Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Unless Salmond can find a way of turning the oldies in the

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited September 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Unless Salmond can find a way of turning the oldies in the remaining 14 days independence will be lost

We all know that the older you are the more likely it is that you’ll be on the electoral register and the greater the chance it is that you’ll actually vote.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    First!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    I hope you are right, OGH....
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Malcolm will be along soon to tell us otherwise ;-)
  • Andrew Marr:

    On the other hand, wandering around Edinburgh, I was reminded that Scotland is really dominated by a regiment of small, stern-faced, grey-haired ladies. They have fierce Presbyterian views, hats, walk at great speed, and regard all politics as ‘damn nonsense’. When they finally take over the country, I tell you, it’s going to be a very different place.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/diary/9298272/andrew-marrs-diary-seeing-shadows-of-syria-in-limousins-ghost-village/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    The reason oldies play such a dominant role in our political culture is that they vote. If you get an 80% turnout then their USP is at least diminished.

    There is no question that the oldies are a key part of BT though. I think this is because they remember a time when the UK was a lot more United in the pre-devolution days. At the meeting I was at in Dundee last week Archie MacPherson, the old BBC football commentator was the star turn by a distance.

    Pensions have also been an underrated issue in the campaign. The technical problems that would cause enormous problems for private sector pensions now in deficit in Scotland (pretty much all of them) have probably passed them by but the risks of having your pension paid by something you are no longer a part of has not.

    There was an excellent debate in Dundee yesterday compered by Victoria Derbyshire which my daughter was at. What I found noticeable watching it (and her) on the I-player last night is that as we come to the crunch all of the issues are fading away somewhat and this is becoming a question of whether you want to be British or simply Scottish.

    One of the sources of my nervousness about this is that I am not sure that BT have been positive enough about this throughout the campaign. They have spent their time and energy knocking down the latest gibberish from Salmond and demonstrating its idiocy. In the last 2 weeks they really need to make it clear that we are British and damned proud of it. Archie had no doubt about that and neither do I.
  • Age and experience tend to bring wisdom. That's why the blue rinse mob vote more for Dave than for Redward. And why they'll vote to keep their pensions in Sterling thanks very much.

    You have to be without heart not to be a bit lefty when you're young and without a mind not to be a righty when you understand the world later in life.
  • From YouGov:

    Absolutely Certain to Vote:
    16-24: 80
    25-39: 79
    40-59: 88
    60+: 89

    Net Would be better off 60+ (OA)
    Personally: -40 (-20)
    Country: -23 (-9)


    Net Trust 60+ (OA)
    Salmond: -41 (-23)
    Cameron: -31 (-50)
    Darling: -6 (-28)
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    If the winning side has less than 55% of the vote it's going to get very uncomfortable.
    The next few polls should tell us if Yes really has momentum or just a bounce.My feeling is that if there's further movement, however slight, to Yes then they will get a narrow win
  • Oldies don't like change.
  • Oldies don't like change.

    Hence the famous comment when we went through decimalisation "You'd think they would have waited until all the old folk were dead before doing this....
  • In a normal election, with turnout around 50% to 60%, I would agree with Mike. However, we are going to see astonishing levels of turnout at this election, probably around 80%. Voter registration closed at midnight last night and there were quite literally queues at some offices.

    The higher the turnout the more important the working-age voters become. Keep your hats on. This is gonna be a heck of a ride.
  • IndyRef - best prices

    Yes 11/4 (various)
    No 3/10 (various)
  • rogerhrogerh Posts: 282
    The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.
  • I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo
  • IndyRef - best prices

    Yes 11/4 (various)
    No 3/10 (various)

    Stuart, whilst you are on, do you have any links for your "Scottish waters contain 95% of the European Union's oil reserves" claim from yesterday morning?
  • rogerh said:

    The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

    20% ?? err... you'll need a rock-solid source for that please.

    The guesstimates I've seen are around the 10% level, and a significant number of them are Yes voters.
  • rogerh said:

    The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

    In rough terms 10% rUK (70:30 No) and 8% ex-UK (60:40 No) but yes, if it's tight it could swing it.
  • rogerh said:

    The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

    20% ?? err... you'll need a rock-solid source for that please.

    The guesstimates I've seen are around the 10% level, and a significant number of them are Yes voters.
    18% non Scotland born, 8 from outside UK, 10 within.

    Both against - UK born in yesterday's YouGov 31:69

  • In a normal election, with turnout around 50% to 60%, I would agree with Mike. However, we are going to see astonishing levels of turnout at this election, probably around 80%. Voter registration closed at midnight last night and there were quite literally queues at some offices.

    The higher the turnout the more important the working-age voters become. Keep your hats on. This is gonna be a heck of a ride.

    If the election were restricted to just working-age voters than YES would be home and dry, but the oldies are against Independence by such a wide margin that YES has to win the working-age vote by a large margin too.

    It's a lot of ground to make up.
  • Freggles said:

    If the winning side has less than 55% of the vote it's going to get very uncomfortable.
    The next few polls should tell us if Yes really has momentum or just a bounce.My feeling is that if there's further movement, however slight, to Yes then they will get a narrow win

    I agree, if momentum builds Yes may just get over the line.

    The worst possible outcome would be a very narrow result, either way. Can you imagine the problems if we have Florida 2000 style result, with endless court cases and recounts. The danger is both sides could try and create facts on the ground.

    imagine, if there was less than 100 votes in it either way.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

    I agree with that to an extent but even poor oldies are more likely to be no voters. The poor are much readier to believe that things might be better in an independent Scotland, that it would be more egalitarian or in other words more would be spent on them.

    When you see some of the areas I have been canvassing it is not hard to see why they might want to believe that. This is a painfully unequal country and far too many lives are blighted by poverty, poor living conditions and public sector squalor caused by a combination of a lack of funds and neglect.

    It is the height of naivety to believe this would be better in an independent Scotland and a failure of imagination to appreciate that it might in fact get a lot worse as the tax base diminishes and spending cuts are demanded by the markets reluctant to lend to a country without a track record whose leadership talk so glibly of default.

    But it is not hard to understand why this snake oil (pun intended) sounds so tempting. (Am I spending too much time with Labour party activists?)

  • A wisdom index.
    "With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding".
  • Freggles said:

    If the winning side has less than 55% of the vote it's going to get very uncomfortable.
    The next few polls should tell us if Yes really has momentum or just a bounce.My feeling is that if there's further movement, however slight, to Yes then they will get a narrow win

    Whatever the result Scotland will be a very unhappy and bitterly divided place in a fortnight. And possibly for quite some time to come. A NO will leave the Yessers deeply angry and with a 'we was robbed' mentialty. Malcolm's head will actually explode. If it's a YES then all the realists will be in despair and serious financial issues will kick off fairly promptly. Lose/lose in many ways.
  • IndyRef - best prices

    Yes 11/4 (various)
    No 3/10 (various)

    Stuart, whilst you are on, do you have any links for your "Scottish waters contain 95% of the European Union's oil reserves" claim from yesterday morning?
    He won't be citing the CIA world factbook as a source:

    http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?t=0&v=97&r=eu&l=en
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    Gadfly said:

    Malcolm will be along soon to tell us otherwise ;-)

    How right you are, it is just bollocks. The turnout will be huge. Losers on here have gone through every group whining that it would be winner for NO. First it was 16-117's all for NO , oops scrap that , next it was women hate Salmond it will be NO , oops they don't scrap that , and on and on and on till we are at last group , now it is oldies that will win it for NO.
    Who next when this bollocks proves wrong
  • An interesting snippet from a Q&A with Putin:
    Naturally, we need to be ready to respond to any aggression against Russia. Our partners, no matter what the situation in their countries and the foreign policy ideas they follow, always need to be aware that it is better not to enter into any potential armed conflict against us. Fortunately though, I don’t think anyone has the intention today of trying to start a large-scale conflict against Russia.

    Let me remind you that Russia is one of the world’s biggest nuclear powers. These are not just words – this is the reality. What’s more, we are strengthening our nuclear deterrent capability and developing our armed forces. They have become more compact and effective and are becoming more modern in terms of the weapons at their disposal. We are continuing this work to build up our potential and will keep doing so, not in order to threaten anyone, but so as to be able to feel safe, ensure our security and be able to carry out our economic and social development plans.
    http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/22864
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,697

    Freggles said:

    If the winning side has less than 55% of the vote it's going to get very uncomfortable.
    The next few polls should tell us if Yes really has momentum or just a bounce.My feeling is that if there's further movement, however slight, to Yes then they will get a narrow win

    I agree, if momentum builds Yes may just get over the line.

    The worst possible outcome would be a very narrow result, either way. Can you imagine the problems if we have Florida 2000 style result, with endless court cases and recounts. The danger is both sides could try and create facts on the ground.

    imagine, if there was less than 100 votes in it either way.
    Or like Quebec last time, with lots of allegedly spoiled votes.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    DavidL said:

    The reason oldies play such a dominant role in our political culture is that they vote. If you get an 80% turnout then their USP is at least diminished.

    There is no question that the oldies are a key part of BT though. I think this is because they remember a time when the UK was a lot more United in the pre-devolution days. At the meeting I was at in Dundee last week Archie MacPherson, the old BBC football commentator was the star turn by a distance.

    Pensions have also been an underrated issue in the campaign. The technical problems that would cause enormous problems for private sector pensions now in deficit in Scotland (pretty much all of them) have probably passed them by but the risks of having your pension paid by something you are no longer a part of has not.

    There was an excellent debate in Dundee yesterday compered by Victoria Derbyshire which my daughter was at. What I found noticeable watching it (and her) on the I-player last night is that as we come to the crunch all of the issues are fading away somewhat and this is becoming a question of whether you want to be British or simply Scottish.

    One of the sources of my nervousness about this is that I am not sure that BT have been positive enough about this throughout the campaign. They have spent their time and energy knocking down the latest gibberish from Salmond and demonstrating its idiocy. In the last 2 weeks they really need to make it clear that we are British and damned proud of it. Archie had no doubt about that and neither do I.

    Ha Ha Ha , A washed up football commentator who everyone laughed their heads off at his wistful memories of 1950. Archie like the unionists is stuck in 1950 , most of Scotland has moved on. In Dundee yesterday the BBC struggled to get NO voters for the audience, BT are washed up they are run by WASP's fixated on the SNP and have missed the point completely. The people are going in a different direction, Labour choosing to be Tories little helpers have destroyed them , it is crumbling and the move is all to YES. Using failed Labour duffers was not a good idea.
  • malcolmg said:

    Gadfly said:

    Malcolm will be along soon to tell us otherwise ;-)

    next it was women hate Salmond it will be NO , oops they don't scrap that ,
    I know as well as being a stranger to reason you are also allergic to facts....but here goes.....

    Yes Lead:
    M: +4
    F: -16

    Trust Salmond (net)
    M: -6
    F: -35
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2014

    I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

    I agree. The other issue affecting turnout is that in a GE many seats are safe seats where a voter is unlikely to change outcomes, but all votes matter in a referendum.

    While the poor may feel they have less to lose by change, No must continue with the currency issue. Either of a currency union or sterlingisation means that the rUK would set Scottish interest rates and borrowing, so indirectly all tax and spending limits. Independence can only alter the lives of the poor if there is an independent Scottish pound.

    On the 18% non-Scots born: many of these would have been born in rUK of scots parents, and many of the non rUK also. One of the oddities of birth stats is that we have many German and Cypriot born citizens, born to families of Brits serving abroad. One of my own Scottish cousins is of Hong Kong birth, with a sibling born in Derry, for just this reason. The overseas born Scots are a diverse group, and many will have very Scottish roots. Many more would easily pass the Scottish equivalent of Norman Tebbitts cricket test.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,524

    I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

    Looking at the Certainty to Vote figures, though, the oldies have the highest numbers. Also, they're the group that make most use of postal votes. If, say, 85% of older voters vote, compared to 70% of 18-40 year olds, that still gives an edge to older voters, albeit less than in a typical election.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    DavidL said:

    I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

    I agree with that to an extent but even poor oldies are more likely to be no voters. The poor are much readier to believe that things might be better in an independent Scotland, that it would be more egalitarian or in other words more would be spent on them.

    When you see some of the areas I have been canvassing it is not hard to see why they might want to believe that. This is a painfully unequal country and far too many lives are blighted by poverty, poor living conditions and public sector squalor caused by a combination of a lack of funds and neglect.

    It is the height of naivety to believe this would be better in an independent Scotland and a failure of imagination to appreciate that it might in fact get a lot worse as the tax base diminishes and spending cuts are demanded by the markets reluctant to lend to a country without a track record whose leadership talk so glibly of default.

    But it is not hard to understand why this snake oil (pun intended) sounds so tempting. (Am I spending too much time with Labour party activists?)

    David, At least you are seeing real life now and appreciating the problems in Scotland. Better Together have had 60 years to fix this and that is why they cannot articulate why we are Better Together. People have had enough false promises from Labour/Tories/LibDems who are all just in it for themselves.
    They want a change and independence gives them at least a chance of something different, looks like people are going to grasp the nettle and go for HOPE rather than NO hope.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,275
    edited September 2014

    I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

    This is right. The analysis presented in the thread is conventional wisdom. The question is whether the polls can adequately model an 80% plus turnout. This has not been seen in a GE since 1951. There will be large numbers voting who have never voted before; many of those will be beyond the reach of landline telephones and internet panels, the tools the polling companies rely on.

  • Sean_F said:

    I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

    Looking at the Certainty to Vote figures, though, the oldies have the highest numbers. Also, they're the group that make most use of postal votes. If, say, 85% of older voters vote, compared to 70% of 18-40 year olds, that still gives an edge to older voters, albeit less than in a typical election.

    Salmond has also included 16-18 year olds, which makes an 80% turnout even less likely.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    rogerh said:

    The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

    Of English people I have heard giving an opinion I would estimate it has been at least 80% for YES, it appears they are more for it than locals.
  • Malcolm may, of course, just be right. It may not be an old/young thing or a poorer/richer thing. It may be a 'don't really give a shit about or even understand the practical consequences, I just want Scotland to run it's own affairs' thing. YES may squeak a narrow win, however financially destructive that may be.

    And then the fun would start.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,524
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    The reason oldies play such a dominant role in our political culture is that they vote. If you get an 80% turnout then their USP is at least diminished.

    There is no question that the oldies are a key part of BT though. I think this is because they remember a time when the UK was a lot more United in the pre-devolution days. At the meeting I was at in Dundee last week Archie MacPherson, the old BBC football commentator was the star turn by a distance.

    Pensions have also been an underrated issue in the campaign. The technical problems that would cause enormous problems for private sector pensions now in deficit in Scotland (pretty much all of them) have probably passed them by but the risks of having your pension paid by something you are no longer a part of has not.

    There was an excellent debate in Dundee yesterday compered by Victoria Derbyshire which my daughter was at. What I found noticeable watching it (and her) on the I-player last night is that as we come to the crunch all of the issues are fading away somewhat and this is becoming a question of whether you want to be British or simply Scottish.

    One of the sources of my nervousness about this is that I am not sure that BT have been positive enough about this throughout the campaign. They have spent their time and energy knocking down the latest gibberish from Salmond and demonstrating its idiocy. In the last 2 weeks they really need to make it clear that we are British and damned proud of it. Archie had no doubt about that and neither do I.

    Ha Ha Ha , A washed up football commentator who everyone laughed their heads off at his wistful memories of 1950. Archie like the unionists is stuck in 1950 , most of Scotland has moved on. In Dundee yesterday the BBC struggled to get NO voters for the audience, BT are washed up they are run by WASP's fixated on the SNP and have missed the point completely. The people are going in a different direction, Labour choosing to be Tories little helpers have destroyed them , it is crumbling and the move is all to YES. Using failed Labour duffers was not a good idea.
    I think there are a large number of Scots like David L, who are as committed to remaining in the UK, as you are to leaving it.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    I think OGH has got this one totally wrong. Yes the older the voter, the more likely they will vote. However all indicators are this poll in a fortnight is going to be HUGE and a turnout over the 80% wouldn't surprise me at all. The IndyRef is the only game in town in Scotland. Everyone is talking about it. It is the first thing anyone asks me about when talking to them.

    If the slippage has become a slide in the Scottish Labour vote to YES then bye bye 300 year old union.
  • malcolmg said:

    rogerh said:

    The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

    Of English people I have heard giving an opinion I would estimate it has been at least 80% for YES, it appears they are more for it than locals.
    I doubt they'd be entirely frank about their voting intentions within your earshot.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,524
    PeterC said:

    I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

    This is right. The analysis presented in the thread is conventional wisdom. The question is whether the polls can adequately model an 80% plus turnout. This has not been seen in a GE since 1951. There will be large numbers voting who have never voted before; many of those will be beyond the reach of landline telephones and internet panels, the tools the polling companies rely on.

    In general, I'd expect polling companies to do best in high turnout elections. It's modelling low turnout elections that's most difficult.

  • Plea to OGH: can you please offer Malcolm a thread of his own once a week for, say, the next fortnight? Then we could ask Shaddsy to open a book on who he'll be most abusive to. I'd feel very proud to be at 100-30 or less...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo


    But it is not hard to understand why this snake oil (pun intended) sounds so tempting. (Am I spending too much time with Labour party activists?)

    Canvassing for the same result with usual political opponents must make for interesting conversations, and also better understanding of each others concerns. It is hard to make caricatures of peoples beliefs when you know them well.

    In the event of a Yes vote, would a (re)Unionist party get off the ground? If so would it get 1% of the vote, or 20%? It could be quite significant if such a party was regionally strong (eg the Borders).
  • malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

    I agree with that to an extent but even poor oldies are more likely to be no voters. The poor are much readier to believe that things might be better in an independent Scotland, that it would be more egalitarian or in other words more would be spent on them.

    When you see some of the areas I have been canvassing it is not hard to see why they might want to believe that. This is a painfully unequal country and far too many lives are blighted by poverty, poor living conditions and public sector squalor caused by a combination of a lack of funds and neglect.

    It is the height of naivety to believe this would be better in an independent Scotland and a failure of imagination to appreciate that it might in fact get a lot worse as the tax base diminishes and spending cuts are demanded by the markets reluctant to lend to a country without a track record whose leadership talk so glibly of default.

    But it is not hard to understand why this snake oil (pun intended) sounds so tempting. (Am I spending too much time with Labour party activists?)

    David, At least you are seeing real life now and appreciating the problems in Scotland. Better Together have had 60 years to fix this and that is why they cannot articulate why we are Better Together. People have had enough false promises from Labour/Tories/LibDems who are all just in it for themselves.
    They want a change and independence gives them at least a chance of something different, looks like people are going to grasp the nettle and go for HOPE rather than NO hope.
    A much more reasonable post, Malcolm.

    Many of us in England (myself included) feel the same - the mainstream parties have let us down and are letting us down.

    Where I differ from you is that I feel it's not necessary to break up our British family in order to do this. They're not listening to the people but there are plenty of other political and voting reforms I'd put first.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Political Momentum

    This is a strange quality, but once in full flood it can be difficult to make it change direction. Is it with YES in Scotland at the moment - hard to judge as I am not on the ground there.

    However, in rUK, there seems to be little doubt that UKIP has seized the momentum - helped greatly by the Rotherham report and ensuing revelations.

    This is illustrated by today's YouGov, where the answer to the question of "What is the most important issue facing the country today", Asylum a& Immigration tops the poll with 58% (+2) with the economy on 48% (-2). However, the female support is 63/43 (Immigration/economy) whilst the male is 53/53. Similarly the C2DE support is 64/42 whilst the ABC1 is 54/53. Only Scotland and London do not put Immigration first.

    When asked, "What is most important issue facing you and your family today", economy is first 42 (-5) and immigration drops to 4th at 19 (0). It remains first only with UKIPers at 52 whilst they put economy at 33.

    Looking at the 2010 splits for September, there are first signs of some of the RedLDs going to UKIP, but need more polls to confirm this trend.
  • malcolmg said:

    rogerh said:

    The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

    Of English people I have heard giving an opinion I would estimate it has been at least 80% for YES, it appears they are more for it than locals.
    The most recent poll says 31:69 against.....

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Only 15 days of this drivel left.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    malcolmg said:

    rogerh said:

    The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

    Of English people I have heard giving an opinion I would estimate it has been at least 80% for YES, it appears they are more for it than locals.
    I doubt they'd be entirely frank about their voting intentions within your earshot.
    The level of earache that people get from canvassers/coworkers/family/other monomaniacs may make for a lot of different voting in the privacy of a voting booth with pencil poised.
  • If the slippage has become a slide in the Scottish Labour vote to YES then bye bye 300 year old union.

    FPT:

    SINDY - among VI

    Net Trust:
    Cameron: +57
    Miliband: +5
    Salmond: +74
    Sturgeon: +70
    Darling: +13
    Lamont: +2
    Rennie:+8
    Davidson:+30
    Brown: +20

    Can anyone spot the weakest links?

  • DavidL said:

    The reason oldies play such a dominant role in our political culture is that they vote. If you get an 80% turnout then their USP is at least diminished.

    There is no question that the oldies are a key part of BT though. I think this is because they remember a time when the UK was a lot more United in the pre-devolution days. At the meeting I was at in Dundee last week Archie MacPherson, the old BBC football commentator was the star turn by a distance.

    Pensions have also been an underrated issue in the campaign. The technical problems that would cause enormous problems for private sector pensions now in deficit in Scotland (pretty much all of them) have probably passed them by but the risks of having your pension paid by something you are no longer a part of has not.

    There was an excellent debate in Dundee yesterday compered by Victoria Derbyshire which my daughter was at. What I found noticeable watching it (and her) on the I-player last night is that as we come to the crunch all of the issues are fading away somewhat and this is becoming a question of whether you want to be British or simply Scottish.

    One of the sources of my nervousness about this is that I am not sure that BT have been positive enough about this throughout the campaign. They have spent their time and energy knocking down the latest gibberish from Salmond and demonstrating its idiocy. In the last 2 weeks they really need to make it clear that we are British and damned proud of it. Archie had no doubt about that and neither do I.

    Very well said DavidL. #proudtobebritish
  • Only 15 days of this drivel left.

    Ever the optimist!

    Then it'll be 'But its our pound too!'......or 'The English robbed us of it'........

  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    Sean_F said:

    I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

    Looking at the Certainty to Vote figures, though, the oldies have the highest numbers. Also, they're the group that make most use of postal votes. If, say, 85% of older voters vote, compared to 70% of 18-40 year olds, that still gives an edge to older voters, albeit less than in a typical election.

    Salmond has also included 16-18 year olds, which makes an 80% turnout even less likely.

    More illiterate nonsense from you , they are heavily involved in debates on the topic and it appears many will vote.
  • AB...Thats when the drivel will really start.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Money to be made on this market though - a tickle on yes as the polls tighten then trade out before the result....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited September 2014


    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    Of course the Labour Party going on for years about the 'iniquities of Tory rule from London' is not best placed to respond to the SNP making the same claim......

  • malcolmg said:

    rogerh said:

    The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

    Of English people I have heard giving an opinion I would estimate it has been at least 80% for YES, it appears they are more for it than locals.
    I doubt they'd be entirely frank about their voting intentions within your earshot.
    The level of earache that people get from canvassers/coworkers/family/other monomaniacs may make for a lot of different voting in the privacy of a voting booth with pencil poised.
    Any normal person, when approached by an aggressive bore like Malcolm, would agree with him and leave.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited September 2014
    Any hints as to which company will get the massive contract for the border barrier..might be worth investing in..
  • malcolmg said:

    rogerh said:

    The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

    Of English people I have heard giving an opinion I would estimate it has been at least 80% for YES, it appears they are more for it than locals.
    I doubt they'd be entirely frank about their voting intentions within your earshot.
    The level of earache that people get from canvassers/coworkers/family/other monomaniacs may make for a lot of different voting in the privacy of a voting booth with pencil poised.
    Any normal person, when approached by an aggressive bore like Malcolm, would agree with him and leave.
    Now now - don't be rude to Malcolm...

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    Patrick said:

    Malcolm may, of course, just be right. It may not be an old/young thing or a poorer/richer thing. It may be a 'don't really give a shit about or even understand the practical consequences, I just want Scotland to run it's own affairs' thing. YES may squeak a narrow win, however financially destructive that may be.

    And then the fun would start.

    Patrick , They are down to a portion of the rich (those with self interest to keep their money at any cost) the scared ( not able to imagine doing things themselves ) and the nasties ( BNP types , worst of OO , etc ).
    The genie is out of the bottle, a majority do not have pensions, savings, mortgages , etc worth caring about and do not feel Better Together , they feel left behind and abandoned as they see these troughers from Westminster lying to them that they care. They have had 60 years to do Better Together and failed miserably.
    After YES you will see a similar phenomena in England as people go to UKIP in the hope they are something different from the lying troughers.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    Sean_F said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    The reason oldies play such a dominant role in our political culture is that they vote. If you get an 80% turnout then their USP is at least diminished.

    There is no question that the oldies are a key part of BT though. I think this is because they remember a time when the UK was a lot more United in the pre-devolution days. At the meeting I was at in Dundee last week Archie MacPherson, the old BBC football commentator was the star turn by a distance.

    Pensions have also been an underrated issue in the campaign. The technical problems that would cause enormous problems for private sector pensions now in deficit in Scotland (pretty much all of them) have probably passed them by but the risks of having your pension paid by something you are no longer a part of has not.

    There was an excellent debate in Dundee yesterday compered by Victoria Derbyshire which my daughter was at. What I found noticeable watching it (and her) on the I-player last night is that as we come to the crunch all of the issues are fading away somewhat and this is becoming a question of whether you want to be British or simply Scottish.

    One of the sources of my nervousness about this is that I am not sure that BT have been positive enough about this throughout the campaign. They have spent their time and energy knocking down the latest gibberish from Salmond and demonstrating its idiocy. In the last 2 weeks they really need to make it clear that we are British and damned proud of it. Archie had no doubt about that and neither do I.

    Ha Ha Ha , A washed up football commentator who everyone laughed their heads off at his wistful memories of 1950. Archie like the unionists is stuck in 1950 , most of Scotland has moved on. In Dundee yesterday the BBC struggled to get NO voters for the audience, BT are washed up they are run by WASP's fixated on the SNP and have missed the point completely. The people are going in a different direction, Labour choosing to be Tories little helpers have destroyed them , it is crumbling and the move is all to YES. Using failed Labour duffers was not a good idea.
    I think there are a large number of Scots like David L, who are as committed to remaining in the UK, as you are to leaving it.
    Unfortunately for David there are not as many.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    edited September 2014

    malcolmg said:

    rogerh said:

    The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

    Of English people I have heard giving an opinion I would estimate it has been at least 80% for YES, it appears they are more for it than locals.
    I doubt they'd be entirely frank about their voting intentions within your earshot.
    That would be on Television then and on blogs , online , newspapers etc
  • Curtice in the Telegraph on the YouGov:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11070471/Scottish-independence-What-will-it-take-to-persuade-Scots-to-say-no.html

    Thought therefore needs to be given to the source of the No side’s message, as well as its content – and attention paid to the fact that YouGov’s poll shows that Labour supporters are much more inclined to trust Gordon Brown in the debate about Scotland’s future than they are his successor, David Cameron.

    For all that the referendum matters to his political future, the Prime Minister would do better to accept that he should rely on others to fight the battle for him, difficult though that may be for him to do. After all, Labour has just as much to lose as the Prime Minister should Scotland opt to vote Yes.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    How's that different from the rest of us ?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    Plea to OGH: can you please offer Malcolm a thread of his own once a week for, say, the next fortnight? Then we could ask Shaddsy to open a book on who he'll be most abusive to. I'd feel very proud to be at 100-30 or less...

    Innocent , you are just a jessie , you would not even know abusive if it slapped you on the chops, too much of a wimp. I would not want you crying.
  • One thing that is emerging for me is how many people vote with their heart not their head. How else do you explain socialists getting re-elected again and again in eg France? It is an alien approach to me - I'm more a logical type. I think what end result would be good, what policies will likely achieve it and then vote accordingly. Common sense, sound money, etc.

    But clearly belief drives votes more than competence. There's a very good Ted Talk about this. It jokes that Martin Luther King said 'I have a dream' not 'I have a plan'. Electors buy in to conviction. And if you have the gift of the gab then you can built alot of conviction (witness Blair, Obama, etc) no matter how incoherent of incompetent your policies and execution may be.

    The YESsers have a dream. They don't have a plan. But they don't care. This is a potentially powerful and dangerous combination for those who vote with their head.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,697

    DavidL said:

    The reason oldies play such a dominant role in our political culture is that they vote. If you get an 80% turnout then their USP is at least diminished.

    There is no question that the oldies are a key part of BT though. I think this is because they remember a time when the UK was a lot more United in the pre-devolution days. At the meeting I was at in Dundee last week Archie MacPherson, the old BBC football commentator was the star turn by a distance.

    Pensions have also been an underrated issue in the campaign. The technical problems that would cause enormous problems for private sector pensions now in deficit in Scotland (pretty much all of them) have probably passed them by but the risks of having your pension paid by something you are no longer a part of has not.

    There was an excellent debate in Dundee yesterday compered by Victoria Derbyshire which my daughter was at. What I found noticeable watching it (and her) on the I-player last night is that as we come to the crunch all of the issues are fading away somewhat and this is becoming a question of whether you want to be British or simply Scottish.

    One of the sources of my nervousness about this is that I am not sure that BT have been positive enough about this throughout the campaign. They have spent their time and energy knocking down the latest gibberish from Salmond and demonstrating its idiocy. In the last 2 weeks they really need to make it clear that we are British and damned proud of it. Archie had no doubt about that and neither do I.

    Very well said DavidL. #proudtobebritish
    How, David, did your daughter think the discussion went? And what was her feel for the way the audience were thinking? You don’t get the same vibes if you’re not there!
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    At present it appears that Salmond (Yes) is strong on passion and weak on facts and Darling (No) is weak on passion and strong on facts. Also Murphy appears to be trying to rectify Darling's weakness.

    Having listened to people like Castro and the recordings of Hitler, the people often followed the passion more than the facts, but came to rue their choice in the end.

    Much has been said of the ensuing poverty due to the benign neglect by Labour in parts of Scotland.

    The hymn, "All things Bright & Beautiful" contains a verse that is now usually omitted due to political correctness.

    "The rich man in his castle,
    The poor man at his gate,
    God made them high and lowly,
    And ordered their estate."

    Wherever I have been on this globe and whether the regime is communist, fascist, dictatorship or democracy, the people at the top usually arranged things (to a greater or lesser degree) that they were the rich ones and the rest were the poor. So if Yes or No wins, I would not expect the rich/poor situation to change markedly in Scotland or rUK.

    The only people who will move across economic boundaries are those who have the initiative and determination to do so, waiting for any form of government to do it for you is a a very false hope.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

    I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

    I agree with that to an extent but even poor oldies are more likely to be no voters. The poor are much readier to believe that things might be better in an independent Scotland, that it would be more egalitarian or in other words more would be spent on them.

    When you see some of the areas I have been canvassing it is not hard to see why they might want to believe that. This is a painfully unequal country and far too many lives are blighted by poverty, poor living conditions and public sector squalor caused by a combination of a lack of funds and neglect.

    It is the height of naivety to believe this would be better in an independent Scotland and a failure of imagination to appreciate that it might in fact get a lot worse as the tax base diminishes and spending cuts are demanded by the markets reluctant to lend to a country without a track record whose leadership talk so glibly of default.

    But it is not hard to understand why this snake oil (pun intended) sounds so tempting. (Am I spending too much time with Labour party activists?)

    than NO hope.
    A much more reasonable post, Malcolm.

    Many of us in England (myself included) feel the same - the mainstream parties have let us down and are letting us down.

    Where I differ from you is that I feel it's not necessary to break up our British family in order to do this. They're not listening to the people but there are plenty of other political and voting reforms I'd put first.
    Casino , the Westminster parties will not change , they are only looking after each other , it is a clique and all they do is rearrange the deckchairs. It is the same in England as it is in Scotland but we have a chance now to break the cartel and that will also force England to do some navel gazing and see that it also needs change.
    If we vote NO it will be for NO HOPE and the cartel will continue on across the whole UK. YES is a very important vote for England's future as well.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    Easterross, Carlotta will have some pointless poll data that will prove you are wrong and have no clue what is going on. You need to be in England reading right wing newspapers and pointless poll data to understand what is happening in Scotland.
  • On Curtice' comment on who Labour voters in Scotland trust - in descending order (net)

    Brown: +20
    Darling: +13
    Miliband: +5
    Lamont: +2
    Davidson: -19
    Cameron: -50
    Sturgeon: -65
    Salmond: -73
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    How's that different from the rest of us ?
    You do not have a vote that offers HOPE that you could change things.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915

    Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    How's that different from the rest of us ?
    Alanbrooke for the rest of you, the decisions are being taken in your capital city by politicians you elect. Few Scots see London as our capital city and thanks to Tony Blair, our government, the one which determines most issues affecting our lives, is based in Edinburgh. I am a Unionist but every day I watch the TV news and overwhelmingly the domestic news is actually English only news. It has no relevance to Scotland.
    This week day 3 and typically
    1) The first test for the national football team under new captain Wayne Rooney- not my nation or my team
    2) Free school meals issue for all primary schools- not relevant to Scotland where children don't even attend primary school for the same length of time as in England, 7 years in Scotland.
    3) Back to school- well no actually Scots schools went back last month.
    4) Hospital parking charges- well no we haven't had them in Scotland for several years
    5) London Estuary Airport- little relevance here. Recently on a trip to Inverness to discuss flight connectivity with local business and council leaders, the MD of Heathrow had to fly to Glasgow and then drive to Inverness because there are no flights between Inverness and Heathrow! They were removed several years ago so the slots could be used for USA flights. We can however fly from Inverness to the main airport of 2 other EU members, Dublin and Amsterdam.

    I could go on. We simply have very little in common with England any more.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited September 2014
    malcolmg said:

    Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    Carlotta will have some pointless poll data that will prove you are wrong
    No, proving your lies are wrong - given they are so numerous and frequent - is simple. Easteross made a point about principle - which has only once been polled (in the notorious Panelbase poll) and which supported his thesis.

  • malcolmg said:

    Plea to OGH: can you please offer Malcolm a thread of his own once a week for, say, the next fortnight? Then we could ask Shaddsy to open a book on who he'll be most abusive to. I'd feel very proud to be at 100-30 or less...

    Innocent , you are just a jessie , you would not even know abusive if it slapped you on the chops, too much of a wimp. I would not want you crying.
    Is that the best you can do? Please feel free to try harder...

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    DavidL said:

    The reason oldies play such a dominant role in our political culture is that they vote. If you get an 80% turnout then their USP is at least diminished.

    There is no question that the oldies are a key part of BT though. I think this is because they remember a time when the UK was a lot more United in the pre-devolution days. At the meeting I was at in Dundee last week Archie MacPherson, the old BBC football commentator was the star turn by a distance.

    Pensions have also been an underrated issue in the campaign. The technical problems that would cause enormous problems for private sector pensions now in deficit in Scotland (pretty much all of them) have probably passed them by but the risks of having your pension paid by something you are no longer a part of has not.

    There was an excellent debate in Dundee yesterday compered by Victoria Derbyshire which my daughter was at. What I found noticeable watching it (and her) on the I-player last night is that as we come to the crunch all of the issues are fading away somewhat and this is becoming a question of whether you want to be British or simply Scottish.

    One of the sources of my nervousness about this is that I am not sure that BT have been positive enough about this throughout the campaign. They have spent their time and energy knocking down the latest gibberish from Salmond and demonstrating its idiocy. In the last 2 weeks they really need to make it clear that we are British and damned proud of it. Archie had no doubt about that and neither do I.

    Very well said DavidL. #proudtobebritish
    How, David, did your daughter think the discussion went? And what was her feel for the way the audience were thinking? You don’t get the same vibes if you’re not there!
    Having watched it and saw the audience reaction , etc it is fair to say that it was YES that had the momentum. The whole tone of the debate reflected this , NO were all gloom and doom as ever , whereas YES were positive. Only place you ever see NO dominant is in the private , invitation only Labour patsy meetings.
    Same applied to the STV debate last night, it gets more apparent every debate.
    As we are getting closer people are moving to YES.
  • Financier said:

    At present it appears that Salmond (Yes) is strong on passion and weak on facts and Darling (No) is weak on passion and strong on facts. Also Murphy appears to be trying to rectify Darling's weakness.

    Having listened to people like Castro and the recordings of Hitler, the people often followed the passion more than the facts, but came to rue their choice in the end.

    Much has been said of the ensuing poverty due to the benign neglect by Labour in parts of Scotland.

    The hymn, "All things Bright & Beautiful" contains a verse that is now usually omitted due to political correctness.

    "The rich man in his castle,
    The poor man at his gate,
    God made them high and lowly,
    And ordered their estate."

    Wherever I have been on this globe and whether the regime is communist, fascist, dictatorship or democracy, the people at the top usually arranged things (to a greater or lesser degree) that they were the rich ones and the rest were the poor. So if Yes or No wins, I would not expect the rich/poor situation to change markedly in Scotland or rUK.

    The only people who will move across economic boundaries are those who have the initiative and determination to do so, waiting for any form of government to do it for you is a a very false hope.

    Good Heavens, if you'd been in charge we'd still be trying to run India and most of Africa...
  • malcolmg said:

    Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    How's that different from the rest of us ?
    You do not have a vote that offers HOPE that you could change things.
    No, rUK suffers from the same mis-diagnosis - 'If only we weren't ruled from London Brussels everything would be so much better'.....with the same fanatical certainty, impervious to argument or reason.....

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    Financier said:

    At present it appears that Salmond (Yes) is strong on passion and weak on facts and Darling (No) is weak on passion and strong on facts. Also Murphy appears to be trying to rectify Darling's weakness.

    Having listened to people like Castro and the recordings of Hitler, the people often followed the passion more than the facts, but came to rue their choice in the end.

    Much has been said of the ensuing poverty due to the benign neglect by Labour in parts of Scotland.

    The hymn, "All things Bright & Beautiful" contains a verse that is now usually omitted due to political correctness.

    "The rich man in his castle,
    The poor man at his gate,
    God made them high and lowly,
    And ordered their estate."

    Wherever I have been on this globe and whether the regime is communist, fascist, dictatorship or democracy, the people at the top usually arranged things (to a greater or lesser degree) that they were the rich ones and the rest were the poor. So if Yes or No wins, I would not expect the rich/poor situation to change markedly in Scotland or rUK.

    The only people who will move across economic boundaries are those who have the initiative and determination to do so, waiting for any form of government to do it for you is a a very false hope.

    Your first couple of lines show your total and utter lack of any knowledge of Scotland and the politics going on there. Murphy is a joke , followed about by a chicken yesterday. NO have no clue and no facts or policies to pass on. Murphy may have done better if he was not constantly lying , at least he has ventured outside the private meetings , but he has no story to tell other than Labour at Westminster are now right wing poodles of the Tories. People know this and hence they treat him and his lies accordingly.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    malcolmg said:

    Plea to OGH: can you please offer Malcolm a thread of his own once a week for, say, the next fortnight? Then we could ask Shaddsy to open a book on who he'll be most abusive to. I'd feel very proud to be at 100-30 or less...

    Innocent , you are just a jessie , you would not even know abusive if it slapped you on the chops, too much of a wimp. I would not want you crying.
    Is that the best you can do? Please feel free to try harder...

    Unlike you I have a life and a job
  • Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    How's that different from the rest of us ?
    Alanbrooke for the rest of you, the decisions are being taken in your capital city by politicians you elect. Few Scots see London as our capital city and thanks to Tony Blair, our government, the one which determines most issues affecting our lives, is based in Edinburgh. I am a Unionist but every day I watch the TV news and overwhelmingly the domestic news is actually English only news. It has no relevance to Scotland.
    This week day 3 and typically
    1) The first test for the national football team under new captain Wayne Rooney- not my nation or my team
    2) Free school meals issue for all primary schools- not relevant to Scotland where children don't even attend primary school for the same length of time as in England, 7 years in Scotland.
    3) Back to school- well no actually Scots schools went back last month.
    4) Hospital parking charges- well no we haven't had them in Scotland for several years
    5) London Estuary Airport- little relevance here. Recently on a trip to Inverness to discuss flight connectivity with local business and council leaders, the MD of Heathrow had to fly to Glasgow and then drive to Inverness because there are no flights between Inverness and Heathrow! They were removed several years ago so the slots could be used for USA flights. We can however fly from Inverness to the main airport of 2 other EU members, Dublin and Amsterdam.

    I could go on. We simply have very little in common with England any more.
    Why didn't the MD fly to Aberdeen?

  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    On the subject of 16-18 year olds, in Scotland we don't waste money on separate institutions for senior school pupils, they remain at school not attend pretend colleges. Almost every Secondary School in Scotland in both the public and private sector has held an IndyRef debate. On Twitter for month after month the result of the debate in each school has been tweeted as it has been announced.

    Scottish 16-18 year olds are incredibly engaged in the whole IndyRef debate. For me among the most interesting comments about the Salmond v Darling debates came from teenagers who said that if they were representative of the men leading Scottish politics, we would be better off without them and their shouting bad tempered rants.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,697
    To be fair, Malcolm has a good point about “Hope”. Better Together, from what I have seen and heard, seems to be saying “We can’t afford it, we won’t manage alone" and so on. Summed up a long time ago as “too poor, too wee, too stupid”.
    And that doesn’t send a positive message.
    The problem for BT is that lots of comments coming up from England (or perhaps, really London) suggest that life in the UK isn’t good. “People don’t like being in the EU, and that nasty clique in Westminister are stopping us leaving". And so on. Energy firms ripping off customers, Rotherhams, top jobs reserved for an elite, the list at the moment seems endless.

    The SNP are offering a way out. Do it ourselves, with our people at the top.

    It would tempt me if I were in Scotland. A country where my children and grandchildren could get to the top from an “ordinary background”.
  • Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    How's that different from the rest of us ?
    Alanbrooke for the rest of you, the decisions are being taken in your capital city by politicians you elect. Few Scots see London as our capital city and thanks to Tony Blair, our government, the one which determines most issues affecting our lives, is based in Edinburgh. I am a Unionist but every day I watch the TV news and overwhelmingly the domestic news is actually English only news. It has no relevance to Scotland.
    This week day 3 and typically
    1) The first test for the national football team under new captain Wayne Rooney- not my nation or my team
    2) Free school meals issue for all primary schools- not relevant to Scotland where children don't even attend primary school for the same length of time as in England, 7 years in Scotland.
    3) Back to school- well no actually Scots schools went back last month.
    4) Hospital parking charges- well no we haven't had them in Scotland for several years
    5) London Estuary Airport- little relevance here. Recently on a trip to Inverness to discuss flight connectivity with local business and council leaders, the MD of Heathrow had to fly to Glasgow and then drive to Inverness because there are no flights between Inverness and Heathrow! They were removed several years ago so the slots could be used for USA flights. We can however fly from Inverness to the main airport of 2 other EU members, Dublin and Amsterdam.

    I could go on. We simply have very little in common with England any more.
    Keep your chin up, Easterross. All is not lost.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    How's that different from the rest of us ?
    Alanbrooke for the rest of you, the decisions are being taken in your capital city by politicians you elect. Few Scots see London as our capital city and thanks to Tony Blair, our government, the one which determines most issues affecting our lives, is based in Edinburgh. I am a Unionist but every day I watch the TV news and overwhelmingly the domestic news is actually English only news. It has no relevance to Scotland.
    This week day 3 and typically
    1) The first test for the national football team under new captain Wayne Rooney- not my nation or my team
    2) Free school meals issue for all primary schools- not relevant to Scotland where children don't even attend primary school for the same length of time as in England, 7 years in Scotland.
    3) Back to school- well no actually Scots schools went back last month.
    4) Hospital parking charges- well no we haven't had them in Scotland for several years
    5) London Estuary Airport- little relevance here. Recently on a trip to Inverness to discuss flight connectivity with local business and council leaders, the MD of Heathrow had to fly to Glasgow and then drive to Inverness because there are no flights between Inverness and Heathrow! They were removed several years ago so the slots could be used for USA flights. We can however fly from Inverness to the main airport of 2 other EU members, Dublin and Amsterdam.

    I could go on. We simply have very little in common with England any more.
    Why didn't the MD fly to Aberdeen?

    Nice one Monica you prove his point perfectly , it is only 112 miles from Inverness and would take just under 3 hours given the infrastructure deficit versus the 3 + hours it takes from Glasgow where you at least have a few real roads at the beginning of your journey.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited September 2014

    Something everyone has to realise is that for a y Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    How's that different from the rest of us ?
    Alanbrooke for the rest of you, the decisions are being taken in your capital city by politicians you elect. Few Scots see London as our capital city and thanks to Tony Blair, our government, the one which determines most issues affecting our lives, is based in Edinburgh. I am a Unionist but every day I watch the TV news and overwhelmingly the domestic news is actually English only news. It has no relevance to Scotland.
    This week day 3 and typically
    1) The first test for the national football team under new captain Wayne Rooney- not my nation or my team
    2) Free school meals issue for all primary schools- not relevant to Scotland where children don't even attend primary school for the same length of time as in England, 7 years in Scotland.
    3) Back to school- well no actually Scots schools went back last month.
    4) Hospital parking charges- well no we haven't had them in Scotland for several years
    5) London Estuary Airport- little relevance here. Recently on a trip to Inverness to discuss flight connectivity with local business and council leaders, the MD of Heathrow had to fly to Glasgow and then drive to Inverness because there are no flights between Inverness and Heathrow! They were removed several years ago so the slots could be used for USA flights. We can however fly from Inverness to the main airport of 2 other EU members, Dublin and Amsterdam.

    I could go on. We simply have very little in common with England any more.
    Easterross

    the bulk of your day to day decisions are being taken in Edinburgh and to me at least by politicians who are just as self-serving as those anywhere else.

    If you live in the Midlands or Northern England the politicians are just as distant as Scotland but you don't have local respresentation and the celts get to vote on what happens to you.

    As for the news well back home in Ulster we have local channels I'm sure you have the same in Scotland so if you want local news try watching them. They'll be full of exciting fare like whingeing politicians, gripping news on bus timetables and farmers who can fart Hip Hop.

    London Estuary doesn't have any effect on me but I am interested in what's happening my neighbours. Have Scots become so inward looking that they lost that capacity ? If you've lost interest in your largest trading partner you're kind of screwed already.
  • malcolmg said:

    Financier said:

    At present it appears that Salmond (Yes) is strong on passion and weak on facts and Darling (No) is weak on passion and strong on facts. Also Murphy appears to be trying to rectify Darling's weakness.

    Having listened to people like Castro and the recordings of Hitler, the people often followed the passion more than the facts, but came to rue their choice in the end.

    Much has been said of the ensuing poverty due to the benign neglect by Labour in parts of Scotland.

    The hymn, "All things Bright & Beautiful" contains a verse that is now usually omitted due to political correctness.

    "The rich man in his castle,
    The poor man at his gate,
    God made them high and lowly,
    And ordered their estate."

    Wherever I have been on this globe and whether the regime is communist, fascist, dictatorship or democracy, the people at the top usually arranged things (to a greater or lesser degree) that they were the rich ones and the rest were the poor. So if Yes or No wins, I would not expect the rich/poor situation to change markedly in Scotland or rUK.

    The only people who will move across economic boundaries are those who have the initiative and determination to do so, waiting for any form of government to do it for you is a a very false hope.

    Your first couple of lines show your total and utter lack of any knowledge of Scotland and the politics going on there. Murphy is a joke , followed about by a chicken yesterday. NO have no clue and no facts or policies to pass on. Murphy may have done better if he was not constantly lying , at least he has ventured outside the private meetings , but he has no story to tell other than Labour at Westminster are now right wing poodles of the Tories. People know this and hence they treat him and his lies accordingly.
    They'll need more chickens then, as Telegraph reporting that Brown, John Reid and Charlie K are joining the central belt fray:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11071210/Gordon-Brown-and-John-Reid-to-lead-Labour-fightback-against-nationalist-surge.html
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915

    Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    How's that different from the rest of us ?
    Alanbrooke for the rest of you, the decisions are being taken in your capital city by politicians you elect. Few Scots see London as our capital city and thanks to Tony Blair, our government, the one which determines most issues affecting our lives, is based in Edinburgh. I am a Unionist but every day I watch the TV news and overwhelmingly the domestic news is actually English only news. It has no relevance to Scotland.
    This week day 3 and typically
    1) The first test for the national football team under new captain Wayne Rooney- not my nation or my team
    2) Free school meals issue for all primary schools- not relevant to Scotland where children don't even attend primary school for the same length of time as in England, 7 years in Scotland.
    3) Back to school- well no actually Scots schools went back last month.
    4) Hospital parking charges- well no we haven't had them in Scotland for several years
    5) London Estuary Airport- little relevance here. Recently on a trip to Inverness to discuss flight connectivity with local business and council leaders, the MD of Heathrow had to fly to Glasgow and then drive to Inverness because there are no flights between Inverness and Heathrow! They were removed several years ago so the slots could be used for USA flights. We can however fly from Inverness to the main airport of 2 other EU members, Dublin and Amsterdam.

    I could go on. We simply have very little in common with England any more.
    Why didn't the MD fly to Aberdeen?

    Probably easier to get a flight to Glasgow to fit his timetable. For me the driving time to Perth is less than to Aberdeen so he could probably fly to Glasgow and drive up for 3 hours than wait for an appropriate flight to Aberdeen and drive the 2 1/2 hours to Inverness. From Inverness, Glasgow is barely 30 minutes further away than Aberdeen.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,524

    To be fair, Malcolm has a good point about “Hope”. Better Together, from what I have seen and heard, seems to be saying “We can’t afford it, we won’t manage alone" and so on. Summed up a long time ago as “too poor, too wee, too stupid”.
    And that doesn’t send a positive message.
    The problem for BT is that lots of comments coming up from England (or perhaps, really London) suggest that life in the UK isn’t good. “People don’t like being in the EU, and that nasty clique in Westminister are stopping us leaving". And so on. Energy firms ripping off customers, Rotherhams, top jobs reserved for an elite, the list at the moment seems endless.

    The SNP are offering a way out. Do it ourselves, with our people at the top.

    It would tempt me if I were in Scotland. A country where my children and grandchildren could get to the top from an “ordinary background”.

    Most news does not show our political class in an attractive light, and that must help Yes. I mean, what positive spin can you place on local councillors and police officers tolerating child-rape? You can polish a turd as much as you like, but it still remains a turd.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited September 2014
    Modifying slightly the comment of the house janitor in the Billy Bunter stories:
    "They should put oldies down at birth."
  • “too poor, too wee, too stupid”.

    Isnt that the SNP policy on currency, central bank and LOLR?

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    “too poor, too wee, too stupid”.

    Isnt that the SNP policy on currency, central bank and LOLR?

    they're majoring on too stupid.
  • I'm loving Malcolmg's more lucid moments in this thread. More please. I might even be persuaded, were it not for the fact that Scotland will promptly rejoin the EU. A totally free, low tax celtic tiger on England's doorstep would be great! However what we are being offered is a socialist basket case.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Sean_F said:

    To be fair, Malcolm has a good point about “Hope”. Better Together, from what I have seen and heard, seems to be saying “We can’t afford it, we won’t manage alone" and so on. Summed up a long time ago as “too poor, too wee, too stupid”.
    And that doesn’t send a positive message.
    The problem for BT is that lots of comments coming up from England (or perhaps, really London) suggest that life in the UK isn’t good. “People don’t like being in the EU, and that nasty clique in Westminister are stopping us leaving". And so on. Energy firms ripping off customers, Rotherhams, top jobs reserved for an elite, the list at the moment seems endless.

    The SNP are offering a way out. Do it ourselves, with our people at the top.

    It would tempt me if I were in Scotland. A country where my children and grandchildren could get to the top from an “ordinary background”.

    Most news does not show our political class in an attractive light, and that must help Yes. I mean, what positive spin can you place on local councillors and police officers tolerating child-rape? You can polish a turd as much as you like, but it still remains a turd.
    But Tony Blair rolled them in glitter.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    Easterross You could say that about domestic news in any US state, German region, Canadian province, even domestic local news in Northumberland and Kent
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    To be fair, Malcolm has a good point about “Hope”. Better Together, from what I have seen and heard, seems to be saying “We can’t afford it, we won’t manage alone" and so on. Summed up a long time ago as “too poor, too wee, too stupid”.
    And that doesn’t send a positive message.
    The problem for BT is that lots of comments coming up from England (or perhaps, really London) suggest that life in the UK isn’t good. “People don’t like being in the EU, and that nasty clique in Westminister are stopping us leaving". And so on. Energy firms ripping off customers, Rotherhams, top jobs reserved for an elite, the list at the moment seems endless.

    The SNP are offering a way out. Do it ourselves, with our people at the top.

    It would tempt me if I were in Scotland. A country where my children and grandchildren could get to the top from an “ordinary background”.

    OKC , exactly describes the reality on the ground. It may never happen in reality but at least it would be possible versus current position where everybody knows that it will only get worse.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    edited September 2014

    malcolmg said:

    Financier said:

    At present it appears that Salmond (Yes) is strong on passion and weak on facts and Darling (No) is weak on passion and strong on facts. Also Murphy appears to be trying to rectify Darling's weakness.

    Having listened to people like Castro and the recordings of Hitler, the people often followed the passion more than the facts, but came to rue their choice in the end.

    Much has been said of the ensuing poverty due to the benign neglect by Labour in parts of Scotland.

    The hymn, "All things Bright & Beautiful" contains a verse that is now usually omitted due to political correctness.

    "The rich man in his castle,
    The poor man at his gate,
    God made them high and lowly,
    And ordered their estate."

    Wherever I have been on this globe and whether the regime is communist, fascist, dictatorship or democracy, the people at the top usually arranged things (to a greater or lesser degree) that they were the rich ones and the rest were the poor. So if Yes or No wins, I would not expect the rich/poor situation to change markedly in Scotland or rUK.

    The only people who will move across economic boundaries are those who have the initiative and determination to do so, waiting for any form of government to do it for you is a a very false hope.

    Your first couple of lines show your total and utter lack of any knowledge of Scotland and the politics going on there. Murphy is a joke , followed about by a chicken yesterday. NO have no clue and no facts or policies to pass on. Murphy may have done better if he was not constantly lying , at least he has ventured outside the private meetings , but he has no story to tell other than Labour at Westminster are now right wing poodles of the Tories. People know this and hence they treat him and his lies accordingly.
    They'll need more chickens then, as Telegraph reporting that Brown, John Reid and Charlie K are joining the central belt fray:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11071210/Gordon-Brown-and-John-Reid-to-lead-Labour-fightback-against-nationalist-surge.html
    Roll out the losers and has beens , every one of them a joke. If they are that desperate then their private numbers must be dire.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Interestingly for this discussion, Sky News about to repeat a feature on how the immigrants to Scotland are going to vote on 18th September. One man featured is a Syrian refugee and the venue is some community hall, presumably in the East End of Glasgow judging by the accent of the locals interviewed. Probably near the Red Road flats in Sighthill where Glasgow Council has been housing asylum seekers.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

    For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

    How's that different from the rest of us ?
    Alanbrooke for the rest of you, the decisions are being taken in your capital city by politicians you elect. Few Scots see London as our capital city and thanks to Tony Blair, our government, the one which determines most issues affecting our lives, is based in Edinburgh. I am a Unionist but every day I watch the TV news and overwhelmingly the domestic news is actually English only news. It has no relevance to Scotland.
    This week day 3 and typically
    1) The first test for the national football team under new captain Wayne Rooney- not my nation or my team
    2) Free school meals issue for all primary schools- not relevant to Scotland where children don't even attend primary school for the same length of time as in England, 7 years in Scotland.
    3) Back to school- well no actually Scots schools went back last month.
    4) Hospital parking charges- well no we haven't had them in Scotland for several years
    5) London Estuary Airport- little relevance here. Recently on a trip to Inverness to discuss flight connectivity with local business and council leaders, the MD of Heathrow had to fly to Glasgow and then drive to Inverness because there are no flights between Inverness and Heathrow! They were removed several years ago so the slots could be used for USA flights. We can however fly from Inverness to the main airport of 2 other EU members, Dublin and Amsterdam.

    I could go on. We simply have very little in common with England any more.
    Why didn't the MD fly to Aberdeen?

    There are direct flights from both Luton and Gatwick to Inverness every day, though I can see why the MD of Heathrow didn't want to use a rival!

    The issue of interconnectivity to onward flights is why the 3rd runway at Heathrow/Boris Island discussion is relevant to Scotland. It would still be true of an indy Scotland, but Scots voters could no longer have their MPs agitate for it.

    Personally, in the East Midlands I prefer to fly internationally via Schipol as 4 flights a day from Birmingham. The short flight is better than the M25!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    malcolmg said:

    To be fair, Malcolm has a good point about “Hope”. Better Together, from what I have seen and heard, seems to be saying “We can’t afford it, we won’t manage alone" and so on. Summed up a long time ago as “too poor, too wee, too stupid”.
    And that doesn’t send a positive message.
    The problem for BT is that lots of comments coming up from England (or perhaps, really London) suggest that life in the UK isn’t good. “People don’t like being in the EU, and that nasty clique in Westminister are stopping us leaving". And so on. Energy firms ripping off customers, Rotherhams, top jobs reserved for an elite, the list at the moment seems endless.

    The SNP are offering a way out. Do it ourselves, with our people at the top.

    It would tempt me if I were in Scotland. A country where my children and grandchildren could get to the top from an “ordinary background”.

    OKC , exactly describes the reality on the ground. It may never happen in reality but at least it would be possible versus current position where everybody knows that it will only get worse.
    So it's got worse since you've had your own Parliament ?

    Well, well.
  • In a normal election, with turnout around 50% to 60%, I would agree with Mike. However, we are going to see astonishing levels of turnout at this election, probably around 80%. Voter registration closed at midnight last night and there were quite literally queues at some offices.

    The higher the turnout the more important the working-age voters become. Keep your hats on. This is gonna be a heck of a ride.

    If the election were restricted to just working-age voters than YES would be home and dry, but the oldies are against Independence by such a wide margin that YES has to win the working-age vote by a large margin too.

    It's a lot of ground to make up.
    Your faith in pollsters is very touching. And entirely misplaced.
This discussion has been closed.