'Strange how a man with no political authority seems to be selling England's birthright to keep the Scots in the Union at any price. Has anyone asked us? '
Spot on.
The same number of Scottish MP's ? WLQ still unanswered,Barnett formula? English Parliament? etc.
I found that slogan hilarious, as it was in essence an argument to never change governments, no matter how bad they get. If things are going bad, well, you don't want a novice trying to sort it out, stick with those with experience, and if things are going well, then there's no need to change things, right?
It's the ultimate argument of any governing party of course, but it rarely seems so blatant in admitting, 'Yes, things are crap, but that's no reason to get rid of us'.
Wasn't "no time for a novice" mainly aimed at critics within Labour who wanted to get a new leader? And it was a valid point when you consider that this was the time when David Miliband couldn't even negotiate a banana PR stunt successfully let alone a major international economic crisis...
Betfair shifting rapidly towards Yes. About to cross 3.00 for the first time since there was serious money in the market.
Interesting. Having traded as low as 2.94 this evening, Yes has since rebounded up to 3.25. Does someone know something we don't? If the leaks are remotely accurate, Yes should be *at least* a 40% shot given the YouGov and Panelbase as well i.e. 2.5 tops.
David, do you have a view on the impact postal votes?
I posted on this downthread. YES may need to be ahead by 51% or even 52% to win on polling day if most postal votes have been cast already and were cast in lie with the last umpteenth month average of 60/40 to NO.
So far, no poll has shown them further ahead than a statistical tie, with some generous weighting from Yougov to YES to give them their only poll lead.
I wonder if this is being taken into account.
Postal voters are probably a separate demographic. My guess would be that they are older and more likely to be Noes, so better than 60/40 for no.
Come to think of it why don't pollsters ask: if certain to vote, will you vote postally or in person? If number of postal votes cast is in the public domain, the two together would yield useful information.
Johann Lamont is, on the other hand, awful. She just said she'd vote YES if it made schoolkids in Glasgow better off; it's just the figures don't add up.
If that wasn't bad enough, her delivery is flat, she's totally unanimated and gives the impression she's a party delegate who's been given the mic off the floor. And it's her first time speaking in public.
Gordon Brown is shuffling nervously off to the side.
It proves Sean T's point. SLAB (with some honourable exceptions like Jim Murphy) can't appeal to any kind of patriotism, because they have none.
Johann Lamont is, on the other hand, awful. She just said she'd vote YES if it made schoolkids in Glasgow better off; it's just the figures don't add up.
If that wasn't bad enough, her delivery is flat, she's totally unanimated and gives the impression she's a party delegate who's been given the mic off the floor. And it's her first time speaking in public. Gordon Brown is shuffling nervously off to the side.
She's great isn't she! I am a big fan.
Voters in Scotland maybe confused with Lamont after her twin sister Mrs Rab C Nesbit spoke for the YES camp recently...
in February Ravens back Ray Rice - an impeccable and upstanding citizen and general nice guy up to now - was arrested after video showed him pulling his fiancee unconscious out of an elevator at an Atlantic City casino.
He was put on a diversionary program, which on completion would result in the charges being dropped.
He and his - now - wife met with Commissioner Roger Goodell, and she claimed that she attacked him.
The Ravens deferred to the league for discipline, and the league imposed a 2 game suspension.
At the same time Browns receiver Josh Gordon was suspended for the entire season for a 4th failed drug test.
Following the howls of protest at the seeming lightness of the punishment, Goodell admitted he didn't get this right, and instituted a domestic violence policy - first offense 6 game suspension, second - life time ban.
This morning TMZ released the video INSIDE the elevator, which nobody had seen.
It's not pretty - she doesn't attack him, he punches her twice hard in the face, and she goes down like a box of rocks, unconscious.
The Ravens immediately terminate his contract, and a few minutes later the NFL suspends him indefinitely.
It's a terrible business decision by the Ravens, who will have almost $10 million of dead money under the cap this year, but it is the Right Thing To Do.
An Epic Fail by the justice system, the NFL, and the Ravens, but they finally got it right.
He is a great player but the NFL should have no tolerance for behavior like this.
I found that slogan hilarious, as it was in essence an argument to never change governments, no matter how bad they get. If things are going bad, well, you don't want a novice trying to sort it out, stick with those with experience, and if things are going well, then there's no need to change things, right?
It's the ultimate argument of any governing party of course, but it rarely seems so blatant in admitting, 'Yes, things are crap, but that's no reason to get rid of us'.
Wasn't "no time for a novice" mainly aimed at critics within Labour who wanted to get a new leader? And it was a valid point when you consider that this was the time when David Miliband couldn't even negotiate a banana PR stunt successfully let alone a major international economic crisis...
I have no idea who it was mainly aimed at initially, but it was rolled out during the GE campaign for sure (or words to that effect), so I very much doubt they were using it against Labour party critics at that point.
Salmond shouldn't have been allowed to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in the way he did. It was clearly an attempt to boost the chances of a Yes vote.
If you make a change like that it ought to be as part of a generalised package, not implemented just before an important vote in a blatant attempt at self-advantage.
My 11 year old claimed the other day that the franchise should have been reduced to 10. After all, he explained with a pitying glance, we will be around a lot longer than you lot.
He accepted that some kids that age might be overly influenced by their parents but made it clear he didn't think that would be a problem for him.
Isam, re Parris. Working class and lower middle class voters make up, I should think, 80% of the electorate. Of that 80%, probably 90% are White. That's 72% of the electorate.
The view that the Conservatives will prosper by disregarding 72% of the electorate is.......a strategy for electoral suicide.
Salmond shouldn't have been allowed to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in the way he did. It was clearly an attempt to boost the chances of a Yes vote.
If you make a change like that it ought to be as part of a generalised package, not implemented just before an important vote in a blatant attempt at self-advantage.
My 11 year old claimed the other day that the franchise should have been reduced to 10. After all, he explained with a pitying glance, we will be around a lot longer than you lot.
He accepted that some kids that age might be overly influenced by their parents but made it clear he didn't think that would be a problem for him.
Do you think Rooney is wearing the right boots? They seem to clash with his shirt...
Colleen's husband? He clearly has no sense of style if his boots clash. Everyone knows that shoes make the outfit.
It seems to be quite a faux pax and ruining his game. He should have gone with black. You can dress them up, dress them down. They are a fashion staple. Lord only knows what his soft furnishings in the dressing room were like at half time...
Anyone have any clue (or "feel") as to what % of votes of the overall total in this referendum will be cast as postal votes, as opposed to on the day?
Think postal was 600-700K from what I have seen. They are expecting 4 million voting so roughly 15%
Thanks Malcolm. What I'm trying to get to is how far ahead YES need to be on the day.
I know you won't agree with these numbers but, let's say, we're conservative and take 600k postals. 50% of the postals have been cast already at 60-40 NO and the balance are currently being cast at 53-47 NO.
I think (on those figures and a 4 million turnout) YES need to get 51.3% on the day.
Anyone disagree?
Discussed on Scotgoespop - today's posting. A very similar conclusion.
If UKIP can get themselves in a position where their average poll rating is 200% of the LD share and 50% of the party in first place with 6 months to go before the general election I expect they'll be pretty happy. That's possible if they can put on 2-3 points around the time of the Clacton by-election.
Betfair shifting rapidly towards Yes. About to cross 3.00 for the first time since there was serious money in the market.
Interesting. Having traded as low as 2.94 this evening, Yes has since rebounded up to 3.25. Does someone know something we don't? If the leaks are remotely accurate, Yes should be *at least* a 40% shot given the YouGov and Panelbase as well i.e. 2.5 tops.
David, do you have a view on the impact postal votes?
I posted on this downthread. YES may need to be ahead by 51% or even 52% to win on polling day if most postal votes have been cast already and were cast in lie with the last umpteenth month average of 60/40 to NO.
So far, no poll has shown them further ahead than a statistical tie, with some generous weighting from Yougov to YES to give them their only poll lead.
I wonder if this is being taken into account.
It's true that the first batch of postal votes were sent when the polls were less close but they weren't as far apart as the monthly average by any means. Didn't they also go out at the time of the second debate, which Salmond was widely seen as having won? If there is a difference between the postal votes and how those same voters would have voted had they gone to the ballot box, I think we'll only be talking tenths of a point, not 1-2%.
Yes do have the momentum, so that probably does mean they've lost out on some votes. On the other hand, there's still a week and a half to go and if things are tight now, that again to my mind justifies odds of no more than 6/4 for Yes.
BUT among those certain or very likely to vote YES is ahead by 1%
Astonishingly high don't knows. Who the hell were they asking? More than 2X as many as anybody else. Weird.
See Mike's header:
"The other pollster that does monthly Scottish polling is TNS-BMRB operates in a manner that makes it less vulnerable to this problem. Its main concern is not politics but consumer research much of which is carried out face to face. Added on to these surveys are political questions.
So it is being argued that this approach gives them access to views of a wider segment of voters.
What we have seen with the firm that its polling has generally produced more don’t knows than anybody else."
Isam, re Parris. Working class and lower middle class voters make up, I should think, 80% of the electorate. Of that 80%, probably 90% are White. That's 72% of the electorate.
The view that the Conservatives will prosper by disregarding 72% of the electorate is.......a strategy for electoral suicide.
Parris is unusual in getting more left-wing as he gets older.
In 1980, as a young Tory MP, he wrote an article in favour of hanging.
ok...the market reckons Yes has only 31 or 32% chance of victory after this confirming it's a statisitical dead heat...does this seem correct? why such a stark imbalance with the voting figures in % probability terms?
some theories...
1) Postal votes already cast mentioned on this thread. 2) Historical polling trend so far favoured no - mean reversion? 3) Belief in Quebec-style last minute step back from the brink due to economic fearas? 4) Belief break knows will break strongly for "no" because of devo bribes or market turmoil? 5) Differential turnout - Pensioners will arrive to vote no, but gormless 17 year old teenagers will "forget" to make it to the polling station? Polls might not be borne out at ballot box...
but against these factors, in favour of yes...
1) Momentum 2) Join a dream, winning bandwagon, make history... 3) Give Westminter and political establishment a bleeding nose, in line with trend of falling deference, voting for UKIP etc...
32% probability of yes looks low to me now given available info and all above factors...if you put a gun to my head I would price in a 40% prob approx here...Am I missing things here?
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 among those certain or very likely to vote YES is ahead by 1%
Astonishingly high don't knows. Who the hell were they asking? More than 2X as many as anybody else. Weird.
See Mike's header:
"The other pollster that does monthly Scottish polling is TNS-BMRB operates in a manner that makes it less vulnerable to this problem. Its main concern is not politics but consumer research much of which is carried out face to face. Added on to these surveys are political questions.
So it is being argued that this approach gives them access to views of a wider segment of voters.
What we have seen with the firm that its polling has generally produced more don’t knows than anybody else."
Yes/No, its really not that complicated is it? If they are right some of the upper estimates of turnout may prove to be a bit optimistic.
Traditionally late deciders are suppose to favour the status quo but who knows? Table 4 indicates a slight bias to no but real MOE stuff.
Betfair shifting rapidly towards Yes. About to cross 3.00 for the first time since there was serious money in the market.
Interesting. Having traded as low as 2.94 this evening, Yes has since rebounded up to 3.25. Does someone know something we don't? If the leaks are remotely accurate, Yes should be *at least* a 40% shot given the YouGov and Panelbase as well i.e. 2.5 tops.
David, do you have a view on the impact postal votes?
I posted on this downthread. YES may need to be ahead by 51% or even 52% to win on polling day if most postal votes have been cast already and were cast in lie with the last umpteenth month average of 60/40 to NO.
So far, no poll has shown them further ahead than a statistical tie, with some generous weighting from Yougov to YES to give them their only poll lead.
I wonder if this is being taken into account.
Postal voters are probably a separate demographic. My guess would be that they are older and more likely to be Noes, so better than 60/40 for no.
Come to think of it why don't pollsters ask: if certain to vote, will you vote postally or in person? If number of postal votes cast is in the public domain, the two together would yield useful information.
And probably illegal information. You can ask 'how would you vote in an election / referendum if one was held tomorrow?'. You can ask 'how do you expect to vote in the real election / referendum, when it arrives?'. You can't ask 'how did you vote in the election underway for which polls haven't yet closed?', which would be the only real purpose of asking the postal vote question.
Well what a 5 days or so since I was last on here! Absolutely staggered at the utter incompetence of Better Together. Making up policy on the hoof during the campaign as a panic measure - such an own goal for starters. Then Gordon Brown getting involved - BT implicitly admitting that Darling not good enough - if so then why not Ed Miliband or Johann Lamont instead of GB? As for Lamont's speech in Loanhead today - self serving, inward speak towards the Labour vote instead of a broad appeal for the union, and almost entirely negative, do the Westminster politicians ever watch videos of themselves these days and ask themselves how their tone, manner of delivery etc goes down with the public at large? I thought not!
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
Isam, re Parris. Working class and lower middle class voters make up, I should think, 80% of the electorate. Of that 80%, probably 90% are White. That's 72% of the electorate.
The view that the Conservatives will prosper by disregarding 72% of the electorate is.......a strategy for electoral suicide.
Parris is unusual in getting more left-wing as he gets older.
In 1980, as a young Tory MP, he wrote an article in favour of hanging.
He was quite the Tory Boy, then.
One attribute he retains from those days is disdain for the lower classes. His letter to a constituent complaining about her council accommodation achieved notoriety.
I wonder if Scottish independence may become the benchmark for 'democracy doesn't work'?
Now it may be that they vote for independence, and it all works out. Perfect, and great. If not though its a pretty clear example of a democracy making the wrong call.
The truth is out there, but it isn't being encompassed in the debate.
The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes, chimes with what I've heard. If the people of the west coast schemes actually turn out to vote it's all over.
Johann Lamont is, on the other hand, awful. She just said she'd vote YES if it made schoolkids in Glasgow better off; it's just the figures don't add up.
If that wasn't bad enough, her delivery is flat, she's totally unanimated and gives the impression she's a party delegate who's been given the mic off the floor. And it's her first time speaking in public.
Gordon Brown is shuffling nervously off to the side.
It proves Sean T's point. SLAB (with some honourable exceptions like Jim Murphy) can't appeal to any kind of patriotism, because they have none.
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?
Well what a 5 days or so since I was last on here! Absolutely staggered at the utter incompetence of Better Together. Making up policy on the hoof during the campaign as a panic measure - such an own goal for starters. Then Gordon Brown getting involved - BT implicitly admitting that Darling not good enough - if so then why not Ed Miliband or Johann Lamont instead of GB? As for Lamont's speech in Loanhead today - self serving, inward speak towards the Labour vote instead of a broad appeal for the union, and almost entirely negative, do the Westminster politicians ever watch videos of themselves these days and ask themselves how their tone, manner of delivery etc goes down with the public at large? I thought not!
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
Cameron was too scared to debate Salmond. Some leader.
One sad future to figure is how acceptable it will be either ethnic group to hold certain jobs in each others country. I suspect that no Englishmen is a Scottish MSP or MP, how acceptable is that so many Scots are English MP's. Whose country do they owe loyalty to, if push came to shove who would they back in a dispute? Can we trust them with sensitive material.
The same applies to senior civil servants especially in the Treasury and the Foreign Office.
It's a certainly a line of attack on current Scottish MP's in England now, what natural affinity does Fiona Mactaggart have with the electorate of Slough, what drew her to my (not so) fair and industrious town! Is she an expert in the local industries of Computer services, telecoms, software or consumer services! I'll let you guess.
I know it's a modern game to knock MP's who are not locals, but it's yet another angle to attack people on both sides.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, as a Slough resident (someone has to be!) I've never been a big fan of this shortlisted drop in from central office, but on the other hand I have no problem where people come from if they can do the job. But on the other hand I know that no English person could stand for public office in Scotland and that frankly rankles.
Also, it does actually concern me if elected representatives hold dual nationality. Who will they have loyalty to? Are they Scottish or English? They won't be able to be British anymore.
Its been wonderful to profit short on GBPUSD as a result of the BT mess. True the technicals were pointing to broad based USD strength, but this move has been a joy to behold. Finally what us traders want, some volatility in Forex. It was always going to come back, but its been a heck of a long period in the doldrums. Yet another thing to thank the positive Yes campaign for.
One sad future to figure is how acceptable it will be either ethnic group to hold certain jobs in each others country. I suspect that no Englishmen is a Scottish MSP or MP, how acceptable is that so many Scots are English MP's. Whose country do they owe loyalty to, if push came to shove who would they back in a dispute? Can we trust them with sensitive material.
The same applies to senior civil servants especially in the Treasury and the Foreign Office.
It's a certainly a line of attack on current Scottish MP's in England now, what natural affinity does Fiona Mactaggart have with the electorate of Slough, what drew her to my (not so) fair and industrious town! Is she an expert in the local industries of Computer services, telecoms, software or consumer services! I'll let you guess.
I know it's a modern game to knock MP's who are not locals, but it's yet another angle to attack people on both sides.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, as a Slough resident (someone has to be!) I've never been a big fan of this shortlisted drop in from central office, but on the other hand I have no problem where people come from if they can do the job. But on the other hand I know that no English person could stand for public office in Scotland and that frankly rankles.
Also, it does actually concern me if elected representatives hold dual nationality. Who will they have loyalty to? Are they Scottish or English? They won't be able to be British anymore.
Quite a few English MSPs, including 2 ministers IIRC, in the SNP. Easy enough to find on Google. Et un chap francais.
ok...the market reckons Yes has only 31 or 32% chance of victory after this confirming it's a statisitical dead heat...does this seem correct? why such a stark imbalance with the voting figures in % probability terms?
some theories...
1) Postal votes already cast mentioned on this thread. 2) Historical polling trend so far favoured no - mean reversion? 3) Belief in Quebec-style last minute step back from the brink due to economic fearas? 4) Belief break knows will break strongly for "no" because of devo bribes or market turmoil? 5) Differential turnout - Pensioners will arrive to vote no, but gormless 17 year old teenagers will "forget" to make it to the polling station? Polls might not be borne out at ballot box...
but against these factors, in favour of yes...
1) Momentum 2) Join a dream, winning bandwagon, make history... 3) Give Westminter and political establishment a bleeding nose, in line with trend of falling deference, voting for UKIP etc...
32% probability of yes looks low to me now given available info and all above factors...if you put a gun to my head I would price in a 40% prob approx here...Am I missing things here?
Perhaps the expectation of a significant chunk of Shy No voters. Interesting that today Sturgeon was seeking to blame the market reaction on the government - she realises that it's the kind of thing that is more likely to cause yes voters second thoughts than the ineffective and panicked BT pronouncements.
@ Sean T. Labour Uncut have a good article about why Miliband shuld resign in the event of Yes. He was in charge of the 2011 Scottish Labour election campaign!
Well what a 5 days or so since I was last on here! Absolutely staggered at the utter incompetence of Better Together. Making up policy on the hoof during the campaign as a panic measure - such an own goal for starters. Then Gordon Brown getting involved - BT implicitly admitting that Darling not good enough - if so then why not Ed Miliband or Johann Lamont instead of GB? As for Lamont's speech in Loanhead today - self serving, inward speak towards the Labour vote instead of a broad appeal for the union, and almost entirely negative, do the Westminster politicians ever watch videos of themselves these days and ask themselves how their tone, manner of delivery etc goes down with the public at large? I thought not!
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
Cameron was too scared to debate Salmond. Some leader.
Stuart - what do you make of the polls? As well as the spiral of silence, isn't there a danger that the yes campaign are peaking too soon? Its hard to see how things can become yet more fever pitched than they already are over the coming 10 days!
David Cameron can’t help the No campaign – he’s less popular in Scotland than Windows 8 - The first rule of panic mode is you don’t talk about panic mode.
... I would personally prefer Scotland to stay – but only for entirely selfish and superficial reasons. Reason one: I’d rather not be lumbered with a Tory government from now until the day the moon crashes into the Thames. Two: I quite like Scotland and the Scottish, so it’s hard not to feel somehow personally affronted by their rejection. Why did you just unfriend and unfollow me, Scotland? What did I ever do to you? What’s that? Sorry, you’ll have to slow down a bit. Can’t understand a word you’re saying. Don’t you come with subtitles?! Ha ha ha! No, seriously, come back. Scotland? Scotland?
... the only way Cameron’s going to win a single no vote is if he leaves his clothes on a beach and pretends to have swum off into oblivion, or vows to slam his balls in a car door if Scotland decides to stay. I don’t have a vote, but I vote for the latter.
Well what a 5 days or so since I was last on here! Absolutely staggered at the utter incompetence of Better Together. Making up policy on the hoof during the campaign as a panic measure - such an own goal for starters. Then Gordon Brown getting involved - BT implicitly admitting that Darling not good enough - if so then why not Ed Miliband or Johann Lamont instead of GB? As for Lamont's speech in Loanhead today - self serving, inward speak towards the Labour vote instead of a broad appeal for the union, and almost entirely negative, do the Westminster politicians ever watch videos of themselves these days and ask themselves how their tone, manner of delivery etc goes down with the public at large? I thought not!
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
Cameron was too scared to debate Salmond. Some leader.
He knew he'd go down like a cup of cold sick in Scotland.
But, a Prime Minister who can't hold his nation together (if that is the outcome) must surely resign.
BUT among those certain or very likely to vote YES is ahead by 1%
Astonishingly high don't knows. Who the hell were they asking? More than 2X as many as anybody else. Weird.
Were it I being asked, it would be "not saying ((but, no, sotto voce ppp))". Could that be happening?
Very hard to say. Generally no voters are less enthusiastic about announcing their intentions. It is not easy to get No supporters to take stickers or posters. But quite a few Scots of both persuasions are getting fed up and reluctant to express an opinion even when they have one.
Well what a 5 days or so since I was last on here! Absolutely staggered at the utter incompetence of Better Together. Making up policy on the hoof during the campaign as a panic measure - such an own goal for starters. Then Gordon Brown getting involved - BT implicitly admitting that Darling not good enough - if so then why not Ed Miliband or Johann Lamont instead of GB? As for Lamont's speech in Loanhead today - self serving, inward speak towards the Labour vote instead of a broad appeal for the union, and almost entirely negative, do the Westminster politicians ever watch videos of themselves these days and ask themselves how their tone, manner of delivery etc goes down with the public at large? I thought not!
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
Cameron was too scared to debate Salmond. Some leader.
Please don't bother trying your campaign messages here. As everyone knew, including Salmond, that was a lose lose situation -a strong win for Cameron would have resulted in even more hatred than there is already.
@ Sean T. Labour Uncut have a good article about why Miliband shuld resign in the event of Yes. He was in charge of the 2011 Scottish Labour election campaign!
Man, Clegg could end up being the only one of the traditional big three left, if only because he's limpet like in that regard.
I really cannot see Ed standing down. He's on the cusp of becoming PM, even if a Yes vote would severely curtail him or even limit his time in the post, he's not giving that up.
What an absolute masterclass by Salmond to make this a poll for over 16's instead of over 18's. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Darling, Alexander (take your pick out of Douglas, Danny and Wendy!), Lamont, Ruth Davidson and Rennie are all political midgets when compared with Salmond.
Well what a 5 days or so since I was last on here! Absolutely staggered at the utter incompetence of Better Together. Making up policy on the hoof during the campaign as a panic measure - such an own goal for starters. Then Gordon Brown getting involved - BT implicitly admitting that Darling not good enough - if so then why not Ed Miliband or Johann Lamont instead of GB? As for Lamont's speech in Loanhead today - self serving, inward speak towards the Labour vote instead of a broad appeal for the union, and almost entirely negative, do the Westminster politicians ever watch videos of themselves these days and ask themselves how their tone, manner of delivery etc goes down with the public at large? I thought not!
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
Cameron was too scared to debate Salmond. Some leader.
He knew he'd go down like a cup of cold sick in Scotland.
But, a Prime Minister who can't hold his nation together (if that is the outcome) must surely resign.
The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes, chimes with what I've heard. If the people of the west coast schemes actually turn out to vote it's all over.
Big "If" though
Not just them (even if 'coast' includes Greater Glasgow). Plenty of cooncil schemes in Lothian, Fife, Dundee (already very Yes), Aberdeen.
Well what a 5 days or so since I was last on here! Absolutely staggered at the utter incompetence of Better Together. Making up policy on the hoof during the campaign as a panic measure - such an own goal for starters. Then Gordon Brown getting involved - BT implicitly admitting that Darling not good enough - if so then why not Ed Miliband or Johann Lamont instead of GB? As for Lamont's speech in Loanhead today - self serving, inward speak towards the Labour vote instead of a broad appeal for the union, and almost entirely negative, do the Westminster politicians ever watch videos of themselves these days and ask themselves how their tone, manner of delivery etc goes down with the public at large? I thought not!
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
Cameron was too scared to debate Salmond. Some leader.
Please don't bother trying your campaign messages here. As everyone knew, including Salmond, that was a lose lose situation -a strong win for Cameron would have resulted in even more hatred than there is already.
He's PM of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for goodness sake!! By refusing to debate, he's acknowledged that you can effectively remove Scotland as one of those 4 entities over which he 'governs'.
Well what a 5 days or so since I was last on here! Absolutely staggered at the utter incompetence of Better Together. Making up policy on the hoof during the campaign as a panic measure - such an own goal for starters. Then Gordon Brown getting involved - BT implicitly admitting that Darling not good enough - if so then why not Ed Miliband or Johann Lamont instead of GB? As for Lamont's speech in Loanhead today - self serving, inward speak towards the Labour vote instead of a broad appeal for the union, and almost entirely negative, do the Westminster politicians ever watch videos of themselves these days and ask themselves how their tone, manner of delivery etc goes down with the public at large? I thought not!
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
Cameron was too scared to debate Salmond. Some leader.
Stuart - what do you make of the polls? As well as the spiral of silence, isn't there a danger that the yes campaign are peaking too soon? Its hard to see how things can become yet more fever pitched than they already are over the coming 10 days!
Agreed. I would much prefer it if we were still behind in the polls.
Well what a 5 days or so since I was last on here! Absolutely staggered at the utter incompetence of Better Together. Making up policy on the hoof during the campaign as a panic measure - such an own goal for starters. Then Gordon Brown getting involved - BT implicitly admitting that Darling not good enough - if so then why not Ed Miliband or Johann Lamont instead of GB? As for Lamont's speech in Loanhead today - self serving, inward speak towards the Labour vote instead of a broad appeal for the union, and almost entirely negative, do the Westminster politicians ever watch videos of themselves these days and ask themselves how their tone, manner of delivery etc goes down with the public at large? I thought not!
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
Cameron was too scared to debate Salmond. Some leader.
Too scared even to take questions from 'ordinary' Scots. It's becoming clear that what Better Together really feared was a red faced man with a cut-glass accent trying to explain to a working class Glasgow man (or even better woman) why we're better together.
Well what a 5 days or so since I was last on here! Absolutely staggered at the utter incompetence of Better Together. Making up policy on the hoof during the campaign as a panic measure - such an own goal for starters. Then Gordon Brown getting involved - BT implicitly admitting that Darling not good enough - if so then why not Ed Miliband or Johann Lamont instead of GB? As for Lamont's speech in Loanhead today - self serving, inward speak towards the Labour vote instead of a broad appeal for the union, and almost entirely negative, do the Westminster politicians ever watch videos of themselves these days and ask themselves how their tone, manner of delivery etc goes down with the public at large? I thought not!
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
Cameron was too scared to debate Salmond. Some leader.
Please don't bother trying your campaign messages here. As everyone knew, including Salmond, that was a lose lose situation -a strong win for Cameron would have resulted in even more hatred than there is already.
He's PM of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for goodness sake!! By refusing to debate, he's acknowledged that you can effectively remove Scotland as one of those 4 entities over which he 'governs'.
I'm in two minds on that. On the one, you are absolutely right by refusing to do so he ceded vital ground which leads to the ridiculous impression that it is nothing to do with him (even if he has made small contributions), but on the other, he has been beset by the justifiable fear that any contribution he made would do more harm than good. A bit more boldness may well have been in order, but then we could never expect that from Cameron of course, but I can see the dilemma.
Maybe TNS overstates real Yes position, because face to face interviews puts off shy No's from revealing their "unpatriotic" view in increasingly fevered atmosphere? Hence high Don't Knows...if you were a no voter in scotland currently, would you tell a face to face interviewer? Best scenairo for "Yes" probably a one point deficit going into election day to motivate people who haven't bothered to vote recently to bother?
I just can't fathom how stupid the BT campaign are -if I wasn't so concerned at the break up of the country I'd be cheering for Yes. They could have had a huge re-boot with the devomax announcement -get all the party leaders, Ian Paisley, Plaid Cymru -even Nige and whoever's leading the greens these days to attend the press conference and publicly sign it. Asked the SNP as a Westminster parliamentary party to sign it too -a guarantee of further powers should 'Yes' lose. SNP would doubtless refuse to do it as it's a 'stunt' -thus allowing themselves to be painted as refusing to guarantee actual benefit for Scotland, tying in with their recent non-attendance at the bedroom tax vote, making them look cheap and mean-spirited. You could even leave an empty seat with an SNP name card on it. It would make all the papers. Or if they went ahead and signed it, it looks like it's all tied up and there's nothing to fight for. Is no-one actually GOOD these days? Can no-one do their bloody job?
It's because of Labour. they are refusing to offer Devomax because they know it must mean EV4EL, this was clearly stated in the Sunday Times YouGov article.
"there is incredulity in Tory and Lib Dem circles that Labour has refused to go as far as them in offering the Scottish government complete control of income tax."
Labour would rather risk the Union, than give up Scottish Labour MPs voting in London.
That is the measure of their selfishness: their venomous, rancid, partisan selfishness.
It is only right that YES will decimate their party.
And also Labour are reluctant to admit that things in England aren't quite as bad as the SNP would have people believe.
Labour Uncut: "It was the hapless Labour campaign for the Scottish Parliament in 2011 that let the SNP in power.
It is a disaster that Miliband oversaw but has never been fully held to account for within Labour circles."
Is that true? I certainly did not know it.
Labour of course bear a huge part of the blame because they sent the A team, the B Team, the C team to Westminster .... leaving the Z team in Holyrood.
Although I don't think Cameron is particularly to blame, I am inclined to agree with SeanT that -- in the event of YES -- he will be the scapegoat.
The only question: is how many more scapegoats will be needed?
Ed has always seemed to me wholly lacking in confidence, and his ineptitude has been rather cruelly demonstrated in his visit to Scotland.
The one "made in Scotland, by Scots." That referendum?
Yes, the one which Mr C said he'd strain every fibre etc etc to defeat. And it was a referendum decided by bargaining between him and Mr Salmond under UK, not Scottish, law.
Not sure this is anything new, but a couple of other interesting things from that TNS table.
Usual caveats apply, and the samples are small:
(1) NO lead by 13% in AB and 10% in C1 (it's a 12% YES lead in C2 and 9% in DE carrying them to parity) (2) NO have an 18% lead amongst the over 55s (3) The difference between YES/NO on certainty to vote seems to be on the quite likely vs. very likely. If it looks close, NO could move from quite likely to "very likely" thus cancelling out this advantage (4) 23% are still saying "don't know" - this seems a bit high at this stage
It seems to be that YES do seem to be relying a little more on the some of the more fickle voting demographic to me. A close race might push the remaining NO voters from their complacency.
I also wonder if there's a gap between those saying they are certain to vote/very likely to vote (91%? Really?) and those who say "don't know" at 23%.
Aren't the don't knows more likely to talk the talk but actually less likely to cast a ballot?
in February Ravens back Ray Rice - an impeccable and upstanding citizen and general nice guy up to now - was arrested after video showed him pulling his fiancee unconscious out of an elevator at an Atlantic City casino.
He was put on a diversionary program, which on completion would result in the charges being dropped.
He and his - now - wife met with Commissioner Roger Goodell, and she claimed that she attacked him.
The Ravens deferred to the league for discipline, and the league imposed a 2 game suspension.
At the same time Browns receiver Josh Gordon was suspended for the entire season for a 4th failed drug test.
Following the howls of protest at the seeming lightness of the punishment, Goodell admitted he didn't get this right, and instituted a domestic violence policy - first offense 6 game suspension, second - life time ban.
This morning TMZ released the video INSIDE the elevator, which nobody had seen.
It's not pretty - she doesn't attack him, he punches her twice hard in the face, and she goes down like a box of rocks, unconscious.
The Ravens immediately terminate his contract, and a few minutes later the NFL suspends him indefinitely.
It's a terrible business decision by the Ravens, who will have almost $10 million of dead money under the cap this year, but it is the Right Thing To Do.
An Epic Fail by the justice system, the NFL, and the Ravens, but they finally got it right.
He is a great player but the NFL should have no tolerance for behavior like this.
And she married him, after he'd smashed her to bits; how stupid can you get? God knows what he did to her after he was fired. Life is so sad sometimes.
I wonder if Scottish independence may become the benchmark for 'democracy doesn't work'?
Now it may be that they vote for independence, and it all works out. Perfect, and great. If not though its a pretty clear example of a democracy making the wrong call.
The truth is out there, but it isn't being encompassed in the debate.
I've been there in 1997 when campaigning for the Tories in Eltham (how long does that seem ago now!), and vividly remember thinking how can the electorate be so daft not to see through Blair. But that line of thinking does no good what so ever. You may intensely dislike what the electorate is telling you, but you have to try and empathise with them and their feelings always, as hard as that seems at times. 'Democracy is the least worst system that we know' - how apt.
Well what a 5 days or so since I was last on here! Absolutely staggered at the utter incompetence of Better Together. Making up policy on the hoof during the campaign as a panic measure - such an own goal for starters. Then Gordon Brown getting involved - BT implicitly admitting that Darling not good enough - if so then why not Ed Miliband or Johann Lamont instead of GB? As for Lamont's speech in Loanhead today - self serving, inward speak towards the Labour vote instead of a broad appeal for the union, and almost entirely negative, do the Westminster politicians ever watch videos of themselves these days and ask themselves how their tone, manner of delivery etc goes down with the public at large? I thought not!
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
Cameron was too scared to debate Salmond. Some leader.
Too scared even to take questions from 'ordinary' Scots. It's becoming clear that what Better Together really feared was a red faced man with a cut-glass accent trying to explain to a working class Glasgow man (or even better woman) why we're better together.
Exactly: yet another aspect of the extreme asymmetry of this campaign. Mr Salmond et al were giving public talkbacks routinely after cabinet meetings in the country.
The odds of a “photo finish” with the margin of victory being less than 1% have now hit 8/1 – you could have got 33/1 when we first quoted that possibility last month.
The YES vote percentage line has moved up from 43.5% to 47.5% in less than a week...
... We’ve also started to see some shrewd money on the SNP picking up some unlikely gains from Labour in next year’s Westminster general election. We’ve shortened their odds in a number of seats including Glasgow East, Glenrothes and Airdrie & Shotts.
What an absolute masterclass by Salmond to make this a poll for over 16's instead of over 18's. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Darling, Alexander (take your pick out of Douglas, Danny and Wendy!), Lamont, Ruth Davidson and Rennie are all political midgets when compared with Salmond.
I'm not so sure - if you look at the very first table;
Even if you bump up the yes figures for 16-18 year olds, it's not going to make a massive difference. a couple of tenths of one percent advantage for yes, overall, maybe?
If there is any specific polling on 16-18 year olds, you could probably work out the yes advantage. It's only in the very unlikely Quebec scenario that inclusion of 16+ will change the result.
You mean 'respected the sovereign will of the Scottish people' you Natters keep wittering on about?
That was to do with having the referendum, not with his actions during the campaign. He didn't need a passport, for heaven's sake.
The only role any Englishman, politician or otherwise, should have had in the Referendum campaign is to point out any factual mistakes made by participants relating to rUKs attitudes and policies. For the rest we, the English should have kept out. It is nothing to do with us, it is a matter for the Scots to decide. Generally speaking that is what has happened, until yesterday when this nonsense of a "Home Rule" bill started being touted.
Cameron was right to keep out of the debates, if anything he has probably said more than he should about the whole matter.
The prospect is bound to unnerve some wobblier YES voters - what will it be like AFTER they vote YES, if it's this bad after a few polls?
Not since the rescue of Royal Bank of Scotland have investors moved so fast to protect themselves against short-term ructions in the pound. Rising fear that Scots might vote next week to leave the UK has seen demand for two-week options on a fall in sterling jump by the most since October 2008.
The odds of a “photo finish” with the margin of victory being less than 1% have now hit 8/1 – you could have got 33/1 when we first quoted that possibility last month.
The YES vote percentage line has moved up from 43.5% to 47.5% in less than a week...
... We’ve also started to see some shrewd money on the SNP picking up some unlikely gains from Labour in next year’s Westminster general election. We’ve shortened their odds in a number of seats including Glasgow East, Glenrothes and Airdrie & Shotts.
Interesting in the TNS-BRMB poll how Males split 41/36/23 and Females 35/41/24 Yes / No / DK. Gender divide has diminished a little from previous polls but is still very much there. I thought there would be significantly less Male undecided than Females, but its not reflected here.
The odds of a “photo finish” with the margin of victory being less than 1% have now hit 8/1 – you could have got 33/1 when we first quoted that possibility last month.
The YES vote percentage line has moved up from 43.5% to 47.5% in less than a week...
... We’ve also started to see some shrewd money on the SNP picking up some unlikely gains from Labour in next year’s Westminster general election. We’ve shortened their odds in a number of seats including Glasgow East, Glenrothes and Airdrie & Shotts.
If people are interested in the long term prosperity of this country then whether Scotland stays or goes is of minor concern compared to this:
"Nearly half of poor children are unable to read and understand books, newspapers and websites by the time they leave primary school, according to research released by backers of a major new campaign to wipe out illiteracy in Britain.
Disadvantaged 11-year-olds are as much as seven years behind their more able peers for reading, the study has found, making Britain one of the most unequal countries in the Western World. In the EU, only Romania fares worse."
"...almost a quarter of children leave primary school each year [unable to read], with the figure rising to two-in-five among disadvantaged groups"
Any child unable to read at the age of eleven is not going to benefit from secondary school and is heading for life on welfare as they will be effectively unemployable in the modern world. This is an utter scandal, a massive waste of talent and lives and a demographic time bomb (where will the taxes come from to pay their benefits).
Yet we still have people saying the education system is working well.
Not something you will hear me say that's for sure.
The prospect is bound to unnerve some wobblier YES voters - what will it be like AFTER they vote YES, if it's this bad after a few polls?
Not since the rescue of Royal Bank of Scotland have investors moved so fast to protect themselves against short-term ructions in the pound. Rising fear that Scots might vote next week to leave the UK has seen demand for two-week options on a fall in sterling jump by the most since October 2008.
Still working on it, but that open gap that we had between Friday night close, and last night open, up to around GBPUSD 1.6320 looks as though it needs filling, before more weakness. Danger of getting too greedy though on that trade but looks tempting to me with tight stops right now.
The odds of a “photo finish” with the margin of victory being less than 1% have now hit 8/1 – you could have got 33/1 when we first quoted that possibility last month.
The YES vote percentage line has moved up from 43.5% to 47.5% in less than a week...
... We’ve also started to see some shrewd money on the SNP picking up some unlikely gains from Labour in next year’s Westminster general election. We’ve shortened their odds in a number of seats including Glasgow East, Glenrothes and Airdrie & Shotts.
Comments
I have decided to ask for independence. Me, in charge of my own affairs; not having someone in Westminster I didn't vote for.
No doubt government ministers are already lining up to offer me advantageous tax rates and other perks to ensure I choose to stay.
Right?
'Strange how a man with no political authority seems to be selling England's birthright to keep the Scots in the Union at any price. Has anyone asked us? '
Spot on.
The same number of Scottish MP's ? WLQ still unanswered,Barnett formula? English Parliament? etc.
Womanly trolled? This place has got really out of hand. I will have to have words with Mike.
England fans singing "f*** off Scotland, we’re all voting ‘yes’", reports @neilashton_
http://dailym.ai/1rvy1CM
Come to think of it why don't pollsters ask: if certain to vote, will you vote postally or in person? If number of postal votes cast is in the public domain, the two together would yield useful information.
We're not getting the ICM Guardian poll this week.
Yes: 376
No: 382
YES 38% NO 39%
BUT among those certain or very likely to vote YES is ahead by 1%
Lab 35.75%
Con 32.25%
UKIP 14.75%
LD 7.63%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2014
in February Ravens back Ray Rice - an impeccable and upstanding citizen and general nice guy up to now - was arrested after video showed him pulling his fiancee unconscious out of an elevator at an Atlantic City casino.
He was put on a diversionary program, which on completion would result in the charges being dropped.
He and his - now - wife met with Commissioner Roger Goodell, and she claimed that she attacked him.
The Ravens deferred to the league for discipline, and the league imposed a 2 game suspension.
At the same time Browns receiver Josh Gordon was suspended for the entire season for a 4th failed drug test.
Following the howls of protest at the seeming lightness of the punishment, Goodell admitted he didn't get this right, and instituted a domestic violence policy - first offense 6 game suspension, second - life time ban.
This morning TMZ released the video INSIDE the elevator, which nobody had seen.
It's not pretty - she doesn't attack him, he punches her twice hard in the face, and she goes down like a box of rocks, unconscious.
The Ravens immediately terminate his contract, and a few minutes later the NFL suspends him indefinitely.
It's a terrible business decision by the Ravens, who will have almost $10 million of dead money under the cap this year, but it is the Right Thing To Do.
An Epic Fail by the justice system, the NFL, and the Ravens, but they finally got it right.
He is a great player but the NFL should have no tolerance for behavior like this.
He accepted that some kids that age might be overly influenced by their parents but made it clear he didn't think that would be a problem for him.
The view that the Conservatives will prosper by disregarding 72% of the electorate is.......a strategy for electoral suicide.
'Johann Lamont is, on the other hand, awful. She just said she'd vote YES if it made schoolkids in Glasgow better off;'
Really struggled to understand what she was saying,should have had subtitles.
Yes do have the momentum, so that probably does mean they've lost out on some votes. On the other hand, there's still a week and a half to go and if things are tight now, that again to my mind justifies odds of no more than 6/4 for Yes.
"The other pollster that does monthly Scottish polling is TNS-BMRB operates in a manner that makes it less vulnerable to this problem. Its main concern is not politics but consumer research much of which is carried out face to face. Added on to these surveys are political questions.
So it is being argued that this approach gives them access to views of a wider segment of voters.
What we have seen with the firm that its polling has generally produced more don’t knows than anybody else."
In 1980, as a young Tory MP, he wrote an article in favour of hanging.
some theories...
1) Postal votes already cast mentioned on this thread.
2) Historical polling trend so far favoured no - mean reversion?
3) Belief in Quebec-style last minute step back from the brink due to economic fearas?
4) Belief break knows will break strongly for "no" because of devo bribes or market turmoil?
5) Differential turnout - Pensioners will arrive to vote no, but gormless 17 year old teenagers will "forget" to make it to the polling station? Polls might not be borne out at ballot box...
but against these factors, in favour of yes...
1) Momentum
2) Join a dream, winning bandwagon, make history...
3) Give Westminter and political establishment a bleeding nose, in line with trend of falling deference, voting for UKIP etc...
32% probability of yes looks low to me now given available info and all above factors...if you put a gun to my head I would price in a 40% prob approx here...Am I missing things here?
(Although I'll acknowledge that's not setting the bar very high...)
Traditionally late deciders are suppose to favour the status quo but who knows? Table 4 indicates a slight bias to no but real MOE stuff.
For the yes campaign, I still worry about the spiral of silence No voters, and there is simply no history from which to learn, unlike general elections. Am still not convinced that this is being factored into the polls. And the BT campaign can complain, whinge and moan about all they want, the fact is they're being trounced fairly and squarely. People respond favourably to positivity, and they recoil from negativity and bitterness, it really is that simple. Something that amazingly seems to escape their campaign.
And I agree with SeanT and others that if yes wins, then Cameron should do the honourable thing and go immediately. He hasn't led over this like a proper PM should. Rather he has cowed away at every possible opportunity. That's not leadership, its passing the buck and expecting others to do the heavy lifting. To borrow Norman Lamont's famous phrase - 'in office but not in power'.
One attribute he retains from those days is disdain for the lower classes. His letter to a constituent complaining about her council accommodation achieved notoriety.
Now it may be that they vote for independence, and it all works out. Perfect, and great. If not though its a pretty clear example of a democracy making the wrong call.
The truth is out there, but it isn't being encompassed in the debate.
ABC1 33% yes C2DE 43%
The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes, chimes with what I've heard. If the people of the west coast schemes actually turn out to vote it's all over.
Big "If" though
Lord, something else to worry about.
The same applies to senior civil servants especially in the Treasury and the Foreign Office.
It's a certainly a line of attack on current Scottish MP's in England now, what natural affinity does Fiona Mactaggart have with the electorate of Slough, what drew her to my (not so) fair and industrious town! Is she an expert in the local industries of Computer services, telecoms, software or consumer services! I'll let you guess.
I know it's a modern game to knock MP's who are not locals, but it's yet another angle to attack people on both sides.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, as a Slough resident (someone has to be!) I've never been a big fan of this shortlisted drop in from central office, but on the other hand I have no problem where people come from if they can do the job. But on the other hand I know that no English person could stand for public office in Scotland and that frankly rankles.
Also, it does actually concern me if elected representatives hold dual nationality. Who will they have loyalty to? Are they Scottish or English? They won't be able to be British anymore.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/09/08/ed-miliband-should-resign-if-scotland-votes-yes/
Quite looking forward to the 21st...
"Made in Scotland, by Scots"
Numpty
- The first rule of panic mode is you don’t talk about panic mode.
... I would personally prefer Scotland to stay – but only for entirely selfish and superficial reasons. Reason one: I’d rather not be lumbered with a Tory government from now until the day the moon crashes into the Thames. Two: I quite like Scotland and the Scottish, so it’s hard not to feel somehow personally affronted by their rejection. Why did you just unfriend and unfollow me, Scotland? What did I ever do to you? What’s that? Sorry, you’ll have to slow down a bit. Can’t understand a word you’re saying. Don’t you come with subtitles?! Ha ha ha! No, seriously, come back. Scotland? Scotland?
... the only way Cameron’s going to win a single no vote is if he leaves his clothes on a beach and pretends to have swum off into oblivion, or vows to slam his balls in a car door if Scotland decides to stay. I don’t have a vote, but I vote for the latter.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/08/scottish-independence-david-cameron-no-campaign-windows-8?CMP=fb_gu
But, a Prime Minister who can't hold his nation together (if that is the outcome) must surely resign.
I really cannot see Ed standing down. He's on the cusp of becoming PM, even if a Yes vote would severely curtail him or even limit his time in the post, he's not giving that up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11080893/Scottish-independence-Decapitate-Britain-and-we-kill-off-the-greatest-political-union-ever.html
Boris is stepping up. Where is Dave?
It is a disaster that Miliband oversaw but has never been fully held to account for within Labour circles."
Is that true? I certainly did not know it.
Labour of course bear a huge part of the blame because they sent the A team, the B Team, the C team to Westminster .... leaving the Z team in Holyrood.
Although I don't think Cameron is particularly to blame, I am inclined to agree with SeanT that -- in the event of YES -- he will be the scapegoat.
The only question: is how many more scapegoats will be needed?
Ed has always seemed to me wholly lacking in confidence, and his ineptitude has been rather cruelly demonstrated in his visit to Scotland.
Will he actually have the confidence to continue?
But we need to see the result first!
Usual caveats apply, and the samples are small:
(1) NO lead by 13% in AB and 10% in C1 (it's a 12% YES lead in C2 and 9% in DE carrying them to parity)
(2) NO have an 18% lead amongst the over 55s
(3) The difference between YES/NO on certainty to vote seems to be on the quite likely vs. very likely. If it looks close, NO could move from quite likely to "very likely" thus cancelling out this advantage
(4) 23% are still saying "don't know" - this seems a bit high at this stage
It seems to be that YES do seem to be relying a little more on the some of the more fickle voting demographic to me. A close race might push the remaining NO voters from their complacency.
I also wonder if there's a gap between those saying they are certain to vote/very likely to vote (91%? Really?) and those who say "don't know" at 23%.
Aren't the don't knows more likely to talk the talk but actually less likely to cast a ballot?
God knows what he did to her after he was fired. Life is so sad sometimes.
twitter.com/dreurovision/status/509001390254206977/photo/1
Indyref photo finish now just an 8/1 chance
The odds of a “photo finish” with the margin of victory being less than 1% have now hit 8/1 – you could have got 33/1 when we first quoted that possibility last month.
The YES vote percentage line has moved up from 43.5% to 47.5% in less than a week...
... We’ve also started to see some shrewd money on the SNP picking up some unlikely gains from Labour in next year’s Westminster general election. We’ve shortened their odds in a number of seats including Glasgow East, Glenrothes and Airdrie & Shotts.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/indyref-photo-finish-now-just-an-81-chance/
The Queen?
Obama?
His best mate Rupert?
http://tns-bmrb.co.uk/uploads/files/TNSUK_SOM2014Sep9_DataTables.pdf
16-24 year olds are 44% Yes, 34% No
Even if you bump up the yes figures for 16-18 year olds, it's not going to make a massive difference. a couple of tenths of one percent advantage for yes, overall, maybe?
If there is any specific polling on 16-18 year olds, you could probably work out the yes advantage. It's only in the very unlikely Quebec scenario that inclusion of 16+ will change the result.
Cameron was right to keep out of the debates, if anything he has probably said more than he should about the whole matter.
Because Englishmen won't mind licking her backside.
A goodnight to all.
No positive case whatsoever.
Still working on it, but that open gap that we had between Friday night close, and last night open, up to around GBPUSD 1.6320 looks as though it needs filling, before more weakness. Danger of getting too greedy though on that trade but looks tempting to me with tight stops right now.
Some pollsters are very strict on observing their embargo, just because others have violated it, then you shouldn't because others are.
Violate their embargo, and well they'll never send you another poll again.