They say the effect of changing the weighting appears to account for approximately 6.5 of the 10.8 points of apparent reduction in the “No” lead compared with the previous Survation poll.
In other words had it only been a 4 or 5 or 6 point reduction in the No lead then the polling would be unchanged from the last time and the effect of the Osborne blitz would have been zero. Still no boost for all that effort.
It wasn't a 4 or 5 or 6 point reduction though, was it? It was 10.8 which still means a clear 4.3 reduction in No and still a telling swing from No to Yes. Which was precisely why those of us who knew there had been methodology changes pointed to the size of the reduction in the No lead in the first place since it is clear that there was no way all of it could be accounted for by just the methodology change.
Thankfully the shriekers won't care about that and this should see them all the more determined to keep on with their Osbornegasm for another week and hopefully even longer as they completely fail to understand that, the significance of the TNS differential figures and the inevitable effect doubling down on the negativity will have.
A 2.15% swing isn't a telling swing.
Off the back of the No campaign's biggest publicity and media moves to date it certainly is. Just as no change in the swing would have been telling or a swing to No would have been telling. Sorry, but there's simply no way that poll can be read as a vindication for Osborne and Cameron no matter how much some PB tories might wish it. Nor are the TNS differential figures anything other than a bodyblow for a No campaign which has had a truly dire presence on the ground thus far.
Let's face it Osborne had no choice. None of the main parties has a choice
The party that gives an independent Scotland a say on sterling would be eviscerated at the RUK polls.
Why? Most people in the Uk support a currency union with an independent Scotland. Jersey/Guernsey/Man have a currency union – and they aren't even in the EU, never mind the UK. It's a silly debate.
In the May 2011 election for the Scottish Parliament, half of Scottish people voted and the other half did not vote. Can you remember whether you voted in that particular election? Voted: 74 Did Not: 23 DK: 3
And who were the voters 'driven into the Yes camp by the currency bullying (sic)'
Made me (much/somewhat) more likely to vote 'Yes': 'No' (%)
Let's face it Osborne had no choice. None of the main parties has a choice
The party that gives an independent Scotland a say on sterling would be eviscerated at the RUK polls.
Why? Most people in the Uk support a currency union with an independent Scotland. Jersey/Guernsey/Man have a currency union – and they aren't even in the EU, never mind the UK. It's a silly debate.
Wasn't there a poll suggesting otherwise, I thought over 50% opposed, with ~20% support.
I think all that can possibly be said about a currency union has been said. It's not the be all and end all of the debate but the approach taken to it by the unionist parties has not been to their credit (nor has it yet been to their advantage).
In the May 2011 election for the Scottish Parliament, half of Scottish people voted and the other half did not vote. Can you remember whether you voted in that particular election? Voted: 74 Did Not: 23 DK: 3
And who were the voters 'driven into the Yes camp by the currency bullying (sic)'
Made me (much/somewhat) more likely to vote 'Yes': 'No' (%)
Let's face it Osborne had no choice. None of the main parties has a choice
The party that gives an independent Scotland a say on sterling would be eviscerated at the RUK polls.
Why? Most people in the Uk support a currency union with an independent Scotland. Jersey/Guernsey/Man have a currency union – and they aren't even in the EU, never mind the UK. It's a silly debate.
Recent polling shows people in RUK don't want the Scots to even use the pound, let alone be in a currency union with an Independent Scotand.
I think why people are opposed to it in RUK is that Scotland has a large banking sector, in a way the Crown Dependencies do not, and the banks that were bailed out recently had Scottish sounding names, they don't want to go through that again, as we'd be the ones bailing them out again.
Survation have now published their note on methodological changes.
The lead for No has been reduced by 10.8%, compared to the previous poll. Of this, 6.5% is due to weighting changes (SNP supporters are weighted up from 30% to 37%) and 4.3% is a shift in opinion.
......the change in methodology means that the results of our most recent Scottish poll should not be described as showing changes in public opinion compared to our previous Scottish poll
Oh dear.......as some of us pointed out well before the Eckgasm took over......but it didn't last long....
The trend does show a tightening of the race. But, one has to distinguish between a shift in public opinion and methodological changes.
yes - but several posters were talking wildly of huge swings - not something this poll supports....
You mean Seant?
PB Unionists welcome pollster increasing accuracy to show big swing to Yes, happy days.
Indeed.
Or as our PB tory chums would have it..
Triumph for Osborne!
LOL
Pork, again: You say the tories shot themselves in the foot by rejecting AV and clinging to fptp.
No, I didn't. I personally opposed AV because it was a miserable little compromise ill-suited to a GE. Real PR I would have not just supported but gone out and campaigned for.
The tories problems with the kippers wouldn't go away with AV. They would intensify. Cammie can barely keep his party together as it is.
If you still think Labour need scotland for the numbers then I'm afraid the actual historic record simply doesn't back that up.
It would still be a crushing blow for them for many other reasons but it's certainly no magic bullet for any dreams of easy tory majorities after a Yes vote.
Guess they should have thought things through before they buggered around with the constitution.
TBF they did think they were 'killing nationalism stone dead', and devolution was pretty much promised to Dewar & SLAB. If they hadn't gone through with it that may have resulted in a p!ssed-off SLAB and an SNP stirring up further discontent. It might have ended up better for Unionism, it might not.
Let's face it Osborne had no choice. None of the main parties has a choice
The party that gives an independent Scotland a say on sterling would be eviscerated at the RUK polls.
Why? Most people in the Uk support a currency union with an independent Scotland. Jersey/Guernsey/Man have a currency union – and they aren't even in the EU, never mind the UK. It's a silly debate.
Let's face it Osborne had no choice. None of the main parties has a choice
The party that gives an independent Scotland a say on sterling would be eviscerated at the RUK polls.
Why? Most people in the Uk support a currency union with an independent Scotland. Jersey/Guernsey/Man have a currency union – and they aren't even in the EU, never mind the UK. It's a silly debate.
Nope. Wrong on both counts.
The most recent YouGov had opposition to a shared pound running at 58:23
Jersey/Guernsey/IOM are NOT in currency Unions with the UK.
But apart from that, weren't you going to tell us how 'Ed will save the Union'? After all, electorally its much more in his interests than those you so frequently and freely criticise.
Guess they should have thought things through before they buggered around with the constitution.
TBF they did think they were 'killing nationalism stone dead', and devolution was pretty much promised to Dewar & SLAB. If they hadn't gone through with it that may have resulted in a p!ssed-off SLAB and an SNP stirring up further discontent. That might have ended up better for Unionism, it may not.
They shouldn't have done a half-arsed job. Proper federalism for all four countries of the UK would have been much better.
Survation have now published their note on methodological changes.
The lead for No has been reduced by 10.8%, compared to the previous poll. Of this, 6.5% is due to weighting changes (SNP supporters are weighted up from 30% to 37%) and 4.3% is a shift in opinion.
......the change in methodology means that the results of our most recent Scottish poll should not be described as showing changes in public opinion compared to our previous Scottish poll
Oh dear.......as some of us pointed out well before the Eckgasm took over......but it didn't last long....
It still shows a move to Yes, just not quite as pronounced.
It may have hardened SNP supporters resolve - there is no evidence the 'currency bullying' (sic) has shifted other voters in favour of independence.....
Guess they should have thought things through before they buggered around with the constitution.
TBF they did think they were 'killing nationalism stone dead', and devolution was pretty much promised to Dewar & SLAB. If they hadn't gone through with it that may have resulted in a p!ssed-off SLAB and an SNP stirring up further discontent. That might have ended up better for Unionism, it may not.
They shouldn't have done a half-arsed job. Proper federalism for all four countries of the UK would have been much better.
Governments doing half-arsed jobs on the constitution? I don't believe it!
Guess they should have thought things through before they buggered around with the constitution.
TBF they did think they were 'killing nationalism stone dead', and devolution was pretty much promised to Dewar & SLAB. If they hadn't gone through with it that may have resulted in a p!ssed-off SLAB and an SNP stirring up further discontent. That might have ended up better for Unionism, it might not.
Well I'd certainly agree that Labour called it wrong. Salmond also played a blinder in getting Labour to keep their focus on an exhausted Conservative party while he went from strength to strength in their own backyard.
We have not seen what the currency issue does to VI - the fieldwork is before this. Why thy are quite so slow getting the poll out I don't know.
I'm still confused after seeing several posts about this. Isn't the position that TNS was before the currency debate but Survation was afterwards?
Indeed. And the most telling thing about the TNS are the differential figures which are somewhat unlikely to be changed radically in favour of the No campaign by Osborne's currency intervention.
Guess they should have thought things through before they buggered around with the constitution.
TBF they did think they were 'killing nationalism stone dead', and devolution was pretty much promised to Dewar & SLAB. If they hadn't gone through with it that may have resulted in a p!ssed-off SLAB and an SNP stirring up further discontent. That might have ended up better for Unionism, it may not.
They shouldn't have done a half-arsed job. Proper federalism for all four countries of the UK would have been much better.
The only problem being that noone in England seemed to want devolution. You cant blame :Labour for not inflicting a constitutional position England didnt want on the English people.
I don't know why pb tories or posters from the right of centre get so worked up about a independent Scotland,the union is a unhappy marriage,just like England and the new EU.
Leave the unionist cause to pb labourites,it's on the labour party that will come worst out of a yes vote,let them fight for a part of Britain that in voting terms,the red team need.
''It would still be a crushing blow for them for many other reasons but it's certainly no magic bullet for any dreams of easy tory majorities after a Yes vote.''
True but if you win the problems for labour could start before 2015.
Will Ed risk driving his foreign citizens through Westminster lobbies against the government if you win? Will the lib dems want to be seen to be voting with foreigners??
Whatever the merits of the situation, the tories might make much of that.
In a matter of months you could be driving MPs from a Foreign Country through Westminster lobbies to defeat English conservative bills....
Scottish representation at Westminster will end with independence.
And that is timetabled well after the 2015 GE - For betting purposes it has zero effect on the slim chance of Conservative Majority but it does decrease the chance of a Labour Majority (SNPers more likely to be elected at the expense of SLAB)
In the May 2011 election for the Scottish Parliament, half of Scottish people voted and the other half did not vote. Can you remember whether you voted in that particular election? Voted: 74 Did Not: 23 DK: 3
And who were the voters 'driven into the Yes camp by the currency bullying (sic)'
Made me (much/somewhat) more likely to vote 'Yes': 'No' (%)
So the "Currency bullying" has only made SNP voters more likely to vote for independence.....everyone else.....less....
Actually, it made them not more likely to vote yes, not more likely to vote no ;-)
Since we're picking nits....and this question was asked of those who intend to vote, while there is a possibility that instead of voting yes, they now intend to spoil their ballot paper, the more likely interpretation is that they will vote no.....of course ±50%+ said it made no difference to their vote.....
In the May 2011 election for the Scottish Parliament, half of Scottish people voted and the other half did not vote. Can you remember whether you voted in that particular election? Voted: 74 Did Not: 23 DK: 3
And who were the voters 'driven into the Yes camp by the currency bullying (sic)'
Made me (much/somewhat) more likely to vote 'Yes': 'No' (%)
So the "Currency bullying" has only made SNP voters more likely to vote for independence.....everyone else.....less....
Actually, it made them not more likely to vote yes, not more likely to vote no ;-)
Since we're picking nits....and this question was asked of those who intend to vote, while there is a possibility that instead of voting yes, they now intend to spoil their ballot paper, the more likely interpretation is that they will vote no.....of course ±50%+ said it made no difference to their vote.....
Oh I misread the Yes:No bit on the poll question, sorry!
Mr. Carnyx, I also agree it is unlikely to occur (although it could be a sensible alternative to the possible insanity of having Scottish MPs on both sides of the negotiating table). However, if the proposal were laid down and Labour/the Lib Dems voted against it then come the election that would be a very significant issue.
Or indeed come the elections (plural). A real dilemma for a monolithic Labour party without a separate Scottish organization.
UKIP: "...we want to know from Mr Clegg that Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband are invited as well and that he has in mind a comprehensive and live leaders’ debate on a major broadcast outlet."
The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.
Re: Clegg's invitation to debate with Farage. Clearly Clegg thinks that cementing in the voters minds, the principle that the LDs are the main party advocating the EC is a winner. Of course he may be overlooking the 40%+ of his voters who actually would vote to leave the EC. Just one of those unforeseen consequences?
I do wonder if this might help the LD candidates in the EU Parliament elections, while hurting the LD candidates in the local elections.
There's a niche of voters who are fervently committed to the EU, so it makes sense for the Lib Dems to target them.
There's a tipping point (at about 10% of the vote) where the Lib Dems go from having 8 or 9 MEPs to having just 1 or 2. It's vital for them to remain above that tipping point.
I agree that it makes sense for the Lib Dems to target pro-EU voters in the Euros. However their PPB for the Euros was a disaster. They've taken a battering in the polls due to their allegience at Westminster with the Tories. The great advantage about the Euros is they aren't in coalition with the Tories in Brussels. So who do we get fronting the PPB? Yep, Mr Popularity, Nick Clegg himself. If they'd focussed on their MEPs and what they actually do it would have helped. The strength of the party's brand - nice ordinary campaigners who are more 'normal' than Labour or Tory politicians, who are constructively working in Brussels for Britain's benefit although yeah it's difficult at times and there's lots of compromises blah blah - could have worked for them. It appears Clegg's vanity demanded he be at the centre of things himself, even though he elecotral poison.
There's a striking difference if you compare the advert to that used by Labour in the 2005 general election campaign, when another leader accused of being a narcissist, Tony Blair, didn't feature. He, or certainly the party, appeared to realise he'd lost his lustre. I can only assume there is no-one in Lib Dem central office who'll stand up to Clegg or they're just completely clueless. I'd be furious if I was a Lib Dem MEP.
''Scotland wont be independent until the necessary legislation is passed. ''
I don;t know whether you're avoiding the question, but if you think Ed Milliband using his Scotsmen in Westminster in the interim period between yes and independence will go unnoticed I think you are very, very wrong.
He will in effect be using foreigners to decide the fate of a country they no longer a part of. '
The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.
The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.
I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)
It might well be, now that Patrick O'Flynn has derailed my thread.
There will be nothing to stop David Cameron laying a Parliament Act bill before the HoC in October after the summer recess disqualifying all 59 Scottish constituencies as from the Dissolution of the 2010 Parliament. If it is passed as it will be by English, Welsh and Ulster MPs, it becomes the law and Scotland ceases to have Westminster MPs from March 2015. The courts would not have authority to overturn any legislation passed under the Parliament Act. Any attempt in the courts could take longer to be resolved than the independence negotiations.
The logical thing would be to do a deal with Holyrood whereby from May next year until the date of Independence, the 56 regional Scottish MSPs could be delegated by Holyrood to attend Westminster and vote on any UK legislation which needs a Scottish input.
Interesting suggestion, thanks though whether Labour and the LDs would sign up to it I am not sure. I also doubt it would happen in quite that way because the list MSPs are probably not typical of the parliament as a whole (disproportionately Labour IIRC). .
Edit: And also Tory - Ms Davidson is a List MSP IIRC.
Carnyx the reason I suggest the List MSPs is firstly because there are almost exactly the same number as Scottish Westminster MPs (3 fewer) and secondly, they are more representative of the voting intentions of the Scots in 2011 i.e. they saved the bacon of the 3 unionist parties who lost a great many of their constituency seats to the SNP. It also gives the Greens and Margo a say.
In the year 2015-16 it is hard to see Westminster passing much legislation which would actually take effect before Independence, given that most legislation comes into force a year or so after the Royal Assent. As a Scot, if we do vote for Independence, I feel uncomfortable at the prospect of MPs representing Scottish constituencies potentially being on the rUK side of the discussions. They must have a major conflict of interest.
Thanks. My distinct memory was that the SNP were badly underrepresented in the List MSPs but if I am wrong I happily stand to be corrected. I'm still unhappy about taxation without representation, etc., but as EWNI is a majority anyway ... It also avoids the potential problem of those MPs having an interest in spinning things out or even derailing negotiations. And public views on people getting pensions for an incomplete job.
Anyway some of the other suggestions o the thread are also interesting.
The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.
I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)
It might well be, now that Patrick O'Flynn has derailed my thread.
I'd get that "why the Ukraine is bad news for Ed Miliband" thread out quick before Dan beats you to it.
Survation have now published their note on methodological changes.
The lead for No has been reduced by 10.8%, compared to the previous poll. Of this, 6.5% is due to weighting changes (SNP supporters are weighted up from 30% to 37%) and 4.3% is a shift in opinion.
......the change in methodology means that the results of our most recent Scottish poll should not be described as showing changes in public opinion compared to our previous Scottish poll
Oh dear.......as some of us pointed out well before the Eckgasm took over......but it didn't last long....
It still shows a move to Yes, just not quite as pronounced.
It may have hardened SNP supporters resolve - there is no evidence the 'currency bullying' (sic) has shifted other voters in favour of independence.....
Survation Independence poll shows 10.8 point reduction in No lead. Which even after methodology changes is still a 4.3 point reduction in the No lead and a swing to Yes.
I award you the sturttruth memorial video for refusing to see the bleeding obvious.
Mr. Carnyx, I also agree it is unlikely to occur (although it could be a sensible alternative to the possible insanity of having Scottish MPs on both sides of the negotiating table). However, if the proposal were laid down and Labour/the Lib Dems voted against it then come the election that would be a very significant issue.
. A real dilemma for a monolithic Labour party
The Labour Party of Falkirk was hardly what you'd call "monolithic"! "Sack of ferrets" nearer the mark......
Given that the question has been put to the people then Westminster's hands are somewhat tied. I mean Westminster *could* have legislated to introduce AV after it was defeated in the referendum but that would have been very silly, wouldnt it? Westminster *could* seek to delay the Scottish Government's arrangements for formalising independence but it would also be very silly.
It would still be a crushing blow for them for many other reasons but it's certainly no magic bullet for any dreams of easy tory majorities after a Yes vote.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but I'll happily settle for the crushing blow as against the illusory benefits of ther union.
The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.
I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)
It might well be, now that Patrick O'Flynn has derailed my thread.
I'd get that "why the Ukraine is bad news for Ed Miliband" thread out quick before Dan beats you to it.
There will be nothing to stop David Cameron laying a Parliament Act bill before the HoC in October after the summer recess disqualifying all 59 Scottish constituencies as from the Dissolution of the 2010 Parliament.
Presumably David Cameron could lay all sorts of bills before the HoC in October after a yes, daring Milli to use his Scottish 'troops of occupation' to vote against the bills, and daring the Lib dems to vote with de facto foreigners.
The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.
I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)
It might well be, now that Patrick O'Flynn has derailed my thread.
I'd get that "why the Ukraine is bad news for Ed Miliband" thread out quick before Dan beats you to it.
I'm thinking electoral reform.
Why electoral reform is Scotland is bad news for Ed Miliband ?
Survation have now published their note on methodological changes.
The lead for No has been reduced by 10.8%, compared to the previous poll. Of this, 6.5% is due to weighting changes (SNP supporters are weighted up from 30% to 37%) and 4.3% is a shift in opinion.
......the change in methodology means that the results of our most recent Scottish poll should not be described as showing changes in public opinion compared to our previous Scottish poll
Oh dear.......as some of us pointed out well before the Eckgasm took over......but it didn't last long....
It still shows a move to Yes, just not quite as pronounced.
It may have hardened SNP supporters resolve - there is no evidence the 'currency bullying' (sic) has shifted other voters in favour of independence.....
You may now continue to shriek about passports or whatever it is you think is a winner for No today.
LOL
I understand your embarrassment over your premature Eckgasm....and regret to add to it by pointing out that I've already posted on passports today pointing out that they will be straightforward and theScottish govt has a sensible plan....
Carnyx - I fail to see why Scottish MPs should not continue to have a voice at Westminster so long as Scotland is in the Union. The sensible thing would be to hold the 2015 election as usual and then deseat(?) the Scottish MPs when the independence deal is signed.
Of course with the fixed term parliament act I presume we couldn't immediately head into another GE around 2016-17? Though we could see a change in government - if Labour are in power thanks to Scotland.
BTW for all those insisting all the polling has shown nothing but opposition to a currency union in rUK there was a panelbase poll over a week or so ago that had 63% support IIRC.
It's the 2/5 on a not guilty verdict for Oscar Pistorius that really got me!
Still not as bad as their Obama to get assassinated bet
Their recent highlight of sponsoring a basketball tour to North Korea came close though.
It's almost unethical to be with them but as it's usually taking money from them I'm sure it's justifiable. (Though in their favour they seem to have a better attitude towards FOBT than their competitors.)
Are there any Scottish Conservatives that are pro-independence? I would have thought there would be.
The problem is I suppose that being an indy Tory is the love that dare not breathe its name. Peter de Vink tried and got chucked and is now an indy [in the local gmt sense] councillor in Midlothian, so he did get elected even in that strong Labour/SNP county. Even Murdo Fraser's much milder separation and rebranding of the tories lost him the leadership.
I don't know why pb tories or posters from the right of centre get so worked up about a independent Scotland,the union is a unhappy marriage,just like England and the new EU.
Leave the unionist cause to pb labourites,it's on the labour party that will come worst out of a yes vote,let them fight for a part of Britain that in voting terms,the red team need.
They don't. But there are posters who pretend not to understand that the desire to laugh at Eck is not synonymous with opposition to his policies.
Carnyx - I fail to see why Scottish MPs should not continue to have a voice at Westminster so long as Scotland is in the Union. The sensible thing would be to hold the 2015 election as usual and then deseat(?) the Scottish MPs when the independence deal is signed.
Of course with the fixed term parliament act I presume we couldn't immediately head into another GE around 2016-17? Though we could see a change in government - if Labour are in power thanks to Scotland.
So Ed gets in - spends 12 months dealing with separation then doesn't have the numbers once the 59 have left - loses no confidence motion - new elections..
Given that the question has been put to the people then Westminster's hands are somewhat tied. I mean Westminster *could* have legislated to introduce AV after it was defeated in the referendum but that would have been very silly, wouldnt it? Westminster *could* seek to delay the Scottish Government's arrangements for formalising independence but it would also be very silly.
Clearly it is in no ones interest to seek to delay Scottish independence. That's not to say it may not be in rUK's interest to bring it forward.....why should 92%of the country be mucked around because Eck delayed having his referendum for so long? In any case there is a tiny chance everything (esp EU membership) will be finalised within 18 months. Better to crack on with it than have it drag on acrimoniously
BTW for all those insisting all the polling has shown nothing but opposition to a currency union in rUK there was a panelbase poll over a week or so ago that had 63% support IIRC.
Not this one then.
'THREE months ago people in England and Wales only narrowly opposed a currency union but the latest figures show opposition has now grown from 43 per cent to 58 per cent.'
Survation have now published their note on methodological changes.
The lead for No has been reduced by 10.8%, compared to the previous poll. Of this, 6.5% is due to weighting changes (SNP supporters are weighted up from 30% to 37%) and 4.3% is a shift in opinion.
......the change in methodology means that the results of our most recent Scottish poll should not be described as showing changes in public opinion compared to our previous Scottish poll
Oh dear.......as some of us pointed out well before the Eckgasm took over......but it didn't last long....
It still shows a move to Yes, just not quite as pronounced.
It may have hardened SNP supporters resolve - there is no evidence the 'currency bullying' (sic) has shifted other voters in favour of independence.....
You may now continue to shriek about passports or whatever it is you think is a winner for No today.
LOL
I understand
Do you understand that the week long PB Osbornegasm was hilariously stupid and pointless. No?
Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?
Do you understand just how many points Yes could be behind come September and still win if that TNS differential polling stays anywhere near where it is? No?
So if you somehow think I'm the one who should be worried after that polling and no sign whatsoever of the PB tories or the No campaign learning their lesson on negativity, then you really are deluding yourself.
I'm more than content to watch another 7 months of the deafening and utterly pointless right wing Independence shrieking on PB dominating every thread, not just yet another week of it.
Carnyx - I fail to see why Scottish MPs should not continue to have a voice at Westminster so long as Scotland is in the Union. The sensible thing would be to hold the 2015 election as usual and then deseat(?) the Scottish MPs when the independence deal is signed.
Of course with the fixed term parliament act I presume we couldn't immediately head into another GE around 2016-17? Though we could see a change in government - if Labour are in power thanks to Scotland.
So Ed gets in - spends 12 months dealing with separation then doesn't have the numbers once the 59 have left - loses no confidence motion - new elections..
Possibly. However if Scotland votes Yes, I can see an SNP landslide in the 2015 election (it's certainly a possibility, although trying to predict what will happen in that election in Scotland after a yes vote seems near impossible). Certainly the SNP may be seen as the people who will fight for the best deal for Scotland, so why not vote them into Westminster? If Ed has a majority he's probably safe - if Scotland loses him a net 20 votes in the Commons, just do a deal with the Lib Dems who'll have at least 30 MPs. More interesting would be if there was a Lib Lab coalition from 2015.
I can't see how it would be right to disqualify Scottish MPs when Scots are still paying taxes in the Treasury and haven't yet got their freedom.
BTW for all those insisting all the polling has shown nothing but opposition to a currency union in rUK there was a panelbase poll over a week or so ago that had 63% support IIRC.
Over a week ago
Try December.
And it's Panelbase- gotta check the question:
Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are among each other's largest trading partners. Putting aside your own views on whether or not Scotland should become an independent country, if independence does happen do you think that Scotland and the rest of the UK should continue using the pound in an agreed sterling area?
among each other's largest trading partners?
We do four times the business in Euros and twice the business in dollars as we do with Scotland.....
Carnyx - I fail to see why Scottish MPs should not continue to have a voice at Westminster so long as Scotland is in the Union. The sensible thing would be to hold the 2015 election as usual and then deseat(?) the Scottish MPs when the independence deal is signed.
Of course with the fixed term parliament act I presume we couldn't immediately head into another GE around 2016-17? Though we could see a change in government - if Labour are in power thanks to Scotland.
So Ed gets in - spends 12 months dealing with separation then doesn't have the numbers once the 59 have left - loses no confidence motion - new elections..
12 month will be more than enough time for Mister Market to shred Labour.
Mick - Whatever the polling impact at least people in Scotland will now know how the rUK will react post-independence. It would be unfair to them not to correct Salmond's absurd bluster.
The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.
I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)
Oooh, Yes! We haven'y had a Scottish thread for so long. Another 8 hours of mostly the same people repeating mostly the same things is just what the site needs.
Cammie, Osbrowne, PB Tories, PB Romney, Chorttle, Osbornegasm, Unspoofable, Hilarious, Shrieking etc. etc.
Survation have now published their note on methodological changes.
The lead for No has been reduced by 10.8%, compared to the previous poll. Of this, 6.5% is due to weighting changes (SNP supporters are weighted up from 30% to 37%) and 4.3% is a shift in opinion.
......the change in methodology means that the results of our most recent Scottish poll should not be described as showing changes in public opinion compared to our previous Scottish poll
Oh dear.......as some of us pointed out well before the Eckgasm took over......but it didn't last long....
It still shows a move to Yes, just not quite as pronounced.
It may have hardened SNP supporters resolve - there is no evidence the 'currency bullying' (sic) has shifted other voters in favour of independence.....
You may now continue to shriek about passports or whatever it is you think is a winner for No today.
LOL
I understand
Do you understand that the week long PB Osbornegasm was hilariously stupid and pointless. No?
Osborne isn't the one without a currency plan, or polling showing over half his supporters saying he needs one.
The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.
I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)
Oooh, Yes! We haven'y had a Scottish thread for so long. Another 8 hours of mostly the same people repeating mostly the same things is just what the site needs.
Cammie, Osbrowne, PB Tories, PB Romney, Chorttle, Osbornegasm, Unspoofable, Hilarious, Shrieking etc. etc.
Sure thing stuarttruth. as we can clearly see by now TUD had your number long ago on this thread.
Tell me dear, do you know about the differences between YouGov and ICM, TNS-BMRP, Panelbase that still remain in Independence methodology and why that could be a factor? No? Better look it up then, hadn't you?
Carnyx - I fail to see why Scottish MPs should not continue to have a voice at Westminster so long as Scotland is in the Union. The sensible thing would be to hold the 2015 election as usual and then deseat(?) the Scottish MPs when the independence deal is signed.
Of course with the fixed term parliament act I presume we couldn't immediately head into another GE around 2016-17? Though we could see a change in government - if Labour are in power thanks to Scotland.
So Ed gets in - spends 12 months dealing with separation then doesn't have the numbers once the 59 have left - loses no confidence motion - new elections..
Possibly. However if Scotland votes Yes, I can see an SNP landslide in the 2015 election (it's certainly a possibility, although trying to predict what will happen in that election in Scotland after a yes vote seems near impossible). Certainly the SNP may be seen as the people who will fight for the best deal for Scotland, so why not vote them into Westminster? If Ed has a majority he's probably safe - if Scotland loses him a net 20 votes in the Commons, just do a deal with the Lib Dems who'll have at least 30 MPs. More interesting would be if there was a Lib Lab coalition from 2015.
I can't see how it would be right to disqualify Scottish MPs when Scots are still paying taxes in the Treasury and haven't yet got their freedom.
Couldn't disqualify Scottish MP's as you say (they might deliberately sit aside on rUK only questions for a year - no point antagonising your future neighbour as you are trying to keep the Pound), but it wouldn't half make Parliament a nightmare depending on the numbers. Ed could go from majority to minority, to smaller than the Tories, to less than the Tories even with the Lib Dems, to (just about) majority to Tory majority - though that last scenario would take some really weird electoral calculus I guess.
I'd agree the SNP should do really well post any yes vote ("sticking up for Scotland" and all that) which would make life more difficult for Ed as he'd have to make up any Scottish losses in England and Wales. I would suspect too that the dynamic of any election in rUK would change utterly with the central question being "who will stick up best for rUK " in the negotiations 2015-16. Unlikely to be Ed's strong suit methinks, given his party started the devolution ball rolling, and it would have blown up in their faces big style.
Should the polls tighten and a yes look like a real goer (not there yet really) than I suspect Labour/Lib Dems will really have to get fingers out, as losing Scotland clearly has a compensation for the Tories but is nothing less than dire for the other two.
The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.
I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)
Oooh, Yes! We haven'y had a Scottish thread for so long. Another 8 hours of mostly the same people repeating mostly the same things is just what the site needs.
Cammie, Osbrowne, PB Tories, PB Romney, Chorttle, Osbornegasm, Unspoofable, Hilarious, Shrieking etc. etc.
@McChicken - post a link to your poll of "about a week ago" along with their question then.
I leave others to conclude what they will from Panelbase's question - you keep blustering away....since you have no other answer.....who does that remind me of......?
The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.
I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)
Oooh, Yes! We haven'y had a Scottish thread for so long. Another 8 hours of mostly the same people repeating mostly the same things is just what the site needs.
Cammie, Osbrowne, PB Tories, PB Romney, Chorttle, Osbornegasm, Unspoofable, Hilarious, Shrieking etc. etc.
No pandas today? Disappointing.
EDIT: Checked. No pandas. I expected more.
Would a Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens) do?
Any panda is a good panda. Apart from Panda Cola which was (is?) awful.
Mick - Whatever the polling impact at least people in Scotland will now know how the rUK SNP will react post-independence. It would be unfair to them not to correct Salmond's Osborne's absurd bluster.
Fixed that for you.
And so the Osbornegasm continues with not a whiff of reality creeping in to the right wing dominated PB.
It's a Yes/No referendum. Both sides are not going to agree. Give that searingly obvious fact pretending that all the No side's assertions are facts and are also somehow immutable to scottish public opinion simply isn't going to get the No side anywhere. Particularly when we've just had polling evidence that shows all Osborne's intervention has done is narrow the polling even further. You don't need to like it, but that is precisely what has happened.
Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?
Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.
Couldn't disqualify Scottish MP's as you say (they might deliberately sit aside on rUK only questions for a year - no point antagonising your future neighbour as you are trying to keep the Pound), but it wouldn't half make Parliament a nightmare depending on the numbers. Ed could go from majority to minority, to smaller than the Tories, to less than the Tories even with the Lib Dems, to (just about) majority to Tory majority - though that last scenario would take some really weird electoral calculus I guess.
I'd agree the SNP should do really well post any yes vote ("sticking up for Scotland" and all that) which would make life more difficult for Ed as he'd have to make up any Scottish losses in England and Wales. I would suspect too that the dynamic of any election in rUK would change utterly with the central question being "who will stick up best for rUK " in the negotiations 2015-16. Unlikely to be Ed's strong suit methinks, given his party started the devolution ball rolling, and it would have blown up in their faces big style.
Should the polls tighten and a yes look like a real goer (not there yet really) than I suspect Labour/Lib Dems will really have to get fingers out, as losing Scotland clearly has a compensation for the Tories but is nothing less than dire for the other two.
Primary legislation almost never has immediate effect, so you just have to provide in each Act that it comes into force no earlier than [date for independence to take effect] - impossible then to argue that Scottish mps should vote on it.
Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?
Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.
The TNS poll was before, the Survation was in the middle of Eck greetin about being bullied by the posh boys - and shows more than half "yes" voters wanting a plan B....(and only SNP voters more likely to vote Yes as a result of the currency issue)
Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?
Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.
Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?
Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.
Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?
Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.
Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?
Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.
Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?
Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded.
For the TNS which shows the incredibly telling 84% to 73% differential for the Yes campaign.
NOT for the survation.
The fieldwork was Monday and Tuesday of this week, so post George Osborne’s currency union and Jose Manuel Barroso’s EU intervention
Sorry, but the debate had quite obviously exploded by then and moved on to the Salmond response.
Guess they should have thought things through before they buggered around with the constitution.
TBF they did think they were 'killing nationalism stone dead', and devolution was pretty much promised to Dewar & SLAB. If they hadn't gone through with it that may have resulted in a p!ssed-off SLAB and an SNP stirring up further discontent. That might have ended up better for Unionism, it may not.
They shouldn't have done a half-arsed job. Proper federalism for all four countries of the UK would have been much better.
The only problem being that noone in England seemed to want devolution. You cant blame :Labour for not inflicting a constitutional position England didnt want on the English people.
Most people in England still don't seem that bothered. And Scotland isn't holding a referendum on independence as a way to resolve the West Lothian Question.
Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?
Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded.
For the TNS which shows the incredibly telling 84% to 73% differential for the Yes campaign.
NOT for the survation.
The fieldwork was Monday and Tuesday of this week, so post George Osborne’s currency union and Jose Manuel Barroso’s EU intervention
Sorry, but the debate had quite obviously exploded by then and moved on to the Salmond response.
Yes I've acknowledged that. A swing of 2.15% whilst good for YES does not chance my view NO is still in the better position by far though.
Comments
Just as no change in the swing would have been telling or a swing to No would have been telling. Sorry, but there's simply no way that poll can be read as a vindication for Osborne and Cameron no matter how much some PB tories might wish it. Nor are the TNS differential figures anything other than a bodyblow for a No campaign which has had a truly dire presence on the ground thus far.
Let's face it Osborne had no choice. None of the main parties has a choice
The party that gives an independent Scotland a say on sterling would be eviscerated at the RUK polls.
The TNS was before.
In the May 2011 election for the Scottish Parliament, half of Scottish people voted and the other half did not vote.
Can you remember whether you voted in that particular election?
Voted: 74
Did Not: 23
DK: 3
And who were the voters 'driven into the Yes camp by the currency bullying (sic)'
Made me (much/somewhat) more likely to vote 'Yes': 'No' (%)
Con: 4 / 28
Lab: 22 / 30
LibD: 16 / 29
SNP: 53 / 10
So the "Currency bullying" has only made SNP voters more likely to vote for independence.....everyone else.....less....
I think all that can possibly be said about a currency union has been said. It's not the be all and end all of the debate but the approach taken to it by the unionist parties has not been to their credit (nor has it yet been to their advantage).
I think why people are opposed to it in RUK is that Scotland has a large banking sector, in a way the Crown Dependencies do not, and the banks that were bailed out recently had Scottish sounding names, they don't want to go through that again, as we'd be the ones bailing them out again.
The tories problems with the kippers wouldn't go away with AV. They would intensify.
Cammie can barely keep his party together as it is.
If you still think Labour need scotland for the numbers then I'm afraid the actual historic record simply doesn't back that up.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/
It would still be a crushing blow for them for many other reasons but it's certainly no magic bullet for any dreams of easy tory majorities after a Yes vote.
TBF they did think they were 'killing nationalism stone dead', and devolution was pretty much promised to Dewar & SLAB. If they hadn't gone through with it that may have resulted in a p!ssed-off SLAB and an SNP stirring up further discontent. It might have ended up better for Unionism, it might not.
The most recent YouGov had opposition to a shared pound running at 58:23
Jersey/Guernsey/IOM are NOT in currency Unions with the UK.
But apart from that, weren't you going to tell us how 'Ed will save the Union'? After all, electorally its much more in his interests than those you so frequently and freely criticise.
Oh Come on LBS, if that's the case then why have Alexander and Balls cravenly fallen in behind Osborne??
Why isn't Milli in Edinburgh now championing the union and/or a currency union if Scotland decides to secede (to loud cheers from England!).
Indeed, labour's insouciance on this is quite staggering. Do you realise the threat you are facing?
In a matter of months you could be driving MPs from a Foreign Country through Westminster lobbies to defeat English conservative bills....
I don't know why pb tories or posters from the right of centre get so worked up about a independent Scotland,the union is a unhappy marriage,just like England and the new EU.
Leave the unionist cause to pb labourites,it's on the labour party that will come worst out of a yes vote,let them fight for a part of Britain that in voting terms,the red team need.
True but if you win the problems for labour could start before 2015.
Will Ed risk driving his foreign citizens through Westminster lobbies against the government if you win? Will the lib dems want to be seen to be voting with foreigners??
Whatever the merits of the situation, the tories might make much of that.
Really? On what basis do you make that assertion? won't Scotland deserve representation until the ts are crossed and the is dotted??
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/current-affairs/economy-specials?ev_oc_grp_ids=1199482
http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1178-ukip-director-of-communications-patrick-o-flynn-says-televised-leaders-debate-a-very-interesting-idea
There's a striking difference if you compare the advert to that used by Labour in the 2005 general election campaign, when another leader accused of being a narcissist, Tony Blair, didn't feature. He, or certainly the party, appeared to realise he'd lost his lustre. I can only assume there is no-one in Lib Dem central office who'll stand up to Clegg or they're just completely clueless. I'd be furious if I was a Lib Dem MEP.
I don;t know whether you're avoiding the question, but if you think Ed Milliband using his Scotsmen in Westminster in the interim period between yes and independence will go unnoticed I think you are very, very wrong.
He will in effect be using foreigners to decide the fate of a country they no longer a part of. '
Milli's mercenaries.
Westminster, which actually has the power,
Or Salmond, which we can add to his wish list of "currency union" "three question ballot" and "automatic membership of the EU"....
The logical thing would be to do a deal with Holyrood whereby from May next year until the date of Independence, the 56 regional Scottish MSPs could be delegated by Holyrood to attend Westminster and vote on any UK legislation which needs a Scottish input.
Interesting suggestion, thanks though whether Labour and the LDs would sign up to it I am not sure. I also doubt it would happen in quite that way because the list MSPs are probably not typical of the parliament as a whole (disproportionately Labour IIRC). .
Edit: And also Tory - Ms Davidson is a List MSP IIRC.
Carnyx the reason I suggest the List MSPs is firstly because there are almost exactly the same number as Scottish Westminster MPs (3 fewer) and secondly, they are more representative of the voting intentions of the Scots in 2011 i.e. they saved the bacon of the 3 unionist parties who lost a great many of their constituency seats to the SNP. It also gives the Greens and Margo a say.
In the year 2015-16 it is hard to see Westminster passing much legislation which would actually take effect before Independence, given that most legislation comes into force a year or so after the Royal Assent. As a Scot, if we do vote for Independence, I feel uncomfortable at the prospect of MPs representing Scottish constituencies potentially being on the rUK side of the discussions. They must have a major conflict of interest.
Thanks. My distinct memory was that the SNP were badly underrepresented in the List MSPs but if I am wrong I happily stand to be corrected. I'm still unhappy about taxation without representation, etc., but as EWNI is a majority anyway ... It also avoids the potential problem of those MPs having an interest in spinning things out or even derailing negotiations. And public views on people getting pensions for an incomplete job.
Anyway some of the other suggestions o the thread are also interesting.
I award you the sturttruth memorial video for refusing to see the bleeding obvious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk
You may now continue to shriek about passports or whatever it is you think is a winner for No today.
LOL
Presumably David Cameron could lay all sorts of bills before the HoC in October after a yes, daring Milli to use his Scottish 'troops of occupation' to vote against the bills, and daring the Lib dems to vote with de facto foreigners.
Of course with the fixed term parliament act I presume we couldn't immediately head into another GE around 2016-17? Though we could see a change in government - if Labour are in power thanks to Scotland.
It's almost unethical to be with them but as it's usually taking money from them I'm sure it's justifiable. (Though in their favour they seem to have a better attitude towards FOBT than their competitors.)
'THREE months ago people in England and Wales only narrowly opposed a currency union but the latest figures show opposition has now grown from 43 per cent to 58 per cent.'
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-english-welsh-cooling-3154321
Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?
Do you understand just how many points Yes could be behind come September and still win if that TNS differential polling stays anywhere near where it is? No?
So if you somehow think I'm the one who should be worried after that polling and no sign whatsoever of the PB tories or the No campaign learning their lesson on negativity, then you really are deluding yourself.
I'm more than content to watch another 7 months of the deafening and utterly pointless right wing Independence shrieking on PB dominating every thread, not just yet another week of it.
I can't see how it would be right to disqualify Scottish MPs when Scots are still paying taxes in the Treasury and haven't yet got their freedom.
Try December.
And it's Panelbase- gotta check the question:
Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are among each other's largest trading partners. Putting aside your own views on whether or not Scotland should become an independent country, if independence does happen do you think that Scotland and the rest of the UK should continue using the pound in an agreed sterling area?
among each other's largest trading partners?
We do four times the business in Euros and twice the business in dollars as we do with Scotland.....
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/dec/people-rest-uk-back-currency-and-travel-area
Cammie, Osbrowne, PB Tories, PB Romney, Chorttle, Osbornegasm, Unspoofable, Hilarious, Shrieking etc. etc.
That would be Eck......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/9787541/Ch-ch-changes-David-Bowie-in-pictures.html?frame=2445693
EDIT: Checked. No pandas. I expected more.
Tell me dear, do you know about the differences between YouGov and ICM, TNS-BMRP, Panelbase that still remain in Independence methodology and why that could be a factor? No? Better look it up then, hadn't you?
Couldn't disqualify Scottish MP's as you say (they might deliberately sit aside on rUK only questions for a year - no point antagonising your future neighbour as you are trying to keep the Pound), but it wouldn't half make Parliament a nightmare depending on the numbers. Ed could go from majority to minority, to smaller than the Tories, to less than the Tories even with the Lib Dems, to (just about) majority to Tory majority - though that last scenario would take some really weird electoral calculus I guess.
I'd agree the SNP should do really well post any yes vote ("sticking up for Scotland" and all that) which would make life more difficult for Ed as he'd have to make up any Scottish losses in England and Wales. I would suspect too that the dynamic of any election in rUK would change utterly with the central question being "who will stick up best for rUK " in the negotiations 2015-16. Unlikely to be Ed's strong suit methinks, given his party started the devolution ball rolling, and it would have blown up in their faces big style.
Should the polls tighten and a yes look like a real goer (not there yet really) than I suspect Labour/Lib Dems will really have to get fingers out, as losing Scotland clearly has a compensation for the Tories but is nothing less than dire for the other two.
I leave others to conclude what they will from Panelbase's question - you keep blustering away....since you have no other answer.....who does that remind me of......?
And so the Osbornegasm continues with not a whiff of reality creeping in to the right wing dominated PB.
It's a Yes/No referendum. Both sides are not going to agree. Give that searingly obvious fact pretending that all the No side's assertions are facts and are also somehow immutable to scottish public opinion simply isn't going to get the No side anywhere. Particularly when we've just had polling evidence that shows all Osborne's intervention has done is narrow the polling even further. You don't need to like it, but that is precisely what has happened.
Not only do many, many more people have savings than mortgages but many mortgages are fixed rate anyway so won't move straight away.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563353/This-climbing-lark-not-easy-looks-Panda-cubs-grips-branches-given-lessons-zookeepers.html
NOT for the survation.
The fieldwork was Monday and Tuesday of this week, so post George Osborne’s currency union and Jose Manuel Barroso’s EU intervention
Sorry, but the debate had quite obviously exploded by then and moved on to the Salmond response.