Betfair still hasn't twigged. Money to be made there for savvy bettors.
Exceptit's only 15 min till the Opinium poll - if it's bad for Yes then the price will go out event further (depsite a one off poll froma company with no track record in this referendum being completely useless at this stage).
Strange that Labour's good summer of polling continues to increase even as the No lead evaporates. The prospect of losing the union meaning people in England are leaning more toward Labour, fearful of perpetual Torydom? (notwithstanding England has voted Labour many times before)
'A clear majority (69%) feel that ‘Scotland should be able to keep the pound sterling(£) if the country votes to leave the UK in the referendum’
They're in for a disappointment.
Well they can keep it, surely, it's just the details of what that would entail and how much it would cost them that differs.
We haven't seen an increase in Labour support. But, UKIP are currently averaging 15%.
Well that works out as positive for Labour as well. They'll need that if Scotland votes Yes.
The chances of a Tory-UKIP alliance are rising by the day.
It's the obvious solution. Scotland goes. Cameron quits. A UKIP-friendly leader takes over, does a deal with Farage.
That Coalition would, in all likelihood, win the GE.
A Conservatives/UKIP coalition would probably lose the GE.
Both the Conservatives and UKIP would lose voters. The question is whether the voters they lose would be offset by the voters happy with the merge. It's far from a certainty, especially when it may force many current UKIP voters back to Labour.
It may be a wet dream for the hard right, but that does not mean it's saleable to the electorate.
As I've said before, the obvious solution is to introduce PR so there'd be no need for pre-election pacts and coalitions could be done afterwards.
Correct. But there both Conservatives and Kippers who'd prefer to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Britain Elects @britainelects 28m We think all Pollsters will be sweating dearly on results night. Whoever gets their final polls wide off the mark will lose credibility.
I do wonder whether this is why we've seen the clustering of published results recently (ICM today apart): firms were getting twitchy about being out on a limb in a poll for which they've had little practice. You can easily imagine them asking themselves "how do we know we're right when ICM / YouGov / Survation / whoever are producing such different results?" And they revisit their methodology, part of which will be in response to genuine findings (e.g. the importance of weighting by country of birth) but perhaps partly also an effect might be to drag previously outlying formulae towards the mainstream - except that just because they're the mainstream it doesn't mean they're right. See 1992 and all that.
There is a degree of safety in being wrong as long as everyone else is; there's precious little in being wrong all by yourself.
They're all wrong. Even ICM. Badly wrong.
Which is just fine by me. The last thing Yes needs is a clear lead in the polls. Cf. Quebec.
Here's what I think is happening. And I realise it's not scientific, but I do live here. There is an active and fervent group of 'yes' supporters, both veterans and new believers. They bombard their friends and colleagues with 'yes' 'lines to take' day after day. Whilst irritating, these arguments have benefited from repetition (and the total lack of a counter-narrative being expressed), and they also benefit from the fertile ground of an existing left wing bias, and the fact that they feed into a visceral patriotism and a feeling of unfairness. Thereby 'yes' has continued to grow steadily.
At the same time as many being persuaded away from 'no', others have reacted to the domination of the argument by 'yes' with annoyance and growing concern. This has been internalised rather than expressed up to now. I believe in the shy unionist -I believe that 'certain to vote, but undecided' doesn't really exist in large numbers -I think the vast majority of these are 'No'. I can't see a yes supporter pretending they're undecided -they want to maximise confidence in 'yes'.
I still think there will be a narrow win for 'no'.
A narrow 'no' will not be enough in the long term. Scotland is not Quebec.
Betfair still hasn't twigged. Money to be made there for savvy bettors.
Exceptit's only 15 min till the Opinium poll - if it's bad for Yes then the price will go out event further (depsite a one off poll froma company with no track record in this referendum being completely useless at this stage).
Strange that Labour's good summer of polling continues to increase even as the No lead evaporates. The prospect of losing the union meaning people in England are leaning more toward Labour, fearful of perpetual Torydom? (notwithstanding England has voted Labour many times before)
'A clear majority (69%) feel that ‘Scotland should be able to keep the pound sterling(£) if the country votes to leave the UK in the referendum’
They're in for a disappointment.
Well they can keep it, surely, it's just the details of what that would entail and how much it would cost them that differs.
We haven't seen an increase in Labour support. But, UKIP are currently averaging 15%.
Well that works out as positive for Labour as well. They'll need that if Scotland votes Yes.
The chances of a Tory-UKIP alliance are rising by the day.
It's the obvious solution. Scotland goes. Cameron quits. A UKIP-friendly leader takes over, does a deal with Farage.
That Coalition would, in all likelihood, win the GE.
A Conservatives/UKIP coalition would probably lose the GE.
Both the Conservatives and UKIP would lose voters. The question is whether the voters they lose would be offset by the voters happy with the merge. It's far from a certainty, especially when it may force many current UKIP voters back to Labour.
It may be a wet dream for the hard right, but that does not mean it's saleable to the electorate.
As I've said before, the obvious solution is to introduce PR so there'd be no need for pre-election pacts and coalitions could be done afterwards.
A pre-election pact between the Tories and UKIP is pure (Tory) fantasy.What exactly have the Tories got to offer UKIP?
Britain Elects @britainelects 28m We think all Pollsters will be sweating dearly on results night. Whoever gets their final polls wide off the mark will lose credibility.
I do wonder whether this is why we've seen the clustering of published results recently (ICM today apart): firms were getting twitchy about being out on a limb in a poll for which they've had little practice. You can easily imagine them asking themselves "how do we know we're right when ICM / YouGov / Survation / whoever are producing such different results?" And they revisit their methodology, part of which will be in response to genuine findings (e.g. the importance of weighting by country of birth) but perhaps partly also an effect might be to drag previously outlying formulae towards the mainstream - except that just because they're the mainstream it doesn't mean they're right. See 1992 and all that.
There is a degree of safety in being wrong as long as everyone else is; there's precious little in being wrong all by yourself.
They're all wrong. Even ICM. Badly wrong.
Which is just fine by me. The last thing Yes needs is a clear lead in the polls. Cf. Quebec.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
What don't you like about the indigenous peoples of Britain? You've got a burr up your arse, get rid of it.
I've got nothing against the indigenous peoples of Britain - I am one myself. I've also got nothing against immigrants who come into the country, work hard and pay taxes.
Why use such terminology unless you have something against such people? After all, it excludes people born abroad who have chosen to get citizenship, who *want* to belong to our great country.
And what rights, in your mind, would they not have? You keep on disappearing when I ask you, and it'd be nice to get an answer.
What don't you like about the indigenous peoples of Britain? You've got a burr up your arse, get rid of it.
I've got nothing against the indigenous peoples of Britain - I am one myself. I've also got nothing against immigrants who come into the country, work hard and pay taxes.
Why use such terminology unless you have something against such people? After all, it excludes people born abroad who have chosen to get citizenship, who *want* to belong to our great country.
And what rights, in your mind, would they not have? You keep on disappearing when I ask you, and it'd be nice to get an answer.
I keep disappearing because I don't blog 12 hours a day like some people, I do have a life. Immigrants should be made to wait 5 years for full citizenship and that will be UKIP policy. There will not be unfettered immigration swamping the country as now. And thats all I'm going to say.
Here's what I think is happening. And I realise it's not scientific, but I do live here. There is an active and fervent group of 'yes' supporters, both veterans and new believers. They bombard their friends and colleagues with 'yes' 'lines to take' day after day. Whilst irritating, these arguments have benefited from repetition (and the total lack of a counter-narrative being expressed), and they also benefit from the fertile ground of an existing left wing bias, and the fact that they feed into a visceral patriotism and a feeling of unfairness. Thereby 'yes' has continued to grow steadily.
At the same time as many being persuaded away from 'no', others have reacted to the domination of the argument by 'yes' with annoyance and growing concern. This has been internalised rather than expressed up to now. I believe in the shy unionist -I believe that 'certain to vote, but undecided' doesn't really exist in large numbers -I think the vast majority of these are 'No'. I can't see a yes supporter pretending they're undecided -they want to maximise confidence in 'yes'.
I still think there will be a narrow win for 'no'.
If you're right, it would rather suggest a big, poll-defying win for No
Betfair still hasn't twigged. Money to be made there for savvy bettors.
Exceptit's only 15 min till the Opinium poll - if it's bad for Yes then the price will go out event further (depsite a one off poll froma company with no track record in this referendum being completely useless at this stage).
Strange that Labour's good summer of polling continues to increase even as the No lead evaporates. The prospect of losing the union meaning people in England are leaning more toward Labour, fearful of perpetual Torydom? (notwithstanding England has voted Labour many times before)
'A clear majority (69%) feel that ‘Scotland should be able to keep the pound sterling(£) if the country votes to leave the UK in the referendum’
They're in for a disappointment.
Well they can keep it, surely, it's just the details of what that would entail and how much it would cost them that differs.
We haven't seen an increase in Labour support. But, UKIP are currently averaging 15%.
Well that works out as positive for Labour as well. They'll need that if Scotland votes Yes.
The chances of a Tory-UKIP alliance are rising by the day.
It's the obvious solution. Scotland goes. Cameron quits. A UKIP-friendly leader takes over, does a deal with Farage.
That Coalition would, in all likelihood, win the GE.
A Conservatives/UKIP coalition would probably lose the GE.
Both the Conservatives and UKIP would lose voters. The question is whether the voters they lose would be offset by the voters happy with the merge. It's far from a certainty, especially when it may force many current UKIP voters back to Labour.
It may be a wet dream for the hard right, but that does not mean it's saleable to the electorate.
Your yawnsome 'hard right' dig aside, I actually agree. There can and should be no formal alliance -it will damage UKIP as a growing force to be absorbed back into The Conservative Party. The cat is out of the bag, and it isn't going back in. It suits conservatism extremely well to have two opposing parties, who can appeal to different audiences.
While there's a lull in the action, a question for PBers...
I have a betting slip paying out on Scottish Independence if it happens by 31st May 2017. What are the chances, assuming a Yes vote.
I know Salmond has talked airily of March 2016 as Independence Day, but realistically is that achievable?
Or do we expect negotiations to drag on for years?
In short, you reckon I'd get paid out?
'Or do we expect negotiations to drag on for years?'
Yes.
I think the basic negotiations could be quick, not least because the UK government will want it to be: allocate the assets and tax revenues; sort out public pensions and debt split. Amend the act of union to transfer all power to Scotland and it's done. The UK will continue to collect taxes and distribute welfare on behalf of the Scottish government for a fee until they get their own systems running.There will technical agreements and laws to change, but that doesn't have to hold up independence day. No CU and possibly no CTA. Scotland will have to sort out a temporary arrangement with the EU to tide it through until accession. Probably a Swiss style bilateral agreement, but including all the acquis. The EU negotiation doesn't have anything to do with the UK.
On EU membership Spain could well resist it as it would inevitably lead to the creation of an independent Catalonia and the break up of Spain too.The Scottish separatists are unlikely to receive a warm welcome in Madrid.
This wouldn't be membership. Scotland won't have representation in the parliament, council of ministers or the European council until it formally becomes a member. It's possible the bilateral be younger-limited. I'm not sure Spain would have a veto over a bilateral anyway. I think it will be sorted out by the European council, and voted on by the parliament.
The Gold Standard applies to ICM's phone polls, and not their online polls.
Yeah yeah: the old adage that suspect polls are the ones you don't agree with.
I always remember 1992 with 'that' poll on the eve of the election when only Michael Brunson called the result right live on British television. 'I just wonder,' he said … and he based it on the momentum.
Anyone betting against the momentum, which is the only certainty, is taking a hell of a risk right now.
Ok, I am confused are DNVs from the 2011 election really that unlikely to vote. They were 50% of the population, why are they being weighted to 14% of the Opinium poll results?
Isn't that 14%, 14% of those who did vote in 2011, but can't remember who they voted for/refused to say?
It would not be the first time I've badly misread a table of data but the table on the first page say the following:
2011 Scottish election vote Scottish National Party (SNP) 317 373 Scottish region Scottish Labour Party 230 258 Scottish Conservative Party 125 114 Scottish Liberal Democrats 72 65 Other 45 11 Did not vote 180 158 Prefer not to say 22 21 Can't remember 64 55
158/1055 = 14%. Isn't that correct?
I'm at a loss to explain that. I'll have a look at what other pollsters do, to see if this is common practise or not.
The Survation poll had them weighted to 25% which is more understandable, 14% just seem helluva low.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious, particularly for the financial services industry which currently employs well over 100K Scots.
There are no winners from this but there are degrees of losers.
While there's a lull in the action, a question for PBers...
I think the basic negotiations could be quick, not least because the UK government will want it to be: allocate the assets and tax revenues; sort out public pensions and debt split. Amend the act of union to transfer all power to Scotland and it's done. The UK will continue to collect taxes and distribute welfare on behalf of the Scottish government for a fee until they get their own systems running.There will technical agreements and laws to change, but that doesn't have to hold up independence day. No CU and possibly no CTA. Scotland will have to sort out a temporary arrangement with the EU to tide it through until accession. Probably a Swiss style bilateral agreement, but including all the acquis. The EU negotiation doesn't have anything to do with the UK.
On EU membership Spain could well resist it as it would inevitably lead to the creation of an independent Catalonia and the break up of Spain too.The Scottish separatists are unlikely to receive a warm welcome in Madrid.
This wouldn't be membership. Scotland won't have representation in the parliament, council of ministers or the European council until it formally becomes a member. It's possible the bilateral be younger-limited. I'm not sure Spain would have a veto over a bilateral anyway. I think it will be sorted out by the European council, and voted on by the parliament.
Time limited. Sorry predictive texting. I keep getting indulgence instead of independence and reptilian insured of European
Ok, I am confused are DNVs from the 2011 election really that unlikely to vote. They were 50% of the population, why are they being weighted to 14% of the Opinium poll results?
Isn't that 14%, 14% of those who did vote in 2011, but can't remember who they voted for/refused to say?
It would not be the first time I've badly misread a table of data but the table on the first page say the following:
2011 Scottish election vote Scottish National Party (SNP) 317 373 Scottish region Scottish Labour Party 230 258 Scottish Conservative Party 125 114 Scottish Liberal Democrats 72 65 Other 45 11 Did not vote 180 158 Prefer not to say 22 21 Can't remember 64 55
158/1055 = 14%. Isn't that correct?
I'm at a loss to explain that. I'll have a look at what other pollsters do, to see if this is common practise or not.
The Survation poll had them weighted to 25% which is more understandable, 14% just seem helluva low.
Opinium's Westminster VI polls weight to demographics rather than past vote recall, I wonder if this is a neutral adjustment, to take account of increased registration of voters for the indyref.
Let's be clear; even a narrow NO is not enough, except as a method of buying time.
Doesn't seem to have bothered Quebec too much in the last 20 years.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
Scotland will be an old nation on Friday irrespective of the result.
On one definition yes but it won't be a united one on any definition whichever way this goes.
Not at first, but the die will have been cast in the event of a Yes vote. All those against it will know that there is no going back, and so will have to work within the new reality, and so the new state will, though politically fractious, accept the need to work to strengthen the new order to a degree far above a 51-49 split in the population.
A narrow No win on the other hand will just embolden the Yes side to try again in 5 years, as a No vote does not put the issue to bed, unfortunately.
What I do dispute, however, is that Yes will get another chance any time soon. We have had 3 years of this and pretty much everyone is sick of it.
The Yes side aren't. I cannot conceive of them not forcing another go before too long if they lose. It's just a question of whether the rest of the nation is sick enough of it that they would punish the SNP if they promised to take another vote too soon afterwards. I've given to understand PQ in Quebec suffered from such a promise this year, but I fear Scotland will not be the same, especially if we (somehow, I cannot see how) end up with another Tory government.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious, particularly for the financial services industry which currently employs well over 100K Scots.
There are no winners from this but there are degrees of losers.
Of course there are winners - where do you think those financial services businesses will relocate?
Britain Elects @britainelects 28m We think all Pollsters will be sweating dearly on results night. Whoever gets their final polls wide off the mark will lose credibility.
I do wonder whether this is why we've seen the clustering of published results recently (ICM today apart): firms were getting twitchy about being out on a limb in a poll for which they've had little practice. You can easily imagine them asking themselves "how do we know we're right when ICM / YouGov / Survation / whoever are producing such different results?" And they revisit their methodology, part of which will be in response to genuine findings (e.g. the importance of weighting by country of birth) but perhaps partly also an effect might be to drag previously outlying formulae towards the mainstream - except that just because they're the mainstream it doesn't mean they're right. See 1992 and all that.
There is a degree of safety in being wrong as long as everyone else is; there's precious little in being wrong all by yourself.
They're all wrong. Even ICM. Badly wrong.
Which is just fine by me. The last thing Yes needs is a clear lead in the polls. Cf. Quebec.
JosiasJessop, actually it irritates me when you talk about genius Indian engineers. Who do you have in mind? I can't think of a single example of successful offshoring of software development, and I know of several horror stories. Your comments are just a different form of Foxinsoxs immigrant doctors are wonderful, better than uk trained, which he expounded on the day the GMC told us that 50% of immigrant doctors would fail uk exams, and that one such doctor had killed 70% of his attempts at angioplasty.
Here's what I think is happening. And I realise it's not scientific, but I do live here. There is an active and fervent group of 'yes' supporters, both veterans and new believers. They bombard their friends and colleagues with 'yes' 'lines to take' day after day. Whilst irritating, these arguments have benefited from repetition (and the total lack of a counter-narrative being expressed), and they also benefit from the fertile ground of an existing left wing bias, and the fact that they feed into a visceral patriotism and a feeling of unfairness. Thereby 'yes' has continued to grow steadily.
At the same time as many being persuaded away from 'no', others have reacted to the domination of the argument by 'yes' with annoyance and growing concern. This has been internalised rather than expressed up to now. I believe in the shy unionist -I believe that 'certain to vote, but undecided' doesn't really exist in large numbers -I think the vast majority of these are 'No'. I can't see a yes supporter pretending they're undecided -they want to maximise confidence in 'yes'.
I still think there will be a narrow win for 'no'.
A narrow 'no' will not be enough in the long term. Scotland is not Quebec.
I agree, but it would be enough for now. The focus can and must then shift to the European Union.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious, particularly for the financial services industry which currently employs well over 100K Scots.
There are no winners from this but there are degrees of losers.
Not just financial services. Right across our economy. Any Scottish company edits customers are mostly English well be affected - there are thousands of them. Just madness.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious,
Here we go again.
I'm not massively pro 'yes' but if I were on the fence it's all this scaremongering that would tip me strongly in their favour. Some of it smacks of pro-English bullying and if it's turning me off it must be affecting others. All other factors being equal, the earth's still going to be spinning come Friday and Scotland will do fine whatever the result.
Here's what I think is happening. And I realise it's not scientific, but I do live here. There is an active and fervent group of 'yes' supporters, both veterans and new believers. They bombard their friends and colleagues with 'yes' 'lines to take' day after day. Whilst irritating, these arguments have benefited from repetition (and the total lack of a counter-narrative being expressed), and they also benefit from the fertile ground of an existing left wing bias, and the fact that they feed into a visceral patriotism and a feeling of unfairness. Thereby 'yes' has continued to grow steadily.
At the same time as many being persuaded away from 'no', others have reacted to the domination of the argument by 'yes' with annoyance and growing concern. This has been internalised rather than expressed up to now. I believe in the shy unionist -I believe that 'certain to vote, but undecided' doesn't really exist in large numbers -I think the vast majority of these are 'No'. I can't see a yes supporter pretending they're undecided -they want to maximise confidence in 'yes'.
I still think there will be a narrow win for 'no'.
If you're right, it would rather suggest a big, poll-defying win for No
It's purely anecdotal and could be very wrong. But as I mentioned this first lady in this video:
is completely and utterly a 'no', but isn't saying so. She's not alone, but whether its a huge countrywide phenomenon, I don't know. But I do think it's something that the yes campaigners would be very unaware of. They've been talking to each other too much.
Let's be clear; even a narrow NO is not enough, except as a method of buying time.
Doesn't seem to have bothered Quebec too much in the last 20 years.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
Scotland will be an old nation on Friday irrespective of the result.
On one definition yes but it won't be a united one on any definition whichever way this goes.
Not at first, but the die will have been cast in the event of a Yes vote. All those against it will know that there is no going back, and so will have to work within the new reality, and so the new state will, though politically fractious, accept the need to work to strengthen the new order to a degree far above a 51-49 split in the population.
A narrow No win on the other hand will just embolden the Yes side to try again in 5 years, as a No vote does not put the issue to bed, unfortunately.
I don't dispute that. There is no going back. Some will leave but I doubt their numbers will be statistically significant. The amount of money that leaves and indeed is leaving might be more of a problem.
What I do dispute, however, is that Yes will get another chance any time soon. We have had 3 years of this and pretty much everyone is sick of it.
Quite right. After a No vote I doubt the issue will resurface again for at least another 50 years. Of course, the SNP could attempt a rogue referendum (as they threatened initially), but everyone else would, rightly, declare it an irresponsible sour-grapes exercise and dismiss it out of hand.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious,
Here we go again.
I'm not massively pro 'yes' but if I were on the fence it's all this scaremongering that would tip me strongly in their favour. Some of it smacks of pro-English bullying and if it's turning me off it must be affecting others. All other factors being equal, the earth's still going to be spinning come Friday and Scotland will do fine whatever the result.
It's not scaremongering.
As someone else put it: Salmond isn't fighting a political opponent - he's fighting economic reality.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious, particularly for the financial services industry which currently employs well over 100K Scots.
There are no winners from this but there are degrees of losers.
Of course there are winners - where do you think those financial services businesses will relocate?
The loss on this side will not primarily be economic. Businesses relocating here is a poor substitute for retaining the Union, just as I imagine Yes would say retaining them would be a poor substitute for Independence.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious, particularly for the financial services industry which currently employs well over 100K Scots.
There are no winners from this but there are degrees of losers.
Not just financial services. Right across our economy. Any Scottish company edits customers are mostly English well be affected - there are thousands of them. Just madness.
Scottish businesses have had 3 years to prepare for a 'Yes'. It won't be a surprise.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious,
Here we go again.
I'm not massively pro 'yes' but if I were on the fence it's all this scaremongering that would tip me strongly in their favour. Some of it smacks of pro-English bullying and if it's turning me off it must be affecting others. All other factors being equal, the earth's still going to be spinning come Friday and Scotland will do fine whatever the result.
Actions have consequences. If you behave like a flake, you can't expect people to leave their pensions and savings in your hands.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious,
Here we go again.
I'm not massively pro 'yes' but if I were on the fence it's all this scaremongering that would tip me strongly in their favour. Some of it smacks of pro-English bullying and if it's turning me off it must be affecting others. All other factors being equal, the earth's still going to be spinning come Friday and Scotland will do fine whatever the result.
-Yes you are -No it wouldn't -No it musn't -No it isn't -No it won't
A pre-election pact between the Tories and UKIP is pure (Tory) fantasy.What exactly have the Tories got to offer UKIP?
Stepping aside in a dozen Kent constituencies and thus handing UKIP MPs? Not that I think there's so much as a 1% chance there will be a pact, mind.
What and forcing a dozen Tory MP's to stand down and making the likelihood of a Tory victory of any sort 12 seats less likely? It just doesn't add up....
1) The Sunday Telegraph poll is a put-up job designed to frighten No voters into thinking Yes may win, and thus ensuring they all turn out. The last thing they want is four polls showing No ahead. ICM have been been infiltrated by MI5. Obvious when you think about it.
2) Jim Sillars is an MI5 doppelganger. When he gets home in the evening, he stares hard in the bathroom mirror, slowly peels off his rubbery mask, revealing features strangely like those of Daniel Craig.
Popped up to the shop to get some biccies, and what should be in the letterbox but a copy of "Angela's Survey"...
Dame Watkinson's way of keeping in touch with the residents of Hx & Upminster
1) Economy. How Strongly do you agree or disagree "Dealing with Britains deficit & debt is the only way back to a strong economy"? 2) Which three issues are important to you and your family? (list of issues) 3) Same for the country as a whole? 4) How well is Cameron handling the terrorist threat at home and abroad? 5)How did you vote in 2010? 6)Have you always voted for that party? 7) What are the chances of you voting for the following parties out of 10? Con/LD/Lab/UKIP 8) Putting party politics aside, who would you prefer as PM, DC or EM? 9) Would you be able to help our campaign by delivering leaflets? 10) Anything to add?
Britain Elects @britainelects 28m We think all Pollsters will be sweating dearly on results night. Whoever gets their final polls wide off the mark will lose credibility.
I do wonder whether this is why we've seen the clustering of published results recently (ICM today apart): firms were getting twitchy about being out on a limb in a poll for which they've had little practice. You can easily imagine them asking themselves "how do we know we're right when ICM / YouGov / Survation / whoever are producing such different results?" And they revisit their methodology, part of which will be in response to genuine findings (e.g. the importance of weighting by country of birth) but perhaps partly also an effect might be to drag previously outlying formulae towards the mainstream - except that just because they're the mainstream it doesn't mean they're right. See 1992 and all that.
There is a degree of safety in being wrong as long as everyone else is; there's precious little in being wrong all by yourself.
They're all wrong. Even ICM. Badly wrong.
Which is just fine by me. The last thing Yes needs is a clear lead in the polls. Cf. Quebec.
What would be your prediction then?
I await news from the Sage of Uppsala with barely bated breath.
1) The Sunday Telegraph poll is a put-up job designed to frighten No voters into thinking Yes may win, and thus ensuring they all turn out. The last thing they want is four polls showing No ahead. ICM have been been infiltrated by MI5. Obvious when you think about it.
2) Jim Sillars is an MI5 doppelganger. When he gets home in the evening, he stares hard in the bathroom mirror, slowly peels off his rubbery mask, revealing features strangely like those of Daniel Craig.
You read it first here.
RE: point 1. I bought the same. The Telegraph doing its best to keep No on its toes.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious, particularly for the financial services industry which currently employs well over 100K Scots.
There are no winners from this but there are degrees of losers.
Indeed.
I'm implying that a post-referendum Westminster government would be silly to over-endow Scotland with HMRC/DWP/DFID jobs as it has previously done. Also, it's capital investment decisions will be similarly impacted.
It would make much more sense to butter up the disadvantaged areas of the UK who haven't threatened to leave.
Scotland's departure might be Wales, NI and Northern England's gain.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious,
Here we go again.
I'm not massively pro 'yes' but if I were on the fence it's all this scaremongering that would tip me strongly in their favour. Some of it smacks of pro-English bullying and if it's turning me off it must be affecting others. All other factors being equal, the earth's still going to be spinning come Friday and Scotland will do fine whatever the result.
There has been a lot of negativity it is true, but if someone thinks that, while Scotland could be independent and be fine, either immediately or in the medium to long term, it would still be better off not to be, does stating that amount to scaremongering and bullying? Yes clearly feel that any risks that the outcome is worth the risks, which is their right to say, but to my mind there has been a conflation of the ultimate doomsayers saying the sky will fall if Scotland votes yes, with people merely pointing out that risks do exist, with the latter also presented as scaremongering bullying.
@Peter_the_Punter I've had the same Scottish Independence bet as you by the sound of it. 50/1 with Hills to be an independent country by 2017, taken in 2008.
Would be a nice consolation prize if it all goes wrong on Thursday.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious, particularly for the financial services industry which currently employs well over 100K Scots.
There are no winners from this but there are degrees of losers.
Indeed.
I'm implying that a post-referendum Westminster government would be silly to over-endow Scotland with HMRC/DWP/DFID jobs as it has previously done. Also, it's capital investment decisions will be similarly impacted.
It would make much more sense to butter up the disadvantaged areas of the UK who haven't threatened to leave.
Scotland's departure might be Wales, NI and Northern England's gain.
@Peter_the_Punter I've had the same Scottish Independence bet as you by the sound of it. 50/1 with Hills to be an independent country by 2017, taken in 2008.
Would be a nice consolation prize if it all goes wrong on Thursday.
You think Sidney might settle early.....like next week, for example?
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious, particularly for the financial services industry which currently employs well over 100K Scots.
There are no winners from this but there are degrees of losers.
Indeed.
I'm implying that a post-referendum Westminster government would be silly to over-endow Scotland with HMRC/DWP/DFID jobs as it has previously done. Also, it's capital investment decisions will be similarly impacted.
It would make much more sense to butter up the disadvantaged areas of the UK who haven't threatened to leave.
Scotland's departure might be Wales, NI and Northern England's gain.
1) The Sunday Telegraph poll is a put-up job designed to frighten No voters into thinking Yes may win, and thus ensuring they all turn out. The last thing they want is four polls showing No ahead. ICM have been been infiltrated by MI5. Obvious when you think about it.
2) Jim Sillars is an MI5 doppelganger. When he gets home in the evening, he stares hard in the bathroom mirror, slowly peels off his rubbery mask, revealing features strangely like those of Daniel Craig.
You read it first here.
RE: point 1. I bought the same. The Telegraph doing its best to keep No on its toes.
If we have to rely on conspiracy theories to reassure ourselves (seriously or not), then we are all still clearly in trouble, but then we all know that. The solace is that I'm sure the other side have similar conspiracy theories already in flow or ready for deployment as well. Don't some believe MI5 are already acting against Yes?
All of a sudden Betfair's market has ground to a halt - either their machine has broken down or everyone's waiting for the next poll.
It's as if the ICM poll didn't happen.
I agree, it's all very odd but clearly the betting fraternity refuses to believe the "Gold Standard" on this occasion - should we see another poll tonight showing similar numbers, then there really would be fireworks, big time!
Yep. Couldn't agree more. There is a significant chance of a correction to the YES chance once the final poll comes out. YES looks very good value.
Quite right - the downside in backing YES (or laying NO) appears limited .... should other polls contradict ICM, we's simply be back to where we were and where we expected to be. If, however, their poll were to be substantiated, then we're into a whole new ball game, all the more so as there are now only 5 days to go.
JosiasJessop, actually it irritates me when you talk about genius Indian engineers. Who do you have in mind? I can't think of a single example of successful offshoring of software development, and I know of several horror stories. Your comments are just a different form of Foxinsoxs immigrant doctors are wonderful, better than uk trained, which he expounded on the day the GMC told us that 50% of immigrant doctors would fail uk exams, and that one such doctor had killed 70% of his attempts at angioplasty.
Lol.
When have I ever mentioned 'genius Indian engineers'? That's just bullcr@p.
In fact, in the past I have mentioned that outsourcing of software projects to India has not worked too well for a couple of companies I know.
Besides, there is a big difference between outsourcing and engineers coming over here. As I mentioned above, I have never known a software project outsourced to India to do well (Eastern Europe is a different matter).
But as it happens, I have known excellent Indian engineers that have come over here, because only the cream get to come. I can mention the Indian engineer who is currently working with Mrs J, who worked in Germany for fifteen years and is married to a German lady. He is very good. Or the Indian gent who worked with us in Southampton and is now working for a well-known American firm. Again, he is an excellent engineer despite his youth, and a great bloke to boot.
But outsourcing's a whole different matter. In fact, I think part of the problem is a lack of experience in many Indian companies because the best get head-hunted by European, American and even Chinese companies (yes, really).
Final one tonight for the Poll Junkies - Panelbase for Sunday Times shows a narrowing gap NO 50% -2 YES 49% +1 #indyref
Union dead. No need a clear lead to secure this and the gap is still narrowing. Ok I'm overreacting, especially considering some other polls, but in a 50/50 scenario, the safest best given the latest, it seems obvious Yes will have the edge.
Britain Elects @britainelects 28m We think all Pollsters will be sweating dearly on results night. Whoever gets their final polls wide off the mark will lose credibility.
I do wonder whether this is why we've seen the clustering of published results recently (ICM today apart): firms were getting twitchy about being out on a limb in a poll for which they've had little practice. You can easily imagine them asking themselves "how do we know we're right when ICM / YouGov / Survation / whoever are producing such different results?" And they revisit their methodology, part of which will be in response to genuine findings (e.g. the importance of weighting by country of birth) but perhaps partly also an effect might be to drag previously outlying formulae towards the mainstream - except that just because they're the mainstream it doesn't mean they're right. See 1992 and all that.
There is a degree of safety in being wrong as long as everyone else is; there's precious little in being wrong all by yourself.
They're all wrong. Even ICM. Badly wrong.
Which is just fine by me. The last thing Yes needs is a clear lead in the polls. Cf. Quebec.
What would be your prediction then?
That you will be seeing plenty of copy n pastes of Jack W, Mark Senior and Fitalass comments in the very near future.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious,
Here we go again.
I'm not massively pro 'yes' but if I were on the fence it's all this scaremongering that would tip me strongly in their favour. Some of it smacks of pro-English bullying and if it's turning me off it must be affecting others. All other factors being equal, the earth's still going to be spinning come Friday and Scotland will do fine whatever the result.
-Yes you are -No it wouldn't -No it musn't -No it isn't -No it won't
Please.
The earth's not still going to spinning come Friday?
Britain Elects @britainelects 28m We think all Pollsters will be sweating dearly on results night. Whoever gets their final polls wide off the mark will lose credibility.
I do wonder whether this is why we've seen the clustering of published results recently (ICM today apart): firms were getting twitchy about being out on a limb in a poll for which they've had little practice. You can easily imagine them asking themselves "how do we know we're right when ICM / YouGov / Survation / whoever are producing such different results?" And they revisit their methodology, part of which will be in response to genuine findings (e.g. the importance of weighting by country of birth) but perhaps partly also an effect might be to drag previously outlying formulae towards the mainstream - except that just because they're the mainstream it doesn't mean they're right. See 1992 and all that.
There is a degree of safety in being wrong as long as everyone else is; there's precious little in being wrong all by yourself.
They're all wrong. Even ICM. Badly wrong.
Which is just fine by me. The last thing Yes needs is a clear lead in the polls. Cf. Quebec.
What would be your prediction then?
That you will be seeing plenty of copy n pastes of Jack W, Mark Senior and Fitalass comments in the very near future.
Shame.
I was hoping the Nats would simply Foxtrot Oscar and get on with their independent lives.
'We really want to go our own way, but lets just hang around for a bit' doesn't sound that exciting.
A Conservatives/UKIP coalition would probably lose the GE.
Both the Conservatives and UKIP would lose voters. The question is whether the voters they lose would be offset by the voters happy with the merge. It's far from a certainty, especially when it may force many current UKIP voters back to Labour.
It may be a wet dream for the hard right, but that does not mean it's saleable to the electorate.
Your yawnsome 'hard right' dig aside, I actually agree. There can and should be no formal alliance -it will damage UKIP as a growing force to be absorbed back into The Conservative Party. The cat is out of the bag, and it isn't going back in. It suits conservatism extremely well to have two opposing parties, who can appeal to different audiences.
What phrase would you use aside from 'hard right'? The 'right' is too large to be applicable (it includes too large a range of opinion), and I did not want to use 'far right' because of the obvious connotations.
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious,
Here we go again.
I'm not massively pro 'yes' but if I were on the fence it's all this scaremongering that would tip me strongly in their favour. Some of it smacks of pro-English bullying and if it's turning me off it must be affecting others. All other factors being equal, the earth's still going to be spinning come Friday and Scotland will do fine whatever the result.
-Yes you are -No it wouldn't -No it musn't -No it isn't -No it won't
Please.
The earth's not still going to spinning come Friday?
It may be spinning more slowly, if my hazy pickup of physics has any truth to it.
Imagine that you are David Cameron right now. This is beyond Staring into the Abyss.
This is staring straight into the Pits of Hell.
If he loses the vote - now clearly very possible - this won't just be his epitaph, The Man Who Lost the Union, it will all he'll be known for. By everyone. By history. Just that. What price The Big Society or Bringing Down the Deficit A Bit, compared to presiding over the break-up of your country (and being partly responsible for it).
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
Imagine that you are David Cameron right now. This is beyond Staring into the Abyss.
This is staring straight into the Pits of Hell.
If he loses the vote - now clearly very possible - this won't just be his epitaph, The Man Who Lost the Union, it will all he'll be known for. By everyone. By history. Just that. What price The Big Society or Bringing Down the Deficit A Bit, compared to presiding over the break-up of your country (and being partly responsible for it).
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
Evening all and a sober reminder for you. Roughly 300,000 have registered to vote for the 1st time and only 60-70,000 of them are 16/17 year olds. The others haven't registered to vote NO. They have especially registered to vote so we can be fairly sure they will be voting YES.
It definitely looks as though the polls have told us it is a dead heat right now.
The continued threats from banks, businesses etc will only harden the resolve of many undecided voters to vote YES. Scots do not like being told what to do by anyone, let alone people they see as "English" or "foreigners".
Today I was attending the AGM of the Association of Highland Clans and Societies in the Town House in Inverness. At one point we could hardly hear ourselves speak. Apparently the YES side had a flash mob in the street, shouting and singing and handing out balloons etc.
What don't you like about the indigenous peoples of Britain? You've got a burr up your arse, get rid of it.
I've got nothing against the indigenous peoples of Britain - I am one myself. I've also got nothing against immigrants who come into the country, work hard and pay taxes.
Why use such terminology unless you have something against such people? After all, it excludes people born abroad who have chosen to get citizenship, who *want* to belong to our great country.
And what rights, in your mind, would they not have? You keep on disappearing when I ask you, and it'd be nice to get an answer.
What don't you like about the indigenous peoples of Britain? You've got a burr up your arse, get rid of it.
I've got nothing against the indigenous peoples of Britain - I am one myself. I've also got nothing against immigrants who come into the country, work hard and pay taxes.
Why use such terminology unless you have something against such people? After all, it excludes people born abroad who have chosen to get citizenship, who *want* to belong to our great country.
And what rights, in your mind, would they not have? You keep on disappearing when I ask you, and it'd be nice to get an answer.
I keep disappearing because I don't blog 12 hours a day like some people, I do have a life. Immigrants should be made to wait 5 years for full citizenship and that will be UKIP policy. There will not be unfettered immigration swamping the country as now. And thats all I'm going to say.
But an immigrant who gets citizenship will be a citizen, but not an indigenous person. The two are quite separate. So I ask again: what rights would they not get?
If you use such phraseology, you have to be prepared to explain it.
Imagine that you are David Cameron right now. This is beyond Staring into the Abyss.
This is staring straight into the Pits of Hell.
If he loses the vote - now clearly very possible - this won't just be his epitaph, The Man Who Lost the Union, it will all he'll be known for. By everyone. By history. Just that. What price The Big Society or Bringing Down the Deficit A Bit, compared to presiding over the break-up of your country (and being partly responsible for it).
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
Jeez, you don't half spout some nonsense.
I was going to say, surely we should wait till next Friday.
I'd hate to imagine if the polls had all shown yes leads..
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
Calm down dear - He's the son of a stock broker and went to Eton, not the scion of some ancient nobles oblige family who arrived from Normandy in 1066.
A Conservatives/UKIP coalition would probably lose the GE.
Both the Conservatives and UKIP would lose voters. The question is whether the voters they lose would be offset by the voters happy with the merge. It's far from a certainty, especially when it may force many current UKIP voters back to Labour.
It may be a wet dream for the hard right, but that does not mean it's saleable to the electorate.
Your yawnsome 'hard right' dig aside, I actually agree. There can and should be no formal alliance -it will damage UKIP as a growing force to be absorbed back into The Conservative Party. The cat is out of the bag, and it isn't going back in. It suits conservatism extremely well to have two opposing parties, who can appeal to different audiences.
What phrase would you use aside from 'hard right'? The 'right' is too large to be applicable (it includes too large a range of opinion), and I did not want to use 'far right' because of the obvious connotations.
Imagine that you are David Cameron right now. This is beyond Staring into the Abyss.
This is staring straight into the Pits of Hell.
If he loses the vote - now clearly very possible - this won't just be his epitaph, The Man Who Lost the Union, it will all he'll be known for. By everyone. By history. Just that. What price The Big Society or Bringing Down the Deficit A Bit, compared to presiding over the break-up of your country (and being partly responsible for it).
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
In the past Panelbase has been seen as favourable to Yes, and the last one had been 52-48, ten days ago. In that period when wondering what to expect, I had imagined it could have put Yes in the lead. Its not statistically off from doing so.
Britain Elects @britainelects 28m We think all Pollsters will be sweating dearly on results night. Whoever gets their final polls wide off the mark will lose credibility.
I do wonder whether this is why we've seen the clustering of published results recently (ICM today apart): firms were getting twitchy about being out on a limb in a poll for which they've had little practice. You can easily imagine them asking themselves "how do we know we're right when ICM / YouGov / Survation / whoever are producing such different results?" And they revisit their methodology, part of which will be in response to genuine findings (e.g. the importance of weighting by country of birth) but perhaps partly also an effect might be to drag previously outlying formulae towards the mainstream - except that just because they're the mainstream it doesn't mean they're right. See 1992 and all that.
There is a degree of safety in being wrong as long as everyone else is; there's precious little in being wrong all by yourself.
They're all wrong. Even ICM. Badly wrong.
Which is just fine by me. The last thing Yes needs is a clear lead in the polls. Cf. Quebec.
What would be your prediction then?
That you will be seeing plenty of copy n pastes of Jack W, Mark Senior and Fitalass comments in the very near future.
Shame.
I was hoping the Nats would simply Foxtrot Oscar and get on with their independent lives.
'We really want to go our own way, but lets just hang around for a bit' doesn't sound that exciting.
I'm sure that Shadsy, Hills et al will have plenty of Negotiation markets available if Yes wins. We'd all like to make a few quid on them, so why wouldn't we hang around?
What to take from tonight? Momentum. It seems to me to be going the 'Yes' way. Perhaps not decisively, and No will hope to cling on, but cling on time it is. And if I had staked money on 'No' I'd be worried.
Lg1983 - no I really couldn't care a less. I live in England and whether the Scots vote Yes or No makes no difference to me. I'm ambivalent about the union. Sorry if that's inconvenient to you. (Although if you think the earth isn't going to be spinning on Friday then there's probably not much hope of a meaningful dialogue.)
JosiasJessop, actually it irritates me when you talk about genius Indian engineers. Who do you have in mind? I can't think of a single example of successful offshoring of software development, and I know of several horror stories. Your comments are just a different form of Foxinsoxs immigrant doctors are wonderful, better than uk trained, which he expounded on the day the GMC told us that 50% of immigrant doctors would fail uk exams, and that one such doctor had killed 70% of his attempts at angioplasty.
Be fair he has never said that.. just Bull Crap(!)
"...if a company hires a brilliant engineer from (say) India, should (s)he be able to bring in his family of eight with him, even if some of them may become cleaners? Can they come over immediately, or should there be a waiting period? Should they be able to apply for residency after a certain period in the UK?"
And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?
If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious, particularly for the financial services industry which currently employs well over 100K Scots.
There are no winners from this but there are degrees of losers.
Not just financial services. Right across our economy. Any Scottish company edits customers are mostly English well be affected - there are thousands of them. Just madness.
Scottish businesses have had 3 years to prepare for a 'Yes'. It won't be a surprise.
We shouldn't confuse the interests of the business with the interests of Scotland. Businesses in England that displaced others previously in Scotland are perfectly happy serving their English customers. Scottish ex-employees and institutions and individuals relying on a diminished tax base, less happy.
JosiasJessop, actually it irritates me when you talk about genius Indian engineers. Who do you have in mind? I can't think of a single example of successful offshoring of software development, and I know of several horror stories. Your comments are just a different form of Foxinsoxs immigrant doctors are wonderful, better than uk trained, which he expounded on the day the GMC told us that 50% of immigrant doctors would fail uk exams, and that one such doctor had killed 70% of his attempts at angioplasty.
40% of British doctors trained overseas so there are inevitably a few bad'uns amongst them. There are also many exceptionally capable ones!
BTW: Enoch Powell was very active at recruiting migrant doctors and nurses while health minister.
Increasingly we are finding that migrant doctors have better training and work ethic than their UK counterparts when we recruit, which is something that I would not have said a decade ago. Labours bodged changes to post medical training in 2007 are in large part to blame.
Evening all and a sober reminder for you. Roughly 300,000 have registered to vote for the 1st time and only 60-70,000 of them are 16/17 year olds. The others haven't registered to vote NO. They have especially registered to vote so we can be fairly sure they will be voting YES.
It definitely looks as though the polls have told us it is a dead heat right now.
The continued threats from banks, businesses etc will only harden the resolve of many undecided voters to vote YES. Scots do not like being told what to do by anyone, let alone people they see as "English" or "foreigners".
Today I was attending the AGM of the Association of Highland Clans and Societies in the Town House in Inverness. At one point we could hardly hear ourselves speak. Apparently the YES side had a flash mob in the street, shouting and singing and handing out balloons etc.
I'm slightly confused -how would an undecided voter have a 'resolve' to vote yes to harden? It might harden a yes voter's resolve (not that that seems terribly necessary, or beneficial to the yes campaign).
Imagine that you are David Cameron right now. This is beyond Staring into the Abyss.
This is staring straight into the Pits of Hell.
If he loses the vote - now clearly very possible - this won't just be his epitaph, The Man Who Lost the Union, it will all he'll be known for. By everyone. By history. Just that. What price The Big Society or Bringing Down the Deficit A Bit, compared to presiding over the break-up of your country (and being partly responsible for it).
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
"Big Society". Ha ha. I'd forgotten all about that blooper.
Imagine that you are David Cameron right now. This is beyond Staring into the Abyss.
This is staring straight into the Pits of Hell.
If he loses the vote - now clearly very possible - this won't just be his epitaph, The Man Who Lost the Union, it will all he'll be known for. By everyone. By history. Just that. What price The Big Society or Bringing Down the Deficit A Bit, compared to presiding over the break-up of your country (and being partly responsible for it).
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
No potty-mouth as it's the weekend but you are wrong. Cameron will not resign or be forced to resign if yes prevails, however you and the massed legions of pbkippers might wish it so. But no is going to win.
Evening all and a sober reminder for you. Roughly 300,000 have registered to vote for the 1st time and only 60-70,000 of them are 16/17 year olds.
Your sober reminder is that the pool of 16-17 year olds is probably larger than the gap between the two sides, or that the Union's future is in the hands of a bunch of spotty teenagers. That's me reassured.
(Of course, they're probably not decisive as they're split themselves, but the closer it gets, the more they matter).
Tory MPs say allies of Osborne have revealed that he is looking at plans to stop Scottish MPs voting on finance bills. That could prevent a future Labour government with a slender majority from passing its budget measures.
One MP said: “It would be bye-bye [Ed] Balls’s first budget. George can see the advantages of trying to f*** the Labour party.”
A Labour MP told Conservatives last week that the shadow chancellor “is crapping himself” at the prospect of such a move.
Comments
Which is just fine by me. The last thing Yes needs is a clear lead in the polls. Cf. Quebec.
But you would expect shy NOs this time, which is the opposite of 1992.
A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.
And Yes is at 5 as we speak. Astonishing.
There are no winners from this but there are degrees of losers.
I'm not massively pro 'yes' but if I were on the fence it's all this scaremongering that would tip me strongly in their favour. Some of it smacks of pro-English bullying and if it's turning me off it must be affecting others. All other factors being equal, the earth's still going to be spinning come Friday and Scotland will do fine whatever the result.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11090937/Word-on-the-street-are-women-more-likely-to-vote-No-on-Scottish-independence.html
is completely and utterly a 'no', but isn't saying so. She's not alone, but whether its a huge countrywide phenomenon, I don't know. But I do think it's something that the yes campaigners would be very unaware of. They've been talking to each other too much.
It's not scaremongering.
As someone else put it: Salmond isn't fighting a political opponent - he's fighting economic reality.
-No it wouldn't
-No it musn't
-No it isn't
-No it won't
Please.
1) The Sunday Telegraph poll is a put-up job designed to frighten No voters into thinking Yes may win, and thus ensuring they all turn out. The last thing they want is four polls showing No ahead. ICM have been been infiltrated by MI5. Obvious when you think about it.
2) Jim Sillars is an MI5 doppelganger. When he gets home in the evening, he stares hard in the bathroom mirror, slowly peels off his rubbery mask, revealing features strangely like those of Daniel Craig.
You read it first here.
Dame Watkinson's way of keeping in touch with the residents of Hx & Upminster
1) Economy. How Strongly do you agree or disagree "Dealing with Britains deficit & debt is the only way back to a strong economy"?
2) Which three issues are important to you and your family? (list of issues)
3) Same for the country as a whole?
4) How well is Cameron handling the terrorist threat at home and abroad?
5)How did you vote in 2010?
6)Have you always voted for that party?
7) What are the chances of you voting for the following parties out of 10? Con/LD/Lab/UKIP
8) Putting party politics aside, who would you prefer as PM, DC or EM?
9) Would you be able to help our campaign by delivering leaflets?
10) Anything to add?
I'm implying that a post-referendum Westminster government would be silly to over-endow Scotland with HMRC/DWP/DFID jobs as it has previously done. Also, it's capital investment decisions will be similarly impacted.
It would make much more sense to butter up the disadvantaged areas of the UK who haven't threatened to leave.
Scotland's departure might be Wales, NI and Northern England's gain.
I've had the same Scottish Independence bet as you by the sound of it. 50/1 with Hills to be an independent country by 2017, taken in 2008.
Would be a nice consolation prize if it all goes wrong on Thursday.
Final one tonight for the Poll Junkies - Panelbase for Sunday Times shows a narrowing gap NO 50% -2 YES 49% +1 #indyref
#Panelbase poll shows dead heat on Scottish independence: No 50.6%, Yes 49.4% @thesundaytimes @ShippersUnbound @SundayTimesSco
When have I ever mentioned 'genius Indian engineers'? That's just bullcr@p.
In fact, in the past I have mentioned that outsourcing of software projects to India has not worked too well for a couple of companies I know.
Besides, there is a big difference between outsourcing and engineers coming over here. As I mentioned above, I have never known a software project outsourced to India to do well (Eastern Europe is a different matter).
But as it happens, I have known excellent Indian engineers that have come over here, because only the cream get to come. I can mention the Indian engineer who is currently working with Mrs J, who worked in Germany for fifteen years and is married to a German lady. He is very good. Or the Indian gent who worked with us in Southampton and is now working for a well-known American firm. Again, he is an excellent engineer despite his youth, and a great bloke to boot.
But outsourcing's a whole different matter. In fact, I think part of the problem is a lack of experience in many Indian companies because the best get head-hunted by European, American and even Chinese companies (yes, really).
You're just inventing stuff now.
Fox in the hen house time.
Permission to panic sir?
And the last poll. Panelbase for Sunday Times has it 49.4% yes and 50.6% no. Slap in the middle of the others. Dead heat people
Panelbase: No 50.6%, Yes 49.4%.
1% has gone to limbo...
I was hoping the Nats would simply Foxtrot Oscar and get on with their independent lives.
'We really want to go our own way, but lets just hang around for a bit' doesn't sound that exciting.
It seems neck and neck to me - different pollsters picking up different results, based on methodology, but fundamentally: neck and neck.
His leaflet's question 7
"What are the chances of you voting for the following parties out of 10? Con/LD/Lab/UKIP"
Can one put -10 against any of them? Especially UKIP?
It definitely looks as though the polls have told us it is a dead heat right now.
The continued threats from banks, businesses etc will only harden the resolve of many undecided voters to vote YES. Scots do not like being told what to do by anyone, let alone people they see as "English" or "foreigners".
Today I was attending the AGM of the Association of Highland Clans and Societies in the Town House in Inverness. At one point we could hardly hear ourselves speak. Apparently the YES side had a flash mob in the street, shouting and singing and handing out balloons etc.
If you use such phraseology, you have to be prepared to explain it.
I'd hate to imagine if the polls had all shown yes leads..
No lead: 1.8%.
And he gets paid very well for it.
Or are you going to block all non-FUKers?
I thought he had some "blue blood" in his veins? You are telling me his is common wot like I am?
Lg1983 - no I really couldn't care a less. I live in England and whether the Scots vote Yes or No makes no difference to me. I'm ambivalent about the union. Sorry if that's inconvenient to you. (Although if you think the earth isn't going to be spinning on Friday then there's probably not much hope of a meaningful dialogue.)
"...if a company hires a brilliant engineer from (say) India, should (s)he be able to bring in his family of eight with him, even if some of them may become cleaners? Can they come over immediately, or should there be a waiting period? Should they be able to apply for residency after a certain period in the UK?"
Tory MPs say they will have no problem getting 46 letters for Cameron non confidence motion if it's a yes
BTW: Enoch Powell was very active at recruiting migrant doctors and nurses while health minister.
Increasingly we are finding that migrant doctors have better training and work ethic than their UK counterparts when we recruit, which is something that I would not have said a decade ago. Labours bodged changes to post medical training in 2007 are in large part to blame.
Time to buy Betfair shares?
Disclosure of interest: I'm a Betfair shareholder.
Why do I predict a no? It’s the economy, stupid
(Of course, they're probably not decisive as they're split themselves, but the closer it gets, the more they matter).
Tory MPs say allies of Osborne have revealed that he is looking at plans to stop Scottish MPs voting on finance bills. That could prevent a future Labour government with a slender majority from passing its budget measures.
One MP said: “It would be bye-bye [Ed] Balls’s first budget. George can see the advantages of trying to f*** the Labour party.”
A Labour MP told Conservatives last week that the shadow chancellor “is crapping himself” at the prospect of such a move.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/ScottishReferendum/article1459005.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_09_13