Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Take the Ladbrokes 10-11 IndyRef NO victory with turnout un
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Take the Ladbrokes 10-11 IndyRef NO victory with turnout under 80% bet
One of the problems for those wanting to bet on NO in the September 18th Scottish Independence referendum is that prices are so poor. About the best you can get is 1/6 which means that to make a profit of £50 you have to risk £300.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I will be very surprised if turnout is below 80%. I also think that if it is Yes will probably win because their supporters are more motivated and think they are off on an adventure to Alec's fantasy grotto.
The focus of BT is to urge the importance of everyone who wants to save their country to actually get out and vote. As the vote gets tighter that message is getting home. Every vote will count and there are no safe seats in this election depressing turnout.
In short Mike I completely disagree. No winning with under 80% turnout seems a very unlikely conclusion. Did Montreal not manage something like 90% turnout on a squeeker where both sides were evenly matched?
Going to hear Gordon Brown this morning.
It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done.
A No vote is a near certainty, and 80% is a very high bar. I'm with Mike and have had a couple of groats on his suggestion.
I suspect we will be seeing more of these donate-or-be-shamed drives in the future, given the success of this one.
The odds in old money, net of exchange commission, are 0.93/1 , slightly better than the 10/11 on the bet which Mike is suggesting and in my opinion slightly more likely to deliver, but DYOR.
Must say, you seem to be in a good mood today.. you've posted three times and not had a go at anyone... ;-)
Then again, unless UKIP can pull something out of the bag, Labour would be able to put a donkey up and it would be voted in.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/11057911/Dilma-Rousseff-and-Marina-Silva-in-weak-Brazil-TV-debate-stalemate.html
I’m therefore very “pleased" to see the profile of the condition being raised!
And yes, I’ve had a cancer, and I’ve friends who’ve died from cancer.
However, when people have done what you have done in the past, other websites have contacted Mike for violating their copyright.
Just copy and paste a small excerpt and post a link. That'll be fine
Almost as important (perhaps more so?) than the decision itself is how decisive the vote is. A handful of votes deciding it one way or the other would pave the way for even more consternation.
In related news, I think Salmond may have surpassed Balls as the most irritating politician in Britain.
considering the budget BT have, you'd think they could manage a little better...
(i don't know where it was made or who made it, btw)
But I'd rather be betting on the same lines as Mike and Peter the Punter.
If one side wins by 1 vote I suspect there might be a small amount of not necessarily civil discussion in the aftermath.
The survey was conducted using YouGov's new "First Verdict" phone app – find out more here. 3,269 YouGov panellists took part between 17.50 and 20.30 yesterday.
These people found that Boris standing Uxbridge found that 57 per cent to is a good thing, 24% say it is a bad thing. 68 per cent believe it is likely that Boris will one day lead the Conservative party.
For Nigel Farage's candidature in South Thanet 33% of voters say it is a positive thing, 54% say it is a bad thing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=HH9TvFMYs48
Still, could be wrong. Many thought he couldn't win in London.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yjWWrPQ3Zg
When will the penny drop for Alex Salmond?
Monday’s TV debate was no triumph for the SNP leader – it was his biggest deceit. He may have got cheap cheers from the studio audience but his currency plans, whether A or B, don’t add up
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11056857/When-will-the-penny-drop-for-Alex-Salmond.html
You may be wrong about turnout. Much of the country is plastered with referendum and poster stickers, mainly YES ones. In many towns, they are giving the high streets a feel usually associated with a festival or happy community event of some kind.
Turnout at the 2010 UK GE in Scotland was 63.8% and at the 2011 Scottish GE, 50%, but be wary of comparing apples with oranges. The SNP got 19% in the 2010 UK GE and 53.5% in the 2011 Sc GE. Why? For the same reason UKIP does well in EU elections and by-elections: because people are sending central government and big-party politicians a message, and because the people who are doing so are a larger proportion of voters because turnout is low.
The referendum is seen by most people as serious, and there is no doubt that turnout will be much higher than 63.8%. The higher the turnout, the worse for the SNP. Their support is mostly pretty solid, but all sorts of people - some who are in their 40s and 50s and have never voted before - are going to make sure they get to the polling booths to vote NO. A large proportion of people have had enough of Alec Salmond, the SNP, and the SNP nonsense that "this isn't about the SNP". The referendum is considerably more in people's faces and being talked about by much of the population than a GE of either kind.
YES are working like nutters to get their vote out and their propaganda is everywhere. NO will also get a large vote. Many YES voters will be saying eff off to the UK government, or "Westminster" as they call it up here, often a euphemism for "the English". Many NO voters will be saying eff off to the Scottish government under Alec Salmond. Think of him as a mayor. He's disliked a lot by many. People don't want him running off with more than he's got already.
As a result, the turnout will be very high. It could easily be over 80%. This is especially so if the perceived chances of a YES victory rise a bit and Salmond can strut about talking about momentum.
Nats taking to each other, convincing themselves how clever they are.
Roll on September 19....
The doom mongers can say it is all very scary but as almost 200 other countries manage to have a currency I am pretty sure we will manage to have one as well.
Only fools will be concerned.
Bunch of middle aged blokes say they can run things better their way, but can't quite articulate what would be different apart from them sitting in the chair.
Their parents, their wives, their children and their neighbours, roll their eyes and say "yer off yer heid".
Blokes get a bit shouty, everyone else says yeah whatever.
Then they put it to the vote they should have had two years ago
If that trial's shown us anything, it's that televising trials is a bad idea. Blanket coverage to bore people who just want 15 minutes of news whilst they have lunch, and then a meaningless summary of 10 hours of courtroom procedure into 5 minutes of highlights. Utterly pointless and counter-productive.
Remember, IDS only stood to make sure he could get a decent Shadow Cabinet post
Never heard the one about not interrupting your enemy while they are making a mistake?
But at least I have the honour of being the first person to be insulted by you today, nowithstanding your sunny mood ;-)
Plan A is to have the country you just voted to leave provide you with a financial safety net. Fine. Won't happen, but that's Salmond's plan.
We don't know what Plan B (From Outer Space?) is. Having more options increases confusion.
A Scottish currency, sterlingisation and the euro are all possibilities but Salmond hasn't indicated which he prefers.
It's a baffling omission from the Yes campaign.
Incidentally, a tweet from Andrew Neil yesterday stated Italy's economy is about the size it was 14 years ago. Not sure we're in the climate where a currency union will be viewed with anything but contempt south of the border.
And Scotland has repeatedly been told that in plain terms. If Yes wins and there's no currency union there may be wailing and gnashing of teeth, but no sympathy whatsoever from the rest of the UK.
Sadly, the Labour government did use 9/11 to bury bad news
They are scared to discuss anything in detail and when they do they look stupid.
But they have their own currencies.
Only a fool would be betting in a currency union with a partner that has said no, and if they did agree to it could veto any budget they proposed.....
And then only a complete idiot would have as an alternative starting a new currency with a debt default.
Scotland - the Argentina of the north....
Alec Salmond repeated that threat in Monday's debate.
And if you believe Alec Salmond's line that Scotland would not have to "apply" to join the EU, have you factored in the requirement that all member states must protect retail bank deposits up to a minimum of €100,000 (£85,000)?
How much will that cost in Scotland where banking is dominated by two major players, RBS and Lloyds? And who will actually do the protecting if Scotland hasn't got a central bank?
It must be possible to answer without affecting a rude and sarcastic attitude, surely?
so 8% of GDP disappears and a declining asset fills the gap ?
Well it's a view.
His counterpart on the Nat side is Mickey Mouse. Though increasingly it may be Dumbo.
Mr. Socrates, I did mention it, but for obvious reasons there were other matters being discussed. Nothing will happen from the West.
Likewise I'd be banking with the newly created Natwest Group instead of RBS at some point.
BTW, I see YouGov have tweaked their panel rating, the effect being to increase UKIP by 1% with everyone else fractionally down - they say it's to reflect post-2010 changes in the electorate with UKIP rising. Details here:
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/27/update-labour-lead-4/