Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trying to call the Scottish Independence Referendum has be

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited June 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trying to call the Scottish Independence Referendum has become a nightmare with so much variation between the pollsters

There’s a new YouGov IndyRef poll out overnght which has, after the exclusion of the DKs, NO with a comfortable 20% lead. This is exactly in line with the average of YouGov IndyRef polls so far this year.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Can I just say "I hate early morning flights"

    OGH - why do you pay attention to online/panel bases surveys? Surely these will be impacted by differential obsessiveness - helping the nationalist cause? It's very similar in the way that online overstates UKIP vs phone polls.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Labour not listening

    "More than half of Labour's MP candidates in winnable seats for the general election have already worked in politics, new research has found.

    The party has stuffed its hit list of potential new MPs with former special advisers, party workers and lobbyists - compared to just 17 per cent of Conservative candidates with political backgrounds, and 46 per cent of Liberal Democrats.

    It will fuel concerns about the development of a 'political class' of people who have never worked in real world jobs, which the public repeatedly say in polls turns them off voting. "

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660810/The-Labour-candidates-whove-never-real-job-Half-standing-winnable-seats-job-politics.html#ixzz34xlVzJYp

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection Countdown

    3 hours
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MikeSmithson wrote :

    "One thing’s for sure – NO is not a certainty."

    ......................................................................

    Almost correct - NO is a racing certainty
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    edited June 2014
    JackW said:

    MikeSmithson wrote :

    "One thing’s for sure – NO is not a certainty."

    ......................................................................

    Almost correct - NO is a racing certainty

    You can never underestimate Scottish appetite for self destruction.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Blue_rog said:

    JackW said:

    MikeSmithson wrote :

    "One thing’s for sure – NO is not a certainty."

    ......................................................................

    Almost correct - NO is a racing certainty

    You can never underestimate Scottish appetite for self destruction.
    Nonsense.

    The only Scottish appetite I detect presently is a very healthy one for the destruction of my wonderfully unhealthy cooked breakfast .....

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Blue_rog said:

    JackW said:

    MikeSmithson wrote :

    "One thing’s for sure – NO is not a certainty."

    ......................................................................

    Almost correct - NO is a racing certainty

    You can never underestimate Scottish appetite for self destruction.
    Horsefeathers!

    "enlightened self interest" is why they joined a Union in 1707, and enlightened self interest is why they will choose to remain in 2014.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @harryph: The number who regard @Ed_Miliband as "a natural leader" has fallen from 3% to 2% on @YouGov http://t.co/hhH1JUoygT
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    "NO is not a certainty"

    Disregarding the possibility of the remaining three months of the campaign changing minds, it must be pretty close to certain. At least 90% likely if the referendum were today.

    There is, as you say, a large variation between pollsters, but even that range of 16 in the lead has all polls giving NO a lead. All the polls would look rubbish if the true NO lead was about 2%, but that would still be enough for victory in a referendum held today.

    The main reason to be wary about committing to a NO victory are the relatively late changes in voting intention for the AV referendum and Holyrood elections - both in 2011. That sort of swing in Salmond's favour this September sees Scotland vote for Independence.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I don't see No as a certainty. But for the reasons that OblitusSumMe gives, I do see it as very likely. The bigger question is the margin.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    For the morning crowd, I put up a new post last night:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-conservative-battleground-june-2014.html

    I've had a look at how prices have changed on the Conservatives in the seats where they're likely to be competitive.

    I've probably time left to do about three more posts now before I disappear for three months. I shall probably be using them to look at the Labour price changes and then reviewing where the Lib Dems are placed following the recent bout of elections.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    How many polls have given Yes a lead?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    edited June 2014
    antifrank said:

    For the morning crowd, I put up a new post last night:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-conservative-battleground-june-2014.html

    I've had a look at how prices have changed on the Conservatives in the seats where they're likely to be competitive.

    I've probably time left to do about three more posts now before I disappear for three months. I shall probably be using them to look at the Labour price changes and then reviewing where the Lib Dems are placed following the recent bout of elections.

    I'm on Basingstoke for £100 off the back of this. 1-6 looks very generous. I note it stayed Blue in 1997.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @Pulpstar That appears to have been a spasm based around Maria Miller's expenses troubles. I can't understand this price.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    I agree with OblitisSumMe. If the pollsters are right then no wins. None of them yet have yes within a margin of error.

    I also agree with Mike, however. How much confidence can we have in any of the polling given the lack of a track record, no guidance as to weighting etc.? Weighting by previous voting is problematic.

    Not all SNP voters, many of whom were just sick of Labour and wanted an alternative, are going to vote Yes. There is the odd tory who is going to vote Yes although they are the most homogeneous group so far as I can see. Weighting by social group really doesn't help when you have no comparator as to how that social group voted before.

    The building blocks that I see are that the tories and most Lib Dems will vote no. The vast majority, although not all of SNP supporters will vote yes. In the middle is the very large Labour vote. How will that split?

    If it goes majority no then no wins. At the moment that is the most likely but there are risk factors. One is the truly awful perception of Ed Miliband. The figures that Scott_P has linked to are really worth a look. 58% of Scots on the subsample think he doesn't have a single good quality and another 11% don't know. Large numbers of Labour voters in Scotland are completely uninspired by voting for or being led by the dork.

    Another is the still strong hostility to the tories in Scotland. If they gain national leads Labour supporters unenamoured with Ed will give serious thought as to whether we would be better off without these English tory persons of doubtful heritage.

    I do not see perceptions of Ed improving. The risk factor in the Indy referendum remains the second one. If the tories gain national leads by September this will be to close to call. If they don't I think No wins.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    antifrank said:

    @Pulpstar That appears to have been a spasm based around Maria Miller's expenses troubles. I can't understand this price.

    I can forsee UKIP finishing a (very distant) second place there though, like S&WE or Newark... !
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection Countdown

    1 hour 1minute 1 second
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    1-6 odds now pay 18% APR not 16.7% because we are 11 months from the election :D
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Good Yougov for Conservative btw I note over they found over 500 in an 1897 sample whilst still being slightly underweight on 2010 Cons - thats pretty good internals in my book.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    antifrank said:

    @Pulpstar That appears to have been a spasm based around Maria Miller's expenses troubles. I can't understand this price.

    Blame me for that.

    I stuck a portion of my winnings from Maria Miller's resignation (I tipped her at 14/1 as next out of the cabinet, have I ever mentioned that?)

    My logic was given the huge amounts involved (90k in expenses) and that a lot of her constituents do the daily commute from Basingstoke to London, her standing again in 2015 may cause some antipathy and anger at her and the right UKIP candidate could do well, especially if Labour voters vote tactically to unseat her.

    But I understand why you and Pulpstar have gone for the 1/6. I may join you both shortly.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    Financier said:

    Labour not listening

    "More than half of Labour's MP candidates in winnable seats for the general election have already worked in politics, new research has found.

    The party has stuffed its hit list of potential new MPs with former special advisers, party workers and lobbyists - compared to just 17 per cent of Conservative candidates with political backgrounds, and 46 per cent of Liberal Democrats.

    It will fuel concerns about the development of a 'political class' of people who have never worked in real world jobs, which the public repeatedly say in polls turns them off voting. "

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660810/The-Labour-candidates-whove-never-real-job-Half-standing-winnable-seats-job-politics.html#ixzz34xlVzJYp

    It's also quite interesting because if eg. Nick Palmer (white, middle class, male, intellectual, etc) wanted to be a PPC for the Cons he wouldn't have a cat's (or, if you are Jeanette Winterson, a rabbit's) chance in hell.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    DavidL said:

    I agree with OblitisSumMe. If the pollsters are right then no wins. None of them yet have yes within a margin of error.

    I also agree with Mike, however. How much confidence can we have in any of the polling given the lack of a track record, no guidance as to weighting etc.? Weighting by previous voting is problematic.

    Not all SNP voters, many of whom were just sick of Labour and wanted an alternative, are going to vote Yes. There is the odd tory who is going to vote Yes although they are the most homogeneous group so far as I can see. Weighting by social group really doesn't help when you have no comparator as to how that social group voted before.

    The building blocks that I see are that the tories and most Lib Dems will vote no. The vast majority, although not all of SNP supporters will vote yes. In the middle is the very large Labour vote. How will that split?

    If it goes majority no then no wins. At the moment that is the most likely but there are risk factors. One is the truly awful perception of Ed Miliband. The figures that Scott_P has linked to are really worth a look. 58% of Scots on the subsample think he doesn't have a single good quality and another 11% don't know. Large numbers of Labour voters in Scotland are completely uninspired by voting for or being led by the dork.

    Another is the still strong hostility to the tories in Scotland. If they gain national leads Labour supporters unenamoured with Ed will give serious thought as to whether we would be better off without these English tory persons of doubtful heritage.

    I do not see perceptions of Ed improving. The risk factor in the Indy referendum remains the second one. If the tories gain national leads by September this will be to close to call. If they don't I think No wins.

    It's sad that so many Scots can only tolerate the Union if there's perpetual left-wing government.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Latest YG LAB 341 CON 267 LD 17 Others 26 (UKPR)

    Ed is Crap is PM (Less than 11 months to go)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    After another profitable day at the World Cup here's my tips for today.

    The Flamin' Galahs to beat The Netherlands (16/1)

    Chile to beat Spain (11/2)

    Cameroon to defeat Croatia. (19/4)
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    DavidL said:

    I agree with OblitisSumMe. If the pollsters are right then no wins. None of them yet have yes within a margin of error.

    I also agree with Mike, however. How much confidence can we have in any of the polling given the lack of a track record, no guidance as to weighting etc.? Weighting by previous voting is problematic.

    Not all SNP voters, many of whom were just sick of Labour and wanted an alternative, are going to vote Yes. There is the odd tory who is going to vote Yes although they are the most homogeneous group so far as I can see. Weighting by social group really doesn't help when you have no comparator as to how that social group voted before.

    The building blocks that I see are that the tories and most Lib Dems will vote no. The vast majority, although not all of SNP supporters will vote yes. In the middle is the very large Labour vote. How will that split?

    If it goes majority no then no wins. At the moment that is the most likely but there are risk factors. One is the truly awful perception of Ed Miliband. The figures that Scott_P has linked to are really worth a look. 58% of Scots on the subsample think he doesn't have a single good quality and another 11% don't know. Large numbers of Labour voters in Scotland are completely uninspired by voting for or being led by the dork.

    Another is the still strong hostility to the tories in Scotland. If they gain national leads Labour supporters unenamoured with Ed will give serious thought as to whether we would be better off without these English tory persons of doubtful heritage.

    I do not see perceptions of Ed improving. The risk factor in the Indy referendum remains the second one. If the tories gain national leads by September this will be to close to call. If they don't I think No wins.

    One of the things that most people on this site miss, is the hatred that Alec Salmond engenders in most Scottish Labour supporters. There is a lot of history here, as most supporters of the SNP and Labour will agree on.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Under the last Labour government, both their Prime Ministers were Scottish born.

    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    This is an article once again based on OGH talking his own book.
    Based on the evidence he has put in front of us NO is a certainty but the body of the article says it isn't .
    Seems somewhat schizophrenic to me....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,609
    DavidL said:

    The building blocks that I see are that the tories and most Lib Dems will vote no.

    Do you think the six remaining Scottish Liberal Democrat voters are going to be a big impediment to 'Yes'?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    antifrank said:

    @Pulpstar That appears to have been a spasm based around Maria Miller's expenses troubles. I can't understand this price.

    Blame me for that.

    I stuck a portion of my winnings from Maria Miller's resignation (I tipped her at 14/1 as next out of the cabinet, have I ever mentioned that?)

    My logic was given the huge amounts involved (90k in expenses) and that a lot of her constituents do the daily commute from Basingstoke to London, her standing again in 2015 may cause some antipathy and anger at her and the right UKIP candidate could do well, especially if Labour voters vote tactically to unseat her.

    But I understand why you and Pulpstar have gone for the 1/6. I may join you both shortly.
    Huntingdon could be worth a look. You have a not very well-regarded Tory MP. A very popular UKIP county councillor, standing at Parliamentary level. UKIP came first in the Euros, and a close second in the locals in 2013/14, and are now the official opposition on the district council. And there's no risk that voting UKIP will let in either Labour or Lib Dems.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Eagles, indeed.

    If Scotland does vote Yes I think the only fair thing would for Blair to be split between the two countries.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,189

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Under the last Labour government, both their Prime Ministers were Scottish born.

    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

    He also went to Fettes which if I understand it is like a Scots Eton.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Sean_F said:

    antifrank said:

    @Pulpstar That appears to have been a spasm based around Maria Miller's expenses troubles. I can't understand this price.

    Blame me for that.

    I stuck a portion of my winnings from Maria Miller's resignation (I tipped her at 14/1 as next out of the cabinet, have I ever mentioned that?)

    My logic was given the huge amounts involved (90k in expenses) and that a lot of her constituents do the daily commute from Basingstoke to London, her standing again in 2015 may cause some antipathy and anger at her and the right UKIP candidate could do well, especially if Labour voters vote tactically to unseat her.

    But I understand why you and Pulpstar have gone for the 1/6. I may join you both shortly.
    Huntingdon could be worth a look. You have a not very well-regarded Tory MP. A very popular UKIP county councillor, standing at Parliamentary level. UKIP came first in the Euros, and a close second in the locals in 2013/14, and are now the official opposition on the district council. And there's no risk that voting UKIP will let in either Labour or Lib Dems.

    Seems strange to think 23 years after Huntingdon returned Sir John Major with a 36,000 vote majority that the Tories could lose it.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    ToryJim said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Under the last Labour government, both their Prime Ministers were Scottish born.

    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

    He also went to Fettes which if I understand it is like a Scots Eton.
    He did and it is.

    When James Bond was expelled from Eton he went to Fettes
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I missed your Jack W dozen yesterday. If your ARSE is capable of a repeat, I would be most grateful.
    JackW said:

    Latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection Countdown

    1 hour 1minute 1 second

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection Countdown :

    11 minutes 11 seconds
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Morning.

    That these Labour gents were Scottish (and in what senses? birth, residence, holding a Scots passport, spirit of mind, Scottish or, to quote Mr Brown's little, I assume, joke, 'North British'?) is meaningless to a true Unionist: they will be sometimes Scots, mostly English, occasionally Welsh as the chips fall.

    Mr F's original comment ignores the point that the SNP is a centrist party, and also misses the point completely. He is blaming the Scots for not supporting right-wing parties when the real problem is what on earth it was that the Tories did to the Scots to lose them so comprehensively. I think he is forgetting that the Scots might prefer to be ruled by their own right-wing party than by the London one - I suspect it is not just the voting system which gives the Tories more MSPs than MPs - and that in any case it is only a small but critical subset for which Tory rule in London has become a vote-changing issue. Mr L was pretty much on the ball on this point earlier this morning.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    I missed your Jack W dozen yesterday. If your ARSE is capable of a repeat, I would be most grateful.

    JackW said:

    Latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection Countdown

    1 hour 1minute 1 second

    I missed it too !!

    Not out again until next Tuesday.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    Sean_F said:

    antifrank said:

    @Pulpstar That appears to have been a spasm based around Maria Miller's expenses troubles. I can't understand this price.

    Blame me for that.

    I stuck a portion of my winnings from Maria Miller's resignation (I tipped her at 14/1 as next out of the cabinet, have I ever mentioned that?)

    My logic was given the huge amounts involved (90k in expenses) and that a lot of her constituents do the daily commute from Basingstoke to London, her standing again in 2015 may cause some antipathy and anger at her and the right UKIP candidate could do well, especially if Labour voters vote tactically to unseat her.

    But I understand why you and Pulpstar have gone for the 1/6. I may join you both shortly.
    Huntingdon could be worth a look. You have a not very well-regarded Tory MP. A very popular UKIP county councillor, standing at Parliamentary level. UKIP came first in the Euros, and a close second in the locals in 2013/14, and are now the official opposition on the district council. And there's no risk that voting UKIP will let in either Labour or Lib Dems.

    Seems strange to think 23 years after Huntingdon returned Sir John Major with a 36,000 vote majority that the Tories could lose it.

    Times change. In 1959, the Conservatives won 6 seats in Liverpool, and Labour had seats in rural East Anglia.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The research about Labour packing its selection lists with members of the political class was carried out by the Guardian, but is well hidden in the online edition; the Mail on the other hand makes a major story out of it. Next year Weird Ed will ask voters to pick Tulip and her chums to pack Parliament with a cohort of MPs more out of touch with ordinary people, more remote from everyday life and more ignorant of mainstream Britain than at any time since the passing of the 1832 Reform Act.
    http://raedwald.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-deceits-of-political-class.html
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Financier

    The original article was from the Guardian, which contains further info.

    "The Conservatives have so far selected fewer candidates for 2015 than Labour, but of the 52 marginals where they would need a swing of less than 5% to win or have a retiring MP, about one in five candidates has a link to Westminster politics.

    The majority have backgrounds in business and finance, with a number of lawyers, military officers and private sector PR consultants also standing for office. In contrast to Labour, which has selected more women than men, fewer than a third of the Conservative party's candidates in these seats are female."

    It would appear given your posting name, an alternative career beckons?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/17/labour-candidates-marginal-seats-westminster-insiders
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pulpstar said:

    antifrank said:

    For the morning crowd, I put up a new post last night:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-conservative-battleground-june-2014.html

    I've had a look at how prices have changed on the Conservatives in the seats where they're likely to be competitive.

    I've probably time left to do about three more posts now before I disappear for three months. I shall probably be using them to look at the Labour price changes and then reviewing where the Lib Dems are placed following the recent bout of elections.

    I'm on Basingstoke for £100 off the back of this. 1-6 looks very generous. I note it stayed Blue in 1997.
    I grew up in B&D (until Andrew Hunter joined the UUP, when we made sure we were represented by George Young instead). It can get randomly grumpy from time to time, the LDs are surprisingly strong at a local level.

    But it even had a UUP MP... That's how true blue it is :)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    ToryJim said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Under the last Labour government, both their Prime Ministers were Scottish born.

    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

    He also went to Fettes which if I understand it is like a Scots Eton.
    He did and it is.

    When James Bond was expelled from Eton he went to Fettes
    As a(n OE) friend of mine corrected, when I mentioned that Fettes was the Scots Eton:

    No - Eton is the Scots Eton
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited June 2014
    ToryJim said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Under the last Labour government, both their Prime Ministers were Scottish born.

    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

    He also went to Fettes which if I understand it is like a Scots Eton.
    Blair did indeed attend the Scottish 'Eton' - An interesting comment ha made in his biography was that despite being born and educated north of the border, he was made to feel “alien” in Scotland, he also believed that if Gordon Brown had been PM in 2007, Labour could have won the Holyrood election.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276



    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

    English father, Irish mother. I'm denying he was Scottish.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959



    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

    English father, Irish mother. I'm denying he was Scottish.
    And the Nats keep on telling me their nationalism is civic and not ethnic.

    Blair is yours and you're keeping him.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,189
    Just realised that both the last two European teams to win the World Cup have failed to get out of the group stage next time, doesn't bode well for the Spanish.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****

    The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection as follows :

    "Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?"

    YES - 39% (NC) .. NO - 61% (NC)

    Turnout Projection 81% (-0.5%)

    ..............................................................................................

    WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
    JNN - Jacobite News Network
    McARSE - My Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Carnyx said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Morning.

    That these Labour gents were Scottish (and in what senses? birth, residence, holding a Scots passport, spirit of mind, Scottish or, to quote Mr Brown's little, I assume, joke, 'North British'?) is meaningless to a true Unionist: they will be sometimes Scots, mostly English, occasionally Welsh as the chips fall.

    Mr F's original comment ignores the point that the SNP is a centrist party, and also misses the point completely. He is blaming the Scots for not supporting right-wing parties when the real problem is what on earth it was that the Tories did to the Scots to lose them so comprehensively. I think he is forgetting that the Scots might prefer to be ruled by their own right-wing party than by the London one - I suspect it is not just the voting system which gives the Tories more MSPs than MPs - and that in any case it is only a small but critical subset for which Tory rule in London has become a vote-changing issue. Mr L was pretty much on the ball on this point earlier this morning.

    There is no right wing London party. There is a right-wing British party that is part of a Coalition government which sits in London. London itself is pretty left-wing. Unlike Scotland it returned a Green MEP at the last European elections, for example, while nationalist parties received substantially less support than they did in Scotland.

    However, your central point is a fair one - rather than blaming Scots and the Labour party for their decline in Scotland the Tories would be better advised to ask themselves what they have done to make their brand so toxic in Scotland.





  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    TOPPING said:

    ToryJim said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Under the last Labour government, both their Prime Ministers were Scottish born.

    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

    He also went to Fettes which if I understand it is like a Scots Eton.
    He did and it is.

    When James Bond was expelled from Eton he went to Fettes
    As a(n OE) friend of mine corrected, when I mentioned that Fettes was the Scots Eton:

    No - Eton is the Scots Eton
    I'm friends with an old Wykehymist and an Old Harrovian.

    Want to guess their views on Eton and Fettes?

    Obviously as a Sheffield public schoolboy, I was the only one who was educated at a decent private school.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    @JackW - Turnout Projection 81%.

    Seems very high to me - what are the chances of voters staying at home if the result is a foregone conclusion. - nice Arse btw. ; )
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Chelsea have an easy start to the new Premiership season .... away at Burnley ....

    Titters ....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Morning.

    That these Labour gents were Scottish (and in what senses? birth, residence, holding a Scots passport, spirit of mind, Scottish or, to quote Mr Brown's little, I assume, joke, 'North British'?) is meaningless to a true Unionist: they will be sometimes Scots, mostly English, occasionally Welsh as the chips fall.

    Mr F's original comment ignores the point that the SNP is a centrist party, and also misses the point completely. He is blaming the Scots for not supporting right-wing parties when the real problem is what on earth it was that the Tories did to the Scots to lose them so comprehensively. I think he is forgetting that the Scots might prefer to be ruled by their own right-wing party than by the London one - I suspect it is not just the voting system which gives the Tories more MSPs than MPs - and that in any case it is only a small but critical subset for which Tory rule in London has become a vote-changing issue. Mr L was pretty much on the ball on this point earlier this morning.

    There is no right wing London party. There is a right-wing British party that is part of a Coalition government which sits in London. London itself is pretty left-wing. Unlike Scotland it returned a Green MEP at the last European elections, for example, while nationalist parties received substantially less support than they did in Scotland.

    However, your central point is a fair one - rather than blaming Scots and the Labour party for their decline in Scotland the Tories would be better advised to ask themselves what they have done to make their brand so toxic in Scotland.





    I take those points, but my point still stands.

    I don't have much time for the reverse view, that it would be great if Scotland seceded because it would entrench right wing government in RUK. Profound constitutional changes should never be about fleeting party political advantage.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    @JackW - Turnout Projection 81%.

    Seems very high to me - what are the chances of voters staying at home if the result is a foregone conclusion. - nice Arse btw. ; )

    None.

    Both sides are extremely motivated. Indeed the betting turnout wagers available represent some of the only remaining value in the market - Almost 100% return over 3 months - marginally better than some of TSE's World Cup bets.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Morning.

    That these Labour gents were Scottish (and in what senses? birth, residence, holding a Scots passport, spirit of mind, Scottish or, to quote Mr Brown's little, I assume, joke, 'North British'?) is meaningless to a true Unionist: they will be sometimes Scots, mostly English, occasionally Welsh as the chips fall.

    Mr F's original comment ignores the point that the SNP is a centrist party, and also misses the point completely. He is blaming the Scots for not supporting right-wing parties when the real problem is what on earth it was that the Tories did to the Scots to lose them so comprehensively. I think he is forgetting that the Scots might prefer to be ruled by their own right-wing party than by the London one - I suspect it is not just the voting system which gives the Tories more MSPs than MPs - and that in any case it is only a small but critical subset for which Tory rule in London has become a vote-changing issue. Mr L was pretty much on the ball on this point earlier this morning.

    There is no right wing London party. There is a right-wing British party that is part of a Coalition government which sits in London. London itself is pretty left-wing. Unlike Scotland it returned a Green MEP at the last European elections, for example, while nationalist parties received substantially less support than they did in Scotland.

    However, your central point is a fair one - rather than blaming Scots and the Labour party for their decline in Scotland the Tories would be better advised to ask themselves what they have done to make their brand so toxic in Scotland.
    I stand corrected, thank you. I should of course have said London-headquartered (which would, of course, neatly have encompassed the loss of the Scottish Cosnervative and Unionist Party's autonomy by merger with the London Tories in the 1960s, IIRC, as others have commented).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    The building blocks that I see are that the tories and most Lib Dems will vote no.

    Do you think the six remaining Scottish Liberal Democrat voters are going to be a big impediment to 'Yes'?
    No, not really. What I am talking about is the former (for the most part) Lib Dems in the highlands, the borders and in Edinburgh. Polling in the borders has been limited and as trustworthy as most polling on this issue but seemed to show a very strong majority against.

    @Edin_Roz I agree with that. It is one of the reasons that No Thanks (such a better name) has been so personal on their attacks on Salmond. There is always a risk that this could get counter-productive but not, I think, with the key swing group. And Salmond has given them so much ammunition.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    TOPPING said:

    Financier said:

    Labour not listening

    "More than half of Labour's MP candidates in winnable seats for the general election have already worked in politics, new research has found.

    The party has stuffed its hit list of potential new MPs with former special advisers, party workers and lobbyists - compared to just 17 per cent of Conservative candidates with political backgrounds, and 46 per cent of Liberal Democrats.

    It will fuel concerns about the development of a 'political class' of people who have never worked in real world jobs, which the public repeatedly say in polls turns them off voting. "

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660810/The-Labour-candidates-whove-never-real-job-Half-standing-winnable-seats-job-politics.html#ixzz34xlVzJYp

    It's also quite interesting because if eg. Nick Palmer (white, middle class, male, intellectual, etc) wanted to be a PPC for the Cons he wouldn't have a cat's (or, if you are Jeanette Winterson, a rabbit's) chance in hell.
    The survey's a bit superficial. I'm counted as ";political class" because I'm a former MP, but I've spent most of my life in the private sector, 16 years in industrial management and with two successful private companies over the years. I agree that if I fancied being a Tory MP then my lack of City background would be a snag. Probably wouldn't be a good shot for a UKIP candidacy either. Oh well. :-)

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    the Tories would be better advised to ask themselves what they have done to make their brand so toxic in Scotland.

    The Tories are represented at all levels of Government in Scotland.

    The brand is not nearly as toxic as some people like to think.

    Of course some posters claimed that George Osborne was a toxic brand. How is that working out?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    It seems reasonable enough to count retreads as part of the political class for the purpose of that survey. A better question, however, is what percentage of candidates have no experience of life outside politics. Two thirds of the main party leaders fall into that category and the other third is hardly brimming with experience of that kind.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited June 2014
    Scott_P said:

    the Tories would be better advised to ask themselves what they have done to make their brand so toxic in Scotland.


    Of course some posters claimed that George Osborne was a toxic brand. How is that working out?
    Given the first law of timothy has been broken - is there hope for Clegg ?
  • wumperwumper Posts: 35
    i bet Smithson does not make any money from his betting as it seems he is nearly always wrong
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    TOPPING said:

    ToryJim said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Under the last Labour government, both their Prime Ministers were Scottish born.

    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

    He also went to Fettes which if I understand it is like a Scots Eton.
    He did and it is.

    When James Bond was expelled from Eton he went to Fettes
    As a(n OE) friend of mine corrected, when I mentioned that Fettes was the Scots Eton:

    No - Eton is the Scots Eton
    Used to be, but the catchment areas of all the public schools have shrunk dramatically. I was sent 300 miles to Winchester, but these days if you come from >30 miles away its probably because you come from Moscow or Beijing.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TGOHF said:

    is there hope for Clegg ?

    No
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    edited June 2014
    Ishmael_X said:

    TOPPING said:

    ToryJim said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Under the last Labour government, both their Prime Ministers were Scottish born.

    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

    He also went to Fettes which if I understand it is like a Scots Eton.
    He did and it is.

    When James Bond was expelled from Eton he went to Fettes
    As a(n OE) friend of mine corrected, when I mentioned that Fettes was the Scots Eton:

    No - Eton is the Scots Eton
    Used to be, but the catchment areas of all the public schools have shrunk dramatically. I was sent 300 miles to Winchester, but these days if you come from >30 miles away its probably because you come from Moscow or Beijing.

    Agree - apparently Radley is now considered the premier English public school; you have to put your (son's) name down at birth so it's quite oligarch-resilient.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    TOPPING said:

    Financier said:

    Labour not listening

    "More than half of Labour's MP candidates in winnable seats for the general election have already worked in politics, new research has found.

    The party has stuffed its hit list of potential new MPs with former special advisers, party workers and lobbyists - compared to just 17 per cent of Conservative candidates with political backgrounds, and 46 per cent of Liberal Democrats.

    It will fuel concerns about the development of a 'political class' of people who have never worked in real world jobs, which the public repeatedly say in polls turns them off voting. "

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660810/The-Labour-candidates-whove-never-real-job-Half-standing-winnable-seats-job-politics.html#ixzz34xlVzJYp

    It's also quite interesting because if eg. Nick Palmer (white, middle class, male, intellectual, etc) wanted to be a PPC for the Cons he wouldn't have a cat's (or, if you are Jeanette Winterson, a rabbit's) chance in hell.
    The survey's a bit superficial. I'm counted as ";political class" because I'm a former MP, but I've spent most of my life in the private sector, 16 years in industrial management and with two successful private companies over the years. I agree that if I fancied being a Tory MP then my lack of City background would be a snag. Probably wouldn't be a good shot for a UKIP candidacy either. Oh well. :-)

    Nick you are everything the Conservative Party is trying to distance itself from.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    antifrank said:

    It seems reasonable enough to count retreads as part of the political class for the purpose of that survey. A better question, however, is what percentage of candidates have no experience of life outside politics. Two thirds of the main party leaders fall into that category and the other third is hardly brimming with experience of that kind.

    Viewing PB's distinguished former MP for Broxtowe as a "retread" seems somewhat harsh and inelegant.

    I'd opt for a political "stew" - more flavoursome with age, second time around.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Smarmeron said:

    @Financier

    The original article was from the Guardian, which contains further info.

    "The Conservatives have so far selected fewer candidates for 2015 than Labour, but of the 52 marginals where they would need a swing of less than 5% to win or have a retiring MP, about one in five candidates has a link to Westminster politics.

    The majority have backgrounds in business and finance, with a number of lawyers, military officers and private sector PR consultants also standing for office. In contrast to Labour, which has selected more women than men, fewer than a third of the Conservative party's candidates in these seats are female."

    It would appear given your posting name, an alternative career beckons?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/17/labour-candidates-marginal-seats-westminster-insiders

    No thank you - much more fun being outside the Westminster bubble and letting in some fresh air and realism when we meet up.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    wumper said:

    i bet Smithson does not make any money from his betting as it seems he is nearly always wrong

    Quite right.

    You just need to adopt a contrarian pattern to his tips: so if he backs someone at 50/1 for the US presidency, you lay the same bet. Take as much as you can. Let us know how you get on.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @IanDunt: Salmond's woman problem continues - just 31% planning to vote 'Yes', 56% planning to vote 'No' http://t.co/9Ae4TaZMU4
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree with OblitisSumMe. If the pollsters are right then no wins. None of them yet have yes within a margin of error.

    I also agree with Mike, however. How much confidence can we have in any of the polling given the lack of a track record, no guidance as to weighting etc.? Weighting by previous voting is problematic.

    Not all SNP voters, many of whom were just sick of Labour and wanted an alternative, are going to vote Yes. There is the odd tory who is going to vote Yes although they are the most homogeneous group so far as I can see. Weighting by social group really doesn't help when you have no comparator as to how that social group voted before.

    The building blocks that I see are that the tories and most Lib Dems will vote no. The vast majority, although not all of SNP supporters will vote yes. In the middle is the very large Labour vote. How will that split?

    If it goes majority no then no wins. At the moment that is the most likely but there are risk factors. One is the truly awful perception of Ed Miliband. The figures that Scott_P has linked to are really worth a look. 58% of Scots on the subsample think he doesn't have a single good quality and another 11% don't know. Large numbers of Labour voters in Scotland are completely uninspired by voting for or being led by the dork.

    Another is the still strong hostility to the tories in Scotland. If they gain national leads Labour supporters unenamoured with Ed will give serious thought as to whether we would be better off without these English tory persons of doubtful heritage.

    I do not see perceptions of Ed improving. The risk factor in the Indy referendum remains the second one. If the tories gain national leads by September this will be to close to call. If they don't I think No wins.

    It's sad that so many Scots can only tolerate the Union if there's perpetual left-wing government.

    If they want perpetual left wing government, they absolutely have to have the union, surely? The latter provides the throughput of other people's money that is essential to the former.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    wumper said:

    i bet Smithson does not make any money from his betting as it seems he is nearly always wrong

    Fiddlesticks.

    It matters not how often you are "nearly always wrong" (and Mike is often correct) but the ratio of odds when you are correct.

    One 50/1 winner pays for 49 losers.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    wumper said:

    i bet Smithson does not make any money from his betting as it seems he is nearly always wrong

    He makes his money trading expectations rather than betting on outcomes.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Financier said:

    Labour not listening

    "More than half of Labour's MP candidates in winnable seats for the general election have already worked in politics, new research has found.

    The party has stuffed its hit list of potential new MPs with former special advisers, party workers and lobbyists - compared to just 17 per cent of Conservative candidates with political backgrounds, and 46 per cent of Liberal Democrats.

    It will fuel concerns about the development of a 'political class' of people who have never worked in real world jobs, which the public repeatedly say in polls turns them off voting. "

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660810/The-Labour-candidates-whove-never-real-job-Half-standing-winnable-seats-job-politics.html#ixzz34xlVzJYp

    It's also quite interesting because if eg. Nick Palmer (white, middle class, male, intellectual, etc) wanted to be a PPC for the Cons he wouldn't have a cat's (or, if you are Jeanette Winterson, a rabbit's) chance in hell.
    The survey's a bit superficial. I'm counted as ";political class" because I'm a former MP, but I've spent most of my life in the private sector, 16 years in industrial management and with two successful private companies over the years. I agree that if I fancied being a Tory MP then my lack of City background would be a snag. Probably wouldn't be a good shot for a UKIP candidacy either. Oh well. :-)

    Nick you are everything the Conservative Party is trying to distance itself from.

    Blimey - the Tories do not want to recruit people who have been successful in the private sector. Looks like I made the right call.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Another useful metric would be % of candidates who have a) been MPs previously and b) stood as a PPC.

    Labour in Cambridge are bizarrely putting up the candidate who came a rank 3rd in 2010 - mostly due to his own weird antics.

    For a marginal seat that seems "brave"..

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Financier said:

    Labour not listening

    "More than half of Labour's MP candidates in winnable seats for the general election have already worked in politics, new research has found.

    The party has stuffed its hit list of potential new MPs with former special advisers, party workers and lobbyists - compared to just 17 per cent of Conservative candidates with political backgrounds, and 46 per cent of Liberal Democrats.

    It will fuel concerns about the development of a 'political class' of people who have never worked in real world jobs, which the public repeatedly say in polls turns them off voting. "

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660810/The-Labour-candidates-whove-never-real-job-Half-standing-winnable-seats-job-politics.html#ixzz34xlVzJYp

    It's also quite interesting because if eg. Nick Palmer (white, middle class, male, intellectual, etc) wanted to be a PPC for the Cons he wouldn't have a cat's (or, if you are Jeanette Winterson, a rabbit's) chance in hell.
    The survey's a bit superficial. I'm counted as ";political class" because I'm a former MP, but I've spent most of my life in the private sector, 16 years in industrial management and with two successful private companies over the years. I agree that if I fancied being a Tory MP then my lack of City background would be a snag. Probably wouldn't be a good shot for a UKIP candidacy either. Oh well. :-)

    Nick you are everything the Conservative Party is trying to distance itself from.

    Blimey - the Tories do not want to recruit people who have been successful in the private sector. Looks like I made the right call.

    The Tories did make an exception for Edward Timpson, but Nick's "two successful private companies" to say nothing of his demographic, would rule him out of the detoxifying Tories.

    If you are a white middle class male you will struggle to become a Cons PPC.

    Is that good or bad? Well you takes your pick....
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    This was the front page story on the Metro today:

    http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/17/revealed-britains-spies-are-watching-your-facebook-and-internet-use-right-now-4765686/

    Spooks are using a legal loophole to spy on everyday Facebook updates and Twitter messages because they believe it will help them fight terrorism, it emerged.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    wumper said:

    I bet Smithson does not make any money from his betting as it seems he is nearly always wrong

    Mike sometimes gets it wrong, we all do. Especially with his strategy of long odds/outsiders. But he gets it right often enough to be profitable, very profitable. If you want to lay Mike's tips then best of luck to you.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Bollocks MD, Little good it did Scotland having those useless twats running the usual London centric trough, Tories in disguise or half wits.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    ToryJim said:

    Just realised that both the last two European teams to win the World Cup have failed to get out of the group stage next time, doesn't bode well for the Spanish.

    Another ignorant question from me about the footer: am I right in supposing that it is possible both to qualify from the group stage without having won a game, and also to be eliminated from it without having lost one?

    I am increasingly warming to my forecast of last week that England will get eliminated in the most disappointing way possible, i.e. they will lose their first two games and then win the last one, one that doesn't matter because they'll already have been eliminated.

    The team will thereby go home feeling unjustifiably that they have somehow saved some face by not losing all three of their games. Satisfied with this nugatory level of achievement they'll repeat it next time and the next time and so on.

    That or losing all three games seem the likeliest outcomes.

    Presumably these England players look good at other times only because they have foreign players in their usual teams to help them look good?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Betting Post

    Backed Massa at 9, each way, to be Winner Without Hamilton/Rosberg.

    The Williams was mighty in Canada and Austria looks comparable to me (the circuit diagram suggests straight line speed will pave the way to victory). The relatively lacklustre result for Williams was due entirely to a slow pit stop for Massa coupled with the crash, and Bottas was nursing a slightly wounded car home.

    As mentioned before, win or lose this won't count towards the 'official' count of my tips, which only includes those mentioned in my articles.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    Another whinging unionist , personal attacks on people he does not know. Imagine the horror that someone associated with BFS actually was involved in local politics. I bet there are none of the Better Together or their astroturfing groups who were ever Tories etc.
    Desperate desperate stuff even by your standards, you are now bottom feeding a la Scottp. No more barrel to scrape.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    Scott_P said:

    @IanDunt: Salmond's woman problem continues - just 31% planning to vote 'Yes', 56% planning to vote 'No' http://t.co/9Ae4TaZMU4

    Scott, too thick to notice the big increase in latest polls. Keep on crawling on your belly.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited June 2014
    malcolmg said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.

    Bollocks MD, Little good it did Scotland having those useless twats running the usual London centric trough, Tories in disguise or half wits.
    Morning MrG - Scotland got a Scottish Parliament off the back of Blair and a tram for Edinburgh ; )

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    JackW said:

    BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****

    The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection as follows :

    "Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?"

    YES - 39% (NC) .. NO - 61% (NC)

    Turnout Projection 81% (-0.5%)

    ..............................................................................................

    WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
    JNN - Jacobite News Network
    McARSE - My Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

    Certainly reads like it came out of an ARSE, did you forget to take your pills.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496



    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

    English father, Irish mother. I'm denying he was Scottish.
    And the Nats keep on telling me their nationalism is civic and not ethnic.

    Blair is yours and you're keeping him.
    We never see race riots in Scotland either, Blair despite accident of where born is anything but Scottish.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Malcolm G never makes personal and insulting attacks on someone he has never met or knows
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

    Interesting. The UK healthcare system ranks very highly on this - except I note "healthy lives" which is essentially an aggregate proxy for a few mortality measures.

    Something doesn't quite fit there ^^;
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779
    Socrates said:

    This was the front page story on the Metro today:

    http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/17/revealed-britains-spies-are-watching-your-facebook-and-internet-use-right-now-4765686/

    Spooks are using a legal loophole to spy on everyday Facebook updates and Twitter messages because they believe it will help them fight terrorism, it emerged.

    You have to feel sorry for the poor sods, trawling through the cat pictures and sickly posts about someone's brat doing a poo or somesuch.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    Scott_P said:

    the Tories would be better advised to ask themselves what they have done to make their brand so toxic in Scotland.

    The Tories are represented at all levels of Government in Scotland.

    The brand is not nearly as toxic as some people like to think.

    Of course some posters claimed that George Osborne was a toxic brand. How is that working out?
    LOL, did someone write that for you, how thick can you be. 1 MP and only MSP's due to getting freebies from the list, deluded half wit.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779
    malcolmg said:



    It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh

    English father, Irish mother. I'm denying he was Scottish.
    And the Nats keep on telling me their nationalism is civic and not ethnic.

    Blair is yours and you're keeping him.
    We never see race riots in Scotland either, Blair despite accident of where born is anything but Scottish.
    Probably because Scotland is 96% White, compared with England which is 85.4% White.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Spot the inconsistency. All within a 7 minute period.
    malcolmg said:

    Another whinging unionist , personal attacks on people he does not know.
    Desperate desperate stuff even by your standards, you are now bottom feeding a la Scottp. No more barrel to scrape.

    malcolmg said:

    Scott, too thick to notice the big increase in latest polls. Keep on crawling on your belly.

    malcolmg said:

    Certainly reads like it came out of an ARSE, did you forget to take your pills.

    malcolmg said:

    LOL, did someone write that for you, how thick can you be. 1 MP and only MSP's due to getting freebies from the list, deluded half wit.

  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    edited June 2014

    ToryJim said:

    Just realised that both the last two European teams to win the World Cup have failed to get out of the group stage next time, doesn't bode well for the Spanish.

    Another ignorant question from me about the footer: am I right in supposing that it is possible both to qualify from the group stage without having won a game, and also to be eliminated from it without having lost one?

    Yes, I think it is. For the first half of that imagine the following:

    Team 1 beats Team 2 and 3, and draws to Team 4 (you) - They qualify on 7 points.
    Team 4 draws to all other teams, ending on 3 points.
    Teams 2 and 3 both lost to Team 1, both draw with Team 4 and then draw against each other, ending on 2 points.

    Thus Team 4 qualifies without a win.

    The second scenario can happen a couple of ways, but the easiest is for there to be a group whipping boy who you fail to beat.

    Team 1 beats Team 2 and 3, and draws to Team 4 (you) - qualifying on 7 points.
    Team 4 draws to all other teams, ending on 3 points.
    Team 2 beats Team 3 and draws with Team 4 - Team 2 qualifies with 4 points (Team 3 crashes out with 1).

    New Zealand got knocked out in the 2010 World Cup with 3 draws (Group F). Chile qualified to the knockout rounds in 1998 despite no wins (Group B).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    arf
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    edited June 2014
    Quincel said:

    ToryJim said:

    Just realised that both the last two European teams to win the World Cup have failed to get out of the group stage next time, doesn't bode well for the Spanish.

    Another ignorant question from me about the footer: am I right in supposing that it is possible both to qualify from the group stage without having won a game, and also to be eliminated from it without having lost one?

    Yes, I think it is. For the first half of that imagine the following:

    Team 1 beats Team 2 and 3, and draws to Team 4 (you) - They qualify on 7 points.
    Team 4 draws to all other teams, ending on 3 points.
    Teams 2 and 3 both lost to Team 1, both draw with Team 4 and then draw against each other, ending on 2 points.

    Thus Team 4 qualifies without a win.

    The second scenario can happen a couple of ways, but the easiest is for there to be a group whipping boy who you fail to beat.

    Team 1 beats Team 2 and 3, and draws to Team 4 (you) - qualifying on 7 points.
    Team 4 draws to all other teams, ending on 3 points.
    Team 2 beats Team 3 and draws with Team 4 - Team 2 qualifies with 4 points (Team 3 crashes out with 1).
    It is also possible to not qualify with 2 wins. I can see this being a live outside possibility in the Spain/Netherlands/Chile/Australia group.

    Spain beat Chile, Chile beat Netherlands.

    Spain's thrashing could yet sink them even if they win tonight. A point will be huge for Chile.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Is that because he knows everyone, perhaps via working for our spooks?

    Malcolm G never makes personal and insulting attacks on someone he has never met or knows

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    personal attacks on people he does not know.
    Something you never do.....

    Of course, if you'd read the article you'd have read:


    I want to be very clear about this: I am not questioning the right of any of these individuals to have a view on the Independence Referendum or to speak out . I am merely seeking to answer the questions that the Business for Scotland MD seems so reluctant to address;
    Roughly how many Scottish Employees are represented by their members?
    Do they represent any businesses involved in Trade with rUK?


    But we know what it is with Nats and opposing opinions - try to shout it down with personal abuse.....
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I got 33:1 on England getting no points in the group. Perhaps my Scottish ancestry is showing...

    ToryJim said:

    Just realised that both the last two European teams to win the World Cup have failed to get out of the group stage next time, doesn't bode well for the Spanish.

    Another ignorant question from me about the footer: am I right in supposing that it is possible both to qualify from the group stage without having won a game, and also to be eliminated from it without having lost one?

    I am increasingly warming to my forecast of last week that England will get eliminated in the most disappointing way possible, i.e. they will lose their first two games and then win the last one, one that doesn't matter because they'll already have been eliminated.

    The team will thereby go home feeling unjustifiably that they have somehow saved some face by not losing all three of their games. Satisfied with this nugatory level of achievement they'll repeat it next time and the next time and so on.

    That or losing all three games seem the likeliest outcomes.

    Presumably these England players look good at other times only because they have foreign players in their usual teams to help them look good?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Anorak said:

    Spot the inconsistency.

    malcolmg said:

    Another whinging unionist , personal attacks on people he does not know.
    Desperate desperate stuff even by your standards, you are now bottom feeding a la Scottp. No more barrel to scrape.

    malcolmg said:

    Scott, too thick to notice the big increase in latest polls. Keep on crawling on your belly.

    malcolmg said:

    Certainly reads like it came out of an ARSE, did you forget to take your pills.

    malcolmg said:

    LOL, did someone write that for you, how thick can you be. 1 MP and only MSP's due to getting freebies from the list, deluded half wit.

    Do you think he wrote the SNP White Paper......it would explain a lot......

This discussion has been closed.