SeanT - I've never understood this 3 way referendum thing. Surely it's a ludicrous idea? What if none of the three options got 50%. Would we have an independent Scotland based on 38% of the vote? Or would it be some kind of conditional?
The odds remain very strange. All the value is on YES.
I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult to understand? The way bookies work, the less likely an outcome, the higher the odds. Essentially, the bookies are confident that a YES vote will not happen. Bookies are rarely incorrect.
That the bookies are so apparently confident of one particular outcome when all other indicators are that it is so close is what is baffling
Maybe they realise that, regardless of the actual vote, the NO camp will win a la Robert Mugabe. There is no way in hell that the UK government will allow Scotland to secede. It will be a NO vote, even if everyone in Scotland votes YES.
SeanT - I've never understood this 3 way referendum thing. Surely it's a ludicrous idea? What if none of the three options got 50%. Would we have an independent Scotland based on 38% of the vote? Or would it be some kind of conditional?
It'd be two Y/N questions, the second only being considered if the first was a No.
A Brit beheads a fellow Brit over British foreign policy.
Why do we continue to persist in calling these foreigners "Brits". They're not - they're 2nd/3rd generation immigrants at best, and they have clearly chosen their side. There are millions of "Brits" in this country who do not share our culture, beliefs, or indeed speak our language. Why do we lie to ourselves?
I'm too tired and too freaked by this to get into it all... It's a massive mess that could easily been avoided but for bleeding hearts taking us all down the wrong path.
Now we pay the price
I feel sorry for David Cameron, he is only human, he must have the weight on the world on his shoulders, now this...
Tonight's horrendous news from Iraq is depressingly unsurprising. Our thoughts have to be with Mr Haines's family and the people of Iraq and Syria who have to face this living nightmare. ISIL's decision to murder another hostage may, however, be a sign of weakness rather than strength. Hostages have no value when dead, and by murdering them, they reduce their bargaining power with important actors like Turkey who may think they now have no choice but to take action against them, as the chances of their own hostages returning alive are diminishing by the day.
The odds remain very strange. All the value is on YES.
I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult to understand? The way bookies work, the less likely an outcome, the higher the odds. Essentially, the bookies are confident that a YES vote will not happen. Bookies are rarely incorrect.
Um, being patronising (to AndyJS who's been posting here forever) and wrong at the same time is odd. Bookies don't usually set odds in accordance with their personal opinions. They set them to balance the books and make a profit either way. That's ESPECIALLY true of Betfair, where the bookies have no interest whatever in who wins, merely that they get lots of bets, and the odds are determined entirely by the punters. Bet a few thousand quid either way and you can change the "bookies' view" all by yourself.
@FrankBooth First and second choice on the ballot paper?
Choice 1: Cock Choice 2: Balls (not Ed)
I can't bring myself to vote for that fat wanker Salmond (because he's a bullying cunt), nor can I support the status quo (because it's shit). I realise that a YES vote isn't voting for Salmond, but anything that wipes the smile off his face is fine by me. It'll be a no anyway, so it won't count.
SeanT - I've never understood this 3 way referendum thing. Surely it's a ludicrous idea? What if none of the three options got 50%. Would we have an independent Scotland based on 38% of the vote? Or would it be some kind of conditional?
In principal, a three way choice could be made using some alternate voting system, like the single transferable vote, but that would lead to a lot of debate over the merits of using the same system for a Westminster election. By sticking to a binary choice, Cameron has spared us that.
The odds remain very strange. All the value is on YES.
I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult to understand? The way bookies work, the less likely an outcome, the higher the odds. Essentially, the bookies are confident that a YES vote will not happen. Bookies are rarely incorrect.
Um, being patronising (to AndyJS who's been posting here forever) and wrong at the same time is odd. Bookies don't usually set odds in accordance with their personal opinions. They set them to balance the books and make a profit either way. That's ESPECIALLY true of Betfair, where the bookies have no interest whatever in who wins, merely that they get lots of bets, and the odds are determined entirely by the punters. Bet a few thousand quid either way and you can change the "bookies' view" all by yourself.
But welcome to the forum.
Oh, I'm well aware of how betfair works (veteran of matched betting you see - look it up). The thing is, other bookies who aren't exchanges are offering pretty similar odds. So, you're wrong. The bookies have risk assessed their odds, and are confident that the likelihood of a YES vote is far less than the likelihood of a NO vote. They're not a charity - their assessment is that it will be a NO. I'm glad that being an elder on a shitty blog forum adds gravitas to one's opinions. Are you aware of how the internet works at all?
Why does anyone think a narrow Yes win is going to be any less damaging for Scotland?! Can you imagine the resentment of those whose livelihoods or job security might be effected by a Yes vote, and where are the jobs going to appear immediately to make up for the losses? What about the fact that we may see thousands choosing to relocate with their jobs down South in the Finance sector to name just one example of one industry? If other companies head South, how will that job/people drain effect Scotland or impact on rest of UK?
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.
David, I made a similar point last night, now really worried about the longer term impact to investment in Scotland whatever the result.
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.
Really?! Try telling that to hundreds of thousands of Scots that have genuine questions and the need for hard facts?! What about their job and financial security, currency, and interest rates etc? Are they too part of a negative scaremongering campaign with some pro-English bullying because they need these questions answered or the facts and not the nationalist spin that is now on a level with 'it will be all right on the night'! The lack of answers and outrageous dishonest of the SNP/Yes campaign has been absolutely scary on a whole different level to any election campaign I have witnessed, and I say that after the shocking scare tactics Labour deployed to targeted vulnerable voting groups at the last GE.
On the Currency Union that isn't in the gift of any Westminster politician right now without a RofUK wide referendum, SNP/Yes still claiming they are bluffing and that because its in UK's best interests they will cave in and just deliver it if we vote Yes. Do you realise just how many Scots still believe right now that the Westminster Government and UK taxpayer will be guaranteeing and paying their pension even if they vote Yes?! Welcome to the Twilight zone of Yes campaigning where their lies are part of a positive campaign, and the No campaign's honesty with voters is now negative and bullying!
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.
SeanT as the Oracle of Delphi... you're taking the Pythia. As a novelist and chronicler of seediness, it's your job to create characters who are simple to understand; Mr E Tonian, Miss Understoodtart, Jack O.A. Trades, Master Ovnone. Real life, real politics are much more nuanced. Either way, it's time for bed.
A Brit beheads a fellow Brit over British foreign policy.
Why do we continue to persist in calling these foreigners "Brits". They're not - they're 2nd/3rd generation immigrants at best, and they have clearly chosen their side. There are millions of "Brits" in this country who do not share our culture, beliefs, or indeed speak our language. Why do we lie to ourselves?
I'm too tired and too freaked by this to get into it all... It's a massive mess that could easily been avoided but for bleeding hearts taking us all down the wrong path.
Now we pay the price
I feel sorry for David Cameron, he is only human, he must have the weight on the world on his shoulders, now this...
Cameron won't care any more than he has to - his wealth will serve as a cushion to protect him from the harsh reality of the failed multiculturalism experiment. Had we not allowed/embraced this influx of foreigners some years ago, we would now not be wringing our hands and wondering why they're going off to fight in foreign conflicts and trying to kill us in our own country. You can't say that though - it's "racist". I've yet to work out which race, exactly, but still, "racist".
The odds remain very strange. All the value is on YES.
I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult to understand? The way bookies work, the less likely an outcome, the higher the odds. Essentially, the bookies are confident that a YES vote will not happen. Bookies are rarely incorrect.
Um, being patronising (to AndyJS who's been posting here forever) and wrong at the same time is odd. Bookies don't usually set odds in accordance with their personal opinions. They set them to balance the books and make a profit either way. That's ESPECIALLY true of Betfair, where the bookies have no interest whatever in who wins, merely that they get lots of bets, and the odds are determined entirely by the punters. Bet a few thousand quid either way and you can change the "bookies' view" all by yourself.
But welcome to the forum.
Indeed; it was fantastic post to open with on PB. It's not often we see such immediate autodarwination
SeanT - I've never understood this 3 way referendum thing. Surely it's a ludicrous idea? What if none of the three options got 50%. Would we have an independent Scotland based on 38% of the vote? Or would it be some kind of conditional?
In principal, a three way choice could be made using some alternate voting system, like the single transferable vote, but that would lead to a lot of debate over the merits of using the same system for a Westminster election. By sticking to a binary choice, Cameron has spared us that.
Two questions:
1) Do you want a change in Scotland's constitutional position in relation to the UK?
Whatever else one says about Cameron, I think it would be foolish to dispute that he is highly intelligent. He got a top first from Oxford. He's extremely sharp. I thought his sound bite about "not just another chance to give the Tories a kicking" was very well judged.
It's easy to dislike his arroagance etc, but I think it would be a big call to say the man i stupid. I think he would do well in an IQ test. He also appears to have high levels of emotional intelligence.
The adjective you are looking for is clueless.
He knows nothing about the people of this country except what he's read from textbooks. The only period of his life when he spent any length of time with ordinary people was when his son Ivan was in an NHS hospital. I note from the indyref debates that spending on the NHS hasn't been cut. No coincidence.
But to have no knowledge how most of the country you govern live is a recipe for political disaster. Take a look at the 'Big Society'; the only voluntary organisation Cameron has been in charge of is the Conservative Party - and look what a mess he's made of that. Michael Gove has come from a far humbler background and was the most effective minister in the Government partly because of that.
When it came down to Cameron vs Davis, I thought Davis was the right choice because he came from a working-class background and had had to work his way up. But he didn't appear quite as confident as Cameron.
The odds remain very strange. All the value is on YES.
I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult to understand? The way bookies work, the less likely an outcome, the higher the odds. Essentially, the bookies are confident that a YES vote will not happen. Bookies are rarely incorrect.
Um, being patronising (to AndyJS who's been posting here forever) and wrong at the same time is odd. Bookies don't usually set odds in accordance with their personal opinions. They set them to balance the books and make a profit either way. That's ESPECIALLY true of Betfair, where the bookies have no interest whatever in who wins, merely that they get lots of bets, and the odds are determined entirely by the punters. Bet a few thousand quid either way and you can change the "bookies' view" all by yourself.
But welcome to the forum.
Oh, I'm well aware of how betfair works (veteran of matched betting you see - look it up). The thing is, other bookies who aren't exchanges are offering pretty similar odds. So, you're wrong. The bookies have risk assessed their odds, and are confident that the likelihood of a YES vote is far less than the likelihood of a NO vote. They're not a charity - their assessment is that it will be a NO. I'm glad that being an elder on a shitty blog forum adds gravitas to one's opinions. Are you aware of how the internet works at all?
I should have said - all bookies (more or less) get their odds from a pool of central "books". Nowadays, it's based on deep statistical analysis which individual companies then receive and tailor to their own needs. I agree that a sudden influx of big money will shorten the odds on a given price, and I suppose that's the point - EVERYONE'S money is on a NO. VERY FEW people believe a YES vote will happen. They're not all dumping money on a NO outcome based on gut feelings and a whim. SO, can EVERYONE be wrong?
SeanT - I've never understood this 3 way referendum thing. Surely it's a ludicrous idea? What if none of the three options got 50%. Would we have an independent Scotland based on 38% of the vote? Or would it be some kind of conditional?
In principal, a three way choice could be made using some alternate voting system, like the single transferable vote, but that would lead to a lot of debate over the merits of using the same system for a Westminster election. By sticking to a binary choice, Cameron has spared us that.
Two questions:
1) Do you want a change in Scotland's constitutional position in relation to the UK?
(If yes)
2)
a) Independence? b) DevoMax?
That would just confuse the people of Scotland, many of whom are as thick as shit.
A government's first responsibility is to safeguard the country over which it governs. When Scotland votes Yes on Thursday this government will have failed in its primary duty. Whether Cameron stays as a massively diminished leader or goes as a broken man is up to him, but he will know that posterity will remember him for one thing only: as the PM who lost the Union.
@grex9101 The short answer is yes, the larger bets will be coming from people with Cameron's view. How could any country risk its finances for an "idea"?
There is something very, very off with these killings. I think it's bullshit.
I believe the intel consensus (I haven't seen the latest vid, does it match the first two?) is that all the murders were done at once, in the same place.
The voiceovers have been added after, to give contemporaneity. ISIS are smarter than AQ by a league.
Which makes them more dangerous, and which means we have to kill them.
Do you realise that Turkey has *still* not closed its border that is letting floods of militants join ISIS? And no-one in the British or US Government has called for them to do so? And as for Saudi Arabia, they have apparently agreed to train more militants to 'fight' ISIS -I mean you couldn't make this stuff up!
We want to launch a bombing campaign; they're saying from the outset that it will include Syria, but will not be in conjunction with the Government but with (sigh) the moderate 'FSA' -in other words, a bombing campaign in Syria, just like they wanted the last time.
@grex9101 The short answer is yes, the larger bets will be coming from people with Cameron's view. How could any country risk its finances for an "idea"?
@grex9101 The short answer is yes, the larger bets will be coming from people with Cameron's view. How could any country risk its finances for an "idea"?
It's been happening for decades -it's called socialism.
Getting to Iraq/Syria must be the easiest thing in the world. Go from the UK to Germany. Then go to Turkey (since loads of Turkish Germans must be doing it all the time). And then cross the border into Iraq with no problems.
@grex9101 The short answer is yes, the larger bets will be coming from people with Cameron's view. How could any country risk its finances for an "idea"?
I think you misunderstand betting, and indeed, gamblers.
@Seant, I am sticking my previous prediction a few days ago. 60-65% No and 35-40% Yes, and its the young, women and over 55's who will deliver that No vote comfortable. As I posted a few days ago, 'its going to be the economy stupid' that decides this momentous decision. And it is that factor above everything else which will swing the female vote and the over 55's rather than the gamble on the flag of nationalism that many men seem prepared to take right now.
And while at most elections its usually the grey vote that is often targeted by politicians and political parties as they turn out in greatest numbers. We really mustn't ignore the under 24 voters and their impact in this Indy Referendum, and despite the fact they are usually notoriously poor at turning out to vote. The focus and momentum with this voting group has been like nothing I have ever witnessed before. Forget the Cleggism with students before the last GE, I think the big surprise at this Indy Ref will not only be an incredible high turnout, but that far more youngsters under 24 will vote than is normal at any election.
The SNP were relying on the young to be big Yes voters where the over 55's were not, hence their desperate desire to drop the voting age for this Referendum. But as many schools and Uni Referendum votes have proved, they are overwhelmingly in the No camp. That was a big surprise to me initially, and I have posted a few times about this over last two years on PB. But really thinking about it and why they are genuinely motivated to vote No, it shouldn't have been a surprise. Youngsters are very outward looking, the world is getting so much more accessible and they just don't see the need to make their base camp that bit smaller and to put up barriers where there should be none.
I don't think that Salmond or Sturgeon care that much if its a No vote by the slimmest of margins, it will be job done splitting the Scots Nation down the middle and allowing them to fight another day whatever the costs to Scotland.
When it came down to Cameron vs Davis, I thought Davis was the right choice because he came from a working-class background and had had to work his way up. But he didn't appear quite as confident as Cameron.
The irony being that during the campaign Cameron nearly threw in the towel because he thought he was beaten.
You know what depresses me? The fact I am obviously smarter than David Cameron.
I'm a ridiculous, semi-alcoholic thriller writer with bipolarity and a history of drug abuse and blatant whoring. I barely made it alive into my 40s.
Yet I could run this country better than our Etonian Prime Minister, inasmuch as I wouldn't have been so careless as to lose (or nearly lose) 30% of it. Even when I was totally hammered on high quality heroin I wouldn't have been that dim.
Eesh. We are governed by narcissistic cretins.
You don't appear to have run your own life successfully let alone being fit to run a nation. Self indulgent is the word.
I earn £200k a year, travel the world first class for free, have two beautiful daughters, and, at the age of 51, I am at present stepping out with a very attractive 26 year old. This after a lifetime of roistering, partying, and ridiculous self indulgence, sufficient to fill two memoirs (the first of which was an international best-seller).
You know what depresses me? The fact I am obviously smarter than David Cameron.
I'm a ridiculous, semi-alcoholic thriller writer with bipolarity and a history of drug abuse and blatant whoring. I barely made it alive into my 40s.
Yet I could run this country better than our Etonian Prime Minister, inasmuch as I wouldn't have been so careless as to lose (or nearly lose) 30% of it. Even when I was totally hammered on high quality heroin I wouldn't have been that dim.
Eesh. We are governed by narcissistic cretins.
You don't appear to have run your own life successfully let alone being fit to run a nation. Self indulgent is the word.
I earn £200k a year, travel the world first class for free, have two beautiful daughters, and, at the age of 51, I am at present stepping out with a very attractive 26 year old. This after a lifetime of roistering, partying, and ridiculous self indulgence, sufficient to fill two memoirs (the first of which was an international best-seller).
The thing that puzzles me right now is why the Scots aren't gobbling up the Devomax option. It pretty much gives them all they want without the downsides. Roger made an interesting point earlier. All new entrants to the EU have to pay a minimum of 5% VAT on food (zero rated in the UK). Some of the poor voters the SNP mafia are conning will feel this the most. That's when they eventually gain admission courtesy of Spain..
@Seant, I am sticking my previous prediction a few days ago. 60-65% No and 35-40% Yes, and its the young, women and over 55's who will deliver that No vote comfortable. Its going to be 'the economy stupid' that decides this momentous decision, and that is the factor which will swing the female vote and the over 55's rather than the gamble on the flag of nationalism that many men seem prepared to take right now.
And while at most elections its usually the grey vote that is often targeted by politicians and political parties as they turn out in greatest numbers. We really mustn't ignore the under 24 voters and their impact in this Indy Referendum, and despite the fact they are usually notoriously poor at turning out to vote. The focus and momentum with this voting group has been like nothing I have ever witnessed before. Forget the Cleggism with students before the last GE, I think the big surprise at this Indy Ref will not only be an incredible high turnout, but that far more youngsters under 24 will vote than is normal at any election.
The SNP were relying on the young to be big Yes voters where the over 55's were not, hence their desperate desire to drop the voting age for this Referendum. But as many schools and Uni Referendum votes have proved, they are overwhelmingly in the No camp. That was a big surprise to me initially for me, and I have posted a few times about this over last two years on PB. But really thinking about it and why they are genuinely motivated to vote No, it shouldn't have been a surprise. Youngsters are very outward looking, the world is getting so much more accessible and they just don't see the need to make their base camp that bit smaller and to put up barriers where there should be none.
I don't think that Salmond or Sturgeon care that much if its a No vote by the slimmest of margins, it will be job done splitting the Scots Nation down the middle and allowing them to fight another day whatever the costs to Scotland.
Whilst I appreciate what you're saying, there have been rumours abound that, during the last "big big debate" (televised thurs night) feat. 16/17 year olds, that the shows producers had to ask some if the audience to "pretend" that they were in the no/undecided camps as there were far to many YES kids in attendance (and we all know how much the beeb needs "balance").
Having watched the "debate", it did seem very obvious that all of the NO kids were toffee nosed little cunts who obviously feared for their daddys chartered accountancy job....
Perhaps the dividing lines are as simple as poor people voting yes, rich people voting no?
I am predicting Aberdeen City/Aberdeenshire going NO, but the recent Survation polling has been lumping us in with Angus and Dundee which is far more pro SNP as part of the North East. Hence the Yes lead that we saw today, and the very close polling that put No ahead earlier from them.
@Seant, I am sticking my previous prediction a few days ago. 60-65% No and 35-40% Yes, and its the young, women and over 55's who will deliver that No vote comfortable. Its going to be 'the economy stupid' that decides this momentous decision, and that is the factor which will swing the female vote and the over 55's rather than the gamble on the flag of nationalism that many men seem prepared to take right now.
And while at most elections its usually the grey vote that is often targeted by politicians and political parties as they turn out in greatest numbers. We really mustn't ignore the under 24 voters and their impact in this Indy Referendum, and despite the fact they are usually notoriously poor at turning out to vote. The focus and momentum with this voting group has been like nothing I have ever witnessed before. Forget the Cleggism with students before the last GE, I think the big surprise at this Indy Ref will not only be an incredible high turnout, but that far more youngsters under 24 will vote than is normal at any election.
The SNP were relying on the young to be big Yes voters where the over 55's were not, hence their desperate desire to drop the voting age for this Referendum. But as many schools and Uni Referendum votes have proved, they are overwhelmingly in the No camp. That was a big surprise to me initially for me, and I have posted a few times about this over last two years on PB. But really thinking about it and why they are genuinely motivated to vote No, it shouldn't have been a surprise. Youngsters are very outward looking, the world is getting so much more accessible and they just don't see the need to make their base camp that bit smaller and to put up barriers where there should be none.
I don't think that Salmond or Sturgeon care that much if its a No vote by the slimmest of margins, it will be job done splitting the Scots Nation down the middle and allowing them to fight another day whatever the costs to Scotland.
Whilst I appreciate what you're saying, there have been rumours abound that, during the last "big big debate" (televised thurs night) feat. 16/17 year olds, that the shows producers had to ask some if the audience to "pretend" that they were in the no/undecided camps as there were far to many YES kids in attendance (and we all know how much the beeb needs "balance").
Having watched the "debate", it did seem very obvious that all of the NO kids were toffee nosed little cunts who obviously feared for their daddys chartered accountancy job....
Perhaps the dividing lines are as simple as poor people voting yes, rich people voting no?
That's certainly true in the Glasgow area I think. Councils like East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire will vote No by heavy margins and the main reason is because they're more wealthy than average.
I actually think Seant could be a better PM than Cameron, in as much that he wouldn't be scared to implement populist, common sense policies. "Sick people paying a fortune for hospital parking? BARMY! Sort it out, Morgan" and "LFRS spunking 8 million quid on a new HQ, then threatening TwistedFireStopper and his mates with redundancy? BARMY! Mordaunt, Sell the HQ, buy a portacabin, keep gold standard fire cover for Leicestershire, and while you're at it, buy Oakleys for all the fireys!"
The thing that puzzles me right now is why the Scots aren't gobbling up the Devomax option. It pretty much gives them all they want without the downsides. Roger made an interesting point earlier. All new entrants to the EU have to pay a minimum of 5% VAT on food (zero rated in the UK). Some of the poor voters the SNP mafia are conning will feel this the most. That's when they eventually gain admission courtesy of Spain..
@Seant, I am sticking my previous prediction a few days ago. 60-65% No and 35-40% Yes, and its the young, women and over 55's who will deliver that No vote comfortable. Its going to be 'the economy stupid' that decides this momentous decision, and that is the factor which will swing the female vote and the over 55's rather than the gamble on the flag of nationalism that many men seem prepared to take right now.
And while at most elections its usually the grey vote that is often targeted by politicians and political parties as they turn out in greatest numbers. We really mustn't ignore the under 24 voters and their impact in this Indy Referendum, and despite the fact they are usually notoriously poor at turning out to vote. The focus and momentum with this voting group has been like nothing I have ever witnessed before. Forget the Cleggism with students before the last GE, I think the big surprise at this Indy Ref will not only be an incredible high turnout, but that far more youngsters under 24 will vote than is normal at any election.
The SNP were relying on the young to be big Yes voters where the over 55's were not, hence their desperate desire to drop the voting age for this Referendum. But as many schools and Uni Referendum votes have proved, they are overwhelmingly in the No camp. That was a big surprise to me initially for me, and I have posted a few times about this over last two years on PB. But really thinking about it and why they are genuinely motivated to vote No, it shouldn't have been a surprise. Youngsters are very outward looking, the world is getting so much more accessible and they just don't see the need to make their base camp that bit smaller and to put up barriers where there should be none.
I don't think that Salmond or Sturgeon care that much if its a No vote by the slimmest of margins, it will be job done splitting the Scots Nation down the middle and allowing them to fight another day whatever the costs to Scotland.
Whilst I appreciate what you're saying, there have been rumours abound that, during the last "big big debate" (televised thurs night) feat. 16/17 year olds, that the shows producers had to ask some if the audience to "pretend" that they were in the no/undecided camps as there were far to many YES kids in attendance (and we all know how much the beeb needs "balance").
Having watched the "debate", it did seem very obvious that all of the NO kids were toffee nosed little cunts who obviously feared for their daddys chartered accountancy job....
Perhaps the dividing lines are as simple as poor people voting yes, rich people voting no?
Aren't accountants welcome in the new, free iScotland?
The thing that puzzles me right now is why the Scots aren't gobbling up the Devomax option. It pretty much gives them all they want without the downsides. Roger made an interesting point earlier. All new entrants to the EU have to pay a minimum of 5% VAT on food (zero rated in the UK). Some of the poor voters the SNP mafia are conning will feel this the most. That's when they eventually gain admission courtesy of Spain..
Because David Cameron had the Devo Max option removed from the ballot paper?
I actually think Seant could be a better PM than Cameron, in as much that he wouldn't be scared to implement populist, common sense policies. "Sick people paying a fortune for hospital parking? BARMY! Sort it out, Morgan" and "LFRS spunking 8 million quid on a new HQ, then threatening TwistedFireStopper and his mates with redundancy? BARMY! Mordaunt, Sell the HQ, buy a portacabin, keep gold standard fire cover for Leicestershire, and while you're at it, buy Oakleys for all the fireys!"
Vote Knox!
How about a re-make of "House of Cards", with Sean T as Francis Urquhart. They could do it, Outnumbered-style, with improvised dialogue. At least FU had two affairs with younger women, but to update it and make it more modern an increase would be warranted.
Having read your pretty nasty little comment, I almost didn't bother replying. But then I decided to show it to my kids who are all voting, especially with you nailing your colours to the mast in such a small minded ignorant way. I did see the latest twilight zone SNP/Yes conspiracy hit the ground running with the Big Debate on the night on twitter.
And I cannot let this latest paranoid claim enter into the mythical folklore that is the SNP/Yes campaign spin operation. My youngest son was at the Big debate, and he didn't get home until quite late. But the first question I asked him in light of these rumours was, were you asked or canvassed on your voting intention at any point during the proceedings of this event by the producers of the programme. His answer was emphatically a NO.
My son actually really enjoyed the whole experience of this Big Debate. But I think your comments about the Scots lads and lassies who were at the Big Debate and are voting No deserve a wider audience because they say more about you and your cause than they do about those kids so galvanised and motivated to vote in this Indy Referendum
Whilst I appreciate what you're saying, there have been rumours abound that, during the last "big big debate" (televised thurs night) feat. 16/17 year olds, that the shows producers had to ask some if the audience to "pretend" that they were in the no/undecided camps as there were far to many YES kids in attendance (and we all know how much the beeb needs "balance").
Having watched the "debate", it did seem very obvious that all of the NO kids were toffee nosed little cunts who obviously feared for their daddys chartered accountancy job....
Perhaps the dividing lines are as simple as poor people voting yes, rich people voting no?
The thing that puzzles me right now is why the Scots aren't gobbling up the Devomax option. It pretty much gives them all they want without the downsides. Roger made an interesting point earlier. All new entrants to the EU have to pay a minimum of 5% VAT on food (zero rated in the UK). Some of the poor voters the SNP mafia are conning will feel this the most. That's when they eventually gain admission courtesy of Spain..
Because David Cameron had the Devo Max option removed from the ballot paper?
Classic Cameron, this. Wouldn't let them put the option on the ballot paper, but then back-pedals and offers concessions, but now the people who are being offered the concessions don't trust him to deliver them.
I am getting pretty sick of this dishonesty about an Independence Referendum that needs to deliver at least 50% of the population to be a valid reflection of the will of the Scots people. For the record, unlike you, I would really like this vote to really represent the settled will of the majority of Scots taking part and voting as it really matters to me what the outcome is at the end of the day. The SNP didn't run on a campaign for a referendum on DevoMax before the 2011 Holyrood elections, and just months after that result I pointed out that they should have done, and that they would have won big and delivered on it!!
NO, they wanted a clear In/Out Independence Referendum, it was only when they bucked the trend and got the slimmest of majorities at Holyrood that this changed. Suddenly, they wanted the best of both worlds, a Referendum that gave them either Independence or more powers without any pain of losing the fight. But lets just look at how ridiculous a Referendum it might have been with three options on the table, Yes, DevoMax and No, but that Independence or a No won over the argument by the slimmest of margins while the majority voted for the other two options. It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy. But again, those who spin for the SNP/Yes or against Cameron won't point this little fact out.
The thing that puzzles me right now is why the Scots aren't gobbling up the Devomax option. It pretty much gives them all they want without the downsides. Roger made an interesting point earlier. All new entrants to the EU have to pay a minimum of 5% VAT on food (zero rated in the UK). Some of the poor voters the SNP mafia are conning will feel this the most. That's when they eventually gain admission courtesy of Spain..
Because David Cameron had the Devo Max option removed from the ballot paper?
Classic Cameron, this. Wouldn't let them put the option on the ballot paper, but then back-pedals and offers concessions, but now the people who are being offered the concessions don't trust him to deliver them.
I am getting pretty sick of this dishonesty about an Independence Referendum that needs to deliver at least 50% of the population to be a valid reflection of the will of the Scots people. For the record, unlike you, I would really like this vote to really represent the settled will of the majority of Scots taking part and voting as it really matters to me what the outcome is at the end of the day. The SNP didn't run on a campaign for a referendum on DevoMax before the 2011 Holyrood elections, and just months after that result I pointed out that they should have done, and that they would have won big and delivered on it!!
NO, they wanted a clear In/Out Independence Referendum, it was only when they bucked the trend and got the slimmest of majorities at Holyrood that this changed. Suddenly, they wanted the best of both worlds, a Referendum that gave them either Independence or more powers without any pain of losing the fight. But lets just look at how ridiculous a Referendum it might have been with three options on the table, Yes, DevoMax and No, but that Independence or a No won over the argument by the slimmest of margins while the majority voted for the other two options. It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy. But again, those who spin for the SNP/Yes or against Cameron won't point this little fact out.
No-one suggested asking one question with three options. The general suggestion was a two-question referendum. John Curtice's suggestion was that two questions are asked, one on independence, then a question on status quo / devo max. Which seems fine.
Really?! That is certainly not how I remember the debate on this site at the time when this third option was raised. But I did comment in the early months after the SNP victory at Holyrood that they had made a major mistake by not campaigning on going for an early Referendum on DevoMax powers first before setting a timetable for an Independence referendum at a later date. The SNP Government could have clearly have won this, and it would have delivered further powers to the Scots without any need for an Indy Referendum in this Parliament. But they didn't do this because Salmond was never going to be able to sell this option to his party membership.
I am getting pretty sick of this dishonesty about an Independence Referendum that needs to deliver at least 50% of the population to be a valid reflection of the will of the Scots people. For the record, unlike you, I would really like this vote to really represent the settled will of the majority of Scots taking part and voting as it really matters to me what the outcome is at the end of the day. The SNP didn't run on a campaign for a referendum on DevoMax before the 2011 Holyrood elections, and just months after that result I pointed out that they should have done, and that they would have won big and delivered on it!!
NO, they wanted a clear In/Out Independence Referendum, it was only when they bucked the trend and got the slimmest of majorities at Holyrood that this changed. Suddenly, they wanted the best of both worlds, a Referendum that gave them either Independence or more powers without any pain of losing the fight. But lets just look at how ridiculous a Referendum it might have been with three options on the table, Yes, DevoMax and No, but that Independence or a No won over the argument by the slimmest of margins while the majority voted for the other two options. It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy. But again, those who spin for the SNP/Yes or against Cameron won't point this little fact out.
The thing that puzzles me right now is why the Scots aren't gobbling up the Devomax option. It pretty much gives them all they want without the downsides. Roger made an interesting point earlier. All new entrants to the EU have to pay a minimum of 5% VAT on food (zero rated in the UK). Some of the poor voters the SNP mafia are conning will feel this the most. That's when they eventually gain admission courtesy of Spain..
Because David Cameron had the Devo Max option removed from the ballot paper?
Classic Cameron, this. Wouldn't let them put the option on the ballot paper, but then back-pedals and offers concessions, but now the people who are being offered the concessions don't trust him to deliver them.
But lets just look at how ridiculous a Referendum it might have been with three options on the table, Yes, DevoMax and No, but that Independence or a No won over the argument by the slimmest of margins while the majority voted for the other two options. It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy.
You don't just add up the first choices, silly. You do two rounds or AV.
But lets just look at how ridiculous a Referendum it might have been with three options on the table, Yes, DevoMax and No, but that Independence or a No won over the argument by the slimmest of margins while the majority voted for the other two options. It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy.
You don't just add up the first choices, silly. You do two rounds or AV.
"It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy."
IIRC, I think I came third in the PB prediction contest on the AV Referendum. But that is not quite the point, I am now being asked to accept the notion that DevoMax was going to simple be added onto this Referendum in a separate second question/option in a straight Yes or No referendum. BBC - Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote "The UK has voted overwhelmingly to reject changing the way MPs are elected - dealing a bitter blow to Nick Clegg on top of heavy Lib Dem poll losses.
Officials say 19.1m people voted in the second UK-wide referendum in history - a higher than expected turnout of 41%.
The final result put the Yes vote at 32.1% and the No vote at 67.9%."
But lets just look at how ridiculous a Referendum it might have been with three options on the table, Yes, DevoMax and No, but that Independence or a No won over the argument by the slimmest of margins while the majority voted for the other two options. It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy.
You don't just add up the first choices, silly. You do two rounds or AV.
But lets just look at how ridiculous a Referendum it might have been with three options on the table, Yes, DevoMax and No, but that Independence or a No won over the argument by the slimmest of margins while the majority voted for the other two options. It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy.
You don't just add up the first choices, silly. You do two rounds or AV.
"It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy."
Devomax should not be on the table. It would be a disaster for the UK, having a quasi-independent country operating as a tax haven from within, while still having the UK as a backstop. An independent Scotland is infinitely preferable.
Devomax should not be on the table. It would be a disaster for the UK, having a quasi-independent country operating as a tax haven from within, while still having the UK as a backstop. An independent Scotland is infinitely preferable.
To call the ICM poll as ultra small is a bit much it was only 250 less than normal polls making the margin of error up from + or- 3% to 3.7% most American polls have only 500 people in them this one had 750. Don't act like a mouthpiece for better together they already have enough of them.
Fitalass you don't have spout some mince the SNP won with a clear majority you must be one of those Labour deniers that still think your side won. What part of a clear majority do you not understand your side lost get over it and you will lose again the yes movement is now unstoppable.Got my single malt ready to party.
Devomax should not be on the table. It would be a disaster for the UK, having a quasi-independent country operating as a tax haven from within, while still having the UK as a backstop. An independent Scotland is infinitely preferable.
It isn't on the table.
What should be on the table is symmetrical devolution for the four countries of the Union.
Having read your pretty nasty little comment, I almost didn't bother replying. But then I decided to show it to my kids who are all voting, especially with you nailing your colours to the mast in such a small minded ignorant way. I did see the latest twilight zone SNP/Yes conspiracy hit the ground running with the Big Debate on the night on twitter.
And I cannot let this latest paranoid claim enter into the mythical folklore that is the SNP/Yes campaign spin operation. My youngest son was at the Big debate, and he didn't get home until quite late. But the first question I asked him in light of these rumours was, were you asked or canvassed on your voting intention at any point during the proceedings of this event by the producers of the programme. His answer was emphatically a NO.
My son actually really enjoyed the whole experience of this Big Debate. But I think your comments about the Scots lads and lassies who were at the Big Debate and are voting No deserve a wider audience because they say more about you and your cause than they do about those kids so galvanised and motivated to vote in this Indy Referendum
Whilst I appreciate what you're saying, there have been rumours abound that, during the last "big big debate" (televised thurs night) feat. 16/17 year olds, that the shows producers had to ask some if the audience to "pretend" that they were in the no/undecided camps as there were far to many YES kids in attendance (and we all know how much the beeb needs "balance").
Having watched the "debate", it did seem very obvious that all of the NO kids were toffee nosed little cunts who obviously feared for their daddys chartered accountancy job....
Perhaps the dividing lines are as simple as poor people voting yes, rich people voting no?
So you say it didn't happen. Perhaps by the time your son was asked, the numbers had already been balanced? Plenty of comments around on the Internet that said it did. Someone is lying, obviously.
As for nailing my colours to the mast... One comment does not mean a thing.
How's the chartered accountancy business going anyway?
Comments
When was the last time the bookies offered odds on an Indy ref.?
And what are they basing the odds on?
First and second choice on the ballot paper?
ISIL's decision to murder another hostage may, however, be a sign of weakness rather than strength. Hostages have no value when dead, and by murdering them, they reduce their bargaining power with important actors like Turkey who may think they now have no choice but to take action against them, as the chances of their own hostages returning alive are diminishing by the day.
But welcome to the forum.
Choice 2: Balls (not Ed)
I can't bring myself to vote for that fat wanker Salmond (because he's a bullying cunt), nor can I support the status quo (because it's shit). I realise that a YES vote isn't voting for Salmond, but anything that wipes the smile off his face is fine by me. It'll be a no anyway, so it won't count.
I'm glad that being an elder on a shitty blog forum adds gravitas to one's opinions. Are you aware of how the internet works at all?
On the Currency Union that isn't in the gift of any Westminster politician right now without a RofUK wide referendum, SNP/Yes still claiming they are bluffing and that because its in UK's best interests they will cave in and just deliver it if we vote Yes. Do you realise just how many Scots still believe right now that the Westminster Government and UK taxpayer will be guaranteeing and paying their pension even if they vote Yes?! Welcome to the Twilight zone of Yes campaigning where their lies are part of a positive campaign, and the No campaign's honesty with voters is now negative and bullying!
As a novelist and chronicler of seediness, it's your job to create characters who are simple to understand; Mr E Tonian, Miss Understoodtart, Jack O.A. Trades, Master Ovnone.
Real life, real politics are much more nuanced.
Either way, it's time for bed.
It's not often we see such immediate autodarwination
1) Do you want a change in Scotland's constitutional position in relation to the UK?
(If yes)
2)
a) Independence?
b) DevoMax?
He knows nothing about the people of this country except what he's read from textbooks. The only period of his life when he spent any length of time with ordinary people was when his son Ivan was in an NHS hospital. I note from the indyref debates that spending on the NHS hasn't been cut. No coincidence.
But to have no knowledge how most of the country you govern live is a recipe for political disaster. Take a look at the 'Big Society'; the only voluntary organisation Cameron has been in charge of is the Conservative Party - and look what a mess he's made of that. Michael Gove has come from a far humbler background and was the most effective minister in the Government partly because of that.
The short answer is yes, the larger bets will be coming from people with Cameron's view.
How could any country risk its finances for an "idea"?
Do kidnap victims usually enjoy playing with the guns so much?
Do you realise that Turkey has *still* not closed its border that is letting floods of militants join ISIS? And no-one in the British or US Government has called for them to do so? And as for Saudi Arabia, they have apparently agreed to train more militants to 'fight' ISIS -I mean you couldn't make this stuff up!
We want to launch a bombing campaign; they're saying from the outset that it will include Syria, but will not be in conjunction with the Government but with (sigh) the moderate 'FSA' -in other words, a bombing campaign in Syria, just like they wanted the last time.
And while at most elections its usually the grey vote that is often targeted by politicians and political parties as they turn out in greatest numbers. We really mustn't ignore the under 24 voters and their impact in this Indy Referendum, and despite the fact they are usually notoriously poor at turning out to vote. The focus and momentum with this voting group has been like nothing I have ever witnessed before. Forget the Cleggism with students before the last GE, I think the big surprise at this Indy Ref will not only be an incredible high turnout, but that far more youngsters under 24 will vote than is normal at any election.
The SNP were relying on the young to be big Yes voters where the over 55's were not, hence their desperate desire to drop the voting age for this Referendum. But as many schools and Uni Referendum votes have proved, they are overwhelmingly in the No camp. That was a big surprise to me initially, and I have posted a few times about this over last two years on PB. But really thinking about it and why they are genuinely motivated to vote No, it shouldn't have been a surprise. Youngsters are very outward looking, the world is getting so much more accessible and they just don't see the need to make their base camp that bit smaller and to put up barriers where there should be none.
I don't think that Salmond or Sturgeon care that much if its a No vote by the slimmest of margins, it will be job done splitting the Scots Nation down the middle and allowing them to fight another day whatever the costs to Scotland.
I'm expecting a tie or Tory lead as karma after such a solid week of polls for Labour.
Having watched the "debate", it did seem very obvious that all of the NO kids were toffee nosed little cunts who obviously feared for their daddys chartered accountancy job....
Perhaps the dividing lines are as simple as poor people voting yes, rich people voting no?
"Sick people paying a fortune for hospital parking? BARMY! Sort it out, Morgan"
and "LFRS spunking 8 million quid on a new HQ, then threatening TwistedFireStopper and his mates with redundancy? BARMY! Mordaunt, Sell the HQ, buy a portacabin, keep gold standard fire cover for Leicestershire, and while you're at it, buy Oakleys for all the fireys!"
Vote Knox!
And I cannot let this latest paranoid claim enter into the mythical folklore that is the SNP/Yes campaign spin operation. My youngest son was at the Big debate, and he didn't get home until quite late. But the first question I asked him in light of these rumours was, were you asked or canvassed on your voting intention at any point during the proceedings of this event by the producers of the programme. His answer was emphatically a NO.
My son actually really enjoyed the whole experience of this Big Debate. But I think your comments about the Scots lads and lassies who were at the Big Debate and are voting No deserve a wider audience because they say more about you and your cause than they do about those kids so galvanised and motivated to vote in this Indy Referendum
NO, they wanted a clear In/Out Independence Referendum, it was only when they bucked the trend and got the slimmest of majorities at Holyrood that this changed. Suddenly, they wanted the best of both worlds, a Referendum that gave them either Independence or more powers without any pain of losing the fight. But lets just look at how ridiculous a Referendum it might have been with three options on the table, Yes, DevoMax and No, but that Independence or a No won over the argument by the slimmest of margins while the majority voted for the other two options. It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy. But again, those who spin for the SNP/Yes or against Cameron won't point this little fact out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taEuojCHx1w
And yet that's exactly how we elect our MPs...
BBC - Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote
"The UK has voted overwhelmingly to reject changing the way MPs are elected - dealing a bitter blow to Nick Clegg on top of heavy Lib Dem poll losses.
Officials say 19.1m people voted in the second UK-wide referendum in history - a higher than expected turnout of 41%.
The final result put the Yes vote at 32.1% and the No vote at 67.9%."
As for nailing my colours to the mast... One comment does not mean a thing.
How's the chartered accountancy business going anyway?