O/T, though with a Scottish flavour: a friend with an RBS business account tells me he rang them to ask about the 12-month deposit rate for £13000 that he wants to keep reasonably safe and accessible next year. He was told that RBS no longer offers any kind of business deposit account and hasn't since 2012, since they have so much money already deposited that they don't need any more, and are now merely in the lending business, trying to lend out what they've already got.
Is that a common thing in banking at the moment? "Urgh! Money! Take it away!"
He's slightly bemused. Where ought he to be looking? Treasury Reserve?
Betting on the next GE? Stick that on Sheffield Hallam and get £4k profit...
I predict that if and when Scotland votes NO, or even YES, we will all turn our attention back to Rotherham. It is ready to boil over, quite dramatically.
It looks like the most ghastly cover up really did happen.
Do you think UKIP can win the Heywood&Middleton by-election? Next door to Rochdale, 35 miles from Rotherham.
The town where Lee Rigby was from and where his family still live? Where Pakistani men were found guilty of trafficking white girls in 2012? Where BNP got 7% in 2010?
I reckon Labour could be in trouble
Since I've been publically bearish on their chances, and we are on this website, I feel I should offer you odds. Would you take 5/2?
George Galloway (@georgegalloway) 10/09/2014 18:06 I was the official NO voice on BBC QT tomorrow and the SNP have forced the invitation to be rescinded
Do you think UKIP can win the Heywood&Middleton by-election? Next door to Rochdale, 35 miles from Rotherham.
The town where Lee Rigby was from and where his family still live? Where Pakistani men were found guilty of trafficking white girls in 2012? Where BNP got 7% in 2010?
I reckon Labour could be in trouble
I put it at Labour 45%, UKIP 25%, Tory 15%, LibDem 5%, Assorted Others 10% earlier, but that was based on Wythenshawe plus a move to UKIP since then. If UKIP select a good candidate and aren't spread 'thin' in terms of resource in both Heywood and Clacton (they shouldn't be, but Farage can only be in 1 place at a time), and can build a story on the above, then something closer to 35%, 35%,15%, 5%, 10% is possible. It'd be a phenomenal achievement from UKIP, and I would say longer than Odds on, but by no means in the silly category.
Have I crossed the Rubicon? I find myself agreeing with IOS and Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy! I am a rare breed, a Scottish Tory, and I am so upset at the thought of a Yes vote. Also a lurker since around 2004.
I was at wedding in Scotland in 2011 and the independence issue came up. A young Scottish gentleman took the view that it was really interesting now because having a referendum would force Westminster to see what they would offer Scotland to say no. In other words the referendum was a bargaining chip. So after all the constitutional wrangling of the last few days I suspect we'll get a no vote.
Serious question, do you have a clear idea of what Westminster is offering? Fukked if I do, but interested if it's any clearer from outside.
Have I crossed the Rubicon? I find myself agreeing with IOS and Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy! I am a rare breed, a Scottish Tory, and I am so upset at the thought of a Yes vote. Also a lurker since around 2004.
O/T, though with a Scottish flavour: a friend with an RBS business account tells me he rang them to ask about the 12-month deposit rate for £13000 that he wants to keep reasonably safe and accessible next year. He was told that RBS no longer offers any kind of business deposit account and hasn't since 2012, since they have so much money already deposited that they don't need any more, and are now merely in the lending business, trying to lend out what they've already got.
Is that a common thing in banking at the moment? "Urgh! Money! Take it away!"
He's slightly bemused. Where ought he to be looking? Treasury Reserve?
Betting on the next GE? Stick that on Sheffield Hallam and get £4k profit...
I predict that if and when Scotland votes NO, or even YES, we will all turn our attention back to Rotherham. It is ready to boil over, quite dramatically.
It looks like the most ghastly cover up really did happen.
Do you think UKIP can win the Heywood&Middleton by-election? Next door to Rochdale, 35 miles from Rotherham.
The town where Lee Rigby was from and where his family still live? Where Pakistani men were found guilty of trafficking white girls in 2012? Where BNP got 7% in 2010?
I reckon Labour could be in trouble
Since I've been publically bearish on their chances, and we are on this website, I feel I should offer you odds. Would you take 5/2?
Jolly decent of you!
I was thinking 2/1 so yes I will take 5/2 if that's ok? How much do you want to lay?
I predict that if and when Scotland votes NO, or even YES, we will all turn our attention back to Rotherham. It is ready to boil over, quite dramatically.
It looks like the most ghastly cover up really did happen.
Worse than Charlene Downes (the girl thought to have been murdered and served as kebabs)? Read the Wikipedia page: mass grooming, several disappearances, "endemic child abuse", police misconduct, investigation "hampered by political correctness", and even publicised (it says here) by a Telegraph blogger called Sean Thomas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Charlene_Downes
I remember before the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election being told by UKIP supporters who had no idea what the area I live in is actually like that their candidate had a good chance of victory in February - Labour polled over 3 times the UKIP vote.
See the same people have not learnt from the past mistakes are with very limited knowledge of the area are making wild ignorant assumptions about what will happen in Middleton.
UKIP won't win in the Middleton by-election, the result will be very similar to that in Wythenshawe earlier this year, the one in which many on here told me UKIP were going to win.
O/T, though with a Scottish flavour: a friend with an RBS business account tells me he rang them to ask about the 12-month deposit rate for £13000 that he wants to keep reasonably safe and accessible next year. He was told that RBS no longer offers any kind of business deposit account and hasn't since 2012, since they have so much money already deposited that they don't need any more, and are now merely in the lending business, trying to lend out what they've already got.
Is that a common thing in banking at the moment? "Urgh! Money! Take it away!"
He's slightly bemused. Where ought he to be looking? Treasury Reserve?
Betting on the next GE? Stick that on Sheffield Hallam and get £4k profit...
I predict that if and when Scotland votes NO, or even YES, we will all turn our attention back to Rotherham. It is ready to boil over, quite dramatically.
It looks like the most ghastly cover up really did happen.
Do you think UKIP can win the Heywood&Middleton by-election? Next door to Rochdale, 35 miles from Rotherham.
The town where Lee Rigby was from and where his family still live? Where Pakistani men were found guilty of trafficking white girls in 2012? Where BNP got 7% in 2010?
I reckon Labour could be in trouble
Since I've been publically bearish on their chances, and we are on this website, I feel I should offer you odds. Would you take 5/2?
Jolly decent of you!
I was thinking 2/1 so yes I will take 5/2 if that's ok? How much do you want to lay?
I was thinking 2/1 was a bit too short, but 3/1 was my limit. Funny old world.
How's your £100 to my £250? That's probably my limit.
George Galloway (@georgegalloway) 10/09/2014 18:06 I was the official NO voice on BBC QT tomorrow and the SNP have forced the invitation to be rescinded
If that is true, it's an outrage. I call on decent SNP PBers to condemn it.
I remember before the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election being told by UKIP supporters who had no idea what the area I live in is actually like that their candidate had a good chance of victory in February - Labour polled over 3 times the UKIP vote.
See the same people have not learnt from the past mistakes are with very limited knowledge of the area are making wild ignorant assumptions about what will happen in Middleton.
UKIP won't win in the Middleton by-election, the result will be very similar to that in Wythenshawe earlier this year, the one in which many on here told me UKIP were going to win.
Much as I'd like to believe that, I do think Heywood is more fertile territory for UKIP. For starters, 40% is a good but hardly incredible starting point for Labour. I just don't think they are more than a 20-25% chance.
Have I crossed the Rubicon? I find myself agreeing with IOS and Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy! I am a rare breed, a Scottish Tory, and I am so upset at the thought of a Yes vote. Also a lurker since around 2004.
Not rare at all surely?
Don't the Tories have a steady just under 20% share in Scottish Elections for the last decade for both Holyrood an Westminster.
George Galloway (@georgegalloway) 10/09/2014 18:06 I was the official NO voice on BBC QT tomorrow and the SNP have forced the invitation to be rescinded
If that is true, it's an outrage. I call on decent SNP PBers to condemn it.
Unless this gets traction fast, nothing will change.
I remember before the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election being told by UKIP supporters who had no idea what the area I live in is actually like that their candidate had a good chance of victory in February - Labour polled over 3 times the UKIP vote.
See the same people have not learnt from the past mistakes are with very limited knowledge of the area are making wild ignorant assumptions about what will happen in Middleton.
UKIP won't win in the Middleton by-election, the result will be very similar to that in Wythenshawe earlier this year, the one in which many on here told me UKIP were going to win.
Who said UKIP would win Wythenshawe on here?? Certainly not me, I laid them at 11/2
Taking a quick look at the age demographic differcnes between the Survation and YouGov poll. They really are quite stark.
16-24 years olds make up 10.2% of the YouGov survey, they make up 5.9% of the Survation poll. They are 60/40 to vote Yes in the YouGov poll (they are up weighted by 50%) in Survation they are 39/61 to vote Yes (and they are up weighted 2.25 times).
Haven't had time to look at the Panelbase poll yet to see what demo differences there are in the sample.
Does anyone know how Survation calculate their margin of error? They give it as 3.1%.
Their sample size is 970. The margin of error for a randomly selected sample of 970 from 4,500,000 is 3.15%.
But they don't have a random sample.
Are they adjusting their MOE to account for the under-sampling of 16-24 year olds?
The MOE must be higher than that from a random sample.
Of course it's possible that when you do the maths the difference is small enough that the MOE is still the same when rounded to two significant figures.
In fact since Survation are a professional polling organisation I'm sure they must have done the calculations. But I'm curious if any stats experts who might be on here could say whether the quoted MOE looks right to them when the weightings are taken into account.
O/T, though with a Scottish flavour: a friend with an RBS business account tells me he rang them to ask about the 12-month deposit rate for £13000 that he wants to keep reasonably safe and accessible next year. He was told that RBS no longer offers any kind of business deposit account and hasn't since 2012, since they have so much money already deposited that they don't need any more, and are now merely in the lending business, trying to lend out what they've already got.
Is that a common thing in banking at the moment? "Urgh! Money! Take it away!"
He's slightly bemused. Where ought he to be looking? Treasury Reserve?
Betting on the next GE? Stick that on Sheffield Hallam and get £4k profit...
I predict that if and when Scotland votes NO, or even YES, we will all turn our attention back to Rotherham. It is ready to boil over, quite dramatically.
It looks like the most ghastly cover up really did happen.
Do you think UKIP can win the Heywood&Middleton by-election? Next door to Rochdale, 35 miles from Rotherham.
The town where Lee Rigby was from and where his family still live? Where Pakistani men were found guilty of trafficking white girls in 2012? Where BNP got 7% in 2010?
I reckon Labour could be in trouble
Since I've been publically bearish on their chances, and we are on this website, I feel I should offer you odds. Would you take 5/2?
Jolly decent of you!
I was thinking 2/1 so yes I will take 5/2 if that's ok? How much do you want to lay?
I was thinking 2/1 was a bit too short, but 3/1 was my limit. Funny old world.
How's your £100 to my £250? That's probably my limit.
Have I crossed the Rubicon? I find myself agreeing with IOS and Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy! I am a rare breed, a Scottish Tory, and I am so upset at the thought of a Yes vote. Also a lurker since around 2004.
Not rare at all surely?
Don't the Tories have a steady just under 20% share in Scottish Elections for the last decade for both Holyrood an Westminster.
Don't remember the name, I don't come here often and am not familiar with who posts. But if you have the patience to read through the January and Fenruary threads you'll find some.
I remember before the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election being told by UKIP supporters who had no idea what the area I live in is actually like that their candidate had a good chance of victory in February - Labour polled over 3 times the UKIP vote.
See the same people have not learnt from the past mistakes are with very limited knowledge of the area are making wild ignorant assumptions about what will happen in Middleton.
UKIP won't win in the Middleton by-election, the result will be very similar to that in Wythenshawe earlier this year, the one in which many on here told me UKIP were going to win.
Who said UKIP would win Wythenshawe on here?? Certainly not me, I laid them at 11/2
Taking a quick look at the age demographic differcnes between the Survation and YouGov poll. They really are quite stark.
16-24 years olds make up 10.2% of the YouGov survey, they make up 5.9% of the Survation poll. They are 60/40 to vote Yes in the YouGov poll (they are up weighted by 50%) in Survation they are 39/61 to vote Yes (and they are up weighted 2.25 times).
Haven't had time to look at the Panelbase poll yet to see what demo differences there are in the sample.
Does anyone know how Survation calculate their margin of error? They give it as 3.1%.
Their sample size is 970. The margin of error for a randomly selected sample of 970 from 4,500,000 is 3.15%.
But they don't have a random sample.
Are they adjusting their MOE to account for the under-sampling of 16-24 year olds?
The MOE must be higher than that from a random sample.
Of course it's possible that when you do the maths the difference is small enough that the MOE is still the same when rounded to two significant figures.
In fact since Survation are a professional polling organisation I'm sure they must have done the calculations. But I'm curious if any stats experts who might be on here could say whether the quoted MOE looks right to them when the weightings are taken into account.
The MOE applies to the whole sample, rather than any sub-samples/groups
Have I crossed the Rubicon? I find myself agreeing with IOS and Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy! I am a rare breed, a Scottish Tory, and I am so upset at the thought of a Yes vote. Also a lurker since around 2004.
That's a long time to restrain yourself from posting - welcome aboard!
I remember before the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election being told by UKIP supporters who had no idea what the area I live in is actually like that their candidate had a good chance of victory in February - Labour polled over 3 times the UKIP vote.
See the same people have not learnt from the past mistakes are with very limited knowledge of the area are making wild ignorant assumptions about what will happen in Middleton.
UKIP won't win in the Middleton by-election, the result will be very similar to that in Wythenshawe earlier this year, the one in which many on here told me UKIP were going to win.
Wythenshawe and Heywood are very different constituencies.
Goggins only got marginally over 40% (from memory) in 2010, Kane took that up to 55% on the back of a collapsing Tory and Lib Dem vote.
Be amazed if UKIP top 25% in Middleton, reckon Labour could again top 50% based on another Tory and Lib Dem collapse.
Part of it will depend on candidate selection. As with Goggins, Jim Dobbin was a Catholic who was anti Gay marriage. I imagine there to be a strong element of 'socially conservative' Labour voters who could switch to UKIP in the right circumstances. (ie a Westminster imposed socially liberal SPAD or similar will do considerably worse than a Mike Kane like local Labour party stalwart)
Out of interest, how can it be stated that the majority of polling was done after the YouGov poll? It's an online poll - do Survation only issue 20% or 25% of the invitations per day, or do you have daily totals of the responses?
#Rotherham Council will face independent inspection in the wake of sex abuse scandal, government announces
Unless individuals are going to sacked and/or prosecuted what is the point? Do we really need another inquiry which will tell us not much more than we already know and conclude with lessons have been learned and systems strengthened. The police said they were setting up an independent inquiry the week before last, any arrests made?
Have I crossed the Rubicon? I find myself agreeing with IOS and Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy! I am a rare breed, a Scottish Tory, and I am so upset at the thought of a Yes vote. Also a lurker since around 2004.
Welcome - and nice to have another Scot, and very timely too!
Out of interest, how can it be stated that the majority of polling was done after the YouGov poll? It's an online poll - do Survation only issue 20% or 25% of the invitations per day, or do you have daily totals of the responses?
1) Experience, anecdote, and past data tells me I can make that assertion
I was at wedding in Scotland in 2011 and the independence issue came up. A young Scottish gentleman took the view that it was really interesting now because having a referendum would force Westminster to see what they would offer Scotland to say no. In other words the referendum was a bargaining chip. So after all the constitutional wrangling of the last few days I suspect we'll get a no vote.
Serious question, do you have a clear idea of what Westminster is offering? Fukked if I do, but interested if it's any clearer from outside.
Not really, but it will have to be substantial or the Nats will make hay. I think the unionists have backed themselves into a corner on more powers and there's no way out.
Have I crossed the Rubicon? I find myself agreeing with IOS and Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy! I am a rare breed, a Scottish Tory, and I am so upset at the thought of a Yes vote. Also a lurker since around 2004.
Lurking since 2004? You must have the patience of a saint!
I have no objections to you being a Tory, but the "agreeing ... with Gordon Brown" is a bit dicy!!!
;-)
I hope you can persuade lots of your friends to vote NO
I predict that if and when Scotland votes NO, or even YES, we will all turn our attention back to Rotherham. It is ready to boil over, quite dramatically.
It looks like the most ghastly cover up really did happen.
Worse than Charlene Downes (the girl thought to have been murdered and served as kebabs)? Read the Wikipedia page: mass grooming, several disappearances, "endemic child abuse", police misconduct, investigation "hampered by political correctness", and even publicised (it says here) by a Telegraph blogger called Sean Thomas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Charlene_Downes
This goes far beyond Rotherham.
Unless the authorities really get a grip and show real zeal and determination to tackle all of this I fear an uncontrolled explosion in one of these communities.
Taking a quick look at the age demographic differcnes between the Survation and YouGov poll. They really are quite stark.
16-24 years olds make up 10.2% of the YouGov survey, they make up 5.9% of the Survation poll. They are 60/40 to vote Yes in the YouGov poll (they are up weighted by 50%) in Survation they are 39/61 to vote Yes (and they are up weighted 2.25 times).
Haven't had time to look at the Panelbase poll yet to see what demo differences there are in the sample.
Does anyone know how Survation calculate their margin of error? They give it as 3.1%.
Their sample size is 970. The margin of error for a randomly selected sample of 970 from 4,500,000 is 3.15%.
But they don't have a random sample.
Are they adjusting their MOE to account for the under-sampling of 16-24 year olds?
The MOE must be higher than that from a random sample.
Of course it's possible that when you do the maths the difference is small enough that the MOE is still the same when rounded to two significant figures.
In fact since Survation are a professional polling organisation I'm sure they must have done the calculations. But I'm curious if any stats experts who might be on here could say whether the quoted MOE looks right to them when the weightings are taken into account.
And the MOE could easily be in the other direction, a decisive No victory.
Statistically speaking, not all outcomes within the MoE range are equally likely. The plot of likely errors is a bell shaped Normal distribution centered around 53/47.
George Galloway (@georgegalloway) 10/09/2014 18:06 I was the official NO voice on BBC QT tomorrow and the SNP have forced the invitation to be rescinded
If that is true, it's an outrage. I call on decent SNP PBers to condemn it.
Wow! The SNP have actually done something right. I cannot stand George Galloway. He is worse than my previous "Mr Slimeball" Chris Huhne.
Goggins only got marginally over 40% (from memory) in 2010, Kane took that up to 55% on the back of a collapsing Tory and Lib Dem vote.
Be amazed if UKIP top 25% in Middleton, reckon Labour could again top 50% based on another Tory and Lib Dem collapse.
Part of it will depend on candidate selection. As with Goggins, Jim Dobbin was a Catholic who was anti Gay marriage. I imagine there to be a strong element of 'socially conservative' Labour voters who could switch to UKIP in the right circumstances. (ie a Westminster imposed socially liberal SPAD or similar will do considerably worse than a Mike Kane like local Labour party stalwart)
UKIP could pick Louise Bours? She is a NW MEP, was on QT with Joey Barton...
Thank you for the welcomes. I feel so passionate about this I thought I'd put my head above the parapet. I have been shaken a bit in the last few days by a few people who were solid No changing to Yes. They seem to believe we will get currency union, because Alex Salmond keeps saying it. Also his scaremongering on the NHS is resonating.
Thanks. I don''t disagree with the contents of that link but I don't think it answers my question.
That link is talking about appling the MOE of a survey to a subsample. Clearly you can't do that.
But what I was asking about was how/whether Survation take into account their weightings when calculating the MOE.
Here's a link to the documentation of an R package for analysing survey data which mentions that you need to take weights into account when calculating varinace and that their are various methods to do so.
To see that it's necessary magine that I had surveyed 1 person under 40 and 969 people over 40. If I then up-weighed that one younger person according to the proportion of younger people in the population my MOE would be far different to the MOE from a random sample of 970 people.
So given that the MOE that Survation quote ilooks like the MOE from a random sample , I wonder how and whether they are taking into account their weightings when calculating it.
Voting yes to get rid of the tories is, like suicide, a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Quite apart from all the other possible negative consquences of a Yes vote, just think of all the statues that would be built and streets named after Alex Salmond, hereafter known as "Father of the Nation".
George Galloway (@georgegalloway) 10/09/2014 18:06 I was the official NO voice on BBC QT tomorrow and the SNP have forced the invitation to be rescinded
If that is true, it's an outrage. I call on decent SNP PBers to condemn it.
Wow! The SNP have actually done something right. I cannot stand George Galloway. He is worse than my previous "Mr Slimeball" Chris Huhne.
But if they are dictating who their opponents are (and I wouldn't always trust Galloway) that's outrageous.
Have I crossed the Rubicon? I find myself agreeing with IOS and Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy! I am a rare breed, a Scottish Tory, and I am so upset at the thought of a Yes vote. Also a lurker since around 2004.
That's a long time to restrain yourself from posting - welcome aboard!
Clearly people were not post the right provocative trigger comments. Step it up, people!
Thanks. I don''t disagree with the contents of that link but I don't think it answers my question.
That link is talking about appling the MOE of a survey to a subsample. Clearly you can't do that.
But what I was asking about was how/whether Survation take into account their weightings when calculating the MOE.
Here's a link to the documentation of an R package for analysing survey data which mentions that you need to take weights into account when calculating varinace and that their are various methods to do so.
To see that it's necessary magine that I had surveyed 1 person under 40 and 969 people over 40. If I then up-weighed that one younger person according to the proportion of younger people in the population my MOE would be far different to the MOE from a random sample of 970 people.
So given that the MOE that Survation quote ilooks like the MOE from a random sample , I wonder how and whether they are taking into account their weightings when calculating it.
I remember before the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election being told by UKIP supporters who had no idea what the area I live in is actually like that their candidate had a good chance of victory in February - Labour polled over 3 times the UKIP vote.
See the same people have not learnt from the past mistakes are with very limited knowledge of the area are making wild ignorant assumptions about what will happen in Middleton.
UKIP won't win in the Middleton by-election, the result will be very similar to that in Wythenshawe earlier this year, the one in which many on here told me UKIP were going to win.
Yeah, I think that's right.
UKIP didn't do very well in the Manchester area in the European elections either (or in Merseyside for that matter).
SeanT - whatever the council were doing, or not as the case may be, the job of preventing crime is ultimately up to the police. I still think that is the biggest mystery in all this.
I see the easy way to make money is to own a polling company and front run the exchanges.
That would make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud bookmakers, which is an actual crime
If they are only trading on the Exchanges, then they are not defrauding the bookmakers, they are trading with other individuals and just taking advantage of an information assymetry
I see the easy way to make money is to own a polling company and front run the exchanges.
That would make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud bookmakers, which is an actual crime
Interesting, I didn't realise it wasn't just generic fraud. On which note, is there any legal or pseudo-legal restriction on politicians, SPADs, etc betting on politics? The FA bans footballers from betting on football. Does anything similar exist for this?
I was at wedding in Scotland in 2011 and the independence issue came up. A young Scottish gentleman took the view that it was really interesting now because having a referendum would force Westminster to see what they would offer Scotland to say no. In other words the referendum was a bargaining chip. So after all the constitutional wrangling of the last few days I suspect we'll get a no vote.
Serious question, do you have a clear idea of what Westminster is offering? Fukked if I do, but interested if it's any clearer from outside.
Not really, but it will have to be substantial or the Nats will make hay. I think the unionists have backed themselves into a corner on more powers and there's no way out.
I t has perhaps not been emphasised enough that many people will be suspicious after 1979 and the more recent breach of the Edinburgh Agreement. I am assured by LiaMT that it is technically correct to argue that the latter does not have the force of law binding the UK Gmt - which I find that LiaMT is not the only lawyer to note. And that it does not bind political parties. However, to invoke such techncialities can be seen as dishonest and certainly in breach of the spirit of the agreement (I am not thinking of LiaMT here, I hasten to add).
Perhaps still more to the point, it is precisely those same agents, the UK Gmt and the parties, whom we are asked to trust over any offer, substantial or not. If a written top level agreement can't secure their assent without quibbling over technicalities ....
And on top of that, Mr Darling said this morning that it was nothing new but the same old stuff that has been on offer for months ... while othe people are upsetting the rest of the UK with spurious talk of Devomax ...
I see the easy way to make money is to own a polling company and front run the exchanges.
That would make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud bookmakers, which is an actual crime
If they are only trading on the Exchanges, then they are not defrauding the bookmakers, they are trading with other individuals and just taking advantage of an information assymetry
In the past people, including the jockey Kieren Fallon have been charged with conspiracy to defraud bookmakers, including betfair
SeanT - whatever the council were doing, or not as the case may be, the job of preventing crime is ultimately up to the police. I still think that is the biggest mystery in all this.
I suspect collusion between police and council. They covered it up together. I now believe, as I said, that this will end in criminal prosecutions.
I was discussing Rotheram with a neighbour, an ex policeman, and after an initial defence of the force, even he had to admit that something corrupt that way went.
This poll comes as some relief and I am glad the pound has firmed up to £1=$1.61 USD. I thought the fall would continue today but this firming in the pound occured before 1pm, so I assume somebody leaked the numbers.
However, we still have the ICM poll on the weekend and, of course, the vote itself next week.
My finances become difficult at £1= $1.55, and too difficult at £1=$1.50. So I am keen to insulate myself against a bad fall. I thought of placing some money with IGIndex in one of their newfangled online dealing thingies (I have an account but I'm too afraid to touch it - FLASHING LIGHTS! TECHNOLOGY! BAD!) and may still do so, but I thought I'd see if there were alternatives first.
So. I need to insure myself against a GBP fall to $1.50USD, and ideally to $1.55USD. Other than IGIndex and other online spread betting forums, can anybody suggest a method?
Don't even THINK about forex spreadbetting on IGIndex, they impose compulsory stop losses and everyone gets stopped out.
There was an account of a lunch they had with ? an FT blogger.
IG: 100% of our forex punters lose their money.
blogger: Ho, ho. But I expect the real figure is quite high, 80-90% is it?
IG 100%.
Thank you for that, and I share your disquiet concerning IGIndex and other online spread betting forums, . But it is currently the only means I have to insulate myself against currency movements. Are there others one can use?
really difficult at the retail level I think. Except by buying all the dollars you need for the next year of course, if feasible. And actually not straightforward doing that, except by buying actual greenbacks at tourist rates.
But it makes sense, as all the scares about mortgages, pensions, jobs, currency, bank deposits, have suddenly become VERY real as the markets have got spooked. It's been all over the papers.
And we know women are more risk-averse than men, so they are more likely to be spooked by this stuff.
I have had some twitter exchanges today with a Yes supporter, who still reckons the statement from Standard Life was scaremongering, and they were bluffing.
Of course she lives in London...
I thought that was a fatuously stupid remark by Salmond "Standard Life are lying", is what he said, in effect. He callied their statement "Nonsense" and "scaremongering".
Scaremongering. Again. Can he really use this word all the way through to Sept 18?
He should have said Yes a few tiny offices may go but with lower corporation tax they will be back in a week.
This is most of the board of Standard Life:
Garry Grimstone, Chairman, “lead non-executive” at the Ministry of Defence, London
Keith Skeoch, Executive Director, right wing political lobbyist
Crawford Gillies, Non Executive Director, Chairman of Control Risk Group, of London, the “security consultancy” of choice for ex MI5 and MI6 officers
Noel Harwerth, non-executive Director, Director of “London First” – [Honestly, I am not making this up]
David Nish – Chief Executive, Member of the “UK Strategy Committee” of “TheCity UK”. “TheCity UK” being a body of the City of London.
John Paynter, non-executive Director, was vice chairman of JP Morgan Cazenove until the 2008 crash.
@Bottom_To_Top: Alex Salmond says he can finance the Socialist EU State of Scotland if oil prices remain above $100 a barrel. Oops. http://t.co/gRLb1zaeuT
You mean like almost everyone except the OBR believes?
It is worth remembering that only, I believe , one poll has actually had Yes ahead and it has caused huge political and financial turmoil for the past few days. If it does prove to have been the outlier YG will have a seriously eggy face! Along, to be fair, with some of the more panic prone amongst us here.
George Galloway (@georgegalloway) 10/09/2014 18:06 I was the official NO voice on BBC QT tomorrow and the SNP have forced the invitation to be rescinded
If that is true, it's an outrage. I call on decent SNP PBers to condemn it.
Wow! The SNP have actually done something right. I cannot stand George Galloway. He is worse than my previous "Mr Slimeball" Chris Huhne.
But if they are dictating who their opponents are (and I wouldn't always trust Galloway) that's outrageous.
Indeed, but since it is Galloway I will put up with it just this once.
He who hath no stomach for this fight let him depart. His (UK) passport will be made out....
Seriously, any PBer in Scotland or with friends and relatives in it. Have you got anything more important to do than to save your country in the next 7 days? BT needs you now. Your country needs you now. Get out and help.
UKIP are 3/1 to win Rotherham in GE201... I think that's a bet...
H&M shouldn't really be shorter than that, although it is a by election I guess
You've had me again you swine!
While I'm happy with the 5/2, by-elections are definitely more swingy than generals. Would UKIP have come anywhere near in Eastleigh without the by-election?
(And for the record, I didn't check the Rotherham price before betting. Though I probably should have...)
I see the easy way to make money is to own a polling company and front run the exchanges.
That would make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud bookmakers, which is an actual crime
Interesting, I didn't realise it wasn't just generic fraud. On which note, is there any legal or pseudo-legal restriction on politicians, SPADs, etc betting on politics? The FA bans footballers from betting on football. Does anything similar exist for this?
I understand, pollsters don't bet on their own polls until that poll is publicly available, for example no Panelbase employee would have bet on their own poll, when Ladbrokes offered the market on whether Panelbase would show yes or no ahead.
Mike doesn't bet on embargoed polls, neither do I, which at times can be very frustrating, but he realises it's unfair on other punters.
But it makes sense, as all the scares about mortgages, pensions, jobs, currency, bank deposits, have suddenly become VERY real as the markets have got spooked. It's been all over the papers.
And we know women are more risk-averse than men, so they are more likely to be spooked by this stuff.
I have had some twitter exchanges today with a Yes supporter, who still reckons the statement from Standard Life was scaremongering, and they were bluffing.
Of course she lives in London...
I thought that was a fatuously stupid remark by Salmond "Standard Life are lying", is what he said, in effect. He callied their statement "Nonsense" and "scaremongering".
Scaremongering. Again. Can he really use this word all the way through to Sept 18?
He should have said Yes a few tiny offices may go but with lower corporation tax they will be back in a week.
This is most of the board of Standard Life:
Garry Grimstone, Chairman, “lead non-executive” at the Ministry of Defence, London
Keith Skeoch, Executive Director, right wing political lobbyist
Crawford Gillies, Non Executive Director, Chairman of Control Risk Group, of London, the “security consultancy” of choice for ex MI5 and MI6 officers
Noel Harwerth, non-executive Director, Director of “London First” – [Honestly, I am not making this up]
David Nish – Chief Executive, Member of the “UK Strategy Committee” of “TheCity UK”. “TheCity UK” being a body of the City of London.
John Paynter, non-executive Director, was vice chairman of JP Morgan Cazenove until the 2008 crash.
From Craig Murray's blog.
Thats as maybe. Those London centered financiers may well be even more reluctant than Scottish one to keep jobs in Scotland. Maybe not; but the decision is theirs not Salmonds.
George Galloway (@georgegalloway) 10/09/2014 18:06 I was the official NO voice on BBC QT tomorrow and the SNP have forced the invitation to be rescinded
If that is true, it's an outrage. I call on decent SNP PBers to condemn it.
Wow! The SNP have actually done something right. I cannot stand George Galloway. He is worse than my previous "Mr Slimeball" Chris Huhne.
But if they are dictating who their opponents are (and I wouldn't always trust Galloway) that's outrageous.
Can't be dictating who their opponents are, it's a wider panel than that. The BBC aren't following his line and neither is the Herald as far as I can see.
Voting yes to get rid of the tories is, like suicide, a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Quite apart from all the other possible negative consquences of a Yes vote, just think of all the statues that would be built and streets named after Alex Salmond, hereafter known as "Father of the Nation".
I was at wedding in Scotland in 2011 and the independence issue came up. A young Scottish gentleman took the view that it was really interesting now because having a referendum would force Westminster to see what they would offer Scotland to say no. In other words the referendum was a bargaining chip. So after all the constitutional wrangling of the last few days I suspect we'll get a no vote.
Serious question, do you have a clear idea of what Westminster is offering? Fukked if I do, but interested if it's any clearer from outside.
Not really, but it will have to be substantial or the Nats will make hay. I think the unionists have backed themselves into a corner on more powers and there's no way out.
I t has perhaps not been emphasised enough that many people will be suspicious after 1979 and the more recent breach of the Edinburgh Agreement. I am assured by LiaMT that it is technically correct to argue that the latter does not have the force of law binding the UK Gmt - which I find that LiaMT is not the only lawyer to note. And that it does not bind political parties. However, to invoke such techncialities can be seen as dishonest and certainly in breach of the spirit of the agreement (I am not thinking of LiaMT here, I hasten to add).
Perhaps still more to the point, it is precisely those same agents, the UK Gmt and the parties, whom we are asked to trust over any offer, substantial or not. If a written top level agreement can't secure their assent without quibbling over technicalities ....
And on top of that, Mr Darling said this morning that it was nothing new but the same old stuff that has been on offer for months ... while othe people are upsetting the rest of the UK with spurious talk of Devomax ...
I think there will be Devomax for Scotland if the vote is no and then the clamour for an answer to the WLQ will become unstoppable. Ironically it could mean Labour lose either way with respect to their Scottish MPs
Wards: Bamford, Castleton, East Middleton, Hopwood Hall, Norden, North Heywood, North Middleton, South Middleton, West Heywood, West Middleton.
Thanks - I was about to start doing that but was faced with the tedium of cut and paste from multiple pages of the Rochdale council website. I believe that that includes a couple of wards where UKIP didn't stand as well.
SeanT - whatever the council were doing, or not as the case may be, the job of preventing crime is ultimately up to the police. I still think that is the biggest mystery in all this.
I suspect collusion between police and council. They covered it up together. I now believe, as I said, that this will end in criminal prosecutions.
It ought to, whether it will or not is another matter. We already have allegations in the public domain of corrupt behaviour by officers whose identity is known, yet no arrests have been made, no suspensions from duty have taken place. We have astonishing admissions in Parliament today one of which you quoted up-thread.
However, what we don't have is any energy in actually putting together a criminal investigation into those who were responsible for the cover-ups and conspiracies to pervert the course of justice. Just a lot of enquiries that really are just a means of knocking the whole thing into the long grass.
The Sun is likely to back Yes, but the Daily Record will support No. That should influence enough Labour supporters in the Glasgow area to win the vote for the Union.
Poor Jill Treanor at the Guardian is so confused over bank account deposit protection. It would be out of the question for the rUK scheme to extend to Scottish depositors in rUK banks. Why should rUK residents pay taxes to protect bank accounts held by depositors living in foreign countries? Remember how BOI set up a UK subsidiary to get over this problem.
Jill et al are concentrating so much on stopping a bank run in the next week ("protection will continue") that they don't realise that in the event of a Yes win, protection won't continue after 'independence day', 24 March 2016. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the Daily Telegraph - bless his cotton socks - doesn't quite get the point here either, even if he does a lot better than Jill.
Have I crossed the Rubicon? I find myself agreeing with IOS and Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy! I am a rare breed, a Scottish Tory, and I am so upset at the thought of a Yes vote. Also a lurker since around 2004.
Lurking since 2004? You must have the patience of a saint!
I have no objections to you being a Tory, but the "agreeing ... with Gordon Brown" is a bit dicy!!!
;-)
I hope you can persuade lots of your friends to vote NO
I did post a couple of times before the last GE but I scurried off after a bit of abuse. But I have to say that I found Gordon Brown very moving . Jim Murphy, completely changed my opinion of him, and I was horrified yesterday when I heard Cameron was coming to Scotland but I think he did OK.
George Galloway (@georgegalloway) 10/09/2014 18:06 I was the official NO voice on BBC QT tomorrow and the SNP have forced the invitation to be rescinded
If that is true, it's an outrage. I call on decent SNP PBers to condemn it.
*If* it's true I condemn it as a mistake. Galloway pimped up like an 80s croupier adds to the entertainment, and he's not going to make a bawhair's difference to how people vote. I mean, the Unionists could get someone effective on, like, er, em...
Thank you for the welcomes. I feel so passionate about this I thought I'd put my head above the parapet. I have been shaken a bit in the last few days by a few people who were solid No changing to Yes. They seem to believe we will get currency union, because Alex Salmond keeps saying it. Also his scaremongering on the NHS is resonating.
Stick to your guns, get out there and good luck for what you believe. Tell your friends Salmond's peddling nonsense on the currency. It's not in his gift or even the Scottish people's gift to get one. It's rUK's decision, and rUK's people in my view will not have it, not out of spite but self interest. We don't want to be a Germany to an Ireland. EVERYONE I've had a talk about in this is solidly behind not sharing our currency, and I'm not in deep UKIP or a Tory Middle England shires I can just about see the Milennium Stadium in Cardiff from the house.
But I think I am best employed using my major skill - which, such as it is - happens to be writing and polemic. I have done blogs in the last couple of days, and I've a Speccie article coming out, and I am planning a blog tomorrow or soon after in the Telegraph.
I am surely preaching to the converted but - especially with the blogs - there is always the chance they might go viral. Even if I can convert ten people, who then tell ten other people, each, then I've done my best.
Right now I think the main thing is to show Salmond for the liar he is. I will try to do that.
Nice work, Sean. Please consinder elping spread awareness of the £85000 issue: namely, that in the event of a Yes win, Scottish residents' bank deposits will lose their protection on 'independence day'. That's regardless of what banks they are held in.
But I have to say that I found Gordon Brown very moving . Jim Murphy, completely changed my opinion of him, and I was horrified yesterday when I heard Cameron was coming to Scotland but I think he did OK.
In a way I feel sorry for Gordon Brown. I think he is sincere in his own way but he seems to be such a prisoner of his politics. My youngest has a touch of Asperger's Syndrome and I can see many of the same traits in Gordon Brown so if he has that then I can understand why he struggles so much on the social side of things.
I was at wedding in Scotland in 2011 and the independence issue came up. A young Scottish gentleman took the view that it was really interesting now because having a referendum would force Westminster to see what they would offer Scotland to say no. In other words the referendum was a bargaining chip. So after all the constitutional wrangling of the last few days I suspect we'll get a no vote.
Serious question, do you have a clear idea of what Westminster is offering? Fukked if I do, but interested if it's any clearer from outside.
Not really, but it will have to be substantial or the Nats will make hay. I think the unionists have backed themselves into a corner on more powers and there's no way out.
I t has perhaps not been emphasised enough that many people will be suspicious after 1979 and the more recent breach of the Edinburgh Agreement. I am assured by LiaMT that it is technically correct to argue that the latter does not have the force of law binding the UK Gmt - which I find that LiaMT is not the only lawyer to note. And that it does not bind political parties. However, to invoke such techncialities can be seen as dishonest and certainly in breach of the spirit of the agreement (I am not thinking of LiaMT here, I hasten to add).
Perhaps still more to the point, it is precisely those same agents, the UK Gmt and the parties, whom we are asked to trust over any offer, substantial or not. If a written top level agreement can't secure their assent without quibbling over technicalities ....
And on top of that, Mr Darling said this morning that it was nothing new but the same old stuff that has been on offer for months ... while othe people are upsetting the rest of the UK with spurious talk of Devomax ...
I think there will be Devomax for Scotland if the vote is no and then the clamour for an answer to the WLQ will become unstoppable. Ironically it could mean Labour lose either way with respect to their Scottish MPs
Again serious question: what do you perceive Devomax to be? All income tax, CT, oil, VAT, duties etc?
"One can only hope no one digs through your list of diatribes, and discovers your normal view of Scots and Scotland."
To be fair, it has been such a pretty romance.
SeanT, having spent years reviling and lambasting the Scots, suddenly falls head-over-heels in love with Scotland after catching sight of a YouGov poll.
I am surely preaching to the converted but - especially with the blogs - there is always the chance they might go viral. Even if I can convert ten people, who then tell ten other people, each, then I've done my best.
Are you sure that one of your blogs going viral would have the effect that you want it to have?
Have I crossed the Rubicon? I find myself agreeing with IOS and Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy! I am a rare breed, a Scottish Tory, and I am so upset at the thought of a Yes vote. Also a lurker since around 2004.
Do something about it. This is crunch time. Go to the BT website. It will tell you all the events in your area within whatever mileage you are comfortable with. How will you feel if this goes the wrong way and you didn't do your bit?
One week. We can so this. But everyone needs to help. Better Together indeed.
But it makes sense, as all the scares about mortgages, pensions, jobs, currency, bank deposits, have suddenly become VERY real as the markets have got spooked. It's been all over the papers.
And we know women are more risk-averse than men, so they are more likely to be spooked by this stuff.
I have had some twitter exchanges today with a Yes supporter, who still reckons the statement from Standard Life was scaremongering, and they were bluffing.
Of course she lives in London...
I thought that was a fatuously stupid remark by Salmond "Standard Life are lying", is what he said, in effect. He callied their statement "Nonsense" and "scaremongering".
Scaremongering. Again. Can he really use this word all the way through to Sept 18?
He should have said Yes a few tiny offices may go but with lower corporation tax they will be back in a week.
This is most of the board of Standard Life:
Garry Grimstone, Chairman, “lead non-executive” at the Ministry of Defence, London
Keith Skeoch, Executive Director, right wing political lobbyist
Crawford Gillies, Non Executive Director, Chairman of Control Risk Group, of London, the “security consultancy” of choice for ex MI5 and MI6 officers
Noel Harwerth, non-executive Director, Director of “London First” – [Honestly, I am not making this up]
David Nish – Chief Executive, Member of the “UK Strategy Committee” of “TheCity UK”. “TheCity UK” being a body of the City of London.
John Paynter, non-executive Director, was vice chairman of JP Morgan Cazenove until the 2008 crash.
From Craig Murray's blog.
exactly a bunch of tory arse licking halfwitted cretins, when do we get our gongs Dave twunks.
Comments
10/09/2014 18:06
I was the official NO voice on BBC QT tomorrow and the SNP have forced the invitation to be rescinded
Welcome. (But shame you're not a Slabber.)
#Rotherham Council will face independent inspection in the wake of sex abuse scandal, government announces
I was thinking 2/1 so yes I will take 5/2 if that's ok? How much do you want to lay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Charlene_Downes
This goes far beyond Rotherham.
See the same people have not learnt from the past mistakes are with very limited knowledge of the area are making wild ignorant assumptions about what will happen in Middleton.
UKIP won't win in the Middleton by-election, the result will be very similar to that in Wythenshawe earlier this year, the one in which many on here told me UKIP were going to win.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29140595
Aw, poor guy.
How's your £100 to my £250? That's probably my limit.
Don't the Tories have a steady just under 20% share in Scottish Elections for the last decade for both Holyrood an Westminster.
Be amazed if UKIP top 25% in Middleton, reckon Labour could again top 50% based on another Tory and Lib Dem collapse.
Their sample size is 970. The margin of error for a randomly selected sample of 970 from 4,500,000 is 3.15%.
But they don't have a random sample.
Are they adjusting their MOE to account for the under-sampling of 16-24 year olds?
The MOE must be higher than that from a random sample.
Of course it's possible that when you do the maths the difference is small enough that the MOE is still the same when rounded to two significant figures.
In fact since Survation are a professional polling organisation I'm sure they must have done the calculations. But I'm curious if any stats experts who might be on here could say whether the quoted MOE looks right to them when the weightings are taken into account.
I can't think of a single one in yrs. Who am I forgetting?
(And now we both wait to see what the bookies put up, and hope it isn't too awkward for one of us)
Wyth & Sale East
Lab 44%
Tory 26%
Lib Dem 22%
BNP 4%
UKIP 3%
Middleton & Heywood
Lab 40%
Tory 27%
Lib Dem 23%
BNP 7%
UKIP 3%
Very similar 2010 results.
UKIP will have almost zero local organisation in the area - like Wyth & Sale East.
All UKIP focus, and campaigning will be in Clacton.
Increased Labour majority every time for me, just like Wyth and Sale East.
But if you have the patience to read through the January and Fenruary threads you'll find some.
I think Lee Rigby + Child trafficking will count against establishment parties though, esp in light of Rotherham
Never mind!
This piece explains it better than I ever could
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2011/11/21/understanding-margin-error/
Farage of course.
2) I asked Survation
I have no objections to you being a Tory, but the "agreeing ... with Gordon Brown" is a bit dicy!!!
;-)
I hope you can persuade lots of your friends to vote NO
Tories have friends? Well, you live and learn as they say.
Statistically speaking, not all outcomes within the MoE range are equally likely. The plot of likely errors is a bell shaped Normal distribution centered around 53/47.
Not really that impressed on what I have seen
I see the easy way to make money is to own a polling company and front run the exchanges.
That link is talking about appling the MOE of a survey to a subsample. Clearly you can't do that.
But what I was asking about was how/whether Survation take into account their weightings when calculating the MOE.
Here's a link to the documentation of an R package for analysing survey data which mentions that you need to take weights into account when calculating varinace and that their are various methods to do so.
http://people.bu.edu/dinopc/papers/surveyweightsinR.pdf
To see that it's necessary magine that I had surveyed 1 person under 40 and 969 people over 40. If I then up-weighed that one younger person according to the proportion of younger people in the population my MOE would be far different to the MOE from a random sample of 970 people.
So given that the MOE that Survation quote ilooks like the MOE from a random sample , I wonder how and whether they are taking into account their weightings when calculating it.
Quite apart from all the other possible negative consquences of a Yes vote, just think of all the statues that would be built and streets named after Alex Salmond, hereafter known as "Father of the Nation".
Also, fuck Survation for not giving an excluded undecideds table.
If you ask them that question, usually they are very good at answering any questions you have.
UKIP didn't do very well in the Manchester area in the European elections either (or in Merseyside for that matter).
UKIP are 3/1 to win Rotherham in GE201... I think that's a bet...
H&M shouldn't really be shorter than that, although it is a by election I guess
You've had me again you swine!
Perhaps still more to the point, it is precisely those same agents, the UK Gmt and the parties, whom we are asked to trust over any offer, substantial or not. If a written top level agreement can't secure their assent without quibbling over technicalities ....
And on top of that, Mr Darling said this morning that it was nothing new but the same old stuff that has been on offer for months ... while othe people are upsetting the rest of the UK with spurious talk of Devomax ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7109494.stm
Garry Grimstone, Chairman, “lead non-executive” at the Ministry of Defence, London
Keith Skeoch, Executive Director, right wing political lobbyist
Crawford Gillies, Non Executive Director, Chairman of Control Risk Group, of London, the “security consultancy” of choice for ex MI5 and MI6 officers
Noel Harwerth, non-executive Director, Director of “London First” – [Honestly, I am not making this up]
David Nish – Chief Executive, Member of the “UK Strategy Committee” of “TheCity UK”. “TheCity UK” being a body of the City of London.
John Paynter, non-executive Director, was vice chairman of JP Morgan Cazenove until the 2008 crash.
From Craig Murray's blog.
Lab 39.9%
UKIP 24.4%
Con 21.4%
LD 9.8%
Wards: Bamford, Castleton, East Middleton, Hopwood Hall, Norden, North Heywood, North Middleton, South Middleton, West Heywood, West Middleton.
Seriously, any PBer in Scotland or with friends and relatives in it. Have you got anything more important to do than to save your country in the next 7 days? BT needs you now. Your country needs you now. Get out and help.
(And for the record, I didn't check the Rotherham price before betting. Though I probably should have...)
Mike doesn't bet on embargoed polls, neither do I, which at times can be very frustrating, but he realises it's unfair on other punters.
Ive had a stinker
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/row-over-george-galloway-slot-on-question-time.1410378979
No.
http://www.standardlife.com/about/board.html
Is there a particular point about them you would like to make?
However, what we don't have is any energy in actually putting together a criminal investigation into those who were responsible for the cover-ups and conspiracies to pervert the course of justice. Just a lot of enquiries that really are just a means of knocking the whole thing into the long grass.
Poor Jill Treanor at the Guardian is so confused over bank account deposit protection. It would be out of the question for the rUK scheme to extend to Scottish depositors in rUK banks. Why should rUK residents pay taxes to protect bank accounts held by depositors living in foreign countries? Remember how BOI set up a UK subsidiary to get over this problem.
Jill et al are concentrating so much on stopping a bank run in the next week ("protection will continue") that they don't realise that in the event of a Yes win, protection won't continue after 'independence day', 24 March 2016. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the Daily Telegraph - bless his cotton socks - doesn't quite get the point here either, even if he does a lot better than Jill.
Some of my friends are also Tories, but they usually pretend they aren't so drinking can continue uninterrupted.
North Middleton: Lab 851, UKIP 779, Con 273, Ind 129, LD 55
http://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=89&RPID=1821391
West Heywood: Lab 1029, UKIP 1006, Con 248, LD 97
http://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=94&RPID=1821398
One can only hope no one digs through your list of diatribes, and discovers your normal view of Scots and Scotland.
East Middleton: Lab 1092, UKIP 749, Con 365, LD 112
http://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=80&RPID=1821422
West Middleton: Lab 1167, UKIP 855, Con 174, LD 126
http://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=95&RPID=1821429
I headed off into the internet wilderness a couple of years ago for much the same reason.
In a way I feel sorry for Gordon Brown. I think he is sincere in his own way but he seems to be such a prisoner of his politics. My youngest has a touch of Asperger's Syndrome and I can see many of the same traits in Gordon Brown so if he has that then I can understand why he struggles so much on the social side of things.
To be fair, it has been such a pretty romance.
SeanT, having spent years reviling and lambasting the Scots, suddenly falls head-over-heels in love with Scotland after catching sight of a YouGov poll.
I do hope it lasts.
One week. We can so this. But everyone needs to help. Better Together indeed.
It's alright Sean, calm down, the only person that ever takes you seriously is yourself.
;-)