Socrates, your North/South Wales point is a good example of why devolution within England should be based on people's sense of identity and attachment and not administrative tidiness.
Am I right in thinking Wales has never existed except as an English region?
Looks to me that that Yes apprear to have been heavily infiltrated by the sort of Militant/Trots that Kinnock spent so many yearas trying to evict from the Labour party.s.
Who in their right mind would invest in a country of such hooligans?
The Scots are screwed.
Is it ironic that an Orange Order march of thousands of people apparently attracted less aggro than a single No campaign politician?
No - the Orange Order in Scotland have no history of violence.
I have to concur. My wife is from the very Orange Town of Larkhall. As such, I've seen the marches a number of times. Never seen the Order do anything sinister. The odd idiot yes in the crowds, but for the 99% of attendees; it tends to be a family occasion, taking kids to see the bands.
I say all this as someone who less than approves as too why they march.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Would this be recorded crime rates?
(I.e. coming with a shedload of caveats?)
All statistics come with caveats. The question is whether you factor those caveats into your conclusions, or you use them as an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and say "la, la, la, I can't hear you", because the likely conclusions are ones that clash with your ideology.
Excellent, do you have any kind of analysis on the effect of increased reporting on recorded crime figures?
Or are you just saying you're factoring it in when you're actually ignoring it.
I'm factoring in the caveats based on my own judgment, as I'm sure you do on a hundred other issues. If you have some evidence or argument that certain caveats here are likely to be especially big, I'm happy to modify my opinions.
So what is this judgment of yours? If the current level is disproportional then what would be a proportional level of recorded offences compared to 1900-1950?
I use my judgment of course. But if I'm making a statement about historical statistics I tend to consider myself as holding a burden of proof to back it up beyond a gut feeling (and at the very least acknowledge the caveats rather than present it as certain fact).
I mean comparing recorded crime rates with 30 years ago is considered problematic for various reasons, let along a hundred years ago.
My judgment would be that a tenfold increase in the crime rates is such a rapid increase it is highly likely to hold beyond any caveats. The most notable potential complication is that better detection rates are complicating the statistics. However, the fact that the British Crime Survey rose in the late 1980s, peaked at the same time in the early 1990s, and has then fallen along with recorded crime, suggests that this does not seem like much of an issue. In addition, the rise in crime throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was a fairly smooth curve, rather than one of a sudden jump, which means it is unlikely to correspond with the emergence of a new technology.
Re crime rates, why don't we all agree to use the British Crime Survey (or whatever it's called these days)?
It is methodologically simple. It tracks crimes that affect people. It can't be manipulated by enthusiastic chief constables.
Have you suffered it? I have (and I worked in the criminal justice system for many years as well). Its a load of bollocks and here's why it asks layman who have nothing like a full understanding of what is a crime to judge whether crime is rising or not.
Its like asking someone what are pollen levels like today. Its as much a joke as the ridiculous Immigration survey the Home office also uses (they really are a dysfunctional waste of space). Furthermore with the Internet becoming one of the main locations for crime how on earth does any layman know whats going on?
The last thing we should be using is an extremely dodgy opinion poll!
Re crime rates, why don't we all agree to use the British Crime Survey (or whatever it's called these days)?
It is methodologically simple. It tracks crimes that affect people. It can't be manipulated by enthusiastic chief constables.
Because it doesn't go far enough back for the discussion we're currently having.
But it does track crime since 1982, so it has more than 30 years of data.
Yes, and it's valid for certain uses. However, it can't give us that much of a clue into why crime held steady for about 50 years and then started a tenfold increase in the late 50s/early 60s.
Who in their right mind would invest in a country of such hooligans?
Err.....David Cameron. With ever more English taxpayer money......
Our leaders have taken leave of their senses. On Friday the tory party is going to explode.
Cameron has now got himself into a position in which he can only come out of the referendum badly. If it's a yes he's toast. If it's a narrow no he will probably survive but he will be blamed for the bitterness and resentment that will follow a close result. If it's a substantial majority for no then many in his own party will attack him for making unnecessary concessions and relying on Gordon Brown and Labour to deliver for him. Cameron is now greatly weakened, and may not survive even if there is a no vote.
Its a load of bollocks and here's why it asks layman who have nothing like a full understanding of what is a crime to judge whether crime is rising or not.
That isnt how the survey works so you might want to reassess whether it is bollocks or not.
Anyway I have things to do and now I've seen RCS1000 is in favour of letting off some of the most despicable individuals in our society (drug dealers) off if i don't go now I'll never leave.
Its a load of bollocks and here's why it asks layman who have nothing like a full understanding of what is a crime to judge whether crime is rising or not.
That isnt how the survey works so you might want to reassess whether it is bollocks or not.
It asks people what crimes they have experienced. I have done the survey.
Anyway I have things to do and now I've seen RCS1000 is in favour of letting off some of the most despicable individuals in our society (drug dealers) off if i don't go now I'll never leave.
Pip Pip!
Such a shame. You might have learned something if you'd stayed around.
So if it’s ‘yes’ this weekend, the independence negotiations will be handled on the Union side by politicians who feel pretty sore about what has happened, and know their voters feel mildly sore too.
And if it’s a ‘no’, the paradox will be that even as Scotland cleaves to its union with the rest of the United Kingdom, the rest of the United Kingdom turns a little bitterly away. ‘Yes’ or ‘no’ — unless it’s an overwhelming ‘no’ — I as an Englishman will have never felt less affectionately towards Scotland than this weekend.
Just got thinking, if iScot wants to rejoin the EU wouldn't food and energy prices rise because they wouldn't be able to carry UK exemptions through to membership? That's 20% on food prices and 14.3% on energy prices on EU entry.
Who in their right mind would invest in a country of such hooligans?
Err.....David Cameron. With ever more English taxpayer money......
Our leaders have taken leave of their senses. On Friday the tory party is going to explode.
Cameron has now got himself into a position in which he can only come out of the referendum badly. If it's a yes he's toast. If it's a narrow no he will probably survive but he will be blamed for the bitterness and resentment that will follow a close result. If it's a substantial majority for no then many in his own party will attack him for making unnecessary concessions and relying on Gordon Brown and Labour to deliver for him. Cameron is now greatly weakened, and may not survive even if there is a no vote.
and many will simply conclude that it was that continued, thrown in for good measure, [unauthorised] Barnett commitment that won it for the Nos.
Just got thinking, if iScot wants to rejoin the EU wouldn't food and energy prices rise because they wouldn't be able to carry UK exemptions through to membership? That's 20% on food prices and 14.3% on energy prices on EU entry.
VAT on food need not be 20% it could be at a lower rate.
Just got thinking, if iScot wants to rejoin the EU wouldn't food and energy prices rise because they wouldn't be able to carry UK exemptions through to membership? That's 20% on food prices and 14.3% on energy prices on EU entry.
iScotland's position with the EU is, literally, unprecedented - there is no EU law nor precedent to call upon. Anyone claiming anything about it is cut and dried is a liar and a rogue. Everything would be up for negotiation and nothing is guaranteed either way.
On Friday he will be boasting about the enormous concessions he has won by having the Indyref- like free gold for everyone and diamonds delivered to your house. Westminster will rue the day if this gold doesn't turn up .....
Thankfully only viewers in Scotland will have to put up with him as the circus will move on..
I'm trying to work out how ICM's Guardian poll came up with final published figures of Lab 35/Con 33/UKIP 9/LD 10 (table 4), when its unadjusted figures (table 3) are 37/33/10/9.
"In a further step, ICM add 50% of those who refuse to answer the vote intention question or say they don’t know to the party they voted for in 2010."
I don't get how that translates into the final figures - I've even emailed Martin Boon, but he wasn't too forthcoming, repeating what he said in the intro to the PDF tables!
Just got thinking, if iScot wants to rejoin the EU wouldn't food and energy prices rise because they wouldn't be able to carry UK exemptions through to membership? That's 20% on food prices and 14.3% on energy prices on EU entry.
VAT on food need not be 20% it could be at a lower rate.
A minimum of 15% though. Have any of the new entrants been given significant exemptions and reduced ratesblike that? Scotland would be in the same position as Croatia.
Who in their right mind would invest in a country of such hooligans?
The Scots are screwed.
Is it ironic that an Orange Order march of thousands of people apparently attracted less aggro than a single No campaign politician?
No - the Orange Order in Scotland have no history of violence.
I have to concur. My wife is from the very Orange Town of Larkhall. As such, I've seen the marches a number of times. Never seen the Order do anything sinister. The odd idiot yes in the crowds, but for the 99% of attendees; it tends to be a family occasion, taking kids to see the bands.
I say all this as someone who less than approves as too why they march.
Based on what I saw in Edinburgh on Saturday - totally agree. Everyone was on their best behaviour, even the relatively few you would cross the street for if you met them on a dark night. I have to admit I was surprised at the makeup of the crowd - many National Trust type older women out with their children and grandchildren. Couldn't be more respectable.
So if it’s ‘yes’ this weekend, the independence negotiations will be handled on the Union side by politicians who feel pretty sore about what has happened, and know their voters feel mildly sore too.
And if it’s a ‘no’, the paradox will be that even as Scotland cleaves to its union with the rest of the United Kingdom, the rest of the United Kingdom turns a little bitterly away. ‘Yes’ or ‘no’ — unless it’s an overwhelming ‘no’ — I as an Englishman will have never felt less affectionately towards Scotland than this weekend.
A good article. The recent panicky self-abasement by our political class has been humiliating. If only I had a vote, I'd vote yes. If only we could exile Cameron and Co in Scotland and get ourselves a better class of grown-up politicians.
Re crime rates, why don't we all agree to use the British Crime Survey (or whatever it's called these days)?
It is methodologically simple. It tracks crimes that affect people. It can't be manipulated by enthusiastic chief constables.
Because it doesn't go far enough back for the discussion we're currently having.
But it does track crime since 1982, so it has more than 30 years of data.
Yes, and it's valid for certain uses. However, it can't give us that much of a clue into why crime held steady for about 50 years and then started a tenfold increase in the late 50s/early 60s.
The time frame isn't long enough.
It was pointed out below, for example, that recorded crime rose quite steadily for about 20 years between 1965 and 1885, a period which coincides broadly with one in which a range of laws and punishment were liberalised. Correlation however does not demonstrate cause. The age structure of the population at that time indicates an exceptionally high percentage of young adults, a consequence of the post-war baby boom. That is exactly the age group which has the highest propensity to crime. Oldies, like me, just can't be arsed to commit crime any more.
So you would need a very long time frame and a sophisticated model to tease out the causes and consequences. And that without going into the more existential questions of crime and punishment. For example, if we got serious about punishing financial crime, the recorded crime figures would spike. Would that be a bad thing?
I rather like the Smithson project. It's sensible and free from prejudice, but it's no panacea and would take generations, I think, to produce reliable results.
An interesting discussion on sentencing which seems unacquainted with how sentencing already works in England and Wales. The “three strikes” rule already exists. There is a minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment for a third class A drug trafficking offence (Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, s. 110(2)). There is a minimum sentence of three years imprisonment for a third domestic burglary (Ibid, s. 111(2)). There is also a “two strikes” rule. There is a mandatory life sentence for a second listed offence (Criminal Justice Act 2003, s. 224A(2), re-enacting with modifications s. 109 of the 2000 Act). There are also several examples of minimum sentences of imprisonment which must be imposed on conviction of certain serious offences. There is a minimum sentence of five years imprisonment for certain offences involving prohibited weapons (Firearms Act 1968, s. 51A). There is a minimum sentence of six months imprisonment for certain offences involving threatening behaviour while in possession of a weapon (Prevention of Crime Act 1953, s. 1A(5); Criminal Justice Act 1988, s. 139AA(7)).
The principles used to oppose both a “strikes rule” and mandatory minimum sentences were conceded long ago. The only debate of any political relevance is now about their extent, and recent years show that that extent is expanding rapidly.
Just got thinking, if iScot wants to rejoin the EU wouldn't food and energy prices rise because they wouldn't be able to carry UK exemptions through to membership? That's 20% on food prices and 14.3% on energy prices on EU entry.
VAT on food need not be 20% it could be at a lower rate.
A minimum of 15% though. Have any of the new entrants been given significant exemptions and reduced ratesblike that? Scotland would be in the same position as Croatia.
All that extra VAT income would be useful to pay for all the unicorns though.
Thanks to everyone that posted feedback on my previous analysis, which examined what a Scotland-wide 50-50 tie would look like in each area if the regional dispersion were the same as in the 1997 devolution referendum.
The point that came up repeatedly was “Area X is a strong/weak SNP area, so the yes vote should be higher/lower there” (and sometimes other parties were mentioned too). Also, some areas (solid Lib Dem territory was one example given) might have been very pro-devolution but very “No” on the matter of independence. These are, of course, very valid concerns. So with that in mind, I’ve come up with the following alternative approach:
-Take the 2010 Westminster ward-level vote estimates (as per Electoral Calculus) -Aggregate them, not to constituencies, but to local authority totals -Take the referendum VI by 2010 vote from opinion polling. To weight the 2010 non-voters, I had to make an assumption about turnout, so I used 85% with an evenly-spread increase over 2010, but using 75% or 95% doesn’t make much difference -Combine the two to get an implied referendum vote for each local authority -Normalise the overal result to a national tie
This solves the main problem with the original model, but it does create some new ones:
-Except where local authorities corespond exactly to Westminster constituencies, ward level (and hence council area) figures for 2010 are estimates. The Electoral Calculus methodology is sound (it’s the same methodology you would use to calculate notional results after boundary changes) but they are still estimates -Using polling data rather than purely real votes means sampling error. Because only ICM seems to have published a breakdown by 2010 vote the samples are small and hence the MoEs are rather wide (though this is arguably still preferable to using the results of another referendum 17 years ago and on an entirely different question) -It also means we have to trust opinion polling, although a biased sample would also have to be biased geographically to matter in this case -Voters for each party aren’t necessarily homogenous, and this might have a regional element to it. New approach, similar problem… -The turnout concern still applies
So with all of those caveats noted, here is the revised version:
We can see that Aberdeenshire, Angus, Perth and Moray are all much higher than the original model had them, as are the islands. Glasgow is quite a bit lower than before.
In relation to feedback I’ve received, Dundee is also higher but not by all that much. The big 3 cities collectively are lower.
I’ll update this on Wednesday or Thursday once the final call polls are in, hopefully some more of them will release a breakdown by 2010 vote. Ideally I’d be able to do this by 2011 Holyrood vote, but as far as I know, the local breakdowns aren’t readily available for Holyrood Elections.
16:34 Ed Miliband had to abandon planned media interviews in Edinburgh's St James Shopping Centre when he was surrounded by a "melee of pro and anti independence supporters", according to the BBC's Norman Smith.
Some tweets suggest that he had been hemmed in by The Press.
If anyone doesn't think that the Tories have much to lose in Scotland, I wonder if that is perhaps too much a Westminster view (if hard on Mr Mundell MP).
There are quite a few in the Scottish Parliament, so any problems coming from the Tory side of the tripartite agreement could redound on them in the 2016 elections. Are those hostages to be abandoned by the home party? Have the Tories given up hope of regaining lost territory in Scotland, in the event of a No?
Just got thinking, if iScot wants to rejoin the EU wouldn't food and energy prices rise because they wouldn't be able to carry UK exemptions through to membership? That's 20% on food prices and 14.3% on energy prices on EU entry.
iScotland's position with the EU is, literally, unprecedented - there is no EU law nor precedent to call upon. Anyone claiming anything about it is cut and dried is a liar and a rogue. Everything would be up for negotiation and nothing is guaranteed either way.
But Salmond went on TV saying entry would be trivial and done in less than 18 months. Unprecedented or not, some things are certain, the EU can't give Scotland any special treatment without Croatia screaming bloody murder and vetoing entry. That at least us predictable.
@ComResPolls: New @itvnews poll shows impact of #indyref campaign in Eng/Wales: 54% Brits support not allowing Scottish MPs to vote on non-Scottish issues
I'm trying to work out how ICM's Guardian poll came up with final published figures of Lab 35/Con 33/UKIP 9/LD 10 (table 4), when its unadjusted figures (table 3) are 37/33/10/9.
"In a further step, ICM add 50% of those who refuse to answer the vote intention question or say they don’t know to the party they voted for in 2010."
I don't get how that translates into the final figures - I've even emailed Martin Boon, but he wasn't too forthcoming, repeating what he said in the intro to the PDF tables!
eighting for turnout 1. ICM ask respondents to say how likely it is that they will go and vote in a new general election using a ten points scale where 10 means they would be absolutely certain to vote and 1 means they would be certain not to vote.
2. We then weight people by their anticipated turnout. If someone is 10/10 certain to vote, they are given a weight of 1.0. If someone is 9/10 certain to vote they are given a weight of 0.9 etc. People who tell us they are likely to vote in the next General Election but did not vote in the last, are further down-weighted. If someone says they are 10/10 certain to vote but did not vote in 2010, they are given a weight of 0.5. If they say 9/10 certainty, the weight becomes 0.45 etc.
EU: the minimum rate on food is 5%, I believe. I strongly suspect the EU could set up a bilateral agreement with a newly independent Scotland that would time us over until EU membership. We would have the same arrangements as EU members on VAT, freedom of movement etc but without representation.
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
My forecast for Thursday is what it has always been: No between 60% and 66%, and I very much doubt even Dundee will vote 'yes'.
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
I'd be amazed if No got 60%, even more amazed than a Yes vote quite frankly - why do you think No will outperform it's polling expectations so much ?
Cameron should be pretty safe in the event of a No I would have thought. For the span of a handful of days, he may even get a boost from it given his regrettably late but emotional interventions in defence of the Union, but long term? There would be a constitutional mess coming and plenty of bitterness at the sorts of promises it would have taken to win, without consultation to even the MPs of the rest of the UK let alone the people, but enough bitterness to bring him down? I don't think so. Cameron's already got a divided party he has proven incapable of uniting, which is a major reason beating even a weak Labour in 2015 seems so unlikely, and he's not been brought down yet.
If anyone doesn't think that the Tories have much to lose in Scotland, I wonder if that is perhaps too much a Westminster view (if hard on Mr Mundell MP).
There are quite a few in the Scottish Parliament, so any problems coming from the Tory side of the tripartite agreement could redound on them in the 2016 elections. Are those hostages to be abandoned by the home party? Have the Tories given up hope of regaining lost territory in Scotland, in the event of a No?
The Tory party in Scotland should seperate away from the main Tory party. In my opinion it's the only thing that can contain the march of UKIP, which will otherwise limit Tory recover to highly prosperous enclaves. In my opinion.
Or we could just conclude that its the 'economy stupid', and the SNP/Yes campaign's woeful White paper didn't even give enough Scots the confidence it could light a fire, never mind a whole new independent Nation and vibrant economy. Well, its a thought, and one we will be back to discussing more fully as the next GE draw nearer.
If indeed it should transpire that there has been a late shift in favour of the NO vote, this is most probably on account of the unequivocal commitment by the three major parties, or more particularly by their leaders, to stick with the incredibly generous Barnett Formula for funding all things Scottish. Of course, we can readily understand why Labour and the LibDems have gone with this, if only to preserve their respective seats North of the Border. But the same can certainly not be said of Cameron ...... so Dave, just why were you so ready to be so generous at the expense of the English taxpayer, I think we should be told.
16:34 Ed Miliband had to abandon planned media interviews in Edinburgh's St James Shopping Centre when he was surrounded by a "melee of pro and anti independence supporters", according to the BBC's Norman Smith.
Some tweets suggest that he had been hemmed in by The Press.
The pics on twitter I saw involved A lot of Press cameras, a lot of no signs, two Yes signs and a copy of the Socialist Worker.
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
My forecast for Thursday is what it has always been: No between 60% and 66%, and I very much doubt even Dundee will vote 'yes'.
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
I'd be amazed if No got 60%, even more amazed than a Yes vote quite frankly - why do you think No will outperform it's polling expectations so much ?
The same reason the Tories won in 1992, Sweden's SD outperformed their exit poll rating and AfD outperformed the polls by 4 points in Brandenburg.
Who in their right mind would invest in a country of such hooligans?
The Scots are screwed.
Is it ironic that an Orange Order march of thousands of people apparently attracted less aggro than a single No campaign politician?
No - the Orange Order in Scotland have no history of violence.
I have to concur. My wife is from the very Orange Town of Larkhall. As such, I've seen the marches a number of times. Never seen the Order do anything sinister. The odd idiot yes in the crowds, but for the 99% of attendees; it tends to be a family occasion, taking kids to see the bands.
I say all this as someone who less than approves as too why they march.
Based on what I saw in Edinburgh on Saturday - totally agree. Everyone was on their best behaviour, even the relatively few you would cross the street for if you met them on a dark night. I have to admit I was surprised at the makeup of the crowd - many National Trust type older women out with their children and grandchildren. Couldn't be more respectable.
Aye. That's absolutely the norm for the parade.
Just the odd idiot but that's also the norm in everything!
Re crime rates, why don't we all agree to use the British Crime Survey (or whatever it's called these days)?
It is methodologically simple. It tracks crimes that affect people. It can't be manipulated by enthusiastic chief constables.
Because it doesn't go far enough back for the discussion we're currently having.
But it does track crime since 1982, so it has more than 30 years of data.
Yes, and it's valid for certain uses. However, it can't give us that much of a clue into why crime held steady for about 50 years and then started a tenfold increase in the late 50s/early 60s.
If that violence from the YES supporters is indeed defeat induced, watch out for their betting odds starting to drift over the next 24 hours. It will be interesting to see how Salmond plays things over this final stage.
If anyone doesn't think that the Tories have much to lose in Scotland, I wonder if that is perhaps too much a Westminster view (if hard on Mr Mundell MP).
There are quite a few in the Scottish Parliament, so any problems coming from the Tory side of the tripartite agreement could redound on them in the 2016 elections. Are those hostages to be abandoned by the home party? Have the Tories given up hope of regaining lost territory in Scotland, in the event of a No?
The Tory party in Scotland should seperate away from the main Tory party. In my opinion it's the only thing that can contain the march of UKIP, which will otherwise limit Tory recover to highly prosperous enclaves. In my opinion.
CSU in Bavaria is the clear analogy. Right wing, semi Bavarian nationalist, but allies with CDU at a Federal level. CDU don't stand in Bavaria to leave field clear.
So if it’s ‘yes’ this weekend, the independence negotiations will be handled on the Union side by politicians who feel pretty sore about what has happened, and know their voters feel mildly sore too.
And if it’s a ‘no’, the paradox will be that even as Scotland cleaves to its union with the rest of the United Kingdom, the rest of the United Kingdom turns a little bitterly away. ‘Yes’ or ‘no’ — unless it’s an overwhelming ‘no’ — I as an Englishman will have never felt less affectionately towards Scotland than this weekend.
A good article. The recent panicky self-abasement by our political class has been humiliating. If only I had a vote, I'd vote yes. If only we could exile Cameron and Co in Scotland and get ourselves a better class of grown-up politicians.
Where would we get this better class of politicians? In Scotland's case, apart from making sure they are only involved in Scotland's affairs not also British ones (which is fair enough thing to want), I'm a little at a loss as to why the things many in Yes deride about the Westminster politicians would not already be the case among non-Westminster Scottish politicians as seems to be implied at times. As though the political classes in Scotland will somehow stop being politicians come independence.
Sounds just right for swinging undecided Labour voters to "No". And Ed deserves some credit for going onto the street instead of just speaking in a cosy hall.
If anyone doesn't think that the Tories have much to lose in Scotland, I wonder if that is perhaps too much a Westminster view (if hard on Mr Mundell MP).
There are quite a few in the Scottish Parliament, so any problems coming from the Tory side of the tripartite agreement could redound on them in the 2016 elections. Are those hostages to be abandoned by the home party? Have the Tories given up hope of regaining lost territory in Scotland, in the event of a No?
The Tory party in Scotland should seperate away from the main Tory party. In my opinion it's the only thing that can contain the march of UKIP, which will otherwise limit Tory recover to highly prosperous enclaves. In my opinion.
Just to clarify, are you talking about UKIP south or north of the border, or both? And why would the split help the Tories to fight UKIP?
I'm trying to work out how ICM's Guardian poll came up with final published figures of Lab 35/Con 33/UKIP 9/LD 10 (table 4), when its unadjusted figures (table 3) are 37/33/10/9.
"In a further step, ICM add 50% of those who refuse to answer the vote intention question or say they don’t know to the party they voted for in 2010."
I don't get how that translates into the final figures - I've even emailed Martin Boon, but he wasn't too forthcoming, repeating what he said in the intro to the PDF tables!
eighting for turnout 1. ICM ask respondents to say how likely it is that they will go and vote in a new general election using a ten points scale where 10 means they would be absolutely certain to vote and 1 means they would be certain not to vote.
2. We then weight people by their anticipated turnout. If someone is 10/10 certain to vote, they are given a weight of 1.0. If someone is 9/10 certain to vote they are given a weight of 0.9 etc. People who tell us they are likely to vote in the next General Election but did not vote in the last, are further down-weighted. If someone says they are 10/10 certain to vote but did not vote in 2010, they are given a weight of 0.5. If they say 9/10 certainty, the weight becomes 0.45 etc.
Thanks but it just came to me. I think I know how Martin did it now - emailed him to confirm.
Here goes:
From table 2: DK (2010 votes) = Lab 21, Con 33, LD 31 Ref (2010 votes) = Lab 2, Con 12, LD 5
Divided by two: Lab 23/2 = 11, Con 45/2 = 23, LD 36/2 = 18. Total = 52
From Table 3 + plus above adjustments: Lab 181 + 11 from DK/ref = 192 Con 160 + 23 = 183 UKIP unchanged = 48 LD = 36 +18 = 54 Total voters 491 + 52 = 543
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
My forecast for Thursday is what it has always been: No between 60% and 66%, and I very much doubt even Dundee will vote 'yes'.
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
I'd be amazed if No got 60%, even more amazed than a Yes vote quite frankly - why do you think No will outperform it's polling expectations so much ?
The same reason the Tories won in 1992, Sweden's SD outperformed their exit poll rating and AfD outperformed the polls by 4 points in Brandenburg.
But I still don't understand why there would be such a shy No vote, especially when a whole bunch of people are probably registering for the sole purpose of giving Westminster a kicking. Hidden Yes seems more likely than shy No.
If anyone doesn't think that the Tories have much to lose in Scotland, I wonder if that is perhaps too much a Westminster view (if hard on Mr Mundell MP).
There are quite a few in the Scottish Parliament, so any problems coming from the Tory side of the tripartite agreement could redound on them in the 2016 elections. Are those hostages to be abandoned by the home party? Have the Tories given up hope of regaining lost territory in Scotland, in the event of a No?
The Tory party in Scotland should seperate away from the main Tory party. In my opinion it's the only thing that can contain the march of UKIP, which will otherwise limit Tory recover to highly prosperous enclaves. In my opinion.
Just to clarify, are you talking about UKIP south or north of the border, or both? And why would the split help the Tories to fight UKIP?
Because Scottish Cons could offer a different manifesto different to E&W Cons. The latter could move to the right and former closer to the centre. Much like the CSU is to the right of the CDU.
Made the mistake of going to support a residents action group last night and ended up in a dispute over my stinging nettles,which I grow for medicinal purposes,and for added security,and some trees where the birds have been nesting are "overhanging".This is a back yard and I am opposing this enforced gentrification.The bloody middle classes just do not appreciate culture any more.
If that violence from the YES supporters is indeed defeat induced, watch out for their betting odds starting to drift over the next 24 hours. It will be interesting to see how Salmond plays things over this final stage.
So if it’s ‘yes’ this weekend, the independence negotiations will be handled on the Union side by politicians who feel pretty sore about what has happened, and know their voters feel mildly sore too.
And if it’s a ‘no’, the paradox will be that even as Scotland cleaves to its union with the rest of the United Kingdom, the rest of the United Kingdom turns a little bitterly away. ‘Yes’ or ‘no’ — unless it’s an overwhelming ‘no’ — I as an Englishman will have never felt less affectionately towards Scotland than this weekend.
A good article. The recent panicky self-abasement by our political class has been humiliating. If only I had a vote, I'd vote yes. If only we could exile Cameron and Co in Scotland and get ourselves a better class of grown-up politicians.
It's a lot better article than the one Parris did, to write off Clacton as a seedy mess and not worth bothering about.
Why is there talk of a likely No win now - I've been away from the computer for 2 days. what have I missed?
Nothing. Much like Yes getting a surge late in the game despite no changes in argument on either side (therefore anything that would convince someone to switch to Yes recently should have worked previously too), it is inexplicable.
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
My forecast for Thursday is what it has always been: No between 60% and 66%, and I very much doubt even Dundee will vote 'yes'.
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
I'd be amazed if No got 60%, even more amazed than a Yes vote quite frankly - why do you think No will outperform it's polling expectations so much ?
The same reason the Tories won in 1992, Sweden's SD outperformed their exit poll rating and AfD outperformed the polls by 4 points in Brandenburg.
But I still don't understand why there would be such a shy No vote, especially when a whole bunch of people are probably registering for the sole purpose of giving Westminster a kicking. Hidden Yes seems more likely than shy No.
Shy voters are shy because they are afraid of the recriminations of their choice by friends and family. That means No in this case. ICM had TCTC with 18% undecided and sure to vote. That screams massive shy voter syndrome.
*** Poll Alert - New Scottish Independence Polling ****
On behalf of The Scottish Dail Mail, we will have a new Scottish Independence Poll out later today with online fieldwork conducted from 12-16 September. For comparison purposes, use the change since our last online poll for Daily Record published 11 September as the methodology is the same.
Just got thinking, if iScot wants to rejoin the EU wouldn't food and energy prices rise because they wouldn't be able to carry UK exemptions through to membership? That's 20% on food prices and 14.3% on energy prices on EU entry.
Think it is only 5% on food prices (that's the minimum VAT level)
*** Poll Alert - New Scottish Independence Polling ****
On behalf of The Scottish Dail Mail, we will have a new Scottish Independence Poll out later today with online fieldwork conducted from 12-16 September. For comparison purposes, use the change since our last online poll for Daily Record published 11 September as the methodology is the same.
Just got thinking, if iScot wants to rejoin the EU wouldn't food and energy prices rise because they wouldn't be able to carry UK exemptions through to membership? That's 20% on food prices and 14.3% on energy prices on EU entry.
Think it is only 5% on food prices (that's the minimum VAT level)
Even that is a pretty steep price rise. The No team should be doing better as it is a direct and easy to understand figure that will make people poorer.
If anyone doesn't think that the Tories have much to lose in Scotland, I wonder if that is perhaps too much a Westminster view (if hard on Mr Mundell MP).
There are quite a few in the Scottish Parliament, so any problems coming from the Tory side of the tripartite agreement could redound on them in the 2016 elections. Are those hostages to be abandoned by the home party? Have the Tories given up hope of regaining lost territory in Scotland, in the event of a No?
The Tory party in Scotland should seperate away from the main Tory party. In my opinion it's the only thing that can contain the march of UKIP, which will otherwise limit Tory recover to highly prosperous enclaves. In my opinion.
Just to clarify, are you talking about UKIP south or north of the border, or both? And why would the split help the Tories to fight UKIP?
Sorry, it was a little unclear. I propose that the Scottish Conservatives should be independent (ho ho) of the English Conservatives. An affiliated but independent movement, much like the Ulster Unionists. With a new name, and an independent leadership. I believe that an attempt was made to do this a while ago but it was stymied. In this way, the party would benefit from a renewed interest and a renewed appeal, leaving behind the image of the Conservative Party in Scotland, which has been irrevocably damaged. They would therefore be a new and relatively untained party, yet benefit from the existing infrastructure, putting them ahead of UKIP, which has also suffered from image problems.
I think rcs1000 could be right about No 60%, although - if so - it would be puzzling why the polls got it so wrong.
The big DK numbers on telephone surveys basically make everything extremely fuzzy. If they are all bascially Nos then 60/40 would be at the lower end of the prediction scale.
London, 16 September - The debate on the Scottish independence referendum has seen sentiment against Scottish independence harden in England and Wales, according to new research from TNS.
There has been a rise in the number of those who think that Scotland should not become independent, that the UK would be worse off without Scotland and that Scotland’s departure would diminish the UK’s influence in the world.
However, the poll of 1124 over-18s in England and Wales finds significant disengagement from the issue: only just over half (55%) say they care about the outcome of this week’s referendum and 47% say Scottish independence would have no impact on their lives. More than a quarter (28%) say they do not care about the result, rising to 37% of those aged 18-24.
If anyone doesn't think that the Tories have much to lose in Scotland, I wonder if that is perhaps too much a Westminster view (if hard on Mr Mundell MP).
There are quite a few in the Scottish Parliament, so any problems coming from the Tory side of the tripartite agreement could redound on them in the 2016 elections. Are those hostages to be abandoned by the home party? Have the Tories given up hope of regaining lost territory in Scotland, in the event of a No?
The Tory party in Scotland should seperate away from the main Tory party. In my opinion it's the only thing that can contain the march of UKIP, which will otherwise limit Tory recover to highly prosperous enclaves. In my opinion.
Just to clarify, are you talking about UKIP south or north of the border, or both? And why would the split help the Tories to fight UKIP?
Because Scottish Cons could offer a different manifesto different to E&W Cons. The latter could move to the right and former closer to the centre. Much like the CSU is to the right of the CDU.
Thanks. Hmm. Two immediate thoughts:
1. Effectively the Tories [edit] would be abandoning their own One Nation mission that began with the 1955-ish merger (and which some on this site reckon did for the Tories in Scotland). Immediate propaganda gift to their opponents. Plus if they do badly in Wales they're going to end up a de facto English party. TV debates, anyone? If they can exclude the SNP because they are only in Scotland ...
2. The Scons wouldn't have far to go to bump into SLAB and squeeze them against the SNP anvil, unless SLAB rediscover their inner Keir Hardies inside the Tony Blairs and decide they're to the left rather than right of the SNP.
I take the Bayern analogy, but wonder if the Scottish Tories would be better to disband and form a completely new organization to complete the detoxification a la Murdo Fraser. (I know Mrs T's PM-ship is history, but that doesn't stop a lot of Scots in their thinking about Tories.)
And what this all means for SLAB and the LDs is another pot of flounders ...
Anyway, an interesting line of thought and it may not be just Mr Cameron but Ms Davidson who has issues to confront - thanks again.
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
My forecast for Thursday is what it has always been: No between 60% and 66%, and I very much doubt even Dundee will vote 'yes'.
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
I'd be amazed if No got 60%, even more amazed than a Yes vote quite frankly - why do you think No will outperform it's polling expectations so much ?
The same reason the Tories won in 1992, Sweden's SD outperformed their exit poll rating and AfD outperformed the polls by 4 points in Brandenburg.
But I still don't understand why there would be such a shy No vote, especially when a whole bunch of people are probably registering for the sole purpose of giving Westminster a kicking. Hidden Yes seems more likely than shy No.
Shy voters are shy because they are afraid of the recriminations of their choice by friends and family. That means No in this case. ICM had TCTC with 18% undecided and sure to vote. That screams massive shy voter syndrome.
But given the ways the polls have been converging lately, doesn't that suggest DKs are breaking more for Yes than No? That doesn't scream Shy No explosion.
I think rcs1000 could be right about No 60%, although - if so - it would be puzzling why the polls got it so wrong.
The big DK numbers on telephone surveys basically make everything extremely fuzzy. If they are all bascially Nos then 60/40 would be at the lower end of the prediction scale.
I don't think they're all 'nos' but 'don't know, but 100% certain to vote' contains a good proportion of 'shy' voters in my opinion. Just how many remains to be seen.
And recent events won't make them any less 'shy' nor any less certain to vote, so we're not likely to know till the votes are counted.
London, 16 September - The debate on the Scottish independence referendum has seen sentiment against Scottish independence harden in England and Wales, according to new research from TNS.
There has been a rise in the number of those who think that Scotland should not become independent, that the UK would be worse off without Scotland and that Scotland’s departure would diminish the UK’s influence in the world.
However, the poll of 1124 over-18s in England and Wales finds significant disengagement from the issue: only just over half (55%) say they care about the outcome of this week’s referendum and 47% say Scottish independence would have no impact on their lives. More than a quarter (28%) say they do not care about the result, rising to 37% of those aged 18-24.
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
My forecast for Thursday is what it has always been: No between 60% and 66%, and I very much doubt even Dundee will vote 'yes'.
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
I'd be amazed if No got 60%, even more amazed than a Yes vote quite frankly - why do you think No will outperform it's polling expectations so much ?
The same reason the Tories won in 1992, Sweden's SD outperformed their exit poll rating and AfD outperformed the polls by 4 points in Brandenburg.
But I still don't understand why there would be such a shy No vote, especially when a whole bunch of people are probably registering for the sole purpose of giving Westminster a kicking. Hidden Yes seems more likely than shy No.
Shy voters are shy because they are afraid of the recriminations of their choice by friends and family. That means No in this case. ICM had TCTC with 18% undecided and sure to vote. That screams massive shy voter syndrome.
But given the ways the polls have been converging lately, doesn't that suggest DKs are breaking more for Yes than No? That doesn't scream Shy No explosion.
As a poster on JK's site said, has anyone ever come across a shy vote for the side clearly ahead in polls which has the backing of all the media?
I think rcs1000 could be right about No 60%, although - if so - it would be puzzling why the polls got it so wrong.
The big DK numbers on telephone surveys basically make everything extremely fuzzy. If they are all bascially Nos then 60/40 would be at the lower end of the prediction scale.
Actually no-one know tiddles about the final voting count. One may guess, or wish, but if fishes were wishes.............................
Still two polls tonight may give us a firmer trend, but that can also change in the last 24 hours: so all to play for.
Who in their right mind would invest in a country of such hooligans?
The Scots are screwed.
Is it ironic that an Orange Order march of thousands of people apparently attracted less aggro than a single No campaign politician?
Weren't they supposed to send people to Yes in droves? Seems like the opposite is happening ;-)
Rob - I see you've updated your spreadsheet - have missed it over the last few days - but you've left out the MORI (end date 9 Sept) - quite an important poll given it had Con ahead.
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
My forecast for Thursday is what it has always been: No between 60% and 66%, and I very much doubt even Dundee will vote 'yes'.
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
I'd be amazed if No got 60%, even more amazed than a Yes vote quite frankly - why do you think No will outperform it's polling expectations so much ?
The same reason the Tories won in 1992, Sweden's SD outperformed their exit poll rating and AfD outperformed the polls by 4 points in Brandenburg.
But I still don't understand why there would be such a shy No vote, especially when a whole bunch of people are probably registering for the sole purpose of giving Westminster a kicking. Hidden Yes seems more likely than shy No.
Shy voters are shy because they are afraid of the recriminations of their choice by friends and family. That means No in this case. ICM had TCTC with 18% undecided and sure to vote. That screams massive shy voter syndrome.
But given the ways the polls have been converging lately, doesn't that suggest DKs are breaking more for Yes than No? That doesn't scream Shy No explosion.
As a poster on JK's site said, has anyone ever come across a shy vote for the side clearly ahead in polls which has the backing of all the media?
I find it a little hard to believe that people are too scared to tell someone neutral on the phone or anonymously on the net which way they are voting... The over thinkers strike again in my book
As a poster on JK's site said, has anyone ever come across a shy vote for the side clearly ahead in polls which has the backing of all the media?
How often has the opposing side been rampaging through the streets intimidating people, destroying campaign advertising, marching on broadcasters and threatening journalists?
How might that impact the shy factor do you think?
If anyone doesn't think that the Tories have much to lose in Scotland, I wonder if that is perhaps too much a Westminster view (if hard on Mr Mundell MP).
There are quite a few in the Scottish Parliament, so any problems coming from the Tory side of the tripartite agreement could redound on them in the 2016 elections. Are those hostages to be abandoned by the home party? Have the Tories given up hope of regaining lost territory in Scotland, in the event of a No?
The Tory party in Scotland should seperate away from the main Tory party. In my opinion it's the only thing that can contain the march of UKIP, which will otherwise limit Tory recover to highly prosperous enclaves. In my opinion.
Just to clarify, are you talking about UKIP south or north of the border, or both? And why would the split help the Tories to fight UKIP?
Sorry, it was a little unclear. I propose that the Scottish Conservatives should be independent (ho ho) of the English Conservatives. An affiliated but independent movement, much like the Ulster Unionists. With a new name, and an independent leadership. I believe that an attempt was made to do this a while ago but it was stymied. In this way, the party would benefit from a renewed interest and a renewed appeal, leaving behind the image of the Conservative Party in Scotland, which has been irrevocably damaged. They would therefore be a new and relatively untained party, yet benefit from the existing infrastructure, putting them ahead of UKIP, which has also suffered from image problems.
Thanks for that - see also my reply to MaxPB. That makes sense. IIRC it was Murdo Fraser, Ms Davidson's main opponent for Scon leadership, who proposed the demolish and rebuild job.
The question is how different the organization would be, right down to faces involved, before enough Scots were willing to accept it had nothing to do with Mrs T. Else you'd need to wait till the oldies died off, and even another couple of decades might not be enough in some areas. Anyway, a good point and one to think about for the future.
@ComResPolls: New @itvnews poll shows impact of #indyref campaign in Eng/Wales: 54% Brits support not allowing Scottish MPs to vote on non-Scottish issues
So if it’s ‘yes’ this weekend, the independence negotiations will be handled on the Union side by politicians who feel pretty sore about what has happened, and know their voters feel mildly sore too.
And if it’s a ‘no’, the paradox will be that even as Scotland cleaves to its union with the rest of the United Kingdom, the rest of the United Kingdom turns a little bitterly away. ‘Yes’ or ‘no’ — unless it’s an overwhelming ‘no’ — I as an Englishman will have never felt less affectionately towards Scotland than this weekend.
A good article. The recent panicky self-abasement by our political class has been humiliating. If only I had a vote, I'd vote yes. If only we could exile Cameron and Co in Scotland and get ourselves a better class of grown-up politicians.
It's a lot better article than the one Parris did, to write off Clacton as a seedy mess and not worth bothering about.
Mr. K., The Parris article was much was than that. What he said was that there is a whole chunk of white working class voters whose opinions the Conservatives should ignore.
If you are getting on a bit, if you like simple pleasures (not shared by the metropolitan elite), if you care about the fate of ordinary young people (not those destined for Uni) then the Conservative party should not want to know you or care about what you think. That was one whole big ball of poison from a man who runs Conservative election procedures and one which Cameron and his clique have been very inefficient at rebutting. One might almost feel that Cameron agrees with it.
If I were running UKIP election strategy I would have copies of the Parris article posted to every house in my target areas and posted up on every lamppost within them. This is what the Conservatives think of you. Add that to Cameron's new "Vow". I reckon UKIP should be odds on to take a few seats next May.
#faisalislam: Quite something when we think it is brave for a leader of the Labour Party to go on a walkabout in a shopping centre in Scotland's capital
Eck's Brownshirts and their ugly campaign of intimidation should face a day of reckoning...
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
My forecast for Thursday is what it has always been: No between 60% and 66%, and I very much doubt even Dundee will vote 'yes'.
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
I'd be amazed if No got 60%, even more amazed than a Yes vote quite frankly - why do you think No will outperform it's polling expectations so much ?
The same reason the Tories won in 1992, Sweden's SD outperformed their exit poll rating and AfD outperformed the polls by 4 points in Brandenburg.
But I still don't understand why there would be such a shy No vote, especially when a whole bunch of people are probably registering for the sole purpose of giving Westminster a kicking. Hidden Yes seems more likely than shy No.
Shy voters are shy because they are afraid of the recriminations of their choice by friends and family. That means No in this case. ICM had TCTC with 18% undecided and sure to vote. That screams massive shy voter syndrome.
But given the ways the polls have been converging lately, doesn't that suggest DKs are breaking more for Yes than No? That doesn't scream Shy No explosion.
As a poster on JK's site said, has anyone ever come across a shy vote for the side clearly ahead in polls which has the backing of all the media?
Not all the media. And not the backing of the incumbent Government, which has carefully arranged date, question, age qualification, and a series of national events (Bannockburn/Year of Homecoming) in its favour. Hardly the plucky struggle some are making it out to be.
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
My forecast for Thursday is what it has always been: No between 60% and 66%, and I very much doubt even Dundee will vote 'yes'.
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
I'd be amazed if No got 60%, even more amazed than a Yes vote quite frankly - why do you think No will outperform it's polling expectations so much ?
The same reason the Tories won in 1992, Sweden's SD outperformed their exit poll rating and AfD outperformed the polls by 4 points in Brandenburg.
But I still don't understand why there would be such a shy No vote, especially when a whole bunch of people are probably registering for the sole purpose of giving Westminster a kicking. Hidden Yes seems more likely than shy No.
Shy voters are shy because they are afraid of the recriminations of their choice by friends and family. That means No in this case. ICM had TCTC with 18% undecided and sure to vote. That screams massive shy voter syndrome.
But given the ways the polls have been converging lately, doesn't that suggest DKs are breaking more for Yes than No? That doesn't scream Shy No explosion.
As a poster on JK's site said, has anyone ever come across a shy vote for the side clearly ahead in polls which has the backing of all the media?
I find it a little hard to believe that people are too scared to tell someone neutral on the phone or anonymously on the net which way they are voting... The over thinkers strike again in my book
And yet it happens. I provided three examples, two of them as recent as this week.
As a poster on JK's site said, has anyone ever come across a shy vote for the side clearly ahead in polls which has the backing of all the media?
How often has the opposing side been rampaging through the streets intimidating people, destroying campaign advertising, marching on broadcasters and threatening journalists?
How might that impact the shy factor do you think?
Can't really be arsed going through the assaults, death threats, abuse & vandalism committed by the Noers. Just you keep regurgitating tweets to the echo chamber like a good wee Nawbag.
So if it’s ‘yes’ this weekend, the independence negotiations will be handled on the Union side by politicians who feel pretty sore about what has happened, and know their voters feel mildly sore too.
And if it’s a ‘no’, the paradox will be that even as Scotland cleaves to its union with the rest of the United Kingdom, the rest of the United Kingdom turns a little bitterly away. ‘Yes’ or ‘no’ — unless it’s an overwhelming ‘no’ — I as an Englishman will have never felt less affectionately towards Scotland than this weekend.
A good article. The recent panicky self-abasement by our political class has been humiliating. If only I had a vote, I'd vote yes. If only we could exile Cameron and Co in Scotland and get ourselves a better class of grown-up politicians.
It's a lot better article than the one Parris did, to write off Clacton as a seedy mess and not worth bothering about.
Mr. K., The Parris article was much was than that. What he said was that there is a whole chunk of white working class voters whose opinions the Conservatives should ignore.
If you are getting on a bit, if you like simple pleasures (not shared by the metropolitan elite), if you care about the fate of ordinary young people (not those destined for Uni) then the Conservative party should not want to know you or care about what you think. That was one whole big ball of poison from a man who runs Conservative election procedures and one which Cameron and his clique have been very inefficient at rebutting. One might almost feel that Cameron agrees with it.
If I were running UKIP election strategy I would have copes of the Parris article posted to every house in my target areas and posted up on every lamppost within them. This is what the Conservatives think of you. Add that to Cameron's new "Vow". I reckon UKIP should be odds on to take a few seats next May.
For heaven's sake - the guy's a journalist, not a Conservative politician.
I really think the entire country is going mad. If people are seriously going to change their vote because of such nonsense, then the country is really in a bad way.
Comments
I say all this as someone who less than approves as too why they march.
Its like asking someone what are pollen levels like today. Its as much a joke as the ridiculous Immigration survey the Home office also uses (they really are a dysfunctional waste of space). Furthermore with the Internet becoming one of the main locations for crime how on earth does any layman know whats going on?
The last thing we should be using is an extremely dodgy opinion poll!
Pip Pip!
Maybe. Cameron just wants to get Thursday out the way, I reckon. He can then pretend that, oh dear, his party wouldn;'t wear it.
It's infinitely worse for Ed Miliband. If he lets Scotland down on more powers, he has 40mps there.
If Ed gives Scotland more power and money - he has a bunch of MPs south of the border looking over their shoulders at UKIP....
So if it’s ‘yes’ this weekend, the independence negotiations will be handled on the Union side by politicians who feel pretty sore about what has happened, and know their voters feel mildly sore too.
And if it’s a ‘no’, the paradox will be that even as Scotland cleaves to its union with the rest of the United Kingdom, the rest of the United Kingdom turns a little bitterly away. ‘Yes’ or ‘no’ — unless it’s an overwhelming ‘no’ — I as an Englishman will have never felt less affectionately towards Scotland than this weekend.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/matthew-parris/2014/09/if-scotland-leave-we-dont-owe-them-anything-but-its-no-great-favour-to-britain-if-they-stay/
IIRC, the BCS excludes sexual offences and offences against children. It's a useful survey, but needs to be used with caution.
In which case Salmond has played a very clever game of deal or no deal.
In effect he's sold a box worth nothing for a bucket load of more powers and money.
On Friday he will be boasting about the enormous concessions he has won by having the Indyref- like free gold for everyone and diamonds delivered to your house. Westminster will rue the day if this gold doesn't turn up .....
Thankfully only viewers in Scotland will have to put up with him as the circus will move on..
I'm trying to work out how ICM's Guardian poll came up with final published figures of Lab 35/Con 33/UKIP 9/LD 10 (table 4), when its unadjusted figures (table 3) are 37/33/10/9.
"In a further step, ICM add 50% of those who refuse to answer the vote intention
question or say they don’t know to the party they voted for in 2010."
I don't get how that translates into the final figures - I've even emailed Martin Boon, but he wasn't too forthcoming, repeating what he said in the intro to the PDF tables!
Tables here:
http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/2014_guardian_sept_poll.pdf
More specifically, Ed will rue the day
It was pointed out below, for example, that recorded crime rose quite steadily for about 20 years between 1965 and 1885, a period which coincides broadly with one in which a range of laws and punishment were liberalised. Correlation however does not demonstrate cause. The age structure of the population at that time indicates an exceptionally high percentage of young adults, a consequence of the post-war baby boom. That is exactly the age group which has the highest propensity to crime. Oldies, like me, just can't be arsed to commit crime any more.
So you would need a very long time frame and a sophisticated model to tease out the causes and consequences. And that without going into the more existential questions of crime and punishment. For example, if we got serious about punishing financial crime, the recorded crime figures would spike. Would that be a bad thing?
I rather like the Smithson project. It's sensible and free from prejudice, but it's no panacea and would take generations, I think, to produce reliable results.
The principles used to oppose both a “strikes rule” and mandatory minimum sentences were conceded long ago. The only debate of any political relevance is now about their extent, and recent years show that that extent is expanding rapidly.
The point that came up repeatedly was “Area X is a strong/weak SNP area, so the yes vote should be higher/lower there” (and sometimes other parties were mentioned too). Also, some areas (solid Lib Dem territory was one example given) might have been very pro-devolution but very “No” on the matter of independence. These are, of course, very valid concerns. So with that in mind, I’ve come up with the following alternative approach:
-Take the 2010 Westminster ward-level vote estimates (as per Electoral Calculus)
-Aggregate them, not to constituencies, but to local authority totals
-Take the referendum VI by 2010 vote from opinion polling. To weight the 2010 non-voters, I had to make an assumption about turnout, so I used 85% with an evenly-spread increase over 2010, but using 75% or 95% doesn’t make much difference
-Combine the two to get an implied referendum vote for each local authority
-Normalise the overal result to a national tie
This solves the main problem with the original model, but it does create some new ones:
-Except where local authorities corespond exactly to Westminster constituencies, ward level (and hence council area) figures for 2010 are estimates. The Electoral Calculus methodology is sound (it’s the same methodology you would use to calculate notional results after boundary changes) but they are still estimates
-Using polling data rather than purely real votes means sampling error. Because only ICM seems to have published a breakdown by 2010 vote the samples are small and hence the MoEs are rather wide (though this is arguably still preferable to using the results of another referendum 17 years ago and on an entirely different question)
-It also means we have to trust opinion polling, although a biased sample would also have to be biased geographically to matter in this case
-Voters for each party aren’t necessarily homogenous, and this might have a regional element to it. New approach, similar problem…
-The turnout concern still applies
So with all of those caveats noted, here is the revised version:
http://numbercruncheruk.blogspot.com/2014/09/how-should-we-interpret-early-results.html
We can see that Aberdeenshire, Angus, Perth and Moray are all much higher than the original model had them, as are the islands. Glasgow is quite a bit lower than before.
In relation to feedback I’ve received, Dundee is also higher but not by all that much. The big 3 cities collectively are lower.
I’ll update this on Wednesday or Thursday once the final call polls are in, hopefully some more of them will release a breakdown by 2010 vote. Ideally I’d be able to do this by 2011 Holyrood vote, but as far as I know, the local breakdowns aren’t readily available for Holyrood Elections.
NC
Ed Miliband had to abandon planned media interviews in Edinburgh's St James Shopping Centre when he was surrounded by a "melee of pro and anti independence supporters", according to the BBC's Norman Smith.
Some tweets suggest that he had been hemmed in by The Press.
There are quite a few in the Scottish Parliament, so any problems coming from the Tory side of the tripartite agreement could redound on them in the 2016 elections. Are those hostages to be abandoned by the home party? Have the Tories given up hope of regaining lost territory in Scotland, in the event of a No?
eighting for turnout
1. ICM ask respondents to say how likely it is that they will go and vote in a new general election using a ten points scale where 10 means they would be absolutely certain to vote and 1 means they would be certain not to vote.
2. We then weight people by their anticipated turnout. If someone is 10/10 certain to vote, they are given a weight of 1.0. If someone is 9/10 certain to vote they are given a weight of 0.9 etc. People who tell us they are likely to vote in the next General Election but did not vote in the last, are further down-weighted. If someone says they are 10/10 certain to vote but did not vote in 2010, they are given a weight of 0.5. If they say 9/10 certainty, the weight becomes 0.45 etc.
And one Ed Milliband.
Just the odd idiot but that's also the norm in everything!
Confused.
EDIT: Thanks, released.
If Dumfries votes Yes, It's over for No
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
Aye, most sensible poeple have fucked off out of the area of an Orange Order march, no wonder they are 'quiet'.
I miss a lot about Glasgow, the Orange Order marches I don't miss.
It will be interesting to see how Salmond plays things over this final stage.
CSU in Bavaria is the clear analogy. Right wing, semi Bavarian nationalist, but allies with CDU at a Federal level. CDU don't stand in Bavaria to leave field clear.
I think I know how Martin did it now - emailed him to confirm.
Here goes:
From table 2:
DK (2010 votes) = Lab 21, Con 33, LD 31
Ref (2010 votes) = Lab 2, Con 12, LD 5
Divided by two:
Lab 23/2 = 11, Con 45/2 = 23, LD 36/2 = 18. Total = 52
From Table 3 + plus above adjustments:
Lab 181 + 11 from DK/ref = 192
Con 160 + 23 = 183
UKIP unchanged = 48
LD = 36 +18 = 54
Total voters 491 + 52 = 543
Final:
Lab 35.4%
Con 33.7%
UKIP 8.8%
LD 9.9%
Although that does mean Cons should be 34%!
Does that include Scots?
On behalf of The Scottish Dail Mail, we will have a new Scottish Independence Poll out later today with online fieldwork conducted from 12-16 September. For comparison purposes, use the change since our last online poll for Daily Record published 11 September as the methodology is the same.
SURVATION
There has been a rise in the number of those who think that Scotland should not become independent, that the UK would be worse off without Scotland and that Scotland’s departure would diminish the UK’s influence in the world.
However, the poll of 1124 over-18s in England and Wales finds significant disengagement from the issue: only just over half (55%) say they care about the outcome of this week’s referendum and 47% say Scottish independence would have no impact on their lives. More than a quarter (28%) say they do not care about the result, rising to 37% of those aged 18-24.
http://www.tnsglobal.com/uk/press-release/english-and-welsh-sentiment-against-scottish-independence-hardens-large-number-don’t
ICM poll for Scotsman will be published at 9pm.
Survation for Mail at 10.30pm
1. Effectively the Tories [edit] would be abandoning their own One Nation mission that began with the 1955-ish merger (and which some on this site reckon did for the Tories in Scotland). Immediate propaganda gift to their opponents. Plus if they do badly in Wales they're going to end up a de facto English party. TV debates, anyone? If they can exclude the SNP because they are only in Scotland ...
2. The Scons wouldn't have far to go to bump into SLAB and squeeze them against the SNP anvil, unless SLAB rediscover their inner Keir Hardies inside the Tony Blairs and decide they're to the left rather than right of the SNP.
I take the Bayern analogy, but wonder if the Scottish Tories would be better to disband and form a completely new organization to complete the detoxification a la Murdo Fraser. (I know Mrs T's PM-ship is history, but that doesn't stop a lot of Scots in their thinking about Tories.)
And what this all means for SLAB and the LDs is another pot of flounders ...
Anyway, an interesting line of thought and it may not be just Mr Cameron but Ms Davidson who has issues to confront - thanks again.
And recent events won't make them any less 'shy' nor any less certain to vote, so we're not likely to know till the votes are counted.
Still two polls tonight may give us a firmer trend, but that can also change in the last 24 hours: so all to play for.
It's on Wiki - C34, L33, LD7, UKIP15
How might that impact the shy factor do you think?
The question is how different the organization would be, right down to faces involved, before enough Scots were willing to accept it had nothing to do with Mrs T. Else you'd need to wait till the oldies died off, and even another couple of decades might not be enough in some areas. Anyway, a good point and one to think about for the future.
http://comres.co.uk/poll/1261/itv-news-devolution-and-scotland-poll.htm
If you are getting on a bit, if you like simple pleasures (not shared by the metropolitan elite), if you care about the fate of ordinary young people (not those destined for Uni) then the Conservative party should not want to know you or care about what you think. That was one whole big ball of poison from a man who runs Conservative election procedures and one which Cameron and his clique have been very inefficient at rebutting. One might almost feel that Cameron agrees with it.
If I were running UKIP election strategy I would have copies of the Parris article posted to every house in my target areas and posted up on every lamppost within them. This is what the Conservatives think of you. Add that to Cameron's new "Vow". I reckon UKIP should be odds on to take a few seats next May.
Eck's Brownshirts and their ugly campaign of intimidation should face a day of reckoning...
I really think the entire country is going mad. If people are seriously going to change their vote because of such nonsense, then the country is really in a bad way.
Is the ICM poll by 'phone or online?