Scots for The Sunday Telegraph gave the Yes vote an eight-point lead;


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rve-the-UK.-What-will-their-families-say.html

Seems like a confirmation unless I missed it earlier.

Edited no its upthread


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2014)

Flavour said:


> The ones who really sicken me are the people on the marginalized remnants of the "Socialist" left who are supporting NO. SPGB, Socialist Appeal etc


 
All 5 of them?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 13, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> The ICM 'Yes' poll has major caveats:
> 
> http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/icm-put-yes-ahead-perhaps/


interesting, especially about the landlines


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 13, 2014)

6th verse of the 'National Anthem'

_Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring
May he sedition hush
And like a torrent rush
Rebellious Scots to crush
God save the Queen_


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2014)

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-independent-country-1#line


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 14, 2014)

Still good money to be won if you think Yes will get it.

1/4 No
7/2 Yes

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

treelover said:


> If Yes lose, there is going to be a lot of genuine anger about how big business intervened in the last week, etc.


Yeah,  murdoch etc


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

Flavour said:


> The ones who really sicken me are the people on the marginalized remnants of the "Socialist" left who are supporting NO. SPGB, Socialist Appeal etc


Sicken you? From italy,  via Manchester? Having principles they stand by? This sickens you? Get out of the treehouse.


----------



## Geri (Sep 14, 2014)

Flavour said:


> The ones who really sicken me are the people on the marginalized remnants of the "Socialist" left who are supporting NO. SPGB, Socialist Appeal etc


 
Get to fuck.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 14, 2014)

Flavour said:


> The ones who really sicken me are the people on the marginalized remnants of the "Socialist" left who are supporting NO. SPGB, Socialist Appeal etc



get a life you lunatic


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 14, 2014)

I googled Robert the Bruce and I got this - but at least I know what shinty is now !


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 14, 2014)

Geri said:


> Get to fuck.



Get a grip mate, these socialist parties are standing side by side with Deutsche Bank, the Tories, and the Telegraph.  What do they offer?  A genuine mass movement demanding social equity or maybe a dozen fusty old marxists handing out leaflets that everyone except a handful of people either bin or completely ignore?  I really don't mind if they just waited until after the referendum to offer some solidarity, but to try and convince a few people to vote against independence is just stupid, the chunk of voters in Scotland that might vote for them simply don't agree with them, their position is neither revolutionary nor sensible.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Get a grip mate, these 'socialist' parties are standing side by side with Deutsche Bank, the Tories, and the Telegraph.  What do they offer?  A genuine mass movement demanding social equity or a bunch of fusty old marxists handing out leaflets that everyone except a handful of people either bin or completely ignore?  I really don't mind if they just waited until after the referendum to offer some solidarity, but to try and convince a few people to vote against independence is just stupid, the chunk of voters in Scotland that might vote for them simply don't agree with them, their position is neither revolutionary nor sensible.


Pathetic - they're irrelevant to the vote, but if you play that game you end up with Murdoch and Souter on your side. Don't sell it as anti-capitalist, don't sell it as freedom, as anti-imperialism. And you won't get painted as standing side by side with the above and other big capitalists.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 14, 2014)

But this is the problem with the left.  We have six small socialist parties, who all claim 'nationalism' is irrelevant.  Yet some tiny parties (and more importantly a few activists) opted to take an opposing side in the referendum.  The fact remains the yes campaign is a genuine mass movement, where the left has played a key role.  The No campaign is more-or-less the opposite.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> But this is the problem with the left.  We have six small socialist parties, who all claim 'nationalism' is irrelevant.  Yet some tiny parties (and more importantly a few activists) opted to take an opposing side in the referendum.  The fact remains the yes campaign is a genuine mass movement, where the left has played a key role.  The No campaign is more-or-less the opposite.


Meaningless waffle - no connection to the posts you're replying to. An _opposing side. _

You want to tell people they're lining up with capital then, ok, you're lining up with Murdoch and Souter. Pathetic game to play that devalues all the work that radical YES campaigners has done by turning it into a daft _whose on your _side game which cuts out everyone else. By far your worst contribution on the issue.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 14, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> I googled Robert the Bruce and I got this - but at least I know what shinty is now !


----------



## Liveist (Sep 14, 2014)

Surprised this hasn't been adopted by the pro-independent supporters as their campaign anthem:


----------



## poului (Sep 15, 2014)

I'm curious about the assertions made by some that Labour's pro-union stance goes against what they used to stand for. Does everyone agree? Would the likes of Clement Attlee or Aneurin Bevan have definitely supported Scottish independence from the union at this time?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2014)

poului said:


> I'm curious about the assertions made by some that Labour's pro-union stance goes against what they used to stand for. Does everyone agree? Would the likes of Clement Attlee or Aneurin Bevan have definitely supported Scottish independence from the union at this time?


The issue might appear under the guise of independence, but it's pretty transparently about a party that has lost/sold it's social roots and lost any organic connection with the working class. A properly embedded party could either support or oppose independence.


----------



## poului (Sep 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The issue might appear under the guise of independence, but it's pretty transparently about a party that has lost/sold it's social roots and lost any organic connection with the working class. A properly embedded party could either support or oppose independence.



I felt as much. Ultimately a yes vote to me confirms that a significant portion of Labour's voting base has lost faith in it's party to such an extent that it's given up hope on a union that once made real and progressive achievements. It's nothing to feel cheery about IMO.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 15, 2014)

I agree with that.  I think the UK is very undemocratic and probably becoming a bit autocratic (over the last thirty years or so).  Labour has played a massive role in that by helping neuter apolitical working-class institutions (including itself!).

So most people that now contribute to intellectual and political life are from the same region (South East) (or, failing that, political ideology) and social class (middle/upper class).  I am not sure Attlee (maybe Bevan) had any real commitment to democracy, but would probably have been shocked how Labour have contributed to the destruction of working-class institutions which has meant that an entire strata of people have been disenfranchised.


----------



## poului (Sep 15, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I agree with that.  I think the UK is very undemocratic and probably becoming a bit autocratic (over the last thirty years or so).  Labour has played a massive role in that by helping neuter apolitical working-class institutions (including itself!).
> 
> So most people that now contribute to intellectual and political life are from the same region (South East) (or, failing that, political ideology) and social class (middle/upper class).  I am not sure Attlee (maybe Bevan) had any real commitment to democracy, but would probably have been shocked how Labour have contributed to the destruction of working-class institutions which has meant that an entire strata of people have been disenfranchised.



Whilst I also agree, I don't feel comfortable with the phrasing of the political class as being fundamentally "southern", given how many people in London and south east live teetering on or below the poverty line and how many elected MPs are vetted representatives who can come from all over. Geography is not the driving force of the problem. I think phrasing it like that carries a risk that some may get the wrong idea.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Sep 15, 2014)

If we click other can it count as 'Nuke the site from orbit' ?


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 15, 2014)

poului said:


> Whilst I also agree, I don't feel comfortable with the phrasing of the political class as being fundamentally "southern", given how many people in London and south east live teetering on or below the poverty line and how many elected MPs are vetted representatives who can come from all over. Geography is not the driving force of the problem. I think phrasing it like that carries a risk that some may get the wrong idea.



I suppose it kind of goes without saying, but there is still a problem with the amount resources being concentrated there.  This is not so much about where you are born but where you work, are educated, and even where you have meetings to discuss anything remotely important. Of course there are poor that live there, but they can't affect anything and they are totally invisible like everyone else.


----------



## Riklet (Sep 15, 2014)

I reckon yes will pip it. The No campaign has played a firm hand and a good intimidation campaign last minute. But overall i reckon there's still more movement towards Yes, lots of it from outside of the official campaign.

51 or 52% Yes.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

According to an article in the Guardian Indyref update, in some working class areas, 80% say they will be voting yes, but will they vote? I remember plenty of local campaigns where people up against it would say they were voting for us, example was socialist alliance, then just didn't vote. But is this election a game changer, I do remember a campaign in Wallasey where Lol Duffey was standing against Linda Chalker in a G/E and thousands of people who had never voted came to vote for Lol, coming upto us and saying that, because the campaign had been so energetic, etc.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

> Betfair Sportsbook say they are so confident of referendum outcome they are paying out on No bets 3 days early.



from a tweet by Wintour, is this correct?


----------



## The Boy (Sep 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> from a tweet by Wintour, is this correct?



just checked their website and they still have a book open on Yes/No.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2014)

aparently they've paid of one 6 figure bet in a move not at all designed to get publicity


----------



## The Boy (Sep 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> aparently they've paid of one 6 figure bet in a move not at all designed to get publicity



Sounds more likely.  Never amazes me how cheap it is for the bookies to get publicity.  Makes you wonder why they bother paying for any actual adverts*.

*obviously it doesn't.  It's a figure of speech.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 16, 2014)

Ray Winstone's disembodied head offering referundum accumulators on Scotland-Catalonia.


----------



## quiquaquo (Sep 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> According to an article in the Guardian Indyref update, in some working class areas, 80% say they will be voting yes, but will they vote? I remember plenty of local campaigns where people up against it would say they were voting for us, example was socialist alliance, then just didn't vote. But is this election a game changer, I do remember a campaign in Wallasey where Lol Duffey was standing against Linda Chalker in a G/E and thousands of people who had never voted came to vote for Lol, coming upto us and saying that, because the campaign had been so energetic, etc.



Then there's the weather which looks dry for polling day. Nice bit of cloud seeding over Glasgow would be cheap at the price for the Tories.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> According to an article in the Guardian Indyref update, in some working class areas, 80% say they will be voting yes, but will they vote? ...



It's looking good in Glasgow Shettleston, for one example.  It's a pretty deprived area, and it's usually a very safe "Labour" place, but the "Yes" people find there are people coming into the shop off the street, wanting badges, posters _etc_.   Also, "Yes" reckons that, of people signed up to help on polling day, a significant number have cars and can help provide transport for elderly, mobility-impaired _etc_.

(Mind you, with my cynical hat on, wouldn't it be a great idea just to demand all posters/badges etc from the people you don't want to vote for, so as to grab them and bin them and hamper their campaign?.  Oh, I wish I didn't have a cynical hat/head!      )

That's not much use to you, *treelover*, sorry, being not much real information, but as a tiny snapshot, it's the best I can do.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> According to an article in the Guardian Indyref update, in some working class areas, 80% say they will be voting yes, but will they vote?..



Thinking again - it's not easy for me to check as computer is being bloody weird in terms of opening some links and not others, but that 80% figure is likely from Radical Independence, who  have been concentrating on those not previously registered, or not much given to voting, so -yes- there might be a bit of not bothering to vote on the actual day.

OTOH, surely anybody who has only recently got motivated to register to vote will also be motivated to make use of vote?   Oh shit, I wish I knew what to think.   (Was great seeing photos of people actually queueing up to register to vote - bloody remarkable).


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> According to an article in the Guardian Indyref update, in some working class areas, 80% say they will be voting yes, but will they vote?



Yes they will. _ Landslide...._


----------



## ddraig (Sep 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> According to an article in the Guardian Indyref update, in some working class areas, 80% say they will be voting yes, but will they vote? I remember plenty of local campaigns where people up against it would say they were voting for us, example was socialist alliance, then just didn't vote. But is this election a game changer, I do remember a campaign in Wallasey where Lol Duffey was standing against Linda Chalker in a G/E and thousands of people who had never voted came to vote for Lol, coming upto us and saying that, because the campaign had been so energetic, etc.





treelover said:


> from a tweet by Wintour, is this correct?



where are the links treelover ??


----------



## poului (Sep 16, 2014)

Breakdown of eight Scottish subcultures and their attitudes to independence.

http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-3/516/


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 16, 2014)

Why didn't I become a Psephologist? I love this stuff.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

Celyn said:


> It's looking good in Glasgow Shettleston, for one example.  It's a pretty deprived area, and it's usually a very safe "Labour" place, but the "Yes" people find there are people coming into the shop off the street, wanting badges, posters _etc_.   Also, "Yes" reckons that, of people signed up to help on polling day, a significant number have cars and can help provide transport for elderly, mobility-impaired _etc_.
> 
> (Mind you, with my cynical hat on, wouldn't it be a great idea just to demand all posters/badges etc from the people you don't want to vote for, so as to grab them and bin them and hamper their campaign?.  Oh, I wish I didn't have a cynical hat/head!      )
> 
> That's not much use to you, *treelover*, sorry, being not much real information, but as a tiny snapshot, it's the best I can do.




These is exactly what happened in the GE when Lol Duffy stood in Wallasey against Linda Chalker, it was incredible to see hundreds of people using their cars, etc to mobile the votes, etc, the authorities were really rattled at the levels of W/C participation.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

ddraig said:


> where are the links treelover ??




it was the guardian indyref update, its updates every few minutes,


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

> Ed Miliband was forced to abandon a walkabout in Edinburgh after he became caught in a crush of media and pro-independence protesters, who drowned out his interviews with shouts of "fucking liar" and "serial murderer".
> The Labour leader became the latest politician to be abused and harangued as news of his unannounced visit to meet shop workers and voters at the St James shopping centre in central Edinburgh leaked in advance.
> A small group of yes activists ran after reporters and TV crews who had gathered outside the centre as they were ushered inside to watch Miliband's walkabout, leading to chaotic scenes.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...rer-scottish-independence-edinburgh-walkabout



Robust politics up there...


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-09-16/miliband-heckled-on-walkabout-in-edinburgh/

can't embed it


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

'Chaotic scenes inside the Mall.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2014)

Poll #1 of tonights 3:

ICM
YES - 48 %(+3)
NO - 52% (-3)

With DK
YES - 41%
NO - 45%
(DK) - 14%


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

Anyone willing to call the vote yet?, I will go with, perhaps sadly, 48Y, 52N.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

> That so many Scots, lambasted from all quarters as fools, frauds and ingrates, have refused to be bullied is itself a political triumph. If they vote for independence, they will do so in defiance not only of the Westminster consensus but also of its enforcers: the detached, complacent people who claim to speak on their behalf.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ted-people-scotland-journalists?commentpage=3




But still I think the Yes Scots all win, as Monbiots asserts...

btw, haven't been on the DM comments, but I hear its a lot of racist bile against the Scots.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2014)

Poll #2:
Opinium

Yes: 48
No: 52

With DKs
YES - 45%
NO - 49%
(DK) - 6%


----------



## JTG (Sep 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Poll #1 of tonights 3:
> 
> ICM
> YES - 48 %(+3)
> ...


 
Telephone/web/F2F?


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 16, 2014)

Survation's final poll tonight.

YouGov and Panelbase(I think) tomorrow.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 16, 2014)

JTG said:


> Telephone/web/F2F?



Online.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2014)

JTG said:


> Telephone/web/F2F?



DK yet.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2014)

JTG said:


> Telephone/web/F2F?


it doesnt really matter, as long as its consistent.  may be interesting afterwards, to see if any method were more accurate, but for now....

interesting piece from Wells about whether all the polls might be wrong - http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8987


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> it doesnt really matter, as long as its consistent.  may be interesting afterwards, to see if any method were more accurate, but for now....
> 
> interesting piece from Wells about whether all the polls might be wrong - http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8988


Take it you mean this?


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

Btw, I hope progressive film makers make a documentary about the grassroots reponse to Indyref and show it across rUk, it could inspire many.


----------



## JTG (Sep 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> it doesnt really matter, as long as its consistent.  may be interesting afterwards, to see if any method were more accurate, but for now....
> 
> interesting piece from Wells about whether all the polls might be wrong - http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8988


I'm interested in the DKs for spoddy reasons so method is relevant. You're correct though


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Take it you mean this?


No!  corrected it  now


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

Already, the Juntas devo max offer is unravelling, loads of Westminster tories saying no chance!, how did they get away with it?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Sep 16, 2014)

The three gobs saying what their arses, back in Wastemonster, won't back up.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> Already, the Juntas devo max offer is unravelling, loads of Westminster tories saying no chance!, how did they get away with it?


those tories wont matter, labour will ensure it gets through


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2014)

Poll #3:

Survation:

Yes - 48
No - 52

With DKs
YES - 44%
NO - 48%
(DK) - 8%


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

Salmond came across well being interviewed by Dimblebore.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 16, 2014)

Every poll calling it 48% for yes.  With Don't Knows it is slightly lower.


----------



## JTG (Sep 16, 2014)

OK, so DKs are more numerous than the gap between the two sides - so how those break (or whether they're not really DKs, just shy of admitting anything in interview) is still important.

Other factors: GOTV operations of both campaigns, the weather and whether all the pollsters may or may not have missed something crucial. Oh, and something mental happening in the last day of the campaign.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 16, 2014)

Scotland 

Whatever happens you have won


----------



## weepiper (Sep 16, 2014)

All three polls show an increase for Yes despite Westminster throwing everything they've got at us over the last few days.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2014)

'despite'?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 16, 2014)




----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 16, 2014)

I thought they were back to 52/48 for No, wasn't it running at 50/50 51/49 before (apart from the Sunday Times/ICM one?)


----------



## weepiper (Sep 16, 2014)

Previous comparable ICM poll: 45% Yes 55% No
Survation: 46% Yes 54% No
Opinium: 47% Yes 53% No


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2014)

iamwithnail said:


> I thought they were back to 52/48 for No, wasn't it running at 50/50 51/49 before (apart from the Sunday Times/ICM one?)


two show a narrowing of the lead from 6% to 4%, the other shows a swing to Yes of either 1% or 5% (depending which of their polls you compare it to)


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 16, 2014)

Just how big a hole in the rUKs balance of trade would excluding ayeScotland have? If the pound falls what will that do to the hot money that has rushed to park itself in London? Is there  a big enough risk to the system to force rUK into a Poundzone with ayeScotland? 

And finally if there is a "poundzone" can I be the first to name it "Poundland"?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 16, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> .... And finally if there is a "poundzone" can I be the first to name it "Poundland"?



Very good


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> And finally if there is a "poundzone" can I be the first to name it "Poundland"?


I'm pretty sure some twat like Marcus Brigstock got there ahead of you with that one


----------



## weepiper (Sep 16, 2014)

An average of the last 6 polls has it at 49/51% now.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 16, 2014)

Whatever the result, with it being as close as this, there are going to be a lot of disappointed people Friday.


----------



## JTG (Sep 16, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Whatever the result, with it being as close as this, there are going to be a lot of disappointed people Friday.


Just so long as some of them are in Whitehall, that's fine


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Previous comparable ICM poll: 45% Yes 55% No
> Survation: 46% Yes 54% No
> Opinium: 47% Yes 53% No



The previous ones for ICM had either:

1) YES 54%/ NO 46% (online for telegraph) - which would make tonights a 10% swing to NO
or
2) Yes 49/No 51 (phone) which shows a 2% move to NO.

If tonights was online as DQ said then it's the first one we have to compare. Either way there was a move away from YES not a move towards YES in the ICM results - a small one or a large one.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The previous ones for ICM had either:
> 
> 1) YES 54%/ NO 46% (online for telegraph) - which would make tonights a 10% swing to NO
> or
> ...



I'm comparing with the last ICM poll for the Scotsman (who commissioned this one)
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...pendence-poll-icm-puts-yes-up-to-48-1-3543614


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 16, 2014)

Butchers... the last online one shows a 3% swing to YES.


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> two show a narrowing of the lead from 6% to 4%, the other shows a swing to Yes of either 1% or 5% (depending which of their polls you compare it to)



Cheers, that's super handy.


----------



## Coolfonz (Sep 16, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Whatever the result, with it being as close as this, there are going to be a lot of disappointed people Friday.


I have to admit I'm looking forward to seeing so many disappointed nationalists, Scot or English. `Ooh my poor flag/tree/hill/coin/bit of ground, boo hoo.`


----------



## weltweit (Sep 16, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> I have to admit I'm looking forward to seeing so many disappointed nationalists, Scot or English. `Ooh my poor flag/tree/hill/coin/bit of ground, boo hoo.`


Nope, I don't think it will be a healthy result for whoever wins. Whoever wins, almost half the electorate will have disagreed, that can't be healthy.


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 16, 2014)

I was chatting to one of the No guys about this on Twitter earlier.  Most of the people I've seen out campaigning for Yes (and he says,  No side is the same ) are people who've _never_ _been involved_ in politics in any kind of way beyond voting - not door rattling or leafletting, nothing.  One of my friends is entirely sceptical of elections, their value, etc, votes anyway - he designed and printed 5000 booklets on 'What about Yes?' to try and sway undecideds - going out, asking people on the street if they'd decided, and just going after the people that hadn't made up their minds.  It looks far more like grassroots than anything i've seen in recent years - yeah, there'll be the usual astroturfing but this on both sides seems like some actual genuine engagement.  In spite of the bitterness and bile that's come out on both sides occasionally, I'm choosing to be heartened by that aspect.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 16, 2014)

Could be tricky  when the Corby oblast is formed.


----------



## Coolfonz (Sep 16, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Nope, I don't think it will be a healthy result for whoever wins. Whoever wins, almost half the electorate will have disagreed, that can't be healthy.


I don't know why but I'm finding it all quite irritating. All the politicians make me feel a bit ill, all the flag waving, silly people shouting at each other in the street, multiple crystal ball gazing about tax/pensions/oil/currencies...yeah whatever.

Newsnight: last UK election in Scotland - SNP 490,000 votes, Tories 420,000 votes.


----------



## steeplejack (Sep 16, 2014)

not-bono-ever said:


> Could be tricky  when the Corby oblast is formed.



Scotland's Kaliningrad


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 16, 2014)

Coolfonz - I just think those are pretty depressing posts.  If you're not interested in politics, fine.  I will never see the establishment (and maybe even globally) in this country so shaken.  Quite frankly, a yes vote would be a massive force of good across Britain.  Plenty of groups on Yes that I have seen campaign without saltires.  For you to equate the nationalism of the Yes campaign and the very real nationalism of Westminster (that results in war) is just depressing.  If you can't even bring yourself to support the Scottish left (SYRIZA have), I have no idea what people will do in the future to give you any hope that we will see a politically conscious proletariat (i.e, poor people taking to the streets and discussing pensions, benefits, corporate power).  A no vote will return to the status quo, where we celebrate the odd strike in London that we hear about on libcom.


----------



## quiquaquo (Sep 16, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> Scotland's Kaliningrad



About time too, they need some decent architecture up those ways:


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 16, 2014)

Has this programme be posted here already?  First 9 mins on why the polls are at sea over the independence referendum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gcfml


----------



## JTG (Sep 16, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Has this programme be posted here already?  First 9 mins on why the polls are at sea over the independence referendum.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gcfml


Any chance of a precis? Am at work and they don't like streaming media


----------



## quiquaquo (Sep 17, 2014)

Fuck it, you bastards better vote Yes as the party won't be one to be missed. Missed the Portuguese one back in April 1974 due to poverty but count me in on this one.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 17, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Nope, I don't think it will be a healthy result for whoever wins. Whoever wins, almost half the electorate will have disagreed, that can't be healthy.




How about something like 51.6% in favour?  Would that be unhealthy?

OK, I'm suppose I'm being snide, and I will stop. 

I'm remembering a vote of 51.6% in favour of devolution in 1979 and we did not get it, but, you know, there were no bombs and shooting and stuff, if that's what you mean by "unhealthy".


----------



## Celyn (Sep 17, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Fuck it, you bastards better vote Yes as the party won't be one to be missed. Missed the Portuguese one back in April 1974 due to poverty but count me in on this one.



Will try not to disappoint.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 17, 2014)

weepiper said:


> All three polls show an increase for Yes despite Westminster throwing everything they've got at us over the last few days.


Guess we should be thanking you folk for the respite


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 17, 2014)

Woman who is going to actually announce Yes or No on Today!
4.285 million regged 97% of population. Expected turn out 80%+!

She wants a nice steady count process from 2100. Opening, then splitting into y/n.
Timing - she expects breakfast time for results 0600ish Friday.
Depends on getting boxes. Some coming from Ireland (?) the Islands 
Never had probs with queues for elections  before so hopes none.
Counting officers consider it a privilege.
Mary Pitcaithly (sp)

Edit: opening postal votes already (?) and keeping them face down.


----------



## JTG (Sep 17, 2014)

Some coming from ISLANDS I suspect


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I'm comparing with the last ICM poll for the Scotsman (who commissioned this one)
> http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...pendence-poll-icm-puts-yes-up-to-48-1-3543614


Got you now.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Early reports i've heard from postal ballots seem baffled at only a 70-75% return rate. Maybe that it's undecideds who have opted to go the take it to the polling station route.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Early reports i've heard from postal ballots seem baffled at only a 70-75% return rate. Maybe that it's undecideds who have opted to go the take it to the polling station route.


are you allowed to do that?  I thought if you got a postal, you had to use it or lose it


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> are you allowed to do that?  I thought if you got a postal, you had to use it or lose it


If you take it to the station or the returning officer at the council on the day then it counts. Well, that's how it works for GEs anyway. So yes, use it or lose it, but you can use it at the station.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 17, 2014)

correct
a fair few postal votes get handed in on the day
they get recorded and sometimes taken to the count centre by the area supervisor in the day
they can be submitted until close of poll and go to the count with polling paper


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 17, 2014)

JTG said:


> Any chance of a precis? Am at work and they don't like streaming media


YouGov guy says: "we just don't know".


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe that it's undecideds who have opted to go the take it to the polling station route.



Makes sense, if you a truly undecided you'll be more likely to wait until you've heard all the arguments/begging/threats etc. before making your choice.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2014)

> Scottish independence: 'It's all going hell for leather' – video
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...tish-independence-political-reformation-video




Good John Harris Guardian video, he describes what is happening in Scotland as a "political reformation" but is he right?


----------



## ddraig (Sep 17, 2014)

hmm, what do you think?


----------



## Quartz (Sep 17, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Fuck it, you bastards better vote Yes as the party won't be one to be missed.



We'll have a party either way; why let all that preparation go to waste? Besides, whichever side wins, it will be a triumph of democracy. It's just a pity that Friday isn't a public holiday.

Did I mention that I'm just back from France with a large quantity of Champagne?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> We'll have a party either way; why let all that preparation go to waste? Besides, whichever side wins, it will be a triumph of democracy. It's just a pity that Friday isn't a public holiday.
> 
> Did I mention that I'm just back from France with a large quantity of Champagne?


If it was a triumph of democracy how come no popular input or participation into what questions were asked was allowed?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Panelbase now report 52/48 to no. Four in a row. They added an extra question forcing undecides into one side or the other which produced 53/47 for NO.

with DKs
Yes - 45%
No -  50%
DK  5%

The YG poll tonight is 3 times the normal size of all the others.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 17, 2014)

How do they select their samples - are they weighted to reflect people newly on the electoral register for this vote?


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 17, 2014)

In theory, but fundamentally no, in this case.  There's no calibrating question of "How did you vote last time?" for obvious reasons - you'd compare that against the British Electoral Survey results and go from there to reweight, but you can't with this, and 16-17 year olds are hard to reach as well - don't stop in the street, tend not to have landlines, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

articul8 said:


> How do they select their samples - are they weighted to reflect people newly on the electoral register for this vote?


To represent the voting population for the specific vote. Maybe these prefesionals didn't bother to think about that. How would you weight them btw - on what basis? Given they are at best 1.5% of the vote and shown to be split/ pro NO slightly, i don't see it mattering anyway.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> To represent the voting population for the specific vote. Maybe these prefesionals didn't bother to think about that. How would you weight them btw - on what basis? Given they are at best 1.5% of the vote and shown to be split/ pro NO slightly, i don't see it mattering anyway.


1.5%??  It's a lot higher than that, it's not just the 16/17 year olds, or even they under 21s (new to the role since the 2001 holyrood election), it's the.... God knows how many, who never bothered to register before cos parliamentary elections are shite. I'd have thought they be more likely to be Yes's


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> 1.5%??  It's a lot higher than that, it's not just the 16/17 year olds, or even they under 21s (new to the role since the 2001 holyrood election), it's the.... God knows how many, who never bothered to register before cos parliamentary elections are shite. I'd have thought they be more likely to be Yes's


Sorry - i thought a8 asked about 16-18 year olds. Not all those new to the register.


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 17, 2014)

Isn't voter registration way north of 90%? There were 4.1 million registered to vote last time I looked, that's most of the eligible population.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry - i thought a8 asked about 16-18 year olds. Not all those new to the register.


He might have been (tho I'd have still thought they were more likely to be Yes's, I haven't seen any age related breakdowns for ages), but it's the other ones who are more interesting, imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

iamwithnail said:


> Isn't voter registration way north of 90%? There were 4.1 million registered to vote last time I looked, that's most of the eligible population.


That's an extra 300 000 voters since the GE if that 4.1 million fig is correct.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> He might have been (tho I'd have still thought they were more likely to be Yes's, I haven't seen any age related breakdowns for ages), but it's the other ones who are more interesting, imo.


I expected the same but checked it out and posted the results on here a month or so back. Yes, it's this last block who are making me thing YES are still well in this.


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's an extra 300 000 voters since the GE if that 4.1 million fig is correct.



Astonishingly, that was apparently 6 months ago.  Wow, hadn't realised that.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26845094

Edit:  4.2 million odd, apparently.  http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29235191


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

iamwithnail said:


> Astonishingly, that was apparently 6 months ago.  Wow, hadn't realised that.
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26845094


Just to clarify - registration now is around 4.45 million. So 300 000 more since then.


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 17, 2014)

Sorry, edited my post in between times - final figure from that article is 4.285m, but either way, it's very up, especially in the context where people are highly motivated to go out and ACTUALLY vote.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 17, 2014)

what's the turnout gonna be? pretty high I'd have thought?


----------



## Quartz (Sep 17, 2014)

The increase in electorate is in part due to the reduced voting age, isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> The increase in electorate is in part due to the reduced voting age, isn't it?


More people can register to vote yes. But that, on its own, doesn't increase the % registered.


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 17, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> what's the turnout gonna be? pretty high I'd have thought?



Expected 80%+, apparently.  Councils are gearing up for more people than normal. 

New kids eligible to vote was 122,000 apparently.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 17, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> what's the turnout gonna be? pretty high I'd have thought?



It's going to be huge. I only know of one person who's not going to vote and that's because he's emigrating.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 17, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> what's the turnout gonna be? pretty high I'd have thought?


80% +


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

when did you ever see something of that level turnout for a GE?


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 17, 2014)

1950 and 1951 was the last time, 83.6% and 81% respectively.  I'm mildly terrified I had that to hand.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> The increase in electorate is in part due to the reduced voting age, isn't it?


The total percentage that can register remains 100.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> when did you ever see something of that level turnout for a GE?


1951. Means nothing on its own unless you want to endorse this great democracy of ours and how things would only be better if people engaged blah blah


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 1951. Means nothing on its own unless you want to endorse this great democracy of ours and how things would only be better if people engaged blah blah




of course, but its still remarkable of itself. Highest vote turnout in what- 60 odd years.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

iamwithnail said:


> 1950 and 1951 was the last time, 83.6% and 81% respectively.  I'm mildly terrified I had that to hand.


Two tory govts for the price of one.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Ipsos MORI 

YES 49
NO 51

With Dks

YES - 47%
NO - 49%
(DK) - 5%


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 17, 2014)

I even have a graph I made for something else, look. Percentage turnout (scale not shown cause I'm an idiot), against number of people not voting/not voting for Lab/Con.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 17, 2014)

Anybody seen any stats on the demographics of the DKs?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Anybody seen any stats on the demographics of the DKs?


Look on any of the data presented by the polling companies. They usually give a breakdown. i.e


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

A poll - of sorts:



> A poll of over 3,000 Scottish people carried out by YouGov for BuzzFeed reveals how almost half of No voters have felt personally threatened by the opposition during Scotland’s independence referendum campaign.





> Meanwhile half of No voters feel they have not been able to speak freely about their views throughout the campaign.


----------



## Sue (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> A poll - of sorts:



This is interesting. 

'The Scottish Police Federation has issued a statement accusing the media and no campaigners of exaggerating the extent of aggression deployed during the Scottish referendum campaign.

Brian Docherty, the chairman of the federation, said in the statement: "The referendum debate has been robust but overwhelmingly good-natured.

"It was inevitable that the closer we came to 18 September passions would increase but that does not justify the exaggerated rhetoric that is being deployed with increased frequency. Any neutral observer could be led to believe Scotland is on the verge of societal disintegration, yet nothing could be further from the truth."'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-condemns-no-campaign-exaggerating-aggression


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Sue said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> 'The Scottish Police Federation has issued a statement accusing the media and no campaigners of exaggerating the extent of aggression deployed during the Scottish referendum campaign.
> 
> ...


It doesn't mention either YES or NO. The statement just doesn't say that. That's the second time today that the guardian have openly lied about what the statement says.

And this poll is of ordinary people on the same representative basis as their other polls i believe - not of NO campaigners.


----------



## Sue (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It doesn't mention either YES or NO. The statement just doesn't say that. That's the second time today that the guardian have openly lied about what the statement says.
> 
> And this poll is of ordinary people on the same representative basis as their other polls i believe - not of NO campaigners.



Interesting that they've released a statement about this at all is what I meant.

And yes, the Guardian's been as rubbish as the rest of the media on all this.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Sue said:


> Interesting that they've released a statement about this at all is what I meant.
> 
> And yes, the Guardian's been as rubbish as the rest of the media on all this.


They've been rubbish here for YES though. Twice.  I expect the yougov thing will be trashed later.


----------



## Coolfonz (Sep 17, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Coolfonz - I just think those are pretty depressing posts.  If you're not interested in politics, fine.  I will never see the establishment (and maybe even globally) in this country so shaken.  Quite frankly, a yes vote would be a massive force of good across Britain.  Plenty of groups on Yes that I have seen campaign without saltires.  For you to equate the nationalism of the Yes campaign and the very real nationalism of Westminster (that results in war) is just depressing.  If you can't even bring yourself to support the Scottish left (SYRIZA have), I have no idea what people will do in the future to give you any hope that we will see a politically conscious proletariat (i.e, poor people taking to the streets and discussing pensions, benefits, corporate power).  A no vote will return to the status quo, where we celebrate the odd strike in London that we hear about on libcom.



Gobbledygook.

Only 70,000 more Scots voted SNP last time out than voted Tory. As for Scots not participating in British war and empire...er...?

Not everyone on the Scottish left - who it appears you are a spokesperson for - supports the yes vote. And the Scottish left? Who are they? The SNP? Labour?

As for "a politically conscious proletariat (i.e, poor people taking to the streets and discussing pensions, benefits, corporate power)." I really don't have a reply to that kind of bad shit, other than I'm sure the poor are grateful to you for raising their moribund collective consciousness while you swap one elite for another.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Early reports i've heard from postal ballots seem baffled at only a 70-75% return rate. Maybe that it's undecideds who have opted to go the take it to the polling station route.


Quoting myself but so what: Edinburgh reports 90% returnage.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 17, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Gobbledygook.
> 
> Only 70,000 more Scots voted SNP last time out than voted Tory....



in a UK General Election for Westminster, possibly a lot voting Labour in the hope of keeping Tories out.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Gobbledygook.
> 
> Only 70,000 more Scots voted SNP last time out than voted Tory. As for Scots not participating in British war and empire...er...?
> 
> ...



if the turnout is over 80% - and it will be - the winning margin is predicted to be 68 000 and under. Going down with each higher turnout %.


----------



## JTG (Sep 17, 2014)

Celyn said:


> in a UK General Election for Westminster, possibly a lot voting Labour in the hope of keeping Tories out.


IIRC Scotland swung to Labour in 2010, a year before the SNP Holyrood landslide. They aint daft, they can distinguish between votes


----------



## articul8 (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I expected the same but checked it out and posted the results on here a month or so back. Yes, it's this last block who are making me thing YES are still well in this.



That's who I was asking about- 
Is this reflected in polling sampled?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

articul8 said:


> That's who I was asking about-
> Is this reflected in polling sampled?


Yes, that who/how i checked. That age is NO, up until 24  - then it starts to move towards YES as you go up the age scale until after you hit mid 50s and swings back to NO as you get older. Similar across all pollsters. The middle part is people who grew up under thatcher.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, that who/how i checked. That age is NO, up until 24  - then it starts to move towards YES as you go up the age scale until after you hit late 50s/60s. Similar across all pollsters.



No I meant the newly registered


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No I meant the newly registered


So why did you say yes to me when i said i was talking about the 16-18 age group?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 17, 2014)

I didn't?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

And people aren't noted as newly registered - they're noted as didn't vote/can't recall and reallocated on various basis - YG do place of birth for some reason.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 17, 2014)

JTG said:


> IIRC Scotland swung to Labour in 2010, a year before the SNP Holyrood landslide. They aint daft, they can distinguish between votes



I think we are both saying the same thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I didn't?


Yes you did - here. It doesn't matter now though.


----------



## JTG (Sep 17, 2014)

Celyn said:


> I think we are both saying the same thing.


Yes, I was backing you up!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Quoting myself but so what: Edinburgh reports 90% returnage.


Andagain, electoral commission say this is only 5% higher than 2010 GE in Scotland nationally. So slight rise not massive rise. And other turnouts i first mentioned around 70-75% are actually lower than 2010 GE.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 17, 2014)

JTG said:


> Yes, I was backing you up!


Ah.  I am an easily confused Celyn, and I realised I had not specified that I meant the Westminster election.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 17, 2014)

Deleted


----------



## articul8 (Sep 17, 2014)

articul8 said:


> How do they select their samples - are they weighted to reflect people newly on the electoral register for this vote?


This was my question - nothing about age


----------



## articul8 (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And people aren't noted as newly registered - they're noted as didn't vote/can't recall and reallocated on various basis - YG do place of birth for some reason.



But is the original sample drawn from the existing register and so missing potentially a newly registered section of the electorate?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

articul8 said:


> But is the original sample drawn from the existing register and so missing potentially a newly registered section of the electorate?


They not drawn from the register very often - they are randomised phone numbers or self-selecting panels then narrowed down to be representative.

stop look for a _deus ex machina._


----------



## paolo (Sep 17, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Anybody seen any stats on the demographics of the DKs?



Very pertinent question - I'd be very interested to read more on this (not seen anything on it myself).


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Last knockings at ten - one from survation and one from YG - the latter a super poll, 3 times as many respondents as normal. Survation conducted today with people responding up to 9pm,


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Last knockings at ten - one from survation and one from YG - the latter a super poll, 3 times as many respondents as normal.



Have you heard if anyone is doing exit polling tomorrow?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 17, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Have you heard if anyone is doing exit polling tomorrow?


IIRC Anthony Wells (UKPolling Report) said that there wouldn't be any exit polling.

EDIT:Link


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Have you heard if anyone is doing exit polling tomorrow?


Haven't heard - will keep ears open and report though.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 17, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> IIRC Anthony Wells (UKPolling Report) said that there wouldn't be any exit polling.



Gah, damned inconsiderate of them.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Gah, damned inconsiderate of them.



They'll be counting them soon enough.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

YG

YES - 48%
NO - 52%

Key:

Some 4 per cent of "Yes" voters say there is a chance they may change their mind, 2 per cent of "No voters."


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Survation:

YES (47%) 
NO (53%)


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2014)

> My colleague Polly Curtis sends this clip of yes campaigners chanting “yes we can” towards the BBC journalist brought in to replace political editor Nick Robinson after he was booed and heckled.






Apparently Nick Robinson had to leave a Yes rally after he was booed and heckled, from guardian update


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> Apparently Nick Robison had to leave a Yes rally after he was booed and heckled, from guardian update



This _was _the polling thread. Two were just published. This stuff did my head in over the last week - it's not like there aren't other referendum threads to discuss general stuff on.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2014)

What an atmosphere!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> YG
> 
> YES - 48%
> NO - 52%
> ...





butchersapron said:


> Survation:
> 
> YES (47%)
> NO (53%)



Any change in these?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Any change in these?


Survation are No -1/Yes +1
YG is n/c - but on a much larger basis.


----------



## JTG (Sep 17, 2014)

The polls have converged to a remarkable extent. Read some stuff earlier about IPSOS Mori asking a 'squeeze' question for DKs and this making little difference. Also that high turnout makes it easier to poll.

Makes me think it's a narrow 'no' unless there's something they've all missed


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

JTG said:


> The polls have converged to a remarkable extent. Read some stuff earlier about IPSOS Mori asking a 'squeeze' question for DKs and this making little difference. Also that high turnout makes it easier to poll.
> 
> Makes me think it's a narrow 'no' unless there's something they've all missed


The squeeze (panelbase btw) question pushed no up one and Yes down 1.


----------



## JTG (Sep 17, 2014)

Cheers going by memory! DKs were nearly even anyway so no sign of an outcome swinging hidden vote


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 17, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Gobbledygook.
> 
> Only 70,000 more Scots voted SNP last time out than voted Tory. As for Scots not participating in British war and empire...er...?
> 
> ...



What has the Tory vote got to do with anything, they're nearly all voting no?  I have no idea what point you are making.

Left parties?  Greens, SSP, and Solidarity.  The only radical left parties that have ever had representation above councils.  I suppose you could include the Fife Communist in there if you want if you included councillors.

I am sure these people could not give a fuck, when they are the ones getting involved, demonstrating against power, being harassed by the press and I have done nearly nothing in this campaign.

You simply don't know what is going on up here, what has been going on in Scotland.  It seems a mix of wikipedia (this tory vote fetish) and Fleet Street newspapers (this nationalism thing).

Again, if you are saying you should not get hopeful about what has happened in the campaign, I am not sure what sort of sequence of events could give you any hope for the future.  You should have come up here for a couple days.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

This has to be last call: from opinium, scots outside of scotland:

Yes - 46
No - 54


----------



## weepiper (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This has to be last call: from opinium, scots outside of scotland:
> 
> Yes - 46
> No - 54


...who don't have a vote


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Correct. But still a poll.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

There is another poll anyway - hurrah! Ipsos MORI in the evening standard tmw. So prob fieldwork today.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> There is another poll anyway - hurrah! Ipsos MORI in the evening standard tmw. So prob fieldwork today.



Publishing while the polls are open? It can't be a Scots survey then, surely?


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 17, 2014)

Ipsos MORI had 49-51.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Ipsos MORI had 49-51.


Yep, the one today did. Not the one tmw.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Ipsos MORI had 49-51.



My knowledge of human nature tells me that fear almost always trounces hope.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Publishing while the polls are open? It can't be a Scots survey then, surely?


  I think they can publish up until - 7am and they'll have out before that i think. Unless they can publish outside of scotland. But i'd be surprised if they could.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think they can publish up until - 7am and they'll have out before that i think. Unless they can publish outside of scotland. But i'd be surprised if they could.



At any rate, seems an odd thing for a London freesheet to pay for.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Do you know, i can't work out why this poll tmw is allowed - it must be though.Wells says:



> it’s just to do with when the Evening Standard is published, at around lunchtime, hence other paper’s carry final polls that come out eve-of-election, the one for the Standard comes out on election morning itself. It also allows MORI to do fieldwork that includes this evening, later than other pollsters.



I had always understood that polling itself on day of election was fine (hence exit polls) but not publishing.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 17, 2014)

I don't recall the Standard having polls on election day


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2014)

christ, are we going to have to stay up all night tomorrow? I don't really want to, but I can't see how I'll resist.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I don't recall the Standard having polls on election day



Doesn't make sense to me. If it was published - i.e printed today afternoon to be distributed tmw then it might. But then it couldn't poll tonight as it's claimed it will.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

killer b said:


> christ, are we going to have to stay up all night tomorrow? I don't really want to, but I can't see how I'll resist.


6am earliest - unless one side has huge insurmountable lead. Not v likely.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 17, 2014)

killer b said:


> christ, are we going to have to stay up all night tomorrow? I don't really want to, but I can't see how I'll resist.



Have an early nap while the punters are talking shite on the tellybox then get up at 2am.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 17, 2014)

That Ipsos Mori poll - Dodgy bullshit.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2014)

best get some nice coffee in then.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> That Ipsos Mori poll - Dodgy bullshit.


It's ok just get a pencil and rub it out.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 17, 2014)

This would be so much easier if it were to be sorted out at Bannockburn once and for all  We'd all be done by lunch time and the swingometer would be so much more entertaining than when that wankey twat starts doing his thang


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 17, 2014)

Wallace didn't fight at Bannockburn; he'd been dead for 9 years.


----------



## xslavearcx (Sep 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> My knowledge of human nature tells me that fear almost always trounces hope.


That's how I think it's going to go :-(


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

xslavearcx said:


> That's how I think it's going to go :-(



I'd like to be wrong.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2014)

George Square, Glasgow, earlier this evening

I don wonder what will happen on Friday if its a No..


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 6am earliest - unless one side has huge insurmountable lead. Not v likely.


you should be able to gert a good idea earlier- seeing how far actual results have differed from polls.  If its a bit moire yes than it looked like, then its an all night job, otherwise...


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 18, 2014)

Has Murdoch promoted a losing side before in an election?

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> George Square, Glasgow, earlier this evening
> 
> I don wonder what will happen on Friday if its a No..



I feel they should be out knocking on peoples doors.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Has Murdoch promoted a losing side before in an election?
> 
> http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/


Do you mean reflected? That doesn't come down for either side, nor does the editorials.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> I feel they should be out knocking on peoples doors.


Don't give your advice. Please.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> christ, are we going to have to stay up all night tomorrow? I don't really want to, but I can't see how I'll resist.




its not like I have anything else on

I hope to be able to say 'CAMERON!CLEGG!MILLIBAND! YOUR BOYS TOOK A HELL OF A BEATING'


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 18, 2014)

All the related headlines on the front page of the website are pro Yes to my eyes.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> All the related headlines on the front page of the website are pro Yes to my eyes.


Better get behind it then.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 18, 2014)

Bollocks.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its not like I have anything else on
> 
> I hope to be able to say 'CAMERON!CLEGG!MILLIBAND! YOUR BOYS TOOK A HELL OF A BEATING'


MURDOCH YOUR GUYS WON!!!!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> MURDOCH YOUR GUYS WON!!!!




lol who gives a fuck what some aussie vampire goal hanging to score a hit cos he's still feeling wounded over the dark arts scandals thinks


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2014)

seriously, because murdoch decided at the last minute to throw his lot in with yes and has stated that he dislikes the greeny and 'far left' elements within the SNP, thats a thing now? Have a word

it is just deckchairs being re-arranged but lets not pretend murdoch-come-lately invalidates the the thoughts and decisions of the caledonian polity. So off you jog.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 18, 2014)

What the fuck are you jibbering on about?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2014)

spelt with a 'g'


----------



## JTG (Sep 18, 2014)

Andy Murray has finally come out for Yes, citing the negativity of the No campaign over the last week


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 18, 2014)

The story so far crazy Taiwanese animation stylee...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

That mysterious Ipsos-mori poll today has:

Yes - 47
No - 53

edit: who people think will win

Yes : 30%
No : 46%
DK: 24%


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 18, 2014)

24%!!!


----------



## andysays (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That mysterious Ipsos-mori poll today has:
> 
> Yes - 47
> No - 53
> ...



That's very mysterious - how do they reconcile those two sets of figures, which appear to contradict each other?

ETA: by which I mean, according to the second set of figures, among those expressing a position, No is outpolling Yes by roughly 3 to 2, but according to the first set it's *very* much closer


----------



## krink (Sep 18, 2014)

Has anyone got stats on how age is relating to voting intentions? I've tried to follow all the threads on this but I haven't seen anything. I may have missed it. I have a feeling older voters will tend towards no more than young'uns.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

I think that second set are renegade figs.


----------



## andysays (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think that second set are renegade figs.



Sorry, I've edited my post while you were replying.

What I mean is that the two sets of figures don't agree with each other, however accurately or otherwise they reflect the reality of people's intentions


----------



## andysays (Sep 18, 2014)

Are they trying to factor in how DKs might be leaning, even if they're not yet quite sure? I vaguely remember something about that in one of these threads, but might be making it up...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

krink said:


> Has anyone got stats on how age is relating to voting intentions? I've tried to follow all the threads on this but I haven't seen anything. I may have missed it. I have a feeling older voters will tend towards no more than young'uns.


16-24 tending slighty to no, stronger NO with 16-18, then after 24 support for YES, getting strongest in late 30s-54ish group, then slide back to NO, with over 65 strongest for NO.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

andysays said:


> Are they trying to factor in how DKs might be leaning, even if they're not yet quite sure? I vaguely remember something about that in one of these threads, but might be making it up...


I think they may not be their figures for voting intention. In fact they are not, they are who people think will win, not who they are voting for.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 16-24 tending slighty to no, stronger NO with 16-18, then after 24 support for YES, getting strongest in late 30s-54ish group, then slide back to NO, with over 65 strongest for NO.


 
Who pushed for 16-17 year olds to be allowed to vote, out of interest?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Who pushed for 16-17 year olds to be allowed to vote, out of interest?


Salmond. Scottish executives decision.


----------



## andysays (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think they may not be their figures for voting intention. In fact they are not, they are who people think will win, not who they are voting for.



OK, that makes sense (sort of).

Maybe someone should start *another* new thread for "polls of how the Scottish electorate think the vote will go down, rather than how they actually intend to vote"


----------



## Wilf (Sep 18, 2014)

I suspect the fact there will be a relatively hight turnout (well, _if_ there is) makes all these 'no to win by 4% or so' predictions more likely to be true.  Given the seeming solidity of the No vote, only route forYes to win would be a more modest turnout, 16-18s not actually voting, that kind of thing.  Or, to put it another way, there doesn't seem to be anything good for Yes in the majority of polls over the last week, nor are there any last minute trends that are going their way.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

andysays said:


> OK, that makes sense (sort of).
> 
> Maybe someone should start *another* new thread for "polls of how the Scottish electorate think the vote will go down, rather than how they actually intend to vote"


How can it 'make sense (sort of)'?   That's the _actual _real reason. The 2nd set are figures for who the respondents think will win. The first for who they voted for.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 18, 2014)

andysays said:


> OK, that makes sense (sort of).
> 
> Maybe someone should start *another* new thread for "polls of how the Scottish electorate think the vote will go down, rather than how they actually intend to vote"


 In a way, the public awareness of it being very close is very much in play and will itself affect turnout.


----------



## andysays (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How can it 'make sense (sort of)'?   That's the _actual _real reason. The 2nd set are figures for who the respondents think will win. The first for who they voted for.



just to be clear, my "sort of" wasn't referring to understanding the difference between what the two sets of figures refer to (or that I only sort of believe you when you say that's what they represent), it means "it makes sense to me, as an instant reaction and without thinking about it a great deal, that the response to the question "who do you think will win?" would break down along those lines suggested"


----------



## andysays (Sep 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> In a way, the public awareness of it being very close is very much in play and will itself affect turnout.



Exactly


----------



## Coolfonz (Sep 18, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> What has the Tory vote got to do with anything, they're nearly all voting no?  I have no idea what point you are making.
> 
> Left parties?  Greens, SSP, and Solidarity.  The only radical left parties that have ever had representation above councils.  I suppose you could include the Fife Communist in there if you want if you included councillors.
> 
> ...




I'm pointing out Scotland isn't a left wing paradise - the Tories don't do as badly as people think, they get done over by fptp - and isn't going to be some sort of left wing paradise (sadly). In fact not even everyone on the left is up for it. Even George Galloway is against it (I think).

Most of the supporters of `Yes` are on the right, a good chunk of Labour voters, the SNP (tax cuts for business anyone?)

So I'm not hopeful, just as I'm not in Catalunya. It all seems a bit seventeenth century and it is primarily a fall out of the financial crisis, just again as in Catalunya.

We have a whole host of major events happening, immigration rises, 'austerity', regionalism etc etc etc and they come from the financial crisis and the failure of the economic system. Something Scotland has not and won't address, instead it wants to retreat behind its borders. Like Catalunya it's a kind of modern protectionism.

Also you used the word 'proliteriat' which makes me feel a bit ill.

Having said that how does one get a Scottish passport? I've got one Scottish grandmother do I qualify for dual nat?


----------



## Sue (Sep 18, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> I'm pointing out Scotland isn't a left wing paradise - the Tories don't do as badly as people think, they get done over by fptp - and isn't going to be some sort of left wing paradise (sadly). In fact not even everyone on the left is up for it. Even George Galloway is against it (I think).
> 
> Most of the supporters of `Yes` are on the right, a good chunk of Labour voters, the SNP (tax cuts for business anyone?)
> 
> ...



Well thanks for explaining all this stuff about Scotland and the referendum. Obviously Scottish people are far too stupid to be aware of all this so it's handy you popped by. (I for one had no idea what is was all about -- too busy sitting here eating my cereal and that.)

 You may care to look at the two year old, 180 whatever page thread in the Scotland forum where your points and more have have been debated at length.


----------



## JTG (Sep 18, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> I'm pointing out Scotland isn't a left wing paradise - the Tories don't do as badly as people think, they get done over by fptp - and isn't going to be some sort of left wing paradise (sadly). In fact not even everyone on the left is up for it. Even George Galloway is against it (I think).
> 
> Most of the supporters of `Yes` are on the right, a good chunk of Labour voters, the SNP (tax cuts for business anyone?)
> 
> ...


What a load of ill informed shit


----------



## Wilf (Sep 18, 2014)

I know the journos have run out of things to say, but we've reached a pretty silly point when you've got an article describing the lack of exit polls as a 'democratic deficit':

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/scottish-vote-no-exit-poll-democratic-deficit


----------



## ddraig (Sep 18, 2014)

ERS view from being out and about at polling stations
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/something-in-the-air


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2014)

just looking at the last couple of polls with full tabs available, its interesting that up to a quarter of those who voted SNP in the last Holyrood elections say they'll vote No.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2014)

Don't believe ERS, they come out with any old shite


----------



## kebabking (Sep 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> just looking at the last couple of polls with full tabs available, its interesting that up to a quarter of those who voted SNP in the last Holyrood elections say they'll vote No.



i'm not surprised - since about 2006(ish) the SNP have been seen as being fairly competant at 'doing government' (in stark contrast to Labour and the LD's, and the Tories just don't exist as a sensible option) regardless of whether people like their big-picture politics - i've voted SNP both in council and SG elections despite being proper unionist, because while i disagreed with them on the national question, i needed the schools, hospitals and roads to work in the meantime, and i never had a problem with the idea of having a referendum.

now, i didn't think that referendum would be this close, mainly because i couldn't have imagined the 'no' campaign to be so politically inept and unimaginative...

i knew quite a few people who voted SNP while being unionist for exactly the same reason - we could vote against them in a referendum, but apart from that they were relatively competant at being in charge of stuff, they made public services work (broadly), and their other policies weren't particularly objectionable.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 18, 2014)

YouGov re-poll (not an exit poll) lands at YES 46%, NO 54%


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 18, 2014)

So a shade more NO than the last few polls but not that much difference.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2014)

not a poll as such, but an interesting twitter trending graph through the day, showing about 3:! in favour of Yes comments on twitter, with most of the no's coming from England.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> not a poll as such, but an interesting twitter trending graph through the day, showing about 3:! in favour of Yes comments on twitter, with most of the no's coming from England.


Means little, the No voters are really not tweeters.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> not a poll as such, but an interesting twitter trending graph through the day, showing about 3:! in favour of Yes comments on twitter, with most of the no's coming from England.




I saw that. Fascinating, but revealing the sqaure root of fuck all in prediction terms ...


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Means little, the No voters are really not tweeters.


It's definitely not representative, but I think it is extremely interesting as it demonstrates the absolute dominance the yes campaign has over social media, and if it is a no vote in the end, it will also demonstrate the limitations social media has, and the continuing power and influence of the mainstream media.

big IF at the moment mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

krink said:


> Has anyone got stats on how age is relating to voting intentions? I've tried to follow all the threads on this but I haven't seen anything. I may have missed it. I have a feeling older voters will tend towards no more than young'uns.





butchersapron said:


> 16-24 tending slighty to no, stronger NO with 16-18, then after 24 support for YES, getting strongest in late 30s-54ish group, then slide back to NO, with over 65 strongest for NO.



And, according to Ashcroft's 2000+ post election poll, this is how that panned out - note the 16/17 year olds moving over to YES in large numbers over the last week, previously NO had a lead there - rest, as expected age wise. Note majority labour support (from 2001 at least, would have been interesting to see 2010 voting as well given the split vote phenomenon) for NO:


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

Pretty consistent with the polls that showed women more likely to distrust Salmond.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

So the 65+ have made sure that young people are stuck in their union.  Well, that is depressing.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Pretty consistent with the polls that showed women more likely to distrust Salmond.



Or a lot of the 65+ are women?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> So the 65+ have made sure that young people are stuck in their union.  Well, that is depressing.


I think dismissing their interests (or appearing to those voters to do so) maybe something the YES people would like to concentrate on addressing in any future election.


----------



## cesare (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> So the 65+ have made sure that young people are stuck in their union.  Well, that is depressing.


The under 24s were also majority against.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

cesare said:


> The under 24s were also majority against.


 
Young people are generally pretty conservative - particularly this generation.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think dismissing their interests (or appearing to those voters to do so) maybe something the YES people would like to concentrate on addressing in any future election.



It is impossible.  Their vote was not dismissed.  It is just the types of people they are.  People knock on their doors, try to explain their pension is safe, that the Mail is just propaganda, but they don't listen.


----------



## cesare (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> Young people are generally pretty conservative - particularly this generation.


They may well be. I was just replying to DairyQueen 's point about the 65+ people ensuring the young people would be stuck in the union - when the young people also voted that way.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

Eh? The 18-24 group marginally voted in no.  The rest were convincing yes.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> It is impossible.  Their vote was not dismissed.  It is just the types of people they are.  People knock on their doors, try to explain their pension is safe, that the Mail is just propaganda, but they don't listen.


Good to know that this isn't dismissing people.


----------



## cesare (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Eh? The 18-24 group marginally voted in no.  The rest were convincing yes.


One year 16-17 year olds. 18-24 year olds voted no. Unless you're suggesting that the numbers of 16-17 year olds are higher than 18-24 year olds?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

cesare said:


> They may well be. I was just replying to DairyQueen 's point about the 65+ people ensuring the young people would be stuck in the union - when the young people also voted that way.


 
Yeah, I know.  It was a fair point.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

cesare said:


> One year 16-17 year olds. 18-24 year olds voted no. Unless you're suggesting that the numbers of 16-17 year olds are higher than 18-24 year olds?



What?  I would include anyone under 35/40 as young.  They have a working career ahead of them.  A pretty shite one in the UK.


----------



## cesare (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> What?  I would include anyone under 35/40 as young.  They have a working career ahead of them.  A pretty shite one in the UK.


So the 65+ ensured the staying in the union of the young people up to 40. And of those young people the majority of those under 24 voted the same way. Leaving those less young people but still young as far as you're concerned. Got it.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think dismissing their interests (or appearing to those voters to do so) maybe something the YES people would like to concentrate on addressing in any future election.



this is a similar thing to the dismissal of the UKIP vote as all being old fat tories isn't it?

the people I have spoken to who voted no are pretty left-leaning and aren't like that at all.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

cesare said:


> So the 65+ ensured the staying in the union of the young people up to 40. And of those young people the majority of those under 24 voted the same way. Leaving those less young people but still young as far as you're concerned. Got it.



What are you talking about, the 65+ voted to no, the 16-35 (or 16-40) voted yes.  What is hard to understand?  Of course groups within both those age groups voted in different ways.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> this is a similar thing to the dismissal of the UKIP vote as all being old fat tories isn't it?
> 
> the people I have spoken to who voted no aren't like that at all.



Stop saying their views were dismissed.  You have no idea how many times these people were canvassed.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Stop saying their views were dismissed.  You have no idea how many times these people were canvassed.



I wonder who they were canvassed by though and what was said? might have had an effect.


----------



## gosub (Sep 19, 2014)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson...d-voted-against-indep?utm_term=3mjnol4#x2ll6m


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

Or quite simply...

Whichever pollster you examine, two trends stick out: women are more likely to be no voters than men, and the older those sampled are the more they are opposed to change. The latter is accentuated by the demographic fact that as you move up the age scale there are more Scottish females alive than Scottish males.

All the evidence is that those in the 60-plus group are more likely to be on the electoral register, more likely to vote and much less likely to change their minds. While all other age groups were moving to yes in the YouGov poll the oldies were two to one in favour of no and the proportion was increasing. While the 60-plus group remains solid then it is likely to prevail.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-opinion-polls-yougov-over-60s-vote-is-vital


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I wonder who they were canvassed by though and what was said? might have had an effect.



The fact of the matter is 80 year-old women were being bombarded with total loony news stories about how violent the yes campaign was (not true), how their pensions will be taken away (not true), how lovely and brave no campaigners were (not true), how they would be poor in independence (not true),  how the SNP were basically Nazis like in world war 2 (not true), etc.  

If you think that's fine.  Wait until you get to vote in England on something important.  You'll realise how fucked as a country we truly are.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> The fact of the matter is 80 year-old women were being bombarded with total loony news stories about how violent the yes campaign was (not true), how their pensions will be taken away (not true), how lovely and brave no campaigners were (not true), how they would be poor in independence (not true),  how the SNP were basically Nazis like in world war 2 (not true), etc.
> 
> If you think that's fine.  Wait until you get to vote in England on something important.  You'll realise how fucked as a country we truly are.



I don't think it's fine. I wanted yes to win. Im just saying you can't say that accounts for why 55% of the population voted no on a record turnout. And the people I have spoken to are all under 50 by the way.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> What are you talking about, the 65+ voted to no, the 16-35 (or 16-40) voted yes.  What is hard to understand?  Of course groups within both those age groups voted in different ways.


Groups within the groups you've chosen voted in different ways. And what about the 40-65s? You can split those groups up in various ways, depending on the point you want to make. A clear majority of those over 35 voted 'no', for instance. It appears that there was a peak enthusiasm for 'yes' among the very young and those around 30. 

It's an interesting split, but it's a hell of a stretch to claim that the over-65s scuppered it for the rest.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> The fact of the matter is 80 year-old women were being bombarded with total loony news stories about how violent the yes campaign was (not true), how their pensions will be taken away (not true), how lovely and brave no campaigners were (not true), how they would be poor in independence (not true),  how the SNP were basically Nazis like in world war 2 (not true), etc.
> 
> If you think that's fine.  Wait until you get to vote in England on something important.  You'll realise how fucked as a country we truly are.



I think that's really underestimating 80 year old women tbh.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

72% of no voters knew a year ahead of time/always knew they would vote no [Ashcroft polls]. So the idea a majority of old folk were spooked by negative 'Yes' tactical scare stories is probably bollocks.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 19, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I think that's really underestimating 80 year old women tbh.


One might almost say dismissing them


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

tbh if 'no' had won among every single demographic, that would have been a totally crushing defeat.


----------



## AnandLeo (Sep 19, 2014)

Sigh of relief this morning for the United Kingdom and for many other parts of the world with the outcome of the referendum for independence of Scotland. The Nationalist leaders must have been prepared for this result, and simultaneously hoping for a momentous victory for their course. With the chequered history, independence is an aspiration for the nationalist movement of Scotland driven by the objective to solve their economic and social problems and manage their own affairs. However, the better together campaign proposes negotiated devolution of powers to Scottish parliament and people to manage their own affairs and shape their economy and welfare. The crux of the matter for the better together campaign is that rest of the UK and their allies of the world are better off with the current United Kingdom. For that to be maintained the UK has a duty to appease the Scottish nationalists by making amends with their political views.

Aside, the West Lothian question in my view rattles UK parliamentary system in London – apart from other weaknesses, as it challenges the position of the Scottish MPs who become Ministers and Prime Ministers of UK government.

Anyhow, the outcome of the referendum is universally seen as the best solution, subject to the UK government is able to implement the desired change by the Scotland and to work in good agreement with the Scottish government.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> The fact of the matter is 80 year-old women were being bombarded with total loony news stories about how violent the yes campaign was (not true), how their pensions will be taken away (not true), how lovely and brave no campaigners were (not true), how they would be poor in independence (not true),  how the SNP were basically Nazis like in world war 2 (not true), etc.
> .



That looks more like channelling how devastated you are about the No vote than anything else. Completely get that, but you're not actually _analysing_ anything. Just blaming .... and blaming the electorate most.

As a partly  refomed former electorate-blamer myself I recognise the symptoms ....


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

William, could not care less of your two cents.  We are going to get a rewriting of history from the London-based intelligentsia and I really can't be bothered trying to convince you that this campaign has been thoroughly undemocratic. 

By all means patronise and pat me on the back.

If England ever has a vote that matters, you will see how shoddy things really are.  But we all know you will never be asked to vote on anything important.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I think that's really underestimating 80 year old women tbh.



Or based on the fact they buy newspapers and that is where they get their information....?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

Is it only democratic when you get what you want?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Or based on the fact they buy newspapers and that is where they get their information....?


As opposed to heroic 30-year-old men who get their info from elsewhere and so chose the correct option yesterday?

You're sailing dangerously close to calling all 'no' voters dupes and fools.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> Is it only democratic when you get what you want?



What a ludicrous thing to say.  It is democratic when both sides of the debate get treated with equal respect by those responsible for disseminating information.  The fact is no daily newspaper backed a yes vote, the BBC was biased, and the right-wing press claimed - among other things - that WWI would start if Scotland voted yes and we might have a Jacobite king (a wee nod to thee orange order there).  That was the Daily Telegraph, a serious right-wing newspaper.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As opposed to heroic 30-year-old men who get their info from elsewhere and so chose the correct option yesterday?
> 
> You're sailing dangerously close to calling all 'no' voters dupes and fools.



Why pick 30 year-old men?  I have not called no voters dupes and fools.  You are not close to anything, you are defending a press that panders to Scotland's far right.


----------



## gosub (Sep 19, 2014)

even if NO had lost I would still have called it the most incredible exercise in democracy I will ever have the privilege to take part in.  Thoroughly undemocratic my arse


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Why pick 30 year-old men?  I have not called no voters dupes and fools.  You are not close to anything, you are defending a press that panders to Scotland's far right.


Why pick 80-year-old women?


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why pick over-65s?



You could take it a bit younger, but look at the exit poll from YouGov.  That's where this started.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> William, could not care less of your two cents.  We are going to get a rewriting of history from the London-based intelligentsia and I really can't be bothered trying to convince you that this campaign has been thoroughly undemocratic.
> 
> By all means patronise and pat me on the back.
> 
> If England ever has a vote that matters, you will see how shoddy things really are.  But we all know you will never be asked to vote on anything important.



I stand by my point. You were ranting, not analysing anything.

History won't need any rewriting, the figures alone speak for themselves -- this was a heavier defeat for Yes than a lot expected.

You're right though that there'll be some history-rewriting -- and not just from London either


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

gosub said:


> even if NO had lost I would still have called it the most incredible exercise in democracy I will ever have the privilege to take part in.  Thoroughly undemocratic my arse



I would not, it demonstrated the extent of state power in traditional, print media and increases the liklihood that twitter and facebook will be manipulated for purposes of state control.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

It wos old people wot swung it - except the 52% 18-24 year olds in the Ashcroft poll who voted No. Not so much old v young.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Why pick 30 year-old men?  I have not called no voters dupes and fools.  You are not close to anything, you are defending a press that panders to Scotland's far right.


What you have done, explicitly, is pick the example of an 80-year-old woman voting 'no' because she has believed the lies in a biased press. Maybe not a fool, but by definition a dupe - one who has been duped.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

Eh?  That makes no sense.  For a start 52% shows there is no real majority (error margins at that level of disaggregation).


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What you have done, explicitly, is pick the example of an 80-year-old woman voting 'no' because she has believed the lies in a biased press. Maybe not a fool, but by definition a dupe - one who has been duped.



Because an 80-year-old is more likely to be female, is more likely to buy a paper and not get information elsewhere (i.e., be computer illiterate).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Eh?  That makes no sense.  For a start 52% shows there is no real majority (error margins at that level of disaggregation).


You can't have this both ways. By your reasoning here, there is only really evidence for a majority 'yes' among 16-17s and 25-34s.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

Yes.  and collapsing the categories shows a majority across all young people. (16-34/40).


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

Yes, it's all a media conspiracy...







Murdoch likes a winner and could not support Yes because on the biggest issues, they were not convincing enough for Murdoch.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

Is that a fact Theistcle?  Or if the Sun backed yes, and there was a yes vote, you can say his investments in rUK would be safe as chips.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> What a ludicrous thing to say.  It is democratic when both sides of the debate get treated with equal respect by those responsible for disseminating information.  The fact is no daily newspaper backed a yes vote, the BBC was biased, and the right-wing press claimed - among other things - that WWI would start if Scotland voted yes and we might have a Jacobite king (a wee nod to thee orange order there).  That was the Daily Telegraph, a serious right-wing newspaper.


 
So if the Yes vote had won you'd refuse to back it since the lack of democracy robbed it of legitimacy?  After all, people can't make an informed choice in either direction if the well has been poisoned.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Because an 80-year-old is more likely to be female, is more likely to buy a paper and not get information elsewhere (i.e., be computer illiterate).


So she's ignorant and ill-informed. Unable to see the lies she's being told. And that's why she voted 'no'.

Despite the fact that this age-group, above all others, had made up its mind before the campaign even started? 

You're clutching at straws here.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So she's ignorant and ill-informed. Unable to see the lies she's being told. And that's why she voted 'no'.
> 
> Despite the fact that this age-group, above all others, had made up its mind before the campaign even started?
> 
> You're clutching at straws here.



I never said she was ignorant and ill-informed.  You inferred that.  I said 80 year old women are the most likely of all age groups to be computer illiterate and use traditional media to get their information.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

Old people voting for things I don't like? Must be disgusting readers of the fascist rag the Daily Express. Or worse...The Daily Mail. Why are old people so useless? Vote Yes sheeple.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> So if the Yes vote had won you'd refuse to back it since the lack of democracy robbed it of legitimacy?  After all, people can't make an informed choice in either direction if the well has been poisoned.



I would be happy of course, but I would not subsequently claim the campaign was democratic.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 19, 2014)

the guy I spoke to this morning was actually a bit sad about the result, saying it was bitter sweet despite having voted no himself.

I don't think it's at all as straight forward as people are making out. this was the majority of the country voted against it.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Old people voting for things I don't like? Must be disgusting readers of the fascist rag the Daily Express. Or worse...The Daily Mail. Why are old people so useless? Vote Yes sheeple.



Never said that.  But good joke mate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I never said she was ignorant and ill-informed.  You inferred that.  I said 80 year old women are the most likely of all age groups to be computer illiterate and use traditional media to get their information.


Your argument only makes sense if you are saying that she has been duped by the misinformation campaign. Again, you can't have this both ways - either she has been duped or she hasn't. 

And all the evidence suggests that this isn't at all what happened anyway. A majority of older people don't want independence, and that's been true for a while. Nothing to do with the campaign.


----------



## Combustible (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And, according to Ashcroft's 2000+ post election poll, this is how that panned out - note the 16/17 year olds moving over to YES in large numbers over the last week, previously NO had a lead there - rest, as expected age wise. Note majority labour support (from 2001 at least, would have been interesting to see 2010 voting as well given the split vote phenomenon) for NO:



I'm not sure I would read too much into the numbers for 16-17 year olds, given that it was based on a sample of just 18 people.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Your argument only makes sense if you are saying that she has been duped by the misinformation campaign. Again, you can't have this both ways - either she has been duped or she hasn't.
> 
> And all the evidence suggests that this isn't at all what happened anyway. A majority of older people don't want independence, and that's been true for a while. Nothing to do with the campaign.



No, you are assuming that someone who is confronted with both sides of an argument will vote yes.  What I am saying is that the British establishment also makes that assumption.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

Combustible said:


> I'm not sure I would read too much into the numbers for 16-17 year olds, given that it was based on a sample of just 18 people.


Fair point.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> Is it only democratic when you get what you want?



to be honest really wouldn't surprise me if there was some vote fraud, especially some of the tales I've heard about labour in Manchester etc.

I don't think this can account for a country wide result though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> No, you are assuming that someone who is confronted with both sides of an argument will vote yes because I am a yes voter.  What I am saying is that the British establishment also makes that assumption.


No I'm not assuming that at all. Quite the reverse. I would say that, confronted with both sides of the argument, many people still voted 'no'.

You're the one claiming old women were duped by a campaign of lies, not me.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Eh?  That makes no sense.  For a start 52% shows there is no real majority (error margins at that level of disaggregation).


Apply that margin of error argument to the 47% and 48% for YES in the 35-54 age group in the poll we're discussing then.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest really wouldn't surprise me if there was some vote fraud, especially some of the tales I've heard about labour in Manchester etc.



There were supposed to be incidents of fraud in Glasgow weren't there? Well whatever attempts there were can't have worked very well -- Yes won there.

Corrected for grammar ... 



> I don't think this can account for a country wide result though.



Absolutely.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No I'm not assuming that at all. Quite the reverse. I would say that, confronted with both sides of the argument, many people still voted 'no'.
> 
> You're the one claiming old women were duped by a campaign of lies, not me.



No I am claiming older people, most of whom are women, are less likely to be exposed to both sides of the argument.  I would also say that anyone who was not using the Internet would not be exposed to both sides of the argument.

The reason I am pissed off is that this campaign has been undemocratic and no-one else in Britain seems to give a fuck.  So, we'll have Lords and Tories talking about 'Scottish issues' over the next decades, any talk of sedition mercilessly hounded by a rabid, right wing press to ensure conformity, and you can't even complain on British left-wing forums.  Pretty much sums up my disappointment with the result.  Dire times ahead.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Apply that margin of error to the 47% and 48% for YES in the 35-54 age group in the poll we're discussing then.



Yes, but it is fucking stupid to claim old age groups never won this election based on that evidence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> No I am claiming older people, most of whom are women, are less likely to be exposed to both sides of the argument.  I would also say that anyone who was not using the Internet would not be exposed to both sides of the argument


What you're doing is making big unsubstantiated claims. 

Maybe this can be researched - ask older people whether or not they use the internet and see how their votes correlate. Because you're making big assumptions here - that reading the internet is more likely to make you vote 'yes'. 

My mum's 82 and she uses the internet all the time. Not all old people are computer-illiterate, so you could conceivably do a study to see how voting patterns are different depending on internet access. I strongly suspect that the result of such a study would not bear out your thesis at all.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 19, 2014)

my nan has a computer and uses the internet and supports ukip.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Yes, but it is fucking stupid to claim old age groups never won this election based on that evidence.


I don't think anyone is saying the 54+ vote didn't have  the most effect - that it didn't match and exceed the only other significant section age based section of the electorate to vote YES (the 25-34 group) it's your reasons and reactions to why that is the case that are coming under fire. By your logic, the more computer non-trad media using 35-54 group would support YES. Yet, using your MofE argument they didn't. That's where YES lost it. Not 80 year old grannies.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What you're doing is making big unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> Maybe this can be researched - ask older people whether or not they use the internet and see how their votes correlate. Because you're making big assumptions here - that reading the internet is more likely to make you vote 'yes'.
> 
> My mum's 82 and she uses the internet all the time. Not all old people are computer-illiterate, so you could conceivably do a study to see how voting patterns are different depending on internet access. I strongly suspect that the result of such a study would not bear out your thesis at all.



Better phone Office of National Statistics.  http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_323333.pdf - they've made a mistake, tell them your mum uses the internet.  They'll be embarrassed about missing her.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think anyone is saying the 54+ vote didn't have  the most effect - it's your reasons and reactions to why that is the case that are coming under fire. By your logic, the more computer non-trad media using 35-54 group would support YES. Yet, using your MofE argument they didn't. That's where YES lost it. Not 80 year old grannies.



http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...dependence-more-informed-favour-yes-1-3534372


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Better phone Office of National Statistics.  http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_323333.pdf - they've made a mistake, tell them your mum uses the internet.  They'll be embarrassed about missing her.


You have missed my point. You are making a link between not using the internet and voting 'no'. But just because there are fewer internet users among the old, that does not mean that this is the reason they voted 'no'. Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

Virtually all the opinion polls close to polling day turned out to be wrong about the win %age by quite some distance. That has to raise questions about their methodology, sampling, possibly (?) wording of their questions.

I was suspicious before about the practice of aggregating totals for Yes and No only after 'Don't Knows' had been excluded. Some polls also only counted from people declaring themselves certain to vote.  There were some telephone and internet polls as well.

I know there were logistical difficulties factoring in an expected very high turnout, and concerning polling people many of whom who'd never voted before, or not for a long time. And about a vote with no precedent to compare with. And after all the polls did predict No, broadly -- they just got the margin wrong, not the result.

Still, maybe the polls *always* tended to underestimate the No level? Just asking .....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Virtually all the opinion polls close to polling day turned out to be wrong about the won %age by quite some distance. That has to raise questions about their methodology, sampling, possibly (?) wording of their questions.
> 
> I was suspicious before about the practice of aggregating totals for Yes and No only after 'Don't Knows' had been excluded. Some polls also only counted from people declaring themselves certain to vote.  There were some telephone and internet polls as well.
> 
> ...


Evidence from previous referendums on independence, such as those in Quebec, suggested that quite a large majority of DKs end up voting 'no'. That pattern appears to have been repeated.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 19, 2014)

Most of them were saying around about 53-54% no weren't they? THat seems fairly accurate to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...dependence-more-informed-favour-yes-1-3534372


So why didn't the great mass of 35-54 year olds do so? Why didn't they flock to YES - you reckon they should have.That's what i'm asking you. Not answering that and lashing out at granny villains isn't going to tell you anything at all about this key question.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Most of them were saying around about 53-54% no weren't they? THat seems fairly accurate to me.




There were several in the last few days suggesting 52 to 48. Maybe I'm being a bit over harsh though yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Most of them were saying around about 53-54% no weren't they? THat seems fairly accurate to me.


48/52 was the most common one. In fact, apart from one 53/47, they all were 48/52.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have missed my point. You are making a link between not using the internet and voting 'no'. But just because there are fewer internet users among the old, that does not mean that this is the reason they voted 'no'. Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.



I am not lashing out at anyone.  There is a social class and ethnicity dimension to voting patterns.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I am not lashing out at anyone.  There is a social class and ethnicity dimension to voting patterns.


And you're doing nothing whatsoever to highlight them in a coherent and explanatory manner.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest really wouldn't surprise me if there was some vote fraud, especially some of the tales I've heard about labour in Manchester etc.
> 
> I don't think this can account for a country wide result though.


 
That's a risk with any big vote.  As well as the country-wide result I don't see why it would necessarily be in the No direction either.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Evidence from previous referendums on independence, such as those in Quebec, suggested that quite a large majority of DKs end up voting 'no'. That pattern appears to have been repeated.




Yes, I'd read the same, and like you said there's a general tendency over electoral history with almost all polls (not just referendums), for most DKs to incline in the end towards the supposedly 'safer' option (as perceived). 

But I do think this time that the publicised headline stories on polls  for the referendum were pretty misleading in not paying DKs enough attention.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And you're doing nothing whatsoever to highlight them in a coherent and explanatory manner.



No, they are just not that relevant.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I would be happy of course, but I would not subsequently claim the campaign was democratic.


 
I'm not in the area, but yesterday on TV people were praising the campaign for being generally cleanly-fought and free of dirty tricks.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'm not in the area, but yesterday on TV people were praising the campaign for being generally cleanly-fought and free of dirty tricks.



After saturation coverage of the yes campaign being accused of violence and intimidation by all major newspapers?  That is a fucking farce.  The Daily Mail had 12 pages devoted to 'yes campaign' violence two days ago.  The broadcast media is biased, they are saying that now because people are pissed off.  It won't end by the way, yes campaigners will be purged now when Labour next get in.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> No, they are just not that relevant.


You just said that they were - that social class and ethnicity dimension to voting patterns (none of which you've tied to age btw) are the key to the result hence how the older vote won it.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

No, you are asking key variables which decided the election.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> After saturation coverage of the yes campaign being accused of violence and intimidation by all major newspapers?  That is a fucking farce.  The Daily Mail had 12 pages devoted to 'yes campaign' violence two days ago.  The broadcast media is biased, they are saying that now because people are pissed off.



If that kind of nonsense had had that much of an effect, surely the Yes vote would have gone down by a lot more? 

Willing to bet that there were other issues that were much more on peoples' minds. Lord Ashcroft's poll cited above suggests some.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> After saturation coverage of the yes campaign being accused of violence and intimidation by all major newspapers?  That is a fucking farce.  The Daily Mail had 12 pages devoted to 'yes campaign' violence two days ago.


 
Any country that does what the Daily Mail tells it to is fucked.  That should be taken as a given.  We'd all be speaking German now if they had their way.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> If that kind of nonsense had had that much of an effect, surely the Yes vote would have gone down by a lot more?
> 
> Willing to bet that there were other issues that were much more on peoples' minds. Lord Ashcroft's poll cited above suggests some.



What have we been talking about?  Traditional media, etc.  How are those issues debated?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> No, you are asking key variables which decided the election.


I asked no such thing. I asked you why you're banging on about the 54+ vote and their many failings rather than that section of the population (that 35-54 group) who YES failed to win (going by your MofE method) and who should (going by your more informed, less trad media, more internet using model) have shown strong mass support for YES thus countering the older vote. Is it going to turn out they too were just ill-informed as well?


----------



## chrissyy2009 (Sep 19, 2014)

I am so happy Scotland have voted to remain in the UK. I think it was a masterstroke by Labour getting the unionist votes.
As an Englishman I am ecstatic.

England will now, like yourselves fight for a better deal, Wales and Ireland also look like they want what's best for their countries respectfully.

Cameron did exactly what I expected him to do today. Hopefully, England can now look at reducing taxes.

Now that Scotland have voted No, I expect their taxes to go up otherwise there will be an uproar in England.

Scotland nearly became the place to live. I am surprised it wasn't their intention to make it a tax free haven. The investment they could have received.
As for England, we expect a referendum on Europe. The sooner we get out the better.

Cameron I notice, expects that with us giving you control over your taxes the money we allow you to have should soon not be needed because you can raise taxes.

The oil revenue should and will be split proportionally between all of the countries in the UK.

I am made up. The period of austerity could soon be over in England.

With the English now looking to get the same deals they offered Scotland, it should, due to the wealth in England be better for us.

Thanks Scotland. What a great people you are


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> Any country that does what the Daily Mail tells it to is fucked.  That should be taken as a given.  We'd all be speaking German now if they had their way.




Ah great, world war two quotes.  The Nazis got more backing from the British establishment than yes Scotland.  

"What a fabby election, can't wait till the General Election.  More exciting with Scotland there.  A good fair British fight in '15."  Please, we are fucking pish.  Our country is fucked, our major parties are useless, and our illiterate establishment clings to power through outright coercion and even threats of violence.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen : Oh I know, I'm no Daily Mail defender. But on the shock value of so-called 'intimidatory' Yes campaigning in the DM and elsewhere, I'm sceptical about its level of impact.

I also think there might be more to the highish level of No voting than just people being scared into voting No by media-fanned fear. A contribution perhaps, but by how much?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

What's the term?


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

chrissyy2009   Thanks for voting no, now pay more taxes or face cuts.  Oh yeah, we should leave Europe as well.  Oh, and cut austerity as well! Then elected to Westminster!!

I have seen women cry at this result.  Read his post.  People like him. That's why.


----------



## JimW (Sep 19, 2014)

chrissyy2009 said:


> ...
> The period of austerity could soon be over in England...


You're sadly deluded if you think austerity is driven by the tax take.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

It's not a real person.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Our country is fucked, our major parties are useless, and our illiterate establishment clings to power through outright coercion even threats of violence.


 
They're not illiterate, and their means of coercion are more subtle than thumbscrews and punishment beatings.
On this vote specifically, I don't recall the No campaign threatening anyone with violence - there was some definite lairyness by individuals on both sides but BT and the Yes lot had nothing to do with it that I could see.


----------



## chrissyy2009 (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's not a real person.


I think you will find I am very real


----------



## JimW (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's not a real person.


True, they did admit to being "made up"


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

chrissyy2009 said:


> I think you will find I am very real


I rather think that you'll find that you are not.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

JimW said:


> True, they did admit to being "made up"


Hiding in plain view see.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2014)

Choosing fear over hope. Already, Westminster is thinking it can continue to fuck us all over.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> They're not illiterate, and their means of coercion are more subtle than thumbscrews and punishment beatings.
> On this vote specifically, I don't recall the No campaign threatening anyone with violence - there was some definite lairyness by individuals on both sides but BT and the Yes lot had nothing to do with it that I could see.



I would say there are far less subtle.  They don't read.  The certainly don't read anything other than each others biographies and political op-eds.

A Labour councilor was arrested for attacking a voter.  The far-right attacked all sorts of groups throughout the campaign.  It was well-known the far-right was more violent than yes scotland.  The Telegraph and Express quietly applauded that and tried to inflame it (Yes Scotland want a Catholic King headlines).  They failed and will fail because they do not understand the Orange Order is largely filled with old men that don't do very much.


----------



## chrissyy2009 (Sep 19, 2014)

JimW said:


> You're sadly deluded if you think austerity is driven by the tax take.


Of course its not but this is a unique occassion.

once you get control over your taxes you wont need English aid. Cameron almost said so much this morning.

you will have the option to increase taxes.

This will take some of the heat off us. Hopefully we can look into reducing ours.

This would have the knock on effect of austerity being alleviated.

All we need to do now is the same with Wales and Ireland


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I would say there are far less subtle.  They don't read.  The certainly don't read anything other than each others biographies and political op-eds.
> 
> A Labour councilor was arrested for attacking a voter.  The far-right attacked all sorts of groups throughout the campaign.  It was well-known the far-right was more violent than yes scotland.  The Telegraph and Express quietly applauded that and tried to inflame it (Yes Scotland want a Catholic King headlines).  They failed and will fail because they do not understand the Orange Order is largely filled with old men that don't do very much.


 
When you said the establishment I didn't think you meant some random Labour councilor and the far-right loonsquad.


----------



## chrissyy2009 (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I rather think that you'll find that you are not.


I don't know what your problem is. I did thank you. You are a very generous people


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I would say there are far less subtle.  They don't read.  The certainly don't read anything other than each others biographies and political op-eds.
> 
> A Labour councilor was arrested for attacking a voter.  The far-right attacked all sorts of groups throughout the campaign.  It was well-known the far-right was more violent than yes scotland.  The Telegraph and Express quietly applauded that and tried to inflame it (Yes Scotland want a Catholic King headlines).  They failed and will fail because they do not understand the Orange Order is largely filled with old men that don't do very much.


You're not selling your thesis to me at all. There were ludicrous stories in r/w papers, a large majority of whose readers will already have been 'no' people, and these somehow swung it? Nah.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

The media did not report on the far-right loonsquad.  They did report on people in Yes Scotland, who heckled politicians.  Basically, violence from one group is tolerated.  Parts of the media actually stoked tensions to get them out on the street (a guy from Northern Ireland claiming it was worse than Ulster).  That is pretty unreal.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

The BBC, Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph, everyone colluded against Yes. Conspiracy on par with 9/11.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're not selling your thesis to me at all. There were ludicrous stories in r/w papers, a large majority of whom will already have been 'no' people, and these somehow swung it? Nah.



Oh do fuck off.  Do you think that is normal for there to be no pro-independence newspapers and that has no effect?  Even Spain have them in Basque Country and Catalonia, and they lock people up for years for being members of political groups.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 19, 2014)

can't say I agree with all of this but this might be one insight into why some people voted no: http://drpetermatthews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/scotland-decides.html


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> The BBC, Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph, everyone colluded against Yes. Conspiracy on par with 9/11.



Yup, the future of politics in Scotland.  "You really think there is institutional bias?  In Britain?  Why don't you go to Russia if you don't like it here..."


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

Some points on the voting and turnout itself :

The missing million goes missing



> On Thursday, I spent the afternoon in Craigmillar, a poor area of Edinburgh. I watched a bagpiper lead a crowd of working class Scots from estate to polling booth, flames firing from his pipes. It was a moving yet ramshackle scene. Morale was high. Hope was in the air, along with the smell of petroleum. And yet when the group arrived at the polling station very few of the marchers actually went in to vote.*
> 
> Craigmillar. https://t.co/j4tVzvweaV
> 
> ...



This would need to be flushed out with actual figures and i'm sure it be challenged/confirmed over the next few days. Note, i'm not saying what the author suggestshappened actually is the case


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> can't say I agree with all of this but this might be one insight into why some people voted no: http://drpetermatthews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/scotland-decides.html




Finished with this...



> And if you are a Yes supporter and you’re reading this spitting tacks, thinking “I’m not a nationalist”, “how dare he tar me with this brush” don’t bother commenting. I won’t respond as you’re just proving my argument. Firstly, go to bed, then step back, and then set to work making the UK better.



... sums up the article for me...  you'd be lucky to have such a great Lecturer...  would learn more from a goat.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Oh do fuck off.  Do you think that is normal for there to be no pro-independence newspapers and that has no effect?  Even Spain have them in Basque Country and Catalonia, and they lock people up for years for being members of political groups.


I think most newspapers north and south of the border have a heavy r/w bias. I think that has an effect, but not as large an effect as many suppose.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

frogwoman : Yes there's some good analysis included in that I reckon. I disagree with some of it too, but he's having a good attempt at insight.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

Yet journalists on the ground suggest that not all the abuse is due to an editorial line or position. Several reporters say they feel the abuse was directed not at anything they had written or said but simply who they worked for. They, or their London-based employers, are being called scum by people who aren’t able to quote the view of this week’s leader column.

That’s not to say that some of the most vitriolic opinion hasn’t been anti-SNP, whether it’s Melanie Reid in the Times saying the “selfish Scots don’t know how lucky they are,” or the Telegraph column comparing Salmond to a dictator. Focusing on vocal nationalists ignores the fact that there has been mistrust and abuse on both sides. Indeed, the only journalist to actually file a complaint to the police so far is a blogger who wrote in favour of the yes campaign online, according to the NUJ.

Paul Holleran, the NUJ’s Scottish regional organiser, says “abuse and intolerance” has been in evidence across the political spectrum. “Robust debate is fine,” he adds. “Pointing out when journalists get their facts wrong is expected and welcomed. But NUJ members believe in a free press, a fair media, with journalists allowed to do their jobs free of intimidation.”

Monbiot argued in his Guardian column “How the media shafted the people of Scotland” that the fact that just one paper, the Sunday Herald, is backing the yes campaign underlines the fact that the media is out of touch, or rather “detached and complacent”.

This is denied by Raymond Boyle, professor of communications at Glasgow University’s Centre for Cultural Policy Research, who says the media have run opinion pieces from both sides despite finally coming down (often marginally) on the side of no.

While all the nationals’ leader writers may have backed the union, several papers, including the Guardian, have published opinion from both sides and attempted to report from across the national divide.

It’s too simplistic to look at the decline in regional newspaper sales for the whole answer during a heated referendum debate but it seems as good a time as any to check how bad things are. There are more than 370 paid-for weekly newspapers in the UK but most now opt to be audited only once a year, according to Press Gazette. More than 100 have withdrawn from ABC auditing altogether over the last year. Dailies are doing just as badly, down 13.5 % in the half year.

Apart from the success of the one local paper that not only turned into a freesheet but is based, of course, in London the only regional daily/Sunday to grow sales year on year was the Sunday Herald, up 1% year on year to an average of 25,125 copies a week. The Sunday Herald became the first Scottish newspaper to back the yes campaign at the beginning of May.

Yet Boyle points to the importance of political bloggers such as  Ian Macwhirter and Joyce Macmillan  for enhancing debate over the past two years and says that “media has historically been a relatively easy scapegoat” when polls get closer.

It is perhaps ironic that the most vocal signs of alienation from a London-based media should come from the part of the UK with the most developed “national” outlets of its own, yet the evidence suggests that appearing to be different from London-dominated rivals can only be an advantage.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-media-intimidation-bbc?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> ... sums up the article for me...  you'd be lucky to have such a great Lecturer...  would learn more from a goat.



So is that what you're doing? Seizing on the bit you dislike most about that blog and ignoring all the rest?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> The BBC, Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph, everyone colluded against Yes. Conspiracy on par with 9/11.


 
Holographic polling booths - that's probably how they dunnit.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

Combustible said:


> I'm not sure I would read too much into the numbers for 16-17 year olds, given that it was based on a sample of just 18 people.


It was worse than that - just 14.


----------



## chrissyy2009 (Sep 19, 2014)

The English news are saying that the changes in Scotland might not happen before the election.
That's bad! Its bad enough you voted on promises which haven't even been negotiated yet, but to put it off is not on.

We want it before the election. There are more voters here. We want the benefits Scotland are getting minimum.

Free prescriptions, University etc. Hopefully a tax break too, though that might take ti.e due to how long it is before you get to manage your own taxation and you no longer need our subsidies.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 19, 2014)

I haven't read the last few pages, beyond seeing the issues being discussed. However, I think the idea of victory being thwarted by the press or the oldies is way off (even if I hoped it would be a Yes).  I'd rather start the other way round and note there has never been anything like a majority for independence, quite the opposite.  No were always going to win - whatever the complexities of the relationship between England and Scotland, between the different parts of Scotland, fading affinities for Labour, all that.

What we've seen has been ideal circumstances to maximise the Yes vote - austerity, yet another westminster government not elected by Scots, Miliband's shitness etc. On top of that Yes have run a strong and creative campaign, made all the running, been positive, which led to a fair number voting yes who didn't even want independence.  Alongside that No have been negative and shit, but probably got some good hits in about the currency, EU membership - even if these were scare stories the Yes campaign didn't have answers.  But overall, good circumstances + a very strong campaign probably maximised the Yes vote, took it over and above what could have been expected.  Trouble is there just weren't enough Scots in favour of independence. Pitydevo max wasn't on the ballot, because I suspect what is finally offered will fall way short of that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> While all the nationals’ leader writers may have backed the union, several papers, including the Guardian, have published opinion from both sides and attempted to report from across the national divide.


And you have to ask - how many people even read the leader columns in newspapers? And of those that do read them, how many place significantly greater weight on the leaders than on opinion pieces? How many people actually defer to the opinions expressed in the official leaders? 

Do papers lead opinion or follow it? Bit of both, of course, but this survey of Sun reader voting indicates that the paper switches allegiances _after_ its readers have done so. 

The evidence that newpapers' official lines have significant influence is rather bare. The evidence points the other way, if anything - that readers' shifting allegiances affect newspapers' official lines more than vice versa.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Some points on the voting and turnout itself :
> 
> The missing million goes missing



Good points in that blog, he has plenty of useful stuff to say about why the No level in opinion polls/reporting of them was underestimated and the Yes level overestimated. I was wondering about the relatively low turnout in Glasgow myself. OK turnout was 75% there, but other areas were much higher. Ben Page starting to analyse some reasons.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I haven't read the last few pages, beyond seeing the issues being discussed. However, I think the idea of victory being thwarted by the press or the oldies is way off (even if I hoped it would be a Yes).  I'd rather start the other way round and note there has never been anything like a majority for independence, quite the opposite.  No were always going to win - whatever the complexities of the relationship between England and Scotland, between the different parts of Scotland, fading affinities for Labour, all that.
> 
> What we've seen has been ideal circumstances to maximise the Yes vote - austerity, yet another westminster government not elected by Scots, Miliband's shitness etc. On top of that Yes have run a strong and creative campaign, made all the running, been positive, which led to a fair number voting yes who didn't even want independence.  Alongside that No have been negative and shit, but probably got some good hits in about the currency, EU membership - even if these were scare stories the Yes campaign didn't have answers.  But overall, good circumstances + a very strong campaign probably maximised the Yes vote, took it over and above what could have been expected.  Trouble is there just weren't enough Scots in favour of independence. Pitydevo max wasn't on the ballot, because I suspect what is finally offered will fall way short of that.



I like most of this, but above all I tend to agree that No were always, realistically, going to win (as I posted before I think the No vote level was underpredicted). Although I thought it was going to be close up to last night, closer than the real outcome, I also would have been surprised (given my scepticism about opinion poll details and accuracy) if No had actually lost.

But true, Yes were pretty successful in running them even as close as they did.

If Devo Max had been on the ballot I suspect that option would have won by a big majority -- I think danny la rouge said the same a while back.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

At the start of August, the No campaign had a 20 point lead in the polls, a month later is was just 6 points and that now infamous YouGov poll suggest Yes might win. 

Link that to the Ashcroft poll, and a great deal of Yes voters decided on their vote in the last month or more recently, so I don't think you can blame it on the media. No voters were more entrenched in their desire not to break up the union. Many probably switched due to negative campaigning. 

Salmond was equally capable of insulting No voters: http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...here-are-no-no-voters-just-deferred-yes-ones/

Look at the polling a year ago: http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...ttish-independence-referendum-one-year-to-go/

The strength of Yes only really picked up in the past few weeks.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Yet journalists on the ground suggest that not all the abuse is due to an editorial line or position. Several reporters say they feel the abuse was directed not at anything they had written or said but simply who they worked for. They, or their London-based employers, are being called scum by people who aren’t able to quote the view of this week’s leader column.
> 
> That’s not to say that some of the most vitriolic opinion hasn’t been anti-SNP, whether it’s Melanie Reid in the Times saying the “selfish Scots don’t know how lucky they are,” or the Telegraph column comparing Salmond to a dictator. Focusing on vocal nationalists ignores the fact that there has been mistrust and abuse on both sides. Indeed, the only journalist to actually file a complaint to the police so far is a blogger who wrote in favour of the yes campaign online, according to the NUJ.
> 
> ...



I think you are being silly.  The public debates, the types of people that get air time are all of the same stripe.  David Torrance.  What has he done?  Why should we listen to him?  Alex Massie is another one.

To be honest, I hope that journalists are viewed with skepticism, they are generally poorly informed, and most have taken some ideological position that is pretty clear from their reporting.  The Guardian offers nothing in a way of counter-balance and fits a pattern.  We even have a thread about why the Guardian is a joke.  

John Robertson's analysis of the BBC was spot-on, and it can generally be attached to most media groups.  A couple journalists, Paul Mason in particular, has been good.  But Wings over Scotland will have a higher reach than he does.   If NUJ wants its journalists to be treated with respect, particularly BBC journalists, they have to respect people.  At no point would I describe the vast majority of journalists as journalists.  Political bloggers don't report the news, regardless of their position on the referendum.

So, I am sorry if Nick Robinson wants to affirm the position of Better Together, that Alex Salmond does not answer questions. He has picked a side.  If you are going to campaign, I really don't think you can call yourself a journalist.  I certainly have no sympathy with them.  The simple fact is that if journalists have shown to be of a very poor quality and the fact we are now getting desperate attempts to point to a few articles in the Herald and Guardian as evidence of plurality shows the depths we have to go to pretend we have a democratic political culture.

British newspapers now are more-or-less on a par with the Socialist Worker.  They get paid more, pretend they are above it all, but at the end of the day, they are campaigners for one group or another.  I don't feel sorry for any of them.  If they want to campaign one way or another, they have to take the heckles like any politician.

To claim Scotland has a 'national' media is silly.  We have the Herald and Scotsman.  The Scotsman is a right-wing paper formerly owned by the Barclay brothers.  it is no surprise to anyone they 'decided' (after thinking about it long and hard no doubt) that they plumped for no.

Next you will be claiming that Newsnet Scotland is a counterbalance to the BBC.


----------



## youngian (Sep 19, 2014)

Labour Party comms director delivers his condolences to Alex Salmond


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 19, 2014)

CONSPIRACY!!!!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/t...-calling-for-a-revote-of-the-scottish#37ic8zr


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And, according to Ashcroft's 2000+ post election poll, this is how that panned out - note the 16/17 year olds moving over to YES in large numbers over the last week, previously NO had a lead there - rest, as expected age wise. Note majority labour support (from 2001 at least, would have been interesting to see 2010 voting as well given the split vote phenomenon) for NO:



That date on the labour voters i was after is now here (pdf) - and 69% of the labour 2010 vote voted NO (that was 546 respondents out of the 2047 total). I think suggestions of their demise as a result of this referendum result may prove to exaggerated. Obv will need to see if other post-results polls and research support this though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I think you are being silly.  The public debates, the types of people that get air time are all of the same stripe.  David Torrance.  What has he done?  Why should we listen to him?  Alex Massie is another one.
> 
> To be honest, I hope that journalists are viewed with skepticism, they are generally poorly informed, and most have taken some ideological position that is pretty clear from their reporting.  The Guardian offers nothing in a way of counter-balance and fits a pattern.  We even have a thread about why the Guardian is a joke.
> 
> ...



I think you're ignoring a point made by the blog you dismissed. It appears that Labour voters voted 2-1 no. This was not people endorsing the Westminster govt. It must have included a large number of people who are sick of the tories getting in all the time. But they still rejected yes. And I think that blog points to one reason - they didn't buy the SNP's promise of a better and more just future as independent; they saw that promise as empty, based on nothing more than faith; and they could see how the wind was blowing in the SNP with its promises of a business-friendly future - a righterly wind.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you're ignoring a point made by the blog you dismissed. It appears that Labour voters voted 2-1 no. This was not people endorsing the Westminster govt. It must have included a large number of people who are sick of the tories getting in all the time. But they still rejected yes. And I think that blog points to one reason - they didn't buy the SNP's promise of a better and more just future as independent; they saw that promise as empty, based on nothing more than faith; and they could see how the wind was blowing in the SNP with its promises of a business-friendly future - a righterly wind.



I have not mentioned the Labour vote.  If you think over a third of Labour voters plumping for independence is insignificant, you simply don't know Scottish politics and certainly ignores historical trends.  I will be surprised if many of those voters go back to Labour.  They might vote in 2015, but beyond that...  their core vote will die off by the end of the decade, the rest will be completely disillusioned.

I have listened to young Labour men talking with working-class voters; justifying Iraq, desperately trying to find the odd left-wing policy they agree with (e.g. childcare - we love children).

If the English (genuine) left-wing does not do something, protest they way we have about our press and politics, only a massive social cleansing (more middle-class managers, retirees from England) will change the way Scottish politics is going.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 19, 2014)

Guardian has just published some analysis of the polling http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/scottish-independence-opinion-polls-referendum-vote


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Guardian has just published some analysis of the polling http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/scottish-independence-opinion-polls-referendum-vote




Mostly a look at ashcofts figures tbh


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

I think the main problem the pollsters couldn't see/deal with was the hard no vote that had decided to just keep shut and vote - that was always there, it was visible from bristol. That didn't show up in the polls over the last two months. Which bumped YES figures.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Sep 19, 2014)

chrissyy2009 said:


> I am so happy Scotland have voted to remain in the UK. I think it was a masterstroke by Labour getting the unionist votes.
> As an Englishman I am ecstatic.
> 
> England will now, like yourselves fight for a better deal, Wales and Ireland also look like they want what's best for their countries respectfully.
> ...


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2014)

chrissyy2009 said:


> The English news are saying that the changes in Scotland might not happen before the election.
> That's bad! Its bad enough you voted on promises which haven't even been negotiated yet, but to put it off is not on.
> 
> We want it before the election. There are more voters here. We want the benefits Scotland are getting minimum.
> ...


Wtf are you on? Whatever it is, I want some.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Sep 19, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Wtf are you on? Whatever it is, I want some.



s/he is MADE UP - they say so in the post I quoted.  blatant piss-take.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2014)

Alex Salmond has resigned. The Bitters must be chuffed with themselves - especially that Tory cunt, Nick Robinson.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 19, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Virtually all the opinion polls close to polling day turned out to be wrong about the win %age by quite some distance. That has to raise questions about their methodology, sampling, possibly (?) wording of their questions.


The final set of polls (excluding the YG "re"-poll
Ipsos MORI (phone) 49%
ICM (phone) 49%
TNS (face to face) 49%
YouGov (online) 48%
Panelbase (online) 48%
ICM (online) 48%
Opinium (online) 48%
Survation (online) 48%
Survation (phone) 47%%

So 6 of the nine within the MOE and the other three just outside it. OK the polls were probably "a bit too YES" but to say they were out by some distance is over egging it a bit.


----------



## chrissyy2009 (Sep 19, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Wtf are you on? Whatever it is, I want some.


You don't get it.
It is you who are on something. Maybe they put something in your water.

Cameron has already said there wont be another referendum for a generation. You know when, the oil runs out.

English news are saying Unionists are the ones who got the no vote.

Its understandable because labour would never be in power again without the Scottish votes.

Milliband, today has already said he is against giving Scotland to much power.

It seems the oil money will be shared and the big big problem both labour and the tories had has just been solved by the no vote.

The problem is that Scotland currently have free universities and prescriptions.

An election is coming up and we want what you have. Unfortunately they don't have the money.

So guess what's happening? You will have control of your taxes but as you are part of the United Kingdom, the rest of the united kingdom will get a share.

labour politicians are already saying that its unfair you get the subsidies you do if you are in charge of your own destiny with taxation.

so quite a few today have already said it should be stopped and a couple more said cut.

If you want to give away free stuff then you pay more tax. Its only right.

The other promises wont happen. At least not in the way you think they will.

That's why Cameron wants a level playing field and federal states are the way to do it.

The money we save off your subsidies will be perks for English voters.

Scots are nice folk, but did you really truly believe that London would say "oh them Scots are dead canny, we'll subsidise them more than the English."

with an election coming up ha ha

who do you think has the most votes?

so all the politicians will look after their own constituents. You will get to manage your own taxes, keep trident and have a share of the oil money.

That's about it. You won't get devolution. No chance! The English voters wont stand for it.

you will now be back on a level playing field because to quote Cameron "we also have to look out for the interests of England, Wales and Ireland".

Labour cant give you to much either because then they lose out and do you really think they would lose power just to do what's right for Scotland?

you ask what I am on ha ha ha, I want what more than half your population are on.


like I said, thanks though. You've done well by England


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 19, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> The final set of polls (excluding the YG "re"-poll
> Ipsos MORI (phone) 49%
> ICM (phone) 49%
> TNS (face to face) 49%
> ...



I agree with you now actually, and also, I hadn't then bothered to check the range of polls properly.  Thanks for those stats.So yes, I was overdoing that point of mine from this afternoon.

I still think I've got a point about the polls undercooking the No level -- mostly for technical/methodology reasons -- excluding the Don't Knows from the headline totals was mad.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 19, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> The fact of the matter is 80 year-old women were being bombarded with total loony news stories about how violent the yes campaign was (not true), how their pensions will be taken away (not true), how lovely and brave no campaigners were (not true), how they would be poor in independence (not true),  how the SNP were basically Nazis like in world war 2 (not true), etc.
> 
> If you think that's fine.  Wait until you get to vote in England on something important.  You'll realise how fucked as a country we truly are.



My 79 and 3/4 year old mum was pushed from dithering to a Yes by these scare tactics (without any internet access).  My 80 year old dad was a yes anyway. Although they agree that for many pensioners a fear of losing the pension would factor into their voting.  If you lose it all at 30 you can rebuild your 'empire', not so much once you're retired.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 19, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> The final set of polls (excluding the YG "re"-poll
> Ipsos MORI (phone) 49%
> ICM (phone) 49%
> TNS (face to face) 49%
> ...


If they've been as far out the other way with all but one of them it would have been a yes vote, which underscores how far out they were.

It's not as if there were some polls either side of the actual result, which is what would be expected if it were just a margin of error thing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 20, 2014)

chrissyy2009 said:


> You don't get it.
> It is you who are on something. Maybe they put something in your water.
> 
> Cameron has already said there wont be another referendum for a generation. You know when, the oil runs out.
> ...



Stone bonker


----------



## likesfish (Sep 20, 2014)

Yes failed to make the arguement simple as that.
They  failed to convince the majority simple as that.
 without the Uk government prepared to enter into talks before the vote and why should they? It was always going to be a hard sell.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 20, 2014)

What are the three main reasons for people in Scotland to vote no?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 20, 2014)

Well the top two reasons people_ gave _for voting NO were concerns about pensions and currency, of course that doesn't necessarily mean those were the reasons had for voting NO. 

EDIT: Based on that Ashcroft poll


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2014)

chrissyy2009 said:


> You don't get it.
> It is you who are on something. Maybe they put something in your water.
> 
> Cameron has already said there wont be another referendum for a generation. You know when, the oil runs out.
> ...


You're like a clockwork toy.


----------



## treelover (Sep 21, 2014)

> Next you will be claiming that Newsnet Scotland is a counterbalance to the BBC.



Ah, just googled them, been looking for a updated grassroots/independent news source about Scottish matters


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2014)

Interesting results from survation post-election polling (pdf) of people in england and wales:

The Yes campaign relied more on:
Bullying - 42%
Positivity - 25%
(DK) - 33%

The No campaign relied more on:
Bullying - 18%
Positivity - 47%
(DK) - 34%


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> of people in england and wales:


id rather see a poll for  people in scotland on that subject


----------



## weepiper (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> id rather see a poll for  people in scotland on that subject


Me too. It doesn't seem like people in England and Wales were seeing the same things that we were seeing up here.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> id rather see a poll for  people in scotland on that subject


I'd be interested in that too - and i'm sure we'll see something on those lines before too long. In fact i think i've seen some already - will check in a sec. But the thing is, you can't identify or highlight the differences in perception between people in scotland and people in england and wales without actually asking people in england and wales what they think.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2014)

I just read this butchersapron, weepiper et al about canvassing on both sides. Apparently heavily concentrated in cities. 

https://loveandgarbage.wordpress.co...aaahhhhh-aaaalllllll-rrrriiiiigggghhhhtttttt/


----------



## weepiper (Sep 21, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I just read this butchersapron, weepiper et al about canvassing on both sides. Apparently heavily concentrated in cities.
> 
> https://loveandgarbage.wordpress.co...aaahhhhh-aaaalllllll-rrrriiiiigggghhhhtttttt/



I had a No canvasser knock at the door twice but no Yes canvassers. Shitloads, I mean_ reams_ of leaflets from both sides. I was never polled by any of the official polling companies.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 21, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I just read this butchersapron, weepiper et al about canvassing on both sides. Apparently heavily concentrated in cities.
> 
> https://loveandgarbage.wordpress.co...aaahhhhh-aaaalllllll-rrrriiiiigggghhhhtttttt/



Very interesting. I was never canvassed at home, nor was anyone I know in the vicinity. In the other thread I repeatedly reported a lack of people in the Better Together shop in Aberdeen. On the day of the vote, when I passed it, the Yes office was locked and shuttered. I emailed the Yes campaign with some questions and never heard back; they didn't even bother to put me on their mailing list. I emailed the Better Together campaign and they did reply, but again, I was not put on a mailing list.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I just read this butchersapron, weepiper et al about canvassing on both sides. Apparently heavily concentrated in cities.
> 
> https://loveandgarbage.wordpress.co...aaahhhhh-aaaalllllll-rrrriiiiigggghhhhtttttt/



I think I made a comment on the night about this, that it looked to be a triumph of the combined campaigning experience of the lab, lib, con teams vs one experienced team for the SNP mixed in with lots of enthusiastic amateurs and an apparent belief that it could be won largely by social media.

Taking thousands of activists off the streets to protest at the BBC on probably the most important campaigning day of the entire campaign was one of the stupidest campaign decisions they could have made. Essentially surrendering the streets of the rest of Scotland to the No campaign on the last weekend before the vote, when each of those activists should have been being paired up with a couple of new volunteers and canvassed maybe half a million houses between them over that weekend.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting results from survation post-election polling (pdf) of people in england and wales:
> 
> The Yes campaign relied more on:
> Bullying - 42%
> ...



That is depressing.  Really does show the impact of the media on public opinion.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting results from survation post-election polling (pdf) of people in england and wales:
> 
> The Yes campaign relied more on:
> Bullying - 42%
> ...


That's topsy-turvy. It also shows what a good job the Unionist media did on people's perceptions.


----------



## toggle (Sep 21, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> That's topsy-turvy. It also shows what a good job the Unionist media did on people's perceptions.



and that people in england and wales were more likely to be pro union. therefore seeing any discussion of a proposition they agreed with as positive and any discussion that attempted to change their opinion as bullying.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> That's topsy-turvy. It also shows what a good job the Unionist media did on people's perceptions.


i dont think its based on peoples perceptions, more on their preconceptions
id bet that the majority of english people can't fathom why Scotland would throw what it has in the union away for independence and think they got off very luckily by voting no. 


butchersapron said:


> , you can't identify or highlight the differences in perception between people in scotland and people in england and wales without actually asking people in england and wales what they think.


that difference in perception is interesting to some extent, but if im being blunt about it, i dont really care what the people of rUK think about scottish independence - its really not up to us, the campaign took place out of sight of us to some extent, and if anything that poll suggests many people in the rUKs don't understand why so many people voted yes. sorry if that sounds condescending but i really dont think most people got it...sounds like a lot of people think they were bullied and duped into it


----------



## weepiper (Sep 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I think I made a comment on the night about this, that it looked to be a triumph of the combined campaigning experience of the lab, lib, con teams vs one experienced team for the SNP mixed in with lots of enthusiastic amateurs and an apparent belief that it could be won largely by social media.
> 
> Taking thousands of activists off the streets to protest at the BBC on probably the most important campaigning day of the entire campaign was one of the stupidest campaign decisions they could have made. Essentially surrendering the streets of the rest of Scotland to the No campaign on the last weekend before the vote, when each of those activists should have been being paired up with a couple of new volunteers and canvassed maybe half a million houses between them over that weekend.



I agree that the BBC bias thing was a pointless diversion but would just point out that it wasn't an official yes campaign thing at all - it was something people organised themselves on facebook and twitter. So the people that attended were not necessarily people that would otherwise have been out chapping doors.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2014)

toggle said:


> and that people in england and wales were more likely to be pro union. therefore seeing any discussion of a proposition they agreed with as positive and any discussion that attempted to change their opinion as bullying.


Yet none of these people would have dared ask themselves the question "what is the Union and why do we still have it"? None of these people even bother to ask "why is power so centralised"? 

Polling companies, eh? They often ask the wrong questions.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i dont think its based on peoples perceptions, more on their preconceptions
> id bet that the majority of english people can't fathom why Scotland would throw what it has in the union away for independence and think they got off very luckily by voting no.
> 
> that difference in perception is interesting to some extent, but if im being blunt about it, i dont really care what the people of rUK think about scottish independence - its really not up to us, the campaign took place out of sight of us to some extent, and if anything that poll suggests many people in the rUKs don't understand why so many people voted yes. sorry if that sounds condescending but i really dont think most people got it...sounds like a lot of people think they were bullied and duped into it



It's both, but in both cases there's a serious lack of critical thinking evident.

I'm doing battle with a unionist on Twitter and he's produced some of the most absurd arguments for the preservation of the union. One was "well, we all benefited from the Empire". The Empire's only true beneficiaries were the ruling class.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

yeah agree its both


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I agree that the BBC bias thing was a pointless diversion but would just point out that it wasn't an official yes campaign thing at all - it was something people organised themselves on facebook and twitter. So the people that attended were not necessarily people that would otherwise have been out chapping doors.


fair enough, but if they're willing to go out on a protest, then it's still an active supporter base that wasn't being put to work effectively for whatever reason.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 21, 2014)

First poll since indy ref...  No apparent Labour collapse, yet.  SNP might be seeing a big rise in their vote at the expense of the Lib Dems at Westminster.

The polling was from a telephone poll of 871 Scottish adults by Survation, carried out on Friday.

2016 Scottish Parliament voting intention: (changes on 2011 election)

Conservative - 13% (-1)
Labour - 33% (+1)
Liberal Democrat - 3% (-5)
SNP - 49% (+4)
Another Party - 1% (nc)



2015 General elections voting intention (changes from 2010 election):

Conservative 18% (+1)
Labour 39% (-3)
Liberal Democrat 3% (-16)
SNP 35% (+15)


----------



## weepiper (Sep 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> fair enough, but if they're willing to go out on a protest, then it's still an active supporter base that wasn't being put to work effectively for whatever reason.


Sure. There's a difference between 'willing to go out in a big group where everyone agrees with you and shout' and 'willing to knock on a stranger's door and have them possibly be hostile or ask you questions you're not sure how to answer' though, isn't there.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 21, 2014)

How is Nicola Sturgeon viewed in Scotland? 

I presume she is in pole position to take over from Salmond and I thought she came across very well when I saw her interviewed during the referendum campaign.


----------



## JTG (Sep 21, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Liberal Democrat - 3% (-5)
> SNP - 49% (+4)


Crikey


----------



## toggle (Sep 21, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Yet none of these people would have dared ask themselves the question "what is the Union and why do we still have it"? None of these people even bother to ask "why is power so centralised"?



certainly there is recognistion that it is becoming more centralised, but discussion tends to be along the lines of how much authority can be delegated to local councils, or whether regional assemblies are viable. 

have you looked much at the debates surrounding gladston'es home rule bills? there is a lot of this that is no more than a replay


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2014)

toggle said:


> have you looked much at the debates surrounding gladston'es home rule bills? there is a lot of this that is no more than a replay



Not in any great detail but I take your point.



> certainly there is recognistion that it is becoming more centralised, but discussion tends to be along the lines of how much authority can be delegated to local councils, or whether regional assemblies are viable.



There's no reason why regional assemblies can't be viable but one thing that needs to go is the monarchy. I don't think we can have a truly modern system till they're abolished. One reason why the Police and Crime Commissioners have been such a flop is because it was a new-fangled role that was grafted onto a dying system (covered in sticking plasters).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 21, 2014)

The irony is that of course the most centralising force in Scotland in recent years has been the SNP controlled Scottish government - look at their local government and police reorganisations.


----------



## treelover (Sep 21, 2014)




----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I just read this butchersapron, weepiper et al about canvassing on both sides. Apparently heavily concentrated in cities.
> 
> https://loveandgarbage.wordpress.co...aaahhhhh-aaaalllllll-rrrriiiiigggghhhhtttttt/




That blog's pretty revealing, surely? Even it it's only a shapshot.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Sure. There's a difference between 'willing to go out in a big group where everyone agrees with you and shout' and 'willing to knock on a stranger's door and have them possibly be hostile or ask you questions you're not sure how to answer' though, isn't there.


there is, but that's the support base that the yes campaign would have needed to have brought properly into the campaign if they stood half a chance of beating the combined electoral campaigning experience of the 3 other major parties in Scotland.

Also, I think I was getting mixed up between that bbc protest and the big official yes gathering on the eve of the referendum. Pulling 1600 activists off the streets for a rally on the evening of the referendum probably wasn't a good tactic either.

For all the talk about the yes campaign being grassroots etc from the outside, it doesn't look as if the official campaign really managed to tap into that grassroots support too well, and actually focus it into a proper campaigning machine. The supporters sections of the campaign website are pretty empty in the run up to the election, and the '45' facebook page has gained more support in 2 days than the yes page did in the entire campaign.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> That blog's pretty revealing, surely? Even it it's only a shapshot.



Not really.  It sounds like he was in a solid no area and no amount of canvassing would convince him or his neighbours otherwise.  Maybe he was missed for a reason.  His parents from Dumfriesshire were probably canvassed four times because there was a group of yes supporters covering a relatively large area with relatively fewer houses.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> there is, but that's the support base that the yes campaign would have needed to have brought properly into the campaign if they stood half a chance of beating the combined electoral campaigning experience of the 3 other major parties in Scotland.
> 
> Also, I think I was getting mixed up between that bbc protest and the big official yes gathering on the eve of the referendum. Pulling 1600 activists off the streets for a rally on the evening of the referendum probably wasn't a good tactic either.
> 
> For all the talk about the yes campaign being grassroots etc from the outside, it doesn't look as if the official campaign really managed to tap into that grassroots support too well, and actually focus it into a proper campaigning machine. The supporters sections of the campaign website are pretty empty in the run up to the election, and the '45' facebook page has gained more support in 2 days than the yes page did in the entire campaign.



The yes campaign generated more likes than David Cameron's page by the end of the referendum.  Not sure why we are saying it was a poor campaign.  They had the cards stacked against them and nearly won.  That was a massive achievement.  I think they had the right strategy.  Maybe a bit more focus on canvassing, but not sure how much more they could have realistically have done.  I think if we had just a couple of Scottish tabloids and a broadsheet daily we would have won.

Also, that poll showing yes on 51% probably mobilised the no support a bit on polling day.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

Fair dos DQ (post 859). Feller was posting as a 'No' himself by the look of his blog.

I've been reading shedloads more generally about all the  campaigns over the last few weeks, I'm nerdishly (over)fascinated by opinion polls and polling technicalities and how campaigns operate in that context.

I'm convinced (especially now   ) that Yes was never really in the lead.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting results from survation post-election polling (pdf) of people in england and wales:
> 
> The Yes campaign relied more on:
> Bullying - 42%
> ...



That does seem to gel with what I've heard from people here in the Midlands.  I can't comment on bullying unless you're counting veiled threats in the media rather than person-on-person stuff, but on the channels I was watching there was a lot of positivity on the Yes side and almost none on the No (not that it's easy to be positive from that side).

Was an equivalent poll done in Scotland?


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

PS I agree it was a pretty big achevement for Yes, to have come so close to winning, but they were always up against it.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> The yes campaign generated more likes than David Cameron's page by the end of the referendum.  Not sure why we are saying it was a poor campaign.  They had the cards stacked against them and nearly won.  That was a massive achievement.  I think they had the right strategy.  Maybe a bit more focus on canvassing, but not sure how much more they could have realistically have done.  I think if we had just a couple of Scottish tabloids and a broadsheet daily we would have won.
> 
> Also, that poll showing yes on 51% probably mobilised the no support a bit on polling day.


The more I look into it, the more it really looks like they through it away by being shit at mobilising their support via social media.

Check out the official yes campaigns facebook page, it hasn't got a single event listed on it between the 28th August and 18th September. The main website has 55 events listed in total, which is utter shite for campaigns across 32 regions.

The yes campaign clearly won the battle on social media by a large margin, but it failed to translate that support into wider support across Scotland, I'm just interested in exploring how it managed to not convert that social media support into votes. To achieve that it would have needed to convert a good number of social media supporters into activists on the ground, and I can't see that it can be said to have been doing that as well as it could have when its social media and website events pages are so lacking in events for people to get involved with.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 21, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> First poll since indy ref...  No apparent Labour collapse, yet.  SNP might be seeing a big rise in their vote at the expense of the Lib Dems at Westminster.
> 
> The polling was from a telephone poll of 871 Scottish adults by Survation, carried out on Friday.
> 
> ...


IIRC that's pretty consistent with the pre-referendum polling for Scotland (which I can't seem to find now), SNP gaining at the expense of the LDs


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> The more I look into it, the more it really looks like they through it away by being shit at mobilising their support via social media.
> 
> Check out the official yes campaigns facebook page, it hasn't got a single event listed on it between the 28th August and 18th September. The main website has 55 events listed in total, which is utter shite for campaigns across 32 regions.
> 
> The yes campaign clearly won the battle on social media by a large margin, but it failed to translate that support into wider support across Scotland, I'm just interested in exploring how it managed to not convert that social media support into votes. To achieve that it would have needed to convert a good number of social media supporters into activists on the ground, and I can't see that it can be said to have been doing that as well as it could have when its social media and website events pages are so lacking in events for people to get involved with.



Can it actually be that very traditional feet-on-the-ground polling day mobilising by the No 'machine'  might have been more effective than predicted?


----------



## leanderman (Sep 21, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> IIRC that's pretty consistent with the pre-referendum polling for Scotland (which I can't seem to find now), SNP gaining at the expense of the LDs



It won't be long before LibDem support slips past zero and into negative territory


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Can it actually be that very traditional feet-on-the-ground polling day mobilising by the No 'machine'  might have been more effective than predicted?


That's what it looks like, and i reckon that the yes campaign have misunderstood how social media should have been used, or at least they only used one part of the power of social media to directly spread their message via social media to those on social media, but a lot of that is merely preaching to the converted.

To have won, they'd have needed to convert that social media support base into a real physical boots on the ground campaign on a national level as they also needed to reach those who can't be reached by social media directly.

This was probably happening to some extent, but I don't see any evidence of the sort of nationally co-ordinated approach that would have been needed.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> The more I look into it, the more it really looks like they through it away by being shit at mobilising their support via social media.
> 
> Check out the official yes campaigns facebook page, it hasn't got a single event listed on it between the 28th August and 18th September. The main website has 55 events listed in total, which is utter shite for campaigns across 32 regions.
> 
> The yes campaign clearly won the battle on social media by a large margin, but it failed to translate that support into wider support across Scotland, I'm just interested in exploring how it managed to not convert that social media support into votes. To achieve that it would have needed to convert a good number of social media supporters into activists on the ground, and I can't see that it can be said to have been doing that as well as it could have when its social media and website events pages are so lacking in events for people to get involved with.



The idea was that they would leave local branches to sort out events and the like.  Yes Scotland would facilitate events.  Look at the local branches and some are still having events.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Can it actually be that very traditional feet-on-the-ground polling day mobilising by the No 'machine'  might have been more effective than predicted?



I really don't think so.  Some areas were just never going to switch to yes, and so the canvassers probably did nothing but encourage them to vote.  In many of the working-class areas, not all, the types of people being sent round by No probably benefited yes more than no.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

Would be interested to read a bit more about that TBH. Both campaigns made mistakes I'm sure.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 21, 2014)

I just doubt you will find it.  Yes Scotland people will be the best for this.  You have to understand the big impact on the media, and how biased it actually was.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2014)

Revealed: Secret opinion poll convinced Alex Salmond he would pull off shock victory in independence referendum



> ALEX Salmond was convinced he was on course for a historic referendum win right until the votes were counted, the Daily Record can reveal.
> 
> Private polling by a firm of election experts had the First Minister believing he would pull off a shock victory.
> 
> ...





> The SNP were widely thought to have the most sophisticated data-modelling system in the UK before the vote.
> 
> But it failed to call the referendum right. Salmond was devastated and announced his intention to step down as First Minister within hours .
> 
> ...



The piece says _revealed _like the Record found this out - it's been talked of with links to articles on it on twitter for at least two days now.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Revealed: Secret opinion poll convinced Alex Salmond he would pull off shock victory in independence referendum
> 
> The piece says _revealed _like the Record found this out - it's been talked of with links to articles on it on twitter for at least two days now.


 It's astonishing if Salmond was as taken in by his pollsters as the piece suggests.  It was obvious that Yes had lost momentum in the final week and that the Yes vote was probably overstated/a bit soggy round the edges.  Just common sense should have told him he needed to be getting consistent poll leads to translate into an actual victory on the day.  It will be interesting to see what trends and themes his pollsters were detecting - or how their models were working.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> It's astonishing if Salmond was as taken in by his pollsters as the piece suggests.  It was obvious that Yes had lost momentum in the final week and that the Yes vote was probably overstated/a bit soggy round the edges.  Just common sense should have told him he needed to be getting consistent poll leads to translate into an actual victory on the day.  It will be interesting to see what trends and themes his pollsters were detecting - or how their models were working.


I think he must have really believed it and that their exit and turn out canvasses supported it as well if they were setting up their victory speech interviews _as the polls closed._


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 24, 2014)

... or he didn't, and knew No were more likely and the Record is spinning a bit here so we can embellish the narrative that Fleet Street and the BBC are desperately trying to get going.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 24, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> ... or he didn't, and knew No were more likely and the Record is spinning a bit here so we can embellish the narrative that Fleet Street and the BBC are desperately trying to get going.


Well, who knows.  But one thing I'm absolutely sure of is that both sides had given the press a preview of their likely victory speech before 10pm.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 24, 2014)

I think no were more confident of victory, but there was a feeling in yes that we might do it.  I know some activists were very confident, depending where they were, but they do not see the canvass returns.  I think the postal voting was a bit dodgy, if I am honest.  I think a lot of people who do not live and work in Scotland voted here, and there really needs to be better verification that I am who I say I am, where I say I am when I get a polling card.  Not that would make a huge difference, but I know the extract of the electoral roll I was given had a lot of errors in it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 24, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I think the postal voting was a bit dodgy, if I am honest.


I don't buy that.  Postal voters are older and more middle class, is all.  There was no systematic fixing.  (Just a handful of alleged frauds, but nothing statistically significant).


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> ... or he didn't, and knew No were more likely and the Record is spinning a bit here so we can embellish the narrative that Fleet Street and the BBC are desperately trying to get going.


Has it become a point of principle for you exactly when Salmon knew YES had lost? Your posts since thursday have been an embarrassment. If any pro-independence stuff is based on the perspectives that you offer then it's already dead. I don't need to be - in your nationalistic language English or Scottish - to see that. Just politically aware. Any hope for the pro-independence movement lies in moving away from people like you and views that people like you hold.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 24, 2014)

No, it has become a principle of me not to trust the Daily Record or to attach any authority to it.  The opposite in fact.  Nationalist?  Get a grip, it is not nationalist to talk about Scots as a minority in the UK.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 24, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I think no were more confident of victory, but there was a feeling in yes that we might do it.  I know some activists were very confident, depending where they were, but they do not see the canvass returns.  I think the postal voting was a bit dodgy, if I am honest.  I think a lot of people who do not live and work in Scotland voted here, and there really needs to be better verification that I am who I say I am, where I say I am when I get a polling card.  Not that would make a huge difference, but I know the extract of the electoral roll I was given had a lot of errors in it.



This is absolutely disgusting and not surprising. It was the foreigners and the working people who are forced to work away that lost it eh? Nice. 

What do you propose people use to provide better verification? Maybe everyone should have an ID card or maybe only people who can afford a license or a passport should be able to vote eh?

Or maybe you should just accept that 10% more Scottish people decided independence wasn't for them on the day.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 24, 2014)

Eh?  I never said they were foreigners, were not Scottish, I never even said they voted no.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 24, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, who knows.  But one thing I'm absolutely sure of is that both sides had given the press a preview of their likely victory speech before 10pm.




Had they both given any preview of their possible _concession_ speeches though?


----------



## toggle (Sep 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> This is absolutely disgusting and not surprising. It was the foreigners and the working people who are forced to work away that lost it eh? Nice.
> 
> What do you propose people use to provide better verification? Maybe everyone should have an ID card or maybe only people who can afford a license or a passport should be able to vote eh?
> 
> Or maybe you should just accept that 10% more Scottish people decided independence wasn't for them on the day.



i wouldn't be surprised to hear about dodgy postal voting. round here, ti's second home owners plural voting.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 24, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Eh?  I never said they were foreigners, were not Scottish, I never even said they voted no.


It's obvious what you meant though


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Eh?  I never said they were foreigners, were not Scottish, I never even said they voted no.


You didn't have to. Does Dog whistle racism +loonery =45. I do hope not.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 24, 2014)

toggle said:


> i wouldn't be surprised to hear about dodgy postal voting. round here, ti's second home owners plural voting.


thats not dodgy though it's perfectly legal


----------



## toggle (Sep 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> thats not dodgy though it's perfectly legal



plural voting is not legal.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2014)

We're overloaded with evidence here tonight - let's do it slowly.

What's first?


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You didn't have to. Does Dog whistle racism +loonery =45. I do hope not.



Well, why not just make guesses or pick up a copy of the Record?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 24, 2014)

toggle said:


> plural voting is not legal.


What the?

http://www.electoralcommission.org....mes.-can-i-register-to-vote-at-both-addresses


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's obvious what you meant though



Not really, it is likely that it was more no, but I was thinking people from Scotland who have moved, and also plural voting.  It is pretty easy to get your name on the electoral roll.  People from other countries I have spoken to are surprised about that.  Doubt it made a difference in the end.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Well, why not just make guesses or pick up a copy of the Record?


That's what english people who are posh do.

Note: btw: scotland is 45% working class and 55% working class. That's it. Odd country.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 24, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Not really, it is likely that it was more no, but I was thinking people from Scotland who have moved, and also plural voting.  It is pretty easy to get your name on the electoral roll.  People from other countries I have spoken to are surprised about that.  Doubt it made a difference in the end.


So you accept you were wrong? FairPlay.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What the?
> 
> http://www.electoralcommission.org....mes.-can-i-register-to-vote-at-both-addresses





> it is an offence to vote twice in the same type of election e.g. voting twice in a general election.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Not really, it is likely that it was more no, but I was thinking people from Scotland who have moved, and also plural voting.  It is pretty easy to get your name on the electoral roll.  People from other countries I have spoken to are surprised about that.  Doubt it made a difference in the end.


You lying bastard, you meant no voters - and by no voters you meant not real scots.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 24, 2014)

Whose talking about General elections?


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You lying bastard, you meant no voters - and by no voters you meant not real scots.



Did I? What the fuck? This is just rehashed bullshit from the press. I am not saying a majority of Scots voted for independence. I just don't have a problem with looking at the UK in terms of national interests. That's not to say, Scots feel the national interest of Scotland is not within the UK. I just don't see it that way.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Did I?  What the fuck?  This is just rehashed bullshit from the press.  I am not saying a majority of Scots voted for independence.  I just don't have a problem with looking at the UK in terms of national interests.  That's not to say, Scots feel the national interest of Scotland is not within the UK.  I just don't see it that way.


Do any of your posts ever relate to the ones you're supposed to be replying to? Is everyone else just_ rehashed bullshit from the press_? Wtf are you even on about?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Or maybe you should just accept that 10% more Scottish people decided independence wasn't for them on the day.


actually, from the polling data that statement would look to be wrong. That has the vote among those born in Scotland at being evenly split for those voting in person, and 49/51% split for those voting by post.

The vote among the none Scottish UK born was 3:1 against, and 3:2 against for those born outside the UK.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do any of your posts ever relate to the ones you're supposed to be replying to? Is everyone else just_ rehashed bullshit from the press_? Wtf are you even on about?



This bullshit about thinking real Scots vote yes.

http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/john-reid-patriotism-claims-are-insulting/

Labour made this 'point' again and again.  Its bullshit when they spout it, and bullshit when you spout it.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 24, 2014)

free spirit said:


> actually, from the polling data that statement would look to be wrong. That has the vote among those born in Scotland at being evenly split for those voting in person, and 49/51% split for those voting by post.
> 
> The vote among the none Scottish UK born was 3:1 against, and 3:2 against for those born outside the UK.



Aye, but that was on a poll that was favourable to yes.  The non-Scots born population is close to 10%-15%, so it was closer among the Scots born, but No may have still carried it.  Still, I reckon it is more an income/wealth/age thing.  Most rUK migrants are not kitchen porters from Liverpool.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 24, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Aye, but that was on a poll that was favourable to yes.  The non-Scots born population is close to 10%-15%, so it was closer among the Scots born, but No may have still carried it.


22% according to the weighting data at the end of that polling report.

Yes that polling data does show the scots born voters narrowly voted against independence, but only by 49% to 51%.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 24, 2014)

2011 Census had 83% of population born in Scotland.  Maybe it is higher for voting age.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 25, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> 2011 Census had 83% of population born in Scotland.  Maybe it is higher for voting age.


I suppose that the children of none scottish born residents would themselves mostly be scottish born, which might account for the difference.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 25, 2014)

Oh god, don't play the game.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 25, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Aye, but that was on a poll that was favourable to yes.  The non-Scots born population is close to 10%-15%, so it was closer among the Scots born, but No may have still carried it.  Still, I reckon it is more an income/wealth/age thing.  Most rUK migrants are not kitchen porters from Liverpool.



How about those born outside the UK? And maybe you could do better than 'I reckon'. You've been doing a lot of reckoning on this thread and much of it has been wrong.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2014)

free spirit said:


> actually, from the polling data that statement would look to be wrong. That has the vote among those born in Scotland at being evenly split for those voting in person, and 49/51% split for those voting by post.
> 
> The vote among the none Scottish UK born was 3:1 against, and 3:2 against for those born outside the UK.


Sorry not sure how that answers the point you quoted unless you feel you can't belong to a country unless born there


----------



## free spirit (Sep 25, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Sorry not sure how that answers the point you quoted unless you feel you can't belong to a country unless born there


would the majority of english born residents in scotland self identify as English or Scottish?

Most people identify themselves as being from where they were born and/or brought up, not where they happen to be living. Try telling a Scot in London that they're no longer actually scottish because they now live in London.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 25, 2014)

free spirit said:


> would the majority of english born residents in scotland self identify as English or Scottish?
> 
> Most people identify themselves as being from where they were born and/or brought up, not where they happen to be living. Try telling a Scot in London that they're no longer actually scottish because they now live in London.


We're looking at vote not ID here.

(and how one nation been done  wrong  by another - nationalism we used to call it on the left)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2014)

free spirit said:


> would the majority of english born residents in scotland self identify as English or Scottish



Not sure it's my or your place to decide what peoples nationality should be


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 25, 2014)

free spirit said:


> would the majority of english born residents in scotland self identify as English or Scottish?
> 
> Most people identify themselves as being from where they were born and/or brought up, not where they happen to be living. Try telling a Scot in London that they're no longer actually scottish because they now live in London.


Well, this is one of the reasons why basing your politics on nationalism is such a non-starter. I'm Welsh. But I haven't lived in Wales for more than two decades. I've lived in England for most of that time. I still think of myself as Welsh, because as you say, that's where I was born and grew up. But in terms of involving myself in politics, where I live now is where matters. Whether or not a person is 'Scottish' is irrelevant. If they live in a place, that is the place where their voice deserves, and should demand, to be heard wrt the place's politics. 

The talk of 'what it means to be a true Scot' that came from both sides during debates leading up to the referendum stank. It really fucking stank. We were back to Norman fucking Tebbitt and his moronic 'cricket test'.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 25, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Not sure it's my or your place to decide what peoples nationality should be


it was a referendum of scottish residents, not scottish people. Lots of scots weren't eligible to vote due to living outside scotland, lots of english and other nationalities were eligible to vote due to living in scotland, nowt wrong with that, but it gets a bit confusing if you then refer to everyone in scotland as being scottish people.

Now maybe I misunderstood your post, as I thought you had specifically chosen to refer to the scottish people and how they voted, and the term scottish people has a pretty common understanding as being actual scottish born / bred people.

eg from wiki


> In modern use, "Scottish people" or "Scots" is used to refer to anyone whose linguistic, cultural, family ancestral or genetic origins are from within Scotland.


----------



## Humberto (Sep 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> We're looking at vote not ID here.
> 
> (and how one nation been done  wrong  by another - nationalism we used to call it on the left)



A nation being wronged deserved attention unless I have misunderstood.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well, this is one of the reasons why basing your politics on nationalism is such a non-starter. I'm Welsh. But I haven't lived in Wales for more than two decades. I've lived in England for most of that time. I still think of myself as Welsh, because as you say, that's where I was born and grew up. But in terms of involving myself in politics, where I live now is where matters. Whether or not a person is 'Scottish' is irrelevant. If they live in a place, that is the place where their voice deserves, and should demand, to be heard wrt the place's politics.
> 
> The talk of 'what it means to be a true Scot' that came from both sides during debates leading up to the referendum stank. It really fucking stank. We were back to Norman fucking Tebbitt and his moronic 'cricket test'.


I wasn't basing my politics on nationalism, just attempting some level of accuracy in what's being discussed.

maybe it's just the geographer / statistician in me, but when certain terms have certain specific understood meanings, then others start using them to mean something different it gets a bit confusing to attempt a rational discussion of the subject.

Nationality was clearly a significant factor in how people voted though, a 51/49 split vs a 74:26 split is a statistically significant difference between the Scottish born and rUk born voters.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 25, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Not sure it's my or your place to decide what peoples nationality should be


One further point on nationality - those who're born in a country are automatically entitled to citizenship and passport from that country, those who have parents from other countries may also claim dual citizenship with their parents country, but those who have both parents also born in the same country as them would only ever be legally entitled to citizenship and passport from that country alone (although other countries could choose to grant them naturalised citizenship).

so everyone who was born in scotland would have been legally entitled to a scottish passport if it had declared independence, whereas those from elsewhere who just happened to live in scotland may or may not have been allowed to be given a scottish passport at the discretion of the scottish government, if they wanted one/

Being entitled to a scottish passport as a birth right would be a good definition of being a scottish person, as opposed to someone who wouldn't be automatically entitled to that passport (if there actually had been a scottish passport).

So there is a specific internationally agreed legal basis on which to determine nationality, which was the convention I was assuming would be being used when discussing the issue and referring to 'scottish people'. So if it's not mine or your place to decide this, let's just use international convention rather than unilaterally deciding that convention doesn't apply here for some reason.

Hopefully that's cleared that one up.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 25, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I just don't have a problem with looking at the UK in terms of national interests.


And that's where you lose me. You had a go at LBJ on another thread for saying that you were making a nationalist argument not a socialist one but he's right. Now that's fine, if you believe in the Nationalist argument by all means make it but don't pretend it's something it's not.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How about those born outside the UK? And maybe you could do better than 'I reckon'. You've been doing a lot of reckoning on this thread and much of it has been wrong.



That would include people born outside Scotland. It is the 2011 census results.  The 22% would be those of voting age, you don't realise that because you have not thought about the types of people that migrate, but want to insult me.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 25, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> And that's where you lose me. You had a go at LBJ on another thread for saying that you were making a nationalist argument not a socialist one but he's right. Now that's fine, if you believe in the Nationalist argument by all means make it but don't pretend it's something it's not.



Understanding the concept of national interests does not make someone a nationalist.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 25, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Understanding the concept of national interests does not make someone a nationalist.


No that's true but you've been using those "national interests" as an argument for an independent Scotland.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 25, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Understanding the concept of national interests does not make someone a nationalist.



Arguing that it should be followed no matter what does. August 4th 1914 - all you nationalist socialists made sure ww1 happened.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 25, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> No that's true but you've been using those "national interests" as an argument for an independent Scotland.



Did I?  I am sure butchersapron will be able to find some post and tell you that is what I have done.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Arguing that it should be followed no matter what does. August 4th 1914 - all you nationalist socialists made sure ww1 happened.



I'm a Nazi.  Right.  Classy.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 25, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I'm a Nazi.  Right.  Classy.


A  nazi from ww1._Your problem now._


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> A  nazi from ww1._Your problem now._



A nazi from ww1.  My god, the depths you have now reached.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> I'm a Nazi.  Right.  Classy.



Er no he's calling you a nationalist socialist, not a national socialist


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 25, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Did I?  I am sure butchersapron will be able to find some post and tell you that is what I have done.





DairyQueen said:


> ... or YOU can accept that convincing the Scottish population to vote for independence won't happen in two years, and that to achieve 45% of the vote considering the massive institutional prejudice (the press being the most obvious) the campaign overrall was an achievement.  Scots are only now grasping these issues, and how we want to be governed, our politics will be formed over time.  I think there is more positives that we, as a country, can take from this campaign.  It was people power like I have never seen.  The state hates us, and will be unwilling to change anything.



From here, that's a nationalist argument.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 1, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Let us suppose for the moment that you are right, and Scotland is in receipt of a net subsidy from London (your claim is not that it is from the rest of the UK, but from London) – you are not right (See for example: 1., 2.), but let us for a moment suppose you are – what do you think is the fundamental difference between Scotland, a country you imply uniquely incapable of providing an economy to sustain its populace, unlike the other countries its size and smaller?  Why is Scotland incapable of making a go of it?
> 
> The truth is that if there is indeed a net subsidy from London – if, mark you – then this is a state of affairs Scotland finds itself in _as part of the Union_.  The Scotland we see today is a Scotland that is part of the UK, a product of 300 years of Union.  Why then do you not decry the Union, rather than insisting Scotland is incapable of independence? The Union is clearly failing Scotland if it has reduced it to such a level of dependency, unlike the other independent countries its size and smaller.
> 
> ...





How will all those things in London be emblazoned? "Paid for by everyone else"?


----------



## pogofish (Mar 1, 2015)

That idea *will* come back to bite them badly IMO.

Not least because it could well draw attention to all the neglected/underfunded works in Scotland that Westminister turned a blind-eye to for decades.

Then the near-certainty that whenever a sign appears, its modification won't be far behind!


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 1, 2015)

The Government is trolling us. 

We are, after all, UK taxpayers here, too. This seems to suggest all our stuff is paid for by other people. Which is not only incoherent nonsense, it is divisive incoherent nonsense.


----------



## brogdale (May 3, 2015)

Interesting comments (admission?) from Darling:-


> Alistair Darling, who is standing down as an MP at the election, gives an interview to the Times in which he questions whether the scars left by the independence referendum will ever heal. He also argues that the referendum campaign has fundamentally altered the public mood. “Scotland has been in a state of election since about 2010, and all that electioneering has raised people’s hopes and expectations against a background of austerity. It’s the backwash of the financial crisis and *if you ask me what is happening, a lot of people in Scotland just want change, they want things to be better.”*


----------



## Quartz (May 3, 2015)

Hopefully we'll get change on Friday morning. But not the change the SNP wants.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 18, 2015)

So, one year gone.
How long till the next? Wonder what position Corbyn will take?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 18, 2015)

Remember how just over a year ago today Gordon Brown and David Cameron promised instant devo max


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So, one year gone.
> How long till the next? Wonder what position Corbyn will take?



A long time I suspect.  It will be interesting to see what Sturgeon comes up with regarding events that would trigger another referendum beyond the EU stuff.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Remember how just over a year ago today Gordon Brown and David Cameron promised instant devo max


Almost like they didn't really mean it...?

The "vow"


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2015)

the stick looked like it might not suffice so they got brown out to offer a measly, infested carrot


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2015)




----------



## Teaboy (Sep 18, 2015)

How much does the surge in support for the SNP translate into support for independence?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 18, 2015)

Scots look after their own better than anyone else. Foreign politicians make bad gatekeepers. Sorry to say the obvious but it's often ignored.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 18, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> How much does the surge in support for the SNP translate into support for independence?



53% now in favour, according to the latest Mori poll, which is probably why the SNP's gone on the offensive. Though I doubt they think for a second they'll get it, this is pretty much just showboating for their supporters and brinkmanship with Westminster to try and pull in a few more concessions.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2015)

I suppose one question would be how much of the SNP's recent surge was down to dissafected Slab voters who finally had enough after seeing Darling and co in action, standing 'never had a real job' Jim etc

Based on noting at all other than what I recon, I think it'll hold up.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 18, 2015)

Thing is, on the face of it the argument for independence looks less strong than it did 12 months ago, well certainly the economic argument.  The proposed currency union looks a decidedly risky thing to do (certainly for the smaller economy) having seen Greece flushed down the toilet, the price of oil has slumped making the SNP's already optimistic income figures look total pie in the sky and there is no sign of that changing in the immediate future.  The job losses that have been linked to the oil industry have been bad, I've read that 5,000 direct and 65,000 indirect oil industry jobs have been lost. All this has also affected the tax take, which is at its lowest for 40 years.

I know that it was said here a lot that independence was more a heart thing then cold economic forecasting but at the moment I cannot see a good economic argument for independence.  That being said the people who make economic arguments are normally dicks so I've come full circle.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So, one year gone.
> How long till the next? Wonder what position Corbyn will take?



Corbyn = not keen on Scottish independence, although I think he said some nice fluffy thing like 'but if that's ends up being what people really really want etc...

Sorry for brevity, shouldn't really be on here right now.


----------



## steeplejack (Sep 18, 2015)

There's precious little point calling for another referendum until;

1. the people of Scotland demonstrate that they actually want it (easy to conflate "people of Scotland" with "noisy Yessers on social media")

*or*

2. there is some serious material change (rUK votes to get out of EU, Osborne passes the Slaughter of the Innocents (Firstborn) Act

3. The pro-Yes camp sorts itself out a little; i.e. the pro-Yes movement should not be broadly SNP, but a range of voices with different views on how to take Scotland forward post- yes-vote. Yes Scotland turned out to be a very troubled model last time.

I see today also that Patrick Harvie is calling for no further referendum until the currency issue is properly researched and sorted out, as it really hampered Yes last time around. If another referendum is held soon on what was a pisspoor economic programme then it will be lost, again.

I very much doubt there will be another referendum before the 2020s and it is pointless speculating what social conditions might look like then, beyond the obvious fact that they will be worse for most working people.

Few in the yes camp beyond Tommy's Solidarity lot and the right wing of the SNP are actually calling for a re-run as soon as possible, and these small factions have no influence on the decision making process anyway. 

A lot of work needs to be done tactically before the next referendum is called, otherwise it will just waste everyone's time.


----------

