If this poll shows another YES lead, as may be the case, I am calling it for YES.
What convinces me is the evidence adduced today by TUD, much as it grieves me. The more people learn about Indy the more they tend to YES. In which case almost nothing can be done, though I urge people to try!
I suspect this is because they hear seductive lies from YES and the boring facts from NO, but nonetheless the trend is not our friend. Go out there and shout about indy, and the people think, hey, I fancy a change. Shut up and do nothing and they will be persuaded by the Nats.
It is nearly time to say Adieu, and to shift our savings. I'm into Pacific equities ex Japan.
You do know that most PxJ funds are basically a bet on the Aussie Dollar & the commodity cycle? You're brave in a slowing economy.
But when the history books are written it will be the government of David Cameron that is recorded as the one that lost the Union. And the immensity of that will dwarf anything else that it has or has not achieved. Ed Miliband will be what he is now: a rather pointless footnote.
Certainly your last sentence is right, but the break-up of the Empire was a much bigger event. In the space of a few years we went from children proudly looking the atlas and seeing that a huge chunk of the habitable world was coloured red, to being a small island (plus a small bit of an even smaller island) off the coast of France.
@bigjohnowls Perhaps the "Caliphate" could send a few infected jihadists to Dundee and make your wish come true? (They might of course wish to take in a few of the sights of London for their photo albums?)
Mr. Dodges, if that's necessary, then fine. Scotland can't vote for independence then try and keep the perks of union.
MD, they will take the best option , it will be CU under a different name for x number of years to allow split of assets etc etc and will be claimed by both sides that they have won and held their ground.
The best deal I can see Scotland getting in the event of a Yes is for the BoE to act as central bank for Scottish institutions for a set, short period of time (2-3 years, say), providing that they continue to be subject to the rules and regulations set in London. During that time, there might be a 'Scottish' seat on a few BoE committees but either way, it would have to be a clear transitional arrangement to facilitate a smooth split; it could not be an open-ended commitment.
*(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.*
lol. There is absolutely no way England will spend MONEY building naval ships in Scotland. If you believe that you are nuts. We are a proud naval country, we can build our own ships. If we were to contract them out (incredibly. stratospherically unlikely) we will do it to countries that haven't just told us to bugger off, and left us all poorer.
Which part of that is hard to understand? And you are one of the more sensible Nats.
I really do wonder if you are all hallucinating, up there.
Well, Mr Hammond must have been drinking the same as me, i.e. fairtrade instant coffee, as he's confirmed that EWNI would in fact do precisely that, i.e. spend money, with the QE2 class second ship.
As for frigates and other major units, there is no suitable yard south of the border (the Barrow one is a specialist one for subs) and BAe made it clear that refitting one, after spending all that money on the Clyde, would cost money, which could be better spent on warships an their kit. Remember, a startling percentage of the cost of a warship is the gubbins, and EWNI will do well there.
Now consider forcing the Scots to look elsewhere in Europe for cooperation, e.g. adopting one of the German frigate designs. I repeat, there is all that lovely kit to be sold. Engines, radars, etc. etc. And those orders are to go west (or rather south and east)?
*(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.*
lol. There is absolutely no way England will spend MONEY building naval ships in Scotland. If you believe that you are nuts. We are a proud naval country, we can build our own ships. If we were to contract them out (incredibly. stratospherically unlikely) we will do it to countries that haven't just told us to bugger off, and left us all poorer.
Which part of that is hard to understand? And you are one of the more sensible Nats.
I really do wonder if you are all hallucinating, up there.
Perhaps because you do not have the money to pay BAE to kit out a yard and buy in the workers required in England.
*(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.*
lol. There is absolutely no way England will spend MONEY building naval ships in Scotland. If you believe that you are nuts. We are a proud naval country, we can build our own ships. If we were to contract them out (incredibly. stratospherically unlikely) we will do it to countries that haven't just told us to bugger off, and left us all poorer.
Which part of that is hard to understand? And you are one of the more sensible Nats.
I really do wonder if you are all hallucinating, up there.
A week of joyous celebration, followed by years of bitter regret. It's extraordinary how they cannot see it, but also entirely understandable. Hope is a powerful force, but when it subsides into reality it can turn into something very dark. The SNP will reap what it has sown. But what will they care? For a nationalist an impoverished Scotland with its own seat at the UN is a far better prospect than a richer country that is part of a bigger state.
If this poll shows another YES lead, as may be the case, I am calling it for YES.
What convinces me is the evidence adduced today by TUD, much as it grieves me. The more people learn about Indy the more they tend to YES. In which case almost nothing can be done, though I urge people to try!
I suspect this is because they hear seductive lies from YES and the boring facts from NO, but nonetheless the trend is not our friend. Go out there and shout about indy, and the people think, hey, I fancy a change. Shut up and do nothing and they will be persuaded by the Nats.
It is nearly time to say Adieu, and to shift our savings. I'm into Pacific equities ex Japan.
You do know that most PxJ funds are basically a bet on the Aussie Dollar & the commodity cycle? You're brave in a slowing economy.
Much of that movement has already happened within our glorious union. Rosyth was closed as a naval base to pander to SW marginals and that was when the Cold War was at deep-freeze levels. More recently Nimrod, RAF bases closed, ASR privatised, Scottish regiments to a single regiment, etc. etc.
As for "[n]o country permits",
(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.
The people who must be most worried are all those who do work for the Ministry of Defence in Scotland.
The demand for a FUK government to bring that work back to England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be immediate and overwhelming. Why the F should we spend our hard-earned money subsidising Scottish shipbuilders? Insane. No country permits that.
Pity those workers, and their families.
Good for Plymouth and Devonport, though.
Are you sure?!
Much of that movement has already happened within our glorious union. Rosyth was closed as a naval base to pander to SW marginals and that was when the Cold War was at deep-freeze levels. More recently Nimrod, RAF bases closed, ASR privatised, Scottish regiments to a single regiment, etc. etc.
As for "[n]o country permits",
(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.
Don't fool yourself. BAE yards elsewhere can pick up the work, and will if the MoD tells them to go south.
What yards?
Barrow, Jarrow, any of the other mothballed and closed yards that haven't been redeveloped and could be brought back into action using the same money that the Clyde yards need invested in them.
The people who must be most worried are all those who do work for the Ministry of Defence in Scotland.
The demand for a FUK government to bring that work back to England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be immediate and overwhelming. Why the F should we spend our hard-earned money subsidising Scottish shipbuilders? Insane. No country permits that.
Pity those workers, and their families.
Good for Plymouth and Devonport, though.
Are you sure?!
Much of that movement has already happened within our glorious union. Rosyth was closed as a naval base to pander to SW marginals and that was when the Cold War was at deep-freeze levels. More recently Nimrod, RAF bases closed, ASR privatised, Scottish regiments to a single regiment, etc. etc.
As for "[n]o country permits",
(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.
Oh gosh, are we back to this again, I thought we had covered all these points before.
The RN never has, doesn't now and never will by complex warships from a foreign supplier.
The next class of ship to be ordered will be the Type 26 Frigates of which, at present, it is intended there shall be 13. The Clyde yards need significant investment if they are to make those ships. At present that investment is on hold. If there is a Yes vote it will be switched to yards in England.
My (genuine) understanding was that the yards had already been substatially refitted for that purpose but if yu can point me to a reliable source I would be grateful.
Good governments do not preside over the break-ups of the countries they are supposed to run. The end of the Union is what this one will be remembered for.
I love the way the Left always blame the Cameron and Tories for their own actions. IndyRef is a good example, but my favourite is the hacking scandal, which of course was absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Cameron: it was carried out by a Labour-supporting newspaper group, under a Labour government with a massive majority, when Cameron was an obscure back-bencher, was investigated three times by Labour-appointed officials and by police led by a Labour-supporting Commissioner, who each time decided there was nothing widespread to investigate, and somehow it's Cameron's fault.
A 307 year old country that has probably had more influence on the history of the world than any other is about to disappear. And it will do so under this government - which thus fails in its primary duty, which is to protect the realm. Is it all this government's fault? Absolutely not. If you have read any of my recent contributions you will see that I blame Labour just as much, if not more. The Westminster elite as a whole has created the environment which has enabled a man and a party selling snake oil to win. But when the history books are written it will be the government of David Cameron that is recorded as the one that lost the Union. And the immensity of that will dwarf anything else that it has or has not achieved. Ed Miliband will be what he is now: a rather pointless footnote.
Yes, fair play to you Southam. First, you predicted this apparent calamity (let's hope it doesn't happen, but it's fair to say the trend is grim).
Second, you have been scrupulous in apportioning blame.
I agree with every word, indeed I wrote a blog basically saying the same:
*(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.*
lol. There is absolutely no way England will spend MONEY building naval ships in Scotland. If you believe that you are nuts. We are a proud naval country, we can build our own ships. If we were to contract them out (incredibly. stratospherically unlikely) we will do it to countries that haven't just told us to bugger off, and left us all poorer.
Which part of that is hard to understand? And you are one of the more sensible Nats.
I really do wonder if you are all hallucinating, up there.
Well, Mr Hammond must have been drinking the same as me, i.e. fairtrade instant coffee, as he's confirmed that EWNI would in fact do precisely that, i.e. spend money, with the QE2 class second ship.
As for frigates and other major units, there is no suitable yard south of the border (the Barrow one is a specialist one for subs) and BAe made it clear that refitting one, after spending all that money on the Clyde, would cost money, which could be better spent on warships an their kit. Remember, a startling percentage of the cost of a warship is the gubbins, and EWNI will do well there.
Now consider forcing the Scots to look elsewhere in Europe for cooperation, e.g. adopting one of the German frigate designs. I repeat, there is all that lovely kit to be sold. Engines, radars, etc. etc. And those orders are to go west (or rather south and east)?
Who the fk is going to buy from an overpriced shipyard except its own government ?
Defence is all about politics and a small nation with no say isn't going to sell anything much, daftest Indy ostrich argument of the day.
Mr. Dodges, if that's necessary, then fine. Scotland can't vote for independence then try and keep the perks of union.
MD, they will take the best option , it will be CU under a different name for x number of years to allow split of assets etc etc and will be claimed by both sides that they have won and held their ground.
The best deal I can see Scotland getting in the event of a Yes is for the BoE to act as central bank for Scottish institutions for a set, short period of time (2-3 years, say), providing that they continue to be subject to the rules and regulations set in London. During that time, there might be a 'Scottish' seat on a few BoE committees but either way, it would have to be a clear transitional arrangement to facilitate a smooth split; it could not be an open-ended commitment.
I agree , it will just be down to the term and how long they think it needs to ensure stable markets/currency going forward.
*(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.*
lol. There is absolutely no way England will spend MONEY building naval ships in Scotland. If you believe that you are nuts. We are a proud naval country, we can build our own ships. If we were to contract them out (incredibly. stratospherically unlikely) we will do it to countries that haven't just told us to bugger off, and left us all poorer.
Which part of that is hard to understand? And you are one of the more sensible Nats.
I really do wonder if you are all hallucinating, up there.
Well, Mr Hammond must have been drinking the same as me, i.e. fairtrade instant coffee, as he's confirmed that EWNI would in fact do precisely that, i.e. spend money, with the QE2 class second ship.
As for frigates and other major units, there is no suitable yard south of the border (the Barrow one is a specialist one for subs) and BAe made it clear that refitting one, after spending all that money on the Clyde, would cost money, which could be better spent on warships an their kit. Remember, a startling percentage of the cost of a warship is the gubbins, and EWNI will do well there.
Now consider forcing the Scots to look elsewhere in Europe for cooperation, e.g. adopting one of the German frigate designs. I repeat, there is all that lovely kit to be sold. Engines, radars, etc. etc. And those orders are to go west (or rather south and east)?
The Prince of Wales is an order already placed and, indeed, being built. Scotland is not yet a foreign country.
As to the Frigates see my post below regarding investment.
The idea that by building in England we might lose out on the profits from one or two frigates for Scotland doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
If Scotland votes Yes then RN shipbuilding on the Clyde finishes and the PoW will be the last RN ship built in Scotland.
Hi, let's say for the sake of argument that the TNS poll comes in 50/50. Where does that leave us on % chance of each side victory? I would say No needs to drift from 1.47 significantly further towards 2.0
...factors both sides of course, pro-NO: last minute fear card, historical averages since campaign began, oldies actually remember to turn up and vote....
pro-Yes momentum, young enthusiasm, part of making history, protest vote, possibility Salmond peaked too soon and voters spooked by market reaction between now and polling day, pro-no voters saying "f**k it and voting yes in the booth at the last minute to give Tories/Westminster a bleeding nose...
But if TNS confirms as 50-50, No vote price has to drift sharply? Perhaps to 5/6 1.83? Something enormous would clearly be happening?
*(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.*
lol. There is absolutely no way England will spend MONEY building naval ships in Scotland. If you believe that you are nuts. We are a proud naval country, we can build our own ships. If we were to contract them out (incredibly. stratospherically unlikely) we will do it to countries that haven't just told us to bugger off, and left us all poorer.
Which part of that is hard to understand? And you are one of the more sensible Nats.
I really do wonder if you are all hallucinating, up there.
Well, Mr Hammond must have been drinking the same as me, i.e. fairtrade instant coffee, as he's confirmed that EWNI would in fact do precisely that, i.e. spend money, with the QE2 class second ship.
As for frigates and other major units, there is no suitable yard south of the border (the Barrow one is a specialist one for subs) and BAe made it clear that refitting one, after spending all that money on the Clyde, would cost money, which could be better spent on warships an their kit. Remember, a startling percentage of the cost of a warship is the gubbins, and EWNI will do well there.
Now consider forcing the Scots to look elsewhere in Europe for cooperation, e.g. adopting one of the German frigate designs. I repeat, there is all that lovely kit to be sold. Engines, radars, etc. etc. And those orders are to go west (or rather south and east)?
Who the fk is going to buy from an overpriced shipyard except its own government ?
Defence is all about politics and a small nation with no say isn't going to sell anything much, daftest Indy ostrich argument of the day.
Okay, if it's politics we will let that lie, fair enough. But it's actually an interesting point - how much longer can one insist on domestic production of a ship hull compared to other kit? Look at missiles and F-35s from the USA, cooperative production of airliners and air tankers, etc. etc.
It does however strike me in all seriousness that insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that only a minor proportion of the cost of the ship is to do with the hull and where it is built.
*(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.*
lol. There is absolutely no way England will spend MONEY building naval ships in Scotland. If you believe that you are nuts. We are a proud naval country, we can build our own ships. If we were to contract them out (incredibly. stratospherically unlikely) we will do it to countries that haven't just told us to bugger off, and left us all poorer.
Which part of that is hard to understand? And you are one of the more sensible Nats.
I really do wonder if you are all hallucinating, up there.
Well, Mr Hammond must have been drinking the same as me, i.e. fairtrade instant coffee, as he's confirmed that EWNI would in fact do precisely that, i.e. spend money, with the QE2 class second ship.
As for frigates and other major units, there is no suitable yard south of the border (the Barrow one is a specialist one for subs) and BAe made it clear that refitting one, after spending all that money on the Clyde, would cost money, which could be better spent on warships an their kit. Remember, a startling percentage of the cost of a warship is the gubbins, and EWNI will do well there.
Now consider forcing the Scots to look elsewhere in Europe for cooperation, e.g. adopting one of the German frigate designs. I repeat, there is all that lovely kit to be sold. Engines, radars, etc. etc. And those orders are to go west (or rather south and east)?
It won't happen overnight but it will happen. And to the extent that an independent Scotland might still be in the bidding for some contracts, so would France, which has very good shipyards and whose navy could develop joint ventures with the RN to more mutual benefit than Scotland's (as it was, they expressed interest in a third QE-class carrier and paid good money to be in on the project early on).
If Lubbock is correct then not as bad as feared for No.
I think someone needs to do some analysis along the lines of:
Take tonight's TNS and then do a turnout weighted average. If we assume overall turnout of 80%, then I would do a calculation assuming turnouts of 74, 77, 80, 83, 86 for the five age segments and see what that gives.
NB. Assumes accurate population data by age is available!
How many wavering Scots will even sodding hear about this non-announcement farted out by Gordon Brown on his 'tour'? Are we still on the strategy where we have to leave everything north of the border to Labour for fear of upsetting people?
The people who must be most worried are all those who do work for the Ministry of Defence in Scotland.
The demand for a FUK government to bring that work back to England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be immediate and overwhelming. Why the F should we spend our hard-earned money subsidising Scottish shipbuilders? Insane. No country permits that.
Pity those workers, and their families.
Good for Plymouth and Devonport, though.
Are you sure?!
Much of that movement has already happened within our glorious union. Rosyth was closed as a naval base to pander to SW marginals and that was when the Cold War was at deep-freeze levels. More recently Nimrod, RAF bases closed, ASR privatised, Scottish regiments to a single regiment, etc. etc.
As for "[n]o country permits",
(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.
Oh gosh, are we back to this again, I thought we had covered all these points before.
The RN never has, doesn't now and never will by complex warships from a foreign supplier.
The next class of ship to be ordered will be the Type 26 Frigates of which, at present, it is intended there shall be 13. The Clyde yards need significant investment if they are to make those ships. At present that investment is on hold. If there is a Yes vote it will be switched to yards in England.
My (genuine) understanding was that the yards had already been substatially refitted for that purpose but if yu can point me to a reliable source I would be grateful.
Fair go, I remember reading it from BAe themselves, but I am not in a position to go hunting for the quote right now. Type 26 factory or T26 production line might get in you close if you want to play with google.
Good governments do not preside over the break-ups of the countries they are supposed to run. The end of the Union is what this one will be remembered for.
I love the way the Left always blame the Cameron and Tories for their own actions. IndyRef is a good example, but my favourite is the hacking scandal, which of course was absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Cameron: it was carried out by a Labour-supporting newspaper group, under a Labour government with a massive majority, when Cameron was an obscure back-bencher, was investigated three times by Labour-appointed officials and by police led by a Labour-supporting Commissioner, who each time decided there was nothing widespread to investigate, and somehow it's Cameron's fault.
A 307 year old country that has probably had more influence on the history of the world than any other is about to disappear. And it will do so under this government - which thus fails in its primary duty, which is to protect the realm. Is it all this government's fault? Absolutely not. If you have read any of my recent contributions you will see that I blame Labour just as much, if not more. The Westminster elite as a whole has created the environment which has enabled a man and a party selling snake oil to win. But when the history books are written it will be the government of David Cameron that is recorded as the one that lost the Union. And the immensity of that will dwarf anything else that it has or has not achieved. Ed Miliband will be what he is now: a rather pointless footnote.
I'm increasingly coming around to SeanT's view on this: that Cameron must go if the UK is lost.
Yes, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. But, on the other hand, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. That's a rejection of Cameron in 2010GE followed by him recognising that and chickening out of leading the UK - which is his job, regardless of how people voted. Most MPs recognise they represent all their constituents. He doesn't. He has shown no leadership at all - as I pointed out down thread.
Besides which, he gambled the Scots would say 'NO' rather than Devomax to broadly preserving the status quo (thus calling it massively wrong) didn't bother to offer anything positive to say NO until it came critical, and let Salmond completely have his way with the referendum question, voting demographics and poll date. Then he sat back and hoped Labour (the definition of a totally useless bunch of muppets) run the whole show.
Bad decision, bad call, poor negotiation, totally absent and non existent leadership... Fair or not, He would have to go.
*(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.*
lol. There is absolutely no way England will spend MONEY building naval ships in Scotland. If you believe that you are nuts. We are a proud naval country, we can build our own ships. If we were to contract them out (incredibly. stratospherically unlikely) we will do it to countries that haven't just told us to bugger off, and left us all poorer.
Which part of that is hard to understand? And you are one of the more sensible Nats.
I really do wonder if you are all hallucinating, up there.
Well, Mr Hammond must have been drinking the same as me, i.e. fairtrade instant coffee, as he's confirmed that EWNI would in fact do precisely that, i.e. spend money, with the QE2 class second ship.
As for frigates and other major units, there is no suitable yard south of the border (the Barrow one is a specialist one for subs) and BAe made it clear that refitting one, after spending all that money on the Clyde, would cost money, which could be better spent on warships an their kit. Remember, a startling percentage of the cost of a warship is the gubbins, and EWNI will do well there.
Now consider forcing the Scots to look elsewhere in Europe for cooperation, e.g. adopting one of the German frigate designs. I repeat, there is all that lovely kit to be sold. Engines, radars, etc. etc. And those orders are to go west (or rather south and east)?
The Prince of Wales is an order already placed and, indeed, being built. Scotland is not yet a foreign country.
As to the Frigates see my post below regarding investment.
The idea that by building in England we might lose out on the profits from one or two frigates for Scotland doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
If Scotland votes Yes then RN shipbuilding on the Clyde finishes and the PoW will be the last RN ship built in Scotland.
shakes head, some people think a wee bit of welding is what a warship is about, all the clever stuff isn't done in the yards merely fitted there. It's like claiming the guy who installed your aerial also does HDTV research on the side.
Hi, let's say for the sake of argument that the TNS poll comes in 50/50. Where does that leave us on % chance of each side victory? I would say No needs to drift from 1.47 significantly further towards 2.0
...factors both sides of course, pro-NO: last minute fear card, historical averages since campaign began, oldies actually remember to turn up and vote....
pro-Yes momentum, young enthusiasm, part of making history, protest vote, possibility Salmond peaked too soon and voters spooked by market reaction between now and polling day, pro-no voters saying "f**k it and voting yes in the booth at the last minute to give Tories/Westminster a bleeding nose...
But if TNS confirms as 50-50, No vote price has to drift sharply? Perhaps to 5/6 1.83? Something enormous would clearly be happening?
Yes, it should. In fact, Yes is significantly under-priced as it is (consider the alternative - No comes out with a 57-43 lead: would that shift prices much in No's direction? I doubt it as punters would just wonder which poll/s was out of kilter with reality.
*(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.*
lol. There is absolutely no way England will spend MONEY building naval ships in Scotland. If you believe that you are nuts. We are a proud naval country, we can build our own ships. If we were to contract them out (incredibly. stratospherically unlikely) we will do it to countries that haven't just told us to bugger off, and left us all poorer.
Which part of that is hard to understand? And you are one of the more sensible Nats.
I really do wonder if you are all hallucinating, up there.
Well, Mr Hammond must have been drinking the same as me, i.e. fairtrade instant coffee, as he's confirmed that EWNI would in fact do precisely that, i.e. spend money, with the QE2 class second ship.
e is all that lovely kit to be sold. Engines, radars, etc. etc. And those orders are to go west (or rather south and east)?
Who the fk is going to buy from an overpriced shipyard except its own government ?
Defence is all about politics and a small nation with no say isn't going to sell anything much, daftest Indy ostrich argument of the day.
Okay, if it's politics we will let that lie, fair enough. But it's actually an interesting point - how much longer can one insist on domestic production of a ship hull compared to other kit? Look at missiles and F-35s from the USA, cooperative production of airliners and air tankers, etc. etc.
It does however strike me in all seriousness that insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that only a minor proportion of the cost of the ship is to do with the hull and where it is built.
precisely.
And unless your core skills are a weapon system or stystem integration you can't develop warships. Then throw in only major nations can afford the cash and even most of them are struggling and you quickly see that the future is increasingly consortia, with a lead nation\nations and everyone shoving in taxpayer funds to secure their slice of the production. Small countries get to buy the output not so much to develop the product.
If yes, more money for the English, no 41 labour mp's to vote on English matters, no labour govt.
If no, & Devo Max, no Scottish MP's should be allowed to vote on English matters, government only based upon rUK seats, end to any Barnett formula & Scottish subsidy, no labour govt in power. Tories vs. rUKIP main political game in town as England becomes nationalistic.
So it seems pretty clear at this point that it's going to be very tight on Scotland for the next ten days. We're unlikely to get any major development to shift things one way or another. Given that, and the fact I'm bored of the topic, can we talk about something else? I saw the CEO of Rotherham Council resigned today.
*(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.*
lol. There is absolutely no way England will spend MONEY building naval ships in Scotland. If you believe that you are nuts. We are a proud naval country, we can build our own ships. If we were to contract them out (incredibly. stratospherically unlikely) we will do it to countries that haven't just told us to bugger off, and left us all poorer.
Which part of that is hard to understand? And you are one of the more sensible Nats.
I really do wonder if you are all hallucinating, up there.
Well, Mr Hammond must have been drinking the same as me, i.e. fairtrade instant coffee, as he's confirmed that EWNI would in fact do precisely that, i.e. spend money, with the QE2 class second ship.
As for frigates and other major units, there is no suitable yard south of the border (the Barrow one is a specialist one for subs) and BAe made it clear that refitting one, after spending all that money on the Clyde, would cost money, which could be better spent on warships an their kit. Remember, a startling percentage of the cost of a warship is the gubbins, and EWNI will do well there.
Now consider forcing the Scots to look elsewhere in Europe for cooperation, e.g. adopting one of the German frigate designs. I repeat, there is all that lovely kit to be sold. Engines, radars, etc. etc. And those orders are to go west (or rather south and east)?
The Prince of Wales is an order already placed and, indeed, being built. Scotland is not yet a foreign country.
As to the Frigates see my post below regarding investment.
The idea that by building in England we might lose out on the profits from one or two frigates for Scotland doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
If Scotland votes Yes then RN shipbuilding on the Clyde finishes and the PoW will be the last RN ship built in Scotland.
shakes head, some people think a wee bit of welding is what a warship is about, all the clever stuff isn't done in the yards merely fitted there. It's like claiming the guy who installed your aerial also does HDTV research on the side.
That's right, they're prefabbed and assembled in relatively low tech yards.
Hi, let's say for the sake of argument that the TNS poll comes in 50/50. Where does that leave us on % chance of each side victory? I would say No needs to drift from 1.47 significantly further towards 2.0
...factors both sides of course, pro-NO: last minute fear card, historical averages since campaign began, oldies actually remember to turn up and vote....
pro-Yes momentum, young enthusiasm, part of making history, protest vote, possibility Salmond peaked too soon and voters spooked by market reaction between now and polling day, pro-no voters saying "f**k it and voting yes in the booth at the last minute to give Tories/Westminster a bleeding nose...
But if TNS confirms as 50-50, No vote price has to drift sharply? Perhaps to 5/6 1.83? Something enormous would clearly be happening?
Yes, it should. In fact, Yes is significantly under-priced as it is (consider the alternative - No comes out with a 57-43 lead: would that shift prices much in No's direction? I doubt it as punters would just wonder which poll/s was out of kilter with reality.
Oh, and welcome.
If TNS had No 57-43 the odds would move massively to No as the YouGov would then look like an outlier - remember to factor in the Panelbase 4 point No lead.
If TNS had No 57-43 I think Betfair would move to Yes 5, No 1.25.
I love the way the Left always blame the Cameron and Tories for their own actions. IndyRef is a good example, but my favourite is the hacking scandal, which of course was absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Cameron: it was carried out by a Labour-supporting newspaper group, under a Labour government with a massive majority, when Cameron was an obscure back-bencher, was investigated three times by Labour-appointed officials and by police led by a Labour-supporting Commissioner, who each time decided there was nothing widespread to investigate, and somehow it's Cameron's fault.
A 307 year old country that has probably had more influence on the history of the world than any other is about to disappear. And it will do so under this government - which thus fails in its primary duty, which is to protect the realm. Is it all this government's fault? Absolutely not. If you have read any of my recent contributions you will see that I blame Labour just as much, if not more. The Westminster elite as a whole has created the environment which has enabled a man and a party selling snake oil to win. But when the history books are written it will be the government of David Cameron that is recorded as the one that lost the Union. And the immensity of that will dwarf anything else that it has or has not achieved. Ed Miliband will be what he is now: a rather pointless footnote.
I'm increasingly coming around to SeanT's view on this: that Cameron must go if the UK is lost.
Yes, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. But, on the other hand, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. That's a rejection of Cameron in 2010GE followed by him recognising that and chickening out of leading the UK - which is his job, regardless of how people voted. Most MPs recognise they represent all their constituents. He doesn't. He has shown no leadership at all - as I pointed out down thread.
Besides which, he gambled the Scots would say 'NO' rather than Devomax to broadly preserving the status quo (thus calling it massively wrong) didn't bother to offer anything positive to say NO until it came critical, and let Salmond completely have his way with the referendum question, voting demographics and poll date. Then he sat back and hoped Labour (the definition of a totally useless bunch of muppets) run the whole show.
Bad decision, bad call, poor negotiation, totally absent and non existent leadership... Fair or not, He would have to go.
So it seems pretty clear at this point that it's going to be very tight on Scotland for the next ten days. We're unlikely to get any major development to shift things one way or another. Given that, and the fact I'm bored of the topic, can we talk about something else? I saw the CEO of Rotherham Council resigned today.
If yes, more money for the English, no 41 labour mp's to vote on English matters, no labour govt.
If no, & Devo Max, no Scottish MP's should be allowed to vote on English matters, government only based upon rUK seats, end to any Barnett formula & Scottish subsidy, no labour govt in power. Tories vs. rUKIP main political game in town as England becomes nationalistic.
Labour screwed either way.
Is Cameron stupid after all?
All sounds pretty good to me.
Forgot one ever so small detail.
If yes, bye bye Cameron - I really don't think he's sacrificing himself to screw Labour....
The people who must be most worried are all those who do work for the Ministry of Defence in Scotland.
The demand for a FUK government to bring that work back to England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be immediate and overwhelming. Why the F should we spend our hard-earned money subsidising Scottish shipbuilders? Insane. No country permits that.
Pity those workers, and their families.
Good for Plymouth and Devonport, though.
Are you sure?!
Much of that movement has already happened within our glorious union. Rosyth was closed as a naval base to pander to SW marginals and that was when the Cold War was at deep-freeze levels. More recently Nimrod, RAF bases closed, ASR privatised, Scottish regiments to a single regiment, etc. etc.
As for "[n]o country permits",
(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.
Oh gosh, are we back to this again, I thought we had covered all these points before.
The RN never has, doesn't now and never will by complex warships from a foreign supplier.
The next class of ship to be ordered will be the Type 26 Frigates of which, at present, it is intended there shall be 13. The Clyde yards need significant investment if they are to make those ships. At present that investment is on hold. If there is a Yes vote it will be switched to yards in England.
My (genuine) understanding was that the yards had already been substatially refitted for that purpose but if yu can point me to a reliable source I would be grateful.
Fair go, I remember reading it from BAe themselves, but I am not in a position to go hunting for the quote right now. Type 26 factory or T26 production line might get in you close if you want to play with google.
Thanks, have been able to find some likely looking hits.
The people who must be most worried are all those who do work for the Ministry of Defence in Scotland.
The demand for a FUK government to bring that work back to England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be immediate and overwhelming. Why the F should we spend our hard-earned money subsidising Scottish shipbuilders? Insane. No country permits that.
Pity those workers, and their families.
Good for Plymouth and Devonport, though.
Are you sure?!
Much of that movement has already happened within our glorious union. Rosyth was closed as a naval base to pander to SW marginals and that was when the Cold War was at deep-freeze levels. More recently Nimrod, RAF bases closed, ASR privatised, Scottish regiments to a single regiment, etc. etc.
As for "[n]o country permits",
(a) dozens of countries buy warships from other countries (b) every ship "built" in Scotland will be chokka with extremely expensive kit from EWNI suppliers - as a quick look at the details of current RN projects will show. Even on purely mercenary grounds alone it is very much in EWNI interest to encourage the construction of lots of frigates - a 10% addition to the production run for Scotland, for instance, will have its effect on unit cost as well as direct profits and work.
Oh gosh, are we back to this again, I thought we had covered all these points before.
The RN never has, doesn't now and never will by complex warships from a foreign supplier.
The next class of ship to be ordered will be the Type 26 Frigates of which, at present, it is intended there shall be 13. The Clyde yards need significant investment if they are to make those ships. At present that investment is on hold. If there is a Yes vote it will be switched to yards in England.
My (genuine) understanding was that the yards had already been substatially refitted for that purpose but if yu can point me to a reliable source I would be grateful.
In the event of yes, do you really believe the public in the remainder of the UK are going to be anything other than vindictive? No political party will be able to be anything other than exceptionally hard nosed in any negotiation or face a tanking at the polls. It may not be fair or even sensible, but it's what will happen.
If yes, more money for the English, no 41 labour mp's to vote on English matters, no labour govt.
If no, & Devo Max, no Scottish MP's should be allowed to vote on English matters, government only based upon rUK seats, end to any Barnett formula & Scottish subsidy, no labour govt in power. Tories vs. rUKIP main political game in town as England becomes nationalistic.
Labour screwed either way.
Is Cameron stupid after all?
All sounds pretty good to me.
DevoMax not on the table. Scottish Labour will still vote on English matters.
Sorry but do we actually have the numbers from the TNS poll. No-one is mentioning Clegg here I notice. If we can agree Cameron would be toast, wouldn't it be a useful excuse for the Lib Dems to move against such an electoral liability? They've kept him because they didn't want to look amateurish. But if the country is in revolutionary mood?
Sorry but do we actually have the numbers from the TNS poll. No-one is mentioning Clegg here I notice. If we can agree Cameron would be toast, wouldn't it be a useful excuse for the Lib Dems to move against such an electoral liability? They've kept him because they didn't want to look amateurish. But if the country is in revolutionary mood?
OK the embargo seems to have collapsed. Look at Tom Lubbock on twitter.
if those are the real numbers You Gov was more startling.
Not really. TNS fieldwork is Aug 27 to Sep 4 so has confirmed massive shift to Yes.
Yes is on a crest of a wave. Reckon the younger people of Scotland fancy making a bit of history.
Sean T: Australia was British once...
it remains to be seen if they do, they'll all be standing outside the polling station after the clubs have closed wondering why the can't get in at 3 a m on the 19th.
Sorry but do we actually have the numbers from the TNS poll. No-one is mentioning Clegg here I notice. If we can agree Cameron would be toast, wouldn't it be a useful excuse for the Lib Dems to move against such an electoral liability? They've kept him because they didn't want to look amateurish. But if the country is in revolutionary mood?
Hi, let's say for the sake of argument that the TNS poll comes in 50/50. Where does that leave us on % chance of each side victory? I would say No needs to drift from 1.47 significantly further towards 2.0
...factors both sides of course, pro-NO: last minute fear card, historical averages since campaign began, oldies actually remember to turn up and vote....
pro-Yes momentum, young enthusiasm, part of making history, protest vote, possibility Salmond peaked too soon and voters spooked by market reaction between now and polling day, pro-no voters saying "f**k it and voting yes in the booth at the last minute to give Tories/Westminster a bleeding nose...
But if TNS confirms as 50-50, No vote price has to drift sharply? Perhaps to 5/6 1.83? Something enormous would clearly be happening?
Yes, it should. In fact, Yes is significantly under-priced as it is (consider the alternative - No comes out with a 57-43 lead: would that shift prices much in No's direction? I doubt it as punters would just wonder which poll/s was out of kilter with reality.
Oh, and welcome.
If TNS had No 57-43 the odds would move massively to No as the YouGov would then look like an outlier - remember to factor in the Panelbase 4 point No lead.
If TNS had No 57-43 I think Betfair would move to Yes 5, No 1.25.
I'm not sure about that. If there was a +16 for No, as against a -2 and +4, which one would look out of line to you? Anyway, if the tweet is accurate, then the scenario's redundant.
If TNS is 50-50 that would mean that that pollster too was now more leaning Yes than Panelbase, who was previously most Yes, and whose fieldwork covers the same time.
We shall see, but I suppose 50-50 is still better than Yes ahead, and that was before the pound fell today sending jitters through DK's and the Devomax announcements
Sorry but do we actually have the numbers from the TNS poll. No-one is mentioning Clegg here I notice. If we can agree Cameron would be toast, wouldn't it be a useful excuse for the Lib Dems to move against such an electoral liability? They've kept him because they didn't want to look amateurish. But if the country is in revolutionary mood?
They could replace him with Alexander.
Oh.
Dougie, Wendy, Danny or The Great ?
Wendy. Scottish Labour's lost genius. Her "bring it on" gambit looks better and better as time goes on. And she seems far less clueless than her brother (or then boss). And she was rare in being a Scottish Labour politician who was interested in Scotland.
We're probably heading for the worst possible scenario: a tiny majority for NO thanks to English people living in Scotland, mainly in the Edinburgh area.
Sorry but do we actually have the numbers from the TNS poll. No-one is mentioning Clegg here I notice. If we can agree Cameron would be toast, wouldn't it be a useful excuse for the Lib Dems to move against such an electoral liability? They've kept him because they didn't want to look amateurish. But if the country is in revolutionary mood?
And Miliband. I see no reason why he would be secure, given that all parties will be in revolutionary ferment, he is a proven liability, and he must carry some of the blame for losing Labour's heartland when he was Labour leader.
Odds on next Labour leader, or timing of Miliband's departure?
I'm a Unionist, but without wanting to sound callous, this could suit the Lib Dems quite well. Would give them the excuse to make sure they fight next year's election under a voter friendly leader.
More on turnout - Again, based on figures from that tom lubbock guy (pinch of salt until confirmed.. etc)
Interesting that the the number of don't know's is exactly the same as the prior poll. The TV debates and ramping up of the campaigns doesn't seem to have made one iota of difference to the stubborn don't knows.
Which makes me suspect that there's surely a ceiling on the high turnout and we can probably discount any possibility of >90% - I'm starting to think even 85% will be hard to hit.
75%-85% looks to be the sweet spot.
I haven't taken any positions on indyref yet, but I may yet take a punt on turnout...
Sorry but do we actually have the numbers from the TNS poll. No-one is mentioning Clegg here I notice. If we can agree Cameron would be toast, wouldn't it be a useful excuse for the Lib Dems to move against such an electoral liability? They've kept him because they didn't want to look amateurish. But if the country is in revolutionary mood?
They could replace him with Alexander.
Oh.
Dougie, Wendy, Danny or The Great ?
Wendy. Scottish Labour's lost genius. Her "bring it on" gambit looks better and better as time goes on. And she seems far less clueless than her brother (or then boss). And she was rare in being a Scottish Labour politician who was interested in Scotland.
I thought Scottish Labour only existed to make Southern Tories miserable. If they have lost this inalienable right what's the point of SLAB ?
If Scotland does go independent, what happens to the May 2015 General Election? You can hardly elect MPs from a soon-to-be-foreign country or allow a parliament elected under such an arrangement to stand.
Which makes me suspect that there's surely a ceiling on the high turnout and we can probably discount any possibility of >90% - I'm starting to think even 85% will be hard to hit.
90% would be hard to hit anyway given deaths, incapacity, double registration for students etc..
Sorry but do we actually have the numbers from the TNS poll. No-one is mentioning Clegg here I notice. If we can agree Cameron would be toast, wouldn't it be a useful excuse for the Lib Dems to move against such an electoral liability? They've kept him because they didn't want to look amateurish. But if the country is in revolutionary mood?
They could replace him with Alexander.
Oh.
Dougie, Wendy, Danny or The Great ?
Wendy. Scottish Labour's lost genius. Her "bring it on" gambit looks better and better as time goes on. And she seems far less clueless than her brother (or then boss). And she was rare in being a Scottish Labour politician who was interested in Scotland.
Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree.
Getting shot of Wendy was a huge victory for the SNP. She was the only person bright enough to call Salmond's bluff. And she was viciously brought down by her own boss, Gordon Brown.
We're probably heading for the worst possible scenario: a tiny majority for NO thanks to English people living in Scotland, mainly in the Edinburgh area.
That isn't the worst possible scenario -its at least survival for the country for at least 5 years whilst the political landscape changes.
So it's still Game On. I really have no idea who will win now.
You should make sure you call it for 'yes' and 'no' and 'too close to call' at some stage over the next week in order to be able to point to having called it correctly afterwards.
Fieldwork for TNS poll began in August. It's almost totally pointless as a poll, but presumably picked up a surge to Yes towards the end.
That would mean Yes now has a huge lead, to overturn a No lead at the start of the polling period.
Rubbish. It could have picked up a surge at the beginning, in the middle, throughout, who knows. It is also four days out of date and the surge could be receding.
It's a grim poll for NO but it is not terminal.
Earlier I said I'd call this for YES if YES were in the lead. But they're not in the lead.
So it's still Game On. I really have no idea who will win now.
Fieldwork for TNS poll began in August. It's almost totally pointless as a poll, but presumably picked up a surge to Yes towards the end.
That would mean Yes now has a huge lead, to overturn a No lead at the start of the polling period.
Rubbish. It could have picked up a surge at the beginning, in the middle, throughout, who knows. It is also four days out of date and the surge could be receding.
It's a grim poll for NO but it is not terminal.
Earlier I said I'd call this for YES if YES were in the lead. But they're not in the lead.
So it's still Game On. I really have no idea who will win now.
Yeah, I'm hoping(!) that these polls may harden the No vote, which we'd see in future polls.
Martyn McLaughlin @MartynMcL 11 mins One aspect of tonight's TNS poll that merits scrutiny: look at the responses from women. They've gone off their cereal #indyref
So it's still Game On. I really have no idea who will win now.
You should make sure you call it for 'yes' and 'no' and 'too close to call' at some stage over the next week in order to be able to point to having called it correctly afterwards.
If there is a yes, after the 19th the Tories would have a majority in the rest of the UK. They could pass any legislation they like if it does not directly effect Scotland. For example if the Tories wanted to pass the EU referendum Bill there would not be the votes to defeat it. Would Labour really use Scottish MPs to stop it, not if they have any sense.
So even if strictly speaking Scots still have representation in Parliament after the 19th and even after next may, I can not see them being allowed any say on future course of the UK.
If there is a Yes, when Dave resigns the new PM would lead a majority Tory government with no need for the Lib Dems. I'm sure this is what Tory back bencher will have in mind.
Interesting that if you add up all the pro Yes/likely Yes parties' vote shares in the 2011 regional list vote of the Scottish Parliament election (the SNP, the Greens, Scottish Socialist, Ban bankers' bonuses, Solidarity, Scottish Homeland Party) you get to 49.16% giving an inkling of what was to come
Fieldwork for TNS poll began in August. It's almost totally pointless as a poll, but presumably picked up a surge to Yes towards the end.
That would mean Yes now has a huge lead, to overturn a No lead at the start of the polling period.
Rubbish. It could have picked up a surge at the beginning, in the middle, throughout, who knows. It is also four days out of date and the surge could be receding.
It's a grim poll for NO but it is not terminal.
Earlier I said I'd call this for YES if YES were in the lead. But they're not in the lead.
So it's still Game On. I really have no idea who will win now.
Certainty to vote factor would put Yes over the top on TNS. This is another area of concern - Salmond closing strongly and increasing enthusiasm; No lacklustre and negative throughout encouraging apathy from its support
Posts saying Miliband or Clegg would go with a Yes are totally fanciful.
Even Cameron may well stay - people always over-react and get over-excited on here - if Cameron survives the first week then I think it's odds on he stays.
If you have huge instability anyway, how is taking months electing a new leader going to help matters?
Martyn McLaughlin @MartynMcL 11 mins One aspect of tonight's TNS poll that merits scrutiny: look at the responses from women. They've gone off their cereal #indyref
That shocking "Eat Your Cereal" advert made my stomach turn. God knows what women made of it. A stunningly crass piece of sexism and stereotyping from Bitter Together.
Funnily enough, it was Wee Dougie Alexander who commissioned it. Not half the brains of his sister.
Obviously Scottish Independence is the centre of attention at the moment but there appears to be a divergence emerging between the telephone and internet pollsters in terms of GB general election polling.
The last telephone polls from each firm have shown:
ANP - Lab 35 Con 28 UKIP 18 LD 8 Comres - Lab 35 Con 28 UKIP 17 LD 9 Ipsos Mori - Lab 33 Con 33 UKIP 13 LD 7 ICM - Lab 38 Con 31 LD 12 UKIP 10
It is probably a statistical fluke given the small number of telephone polls done - but it does seem a little odd that 3 of the 4 regular phone pollsters have given a Labour lead of 7 which is quite a bit higher than what the online pollsters are finding.
Guess we will see if this continues with the next ICM out soon. It's likely they will converge again but something to watch.
Fieldwork for TNS poll began in August. It's almost totally pointless as a poll, but presumably picked up a surge to Yes towards the end.
That would mean Yes now has a huge lead, to overturn a No lead at the start of the polling period.
Rubbish. It could have picked up a surge at the beginning, in the middle, throughout, who knows. It is also four days out of date and the surge could be receding.
It's a grim poll for NO but it is not terminal.
Earlier I said I'd call this for YES if YES were in the lead. But they're not in the lead.
So it's still Game On. I really have no idea who will win now.
Seems a stretch to say there was at the beginning of the survey period Sean. Wishful thinking.
If yes, more money for the English, no 41 labour mp's to vote on English matters, no labour govt.
If no, & Devo Max, no Scottish MP's should be allowed to vote on English matters, government only based upon rUK seats, end to any Barnett formula & Scottish subsidy, no labour govt in power. Tories vs. rUKIP main political game in town as England becomes nationalistic.
Labour screwed either way.
Is Cameron stupid after all?
All sounds pretty good to me.
DevoMax not on the table. Scottish Labour will still vote on English matters.
The point I'm making is in any post vote arrangement, whatever its called, there is no way Scottish MP's can vote on English matters. They shouldn't be doing it today. English voters will be incensed when they understand what the Barnett formula means. Any party going into the election in England not focused on the English will be decimated in the polls.
God I get so frustrated at the quality of polling in Scotland. When you consider the number of pointless and irrelevant UK polls whose main purpose is presumably to give us something to talk about on this site when nothing more interesting is going on, sometimes 3 or 4 in a single day, with the rubbish we have to put up with for the most important decision in about 300 years it makes me want to scream. A poll this near to the decision collected over a week? Are they having a laugh ?
I love the way the Left always blame the Cameron and Tories for their own actions. IndyRef is a good example, but my favourite is the hacking scandal, which of course was absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Cameron: it was carried out by a Labour-supporting newspaper group, under a Labour government with a massive majority, when Cameron was an obscure back-bencher, was investigated three times by Labour-appointed officials and by police led by a Labour-supporting Commissioner, who each time decided there was nothing widespread to investigate, and somehow it's Cameron's fault.
A 307 year old country that has probably had more influence on the history of the world than any other is about to disappear. And it will do so under this government - which thus fails in its primary duty, which is to protect the realm. Is it all this government's fault? Absolutely not. If you have read any of my recent contributions you will see that I blame Labour just as much, if not more. The Westminster elite as a whole has created the environment which has enabled a man and a party selling snake oil to win. But when the history books are written it will be the government of David Cameron that is recorded as the one that lost the Union. And the immensity of that will dwarf anything else that it has or has not achieved. Ed Miliband will be what he is now: a rather pointless footnote.
I'm increasingly coming around to SeanT's view on this: that Cameron must go if the UK is lost.
Yes, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. But, on the other hand, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. That's a rejection of Cameron in 2010GE followed by him recognising that and chickening out of leading the UK - which is his job, regardless of how people voted. Most MPs recognise they represent all their constituents. He doesn't. He has shown no leadership at all - as I pointed out down thread.
Besides which, he gambled the Scots would say 'NO' rather than Devomax to broadly preserving the status quo (thus calling it massively wrong) didn't bother to offer anything positive to say NO until it came critical, and let Salmond completely have his way with the referendum question, voting demographics and poll date. Then he sat back and hoped Labour (the definition of a totally useless bunch of muppets) run the whole show.
Bad decision, bad call, poor negotiation, totally absent and non existent leadership... Fair or not, He would have to go.
if we assume the TNS figures everywhere are accurate, this is clearly a live contest, no yougov outlier, we can all now go back to sleep...so what % prob would boys and girls put on each outcome now? if you were put against a wall with a gun to you head? 60% chance of a NO voite, 40% chance of a yes vote, taking all factors into account?
I think one thing we have to think about to help No's last minute fear factor, is huge market gyrations in the 48 hours before polling if yes are in front..their best move might have been to come from behind on the day...
It is 50 50 followed by yet another inevitable slump in the pound tomorrow, hardly gives the remaining DK's, who really must be undecideds at this stage, much confidence in the aftermath of a Yes does it
Fieldwork for TNS poll began in August. It's almost totally pointless as a poll, but presumably picked up a surge to Yes towards the end.
That would mean Yes now has a huge lead, to overturn a No lead at the start of the polling period.
Rubbish. It could have picked up a surge at the beginning, in the middle, throughout, who knows. It is also four days out of date and the surge could be receding.
It's a grim poll for NO but it is not terminal.
Earlier I said I'd call this for YES if YES were in the lead. But they're not in the lead.
So it's still Game On. I really have no idea who will win now.
Certainty to vote factor would put Yes over the top on TNS. This is another area of concern - Salmond closing strongly and increasing enthusiasm; No lacklustre and negative throughout encouraging apathy from its support
What was that Willie Whitelaw quote about Wilson, going round and round the country stirring up apathy? Gordon's on the job.
God I get so frustrated at the quality of polling in Scotland. When you consider the number of pointless and irrelevant UK polls whose main purpose is presumably to give us something to talk about on this site when nothing more interesting is going on, sometimes 3 or 4 in a single day, with the rubbish we have to put up with for the most important decision in about 300 years it makes me want to scream. A poll this near to the decision collected over a week? Are they having a laugh ?
A tad tetchy this evening David. Tough day in Dundee's schemes huh?
Comments
Look at Tom Lubbock on twitter.
Perhaps the "Caliphate" could send a few infected jihadists to Dundee and make your wish come true?
(They might of course wish to take in a few of the sights of London for their photo albums?)
As for frigates and other major units, there is no suitable yard south of the border (the Barrow one is a specialist one for subs) and BAe made it clear that refitting one, after spending all that money on the Clyde, would cost money, which could be better spent on warships an their kit. Remember, a startling percentage of the cost of a warship is the gubbins, and EWNI will do well there.
Now consider forcing the Scots to look elsewhere in Europe for cooperation, e.g. adopting one of the German frigate designs. I repeat, there is all that lovely kit to be sold. Engines, radars, etc. etc. And those orders are to go west (or rather south and east)?
If Tom Lubbock is correct, then this poll is not *quite* as bad as I had feared.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/natalie-bennett/scottish-independence_b_5751654.html
Mind you it is difficult to tell a happy Natalie Bennett from an unhappy one.
Defence is all about politics and a small nation with no say isn't going to sell anything much, daftest Indy ostrich argument of the day.
As to the Frigates see my post below regarding investment.
The idea that by building in England we might lose out on the profits from one or two frigates for Scotland doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
If Scotland votes Yes then RN shipbuilding on the Clyde finishes and the PoW will be the last RN ship built in Scotland.
...factors both sides of course, pro-NO: last minute fear card, historical averages since campaign began, oldies actually remember to turn up and vote....
pro-Yes momentum, young enthusiasm, part of making history, protest vote, possibility Salmond peaked too soon and voters spooked by market reaction between now and polling day, pro-no voters saying "f**k it and voting yes in the booth at the last minute to give Tories/Westminster a bleeding nose...
But if TNS confirms as 50-50, No vote price has to drift sharply? Perhaps to 5/6 1.83? Something enormous would clearly be happening?
It does however strike me in all seriousness that insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that only a minor proportion of the cost of the ship is to do with the hull and where it is built.
I think someone needs to do some analysis along the lines of:
Take tonight's TNS and then do a turnout weighted average. If we assume overall turnout of 80%, then I would do a calculation assuming turnouts of 74, 77, 80, 83, 86 for the five age segments and see what that gives.
NB. Assumes accurate population data by age is available!
How many wavering Scots will even sodding hear about this non-announcement farted out by Gordon Brown on his 'tour'? Are we still on the strategy where we have to leave everything north of the border to Labour for fear of upsetting people?
Yes, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. But, on the other hand, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. That's a rejection of Cameron in 2010GE followed by him recognising that and chickening out of leading the UK - which is his job, regardless of how people voted. Most MPs recognise they represent all their constituents. He doesn't. He has shown no leadership at all - as I pointed out down thread.
Besides which, he gambled the Scots would say 'NO' rather than Devomax to broadly preserving the status quo (thus calling it massively wrong) didn't bother to offer anything positive to say NO until it came critical, and let Salmond completely have his way with the referendum question, voting demographics and poll date. Then he sat back and hoped Labour (the definition of a totally useless bunch of muppets) run the whole show.
Bad decision, bad call, poor negotiation, totally absent and non existent leadership... Fair or not, He would have to go.
@neiledwardlovat @pistolpete1107 in the TNS poll when pressed 70% of the DKs….still answer don't know! #indyref
^ If this is legit, then perhaps turnout might not be so high after all.
Oh, and welcome.
Implies huge movement still possible - in either direction!
http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Record-election-turnout-expected-in-Highlands-for-referendum-06092014.htm
And unless your core skills are a weapon system or stystem integration you can't develop warships. Then throw in only major nations can afford the cash and even most of them are struggling and you quickly see that the future is increasingly consortia, with a lead nation\nations and everyone shoving in taxpayer funds to secure their slice of the production. Small countries get to buy the output not so much to develop the product.
If no, & Devo Max, no Scottish MP's should be allowed to vote on English matters, government only based upon rUK seats, end to any Barnett formula & Scottish subsidy, no labour govt in power. Tories vs. rUKIP main political game in town as England becomes nationalistic.
Labour screwed either way.
Is Cameron stupid after all?
All sounds pretty good to me.
If TNS had No 57-43 I think Betfair would move to Yes 5, No 1.25.
I love the way the Left always blame the Cameron and Tories for their own actions. IndyRef is a good example, but my favourite is the hacking scandal, which of course was absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Cameron: it was carried out by a Labour-supporting newspaper group, under a Labour government with a massive majority, when Cameron was an obscure back-bencher, was investigated three times by Labour-appointed officials and by police led by a Labour-supporting Commissioner, who each time decided there was nothing widespread to investigate, and somehow it's Cameron's fault.
A 307 year old country that has probably had more influence on the history of the world than any other is about to disappear. And it will do so under this government - which thus fails in its primary duty, which is to protect the realm. Is it all this government's fault? Absolutely not. If you have read any of my recent contributions you will see that I blame Labour just as much, if not more. The Westminster elite as a whole has created the environment which has enabled a man and a party selling snake oil to win. But when the history books are written it will be the government of David Cameron that is recorded as the one that lost the Union. And the immensity of that will dwarf anything else that it has or has not achieved. Ed Miliband will be what he is now: a rather pointless footnote.
I'm increasingly coming around to SeanT's view on this: that Cameron must go if the UK is lost.
Yes, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. But, on the other hand, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. That's a rejection of Cameron in 2010GE followed by him recognising that and chickening out of leading the UK - which is his job, regardless of how people voted. Most MPs recognise they represent all their constituents. He doesn't. He has shown no leadership at all - as I pointed out down thread.
Besides which, he gambled the Scots would say 'NO' rather than Devomax to broadly preserving the status quo (thus calling it massively wrong) didn't bother to offer anything positive to say NO until it came critical, and let Salmond completely have his way with the referendum question, voting demographics and poll date. Then he sat back and hoped Labour (the definition of a totally useless bunch of muppets) run the whole show.
Bad decision, bad call, poor negotiation, totally absent and non existent leadership... Fair or not, He would have to go.
.... total bollocks comment....
If yes, bye bye Cameron - I really don't think he's sacrificing himself to screw Labour....
Yes is on a crest of a wave. Reckon the younger people of Scotland fancy making a bit of history.
Sean T: Australia was British once...
Oh.
We shall see, but I suppose 50-50 is still better than Yes ahead, and that was before the pound fell today sending jitters through DK's and the Devomax announcements
Interesting that the the number of don't know's is exactly the same as the prior poll. The TV debates and ramping up of the campaigns doesn't seem to have made one iota of difference to the stubborn don't knows.
Which makes me suspect that there's surely a ceiling on the high turnout and we can probably discount any possibility of >90% - I'm starting to think even 85% will be hard to hit.
75%-85% looks to be the sweet spot.
I haven't taken any positions on indyref yet, but I may yet take a punt on turnout...
Who on earth were the mugs laying Yes at 7.8 just two weeks ago? Thanks, whoever you are!
Getting shot of Wendy was a huge victory for the SNP. She was the only person bright enough to call Salmond's bluff. And she was viciously brought down by her own boss, Gordon Brown.
One aspect of tonight's TNS poll that merits scrutiny: look at the responses from women. They've gone off their cereal #indyref
So even if strictly speaking Scots still have representation in Parliament after the 19th and even after next may, I can not see them being allowed any say on future course of the UK.
If there is a Yes, when Dave resigns the new PM would lead a majority Tory government with no need for the Lib Dems. I'm sure this is what Tory back bencher will have in mind.
Even Cameron may well stay - people always over-react and get over-excited on here - if Cameron survives the first week then I think it's odds on he stays.
If you have huge instability anyway, how is taking months electing a new leader going to help matters?
Funnily enough, it was Wee Dougie Alexander who commissioned it. Not half the brains of his sister.
The last telephone polls from each firm have shown:
ANP - Lab 35 Con 28 UKIP 18 LD 8
Comres - Lab 35 Con 28 UKIP 17 LD 9
Ipsos Mori - Lab 33 Con 33 UKIP 13 LD 7
ICM - Lab 38 Con 31 LD 12 UKIP 10
It is probably a statistical fluke given the small number of telephone polls done - but it does seem a little odd that 3 of the 4 regular phone pollsters have given a Labour lead of 7 which is quite a bit higher than what the online pollsters are finding.
Guess we will see if this continues with the next ICM out soon. It's likely they will converge again but something to watch.
A 307 year old country that has probably had more influence on the history of the world than any other is about to disappear. And it will do so under this government - which thus fails in its primary duty, which is to protect the realm. Is it all this government's fault? Absolutely not. If you have read any of my recent contributions you will see that I blame Labour just as much, if not more. The Westminster elite as a whole has created the environment which has enabled a man and a party selling snake oil to win. But when the history books are written it will be the government of David Cameron that is recorded as the one that lost the Union. And the immensity of that will dwarf anything else that it has or has not achieved. Ed Miliband will be what he is now: a rather pointless footnote.
I'm increasingly coming around to SeanT's view on this: that Cameron must go if the UK is lost.
Yes, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. But, on the other hand, most people in Scotland didn't vote for him and he hasn't been at the forefront of this campaign. That's a rejection of Cameron in 2010GE followed by him recognising that and chickening out of leading the UK - which is his job, regardless of how people voted. Most MPs recognise they represent all their constituents. He doesn't. He has shown no leadership at all - as I pointed out down thread.
Besides which, he gambled the Scots would say 'NO' rather than Devomax to broadly preserving the status quo (thus calling it massively wrong) didn't bother to offer anything positive to say NO until it came critical, and let Salmond completely have his way with the referendum question, voting demographics and poll date. Then he sat back and hoped Labour (the definition of a totally useless bunch of muppets) run the whole show.
Bad decision, bad call, poor negotiation, totally absent and non existent leadership... Fair or not, He would have to go.
.... total bollocks comment....
Ok, humour me. Why?
I think one thing we have to think about to help No's last minute fear factor, is huge market gyrations in the 48 hours before polling if yes are in front..their best move might have been to come from behind on the day...
Gordon's on the job.
http://tinyurl.com/qaefesv
He is the only reason I hope the Scots vote yes.
I hope so! Yay!!! PBers don't die, they merely have a break. (apart from URW, Rip)