"Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make. It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders....
UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world. Modernity has raised the people’s expectations of how much better things could be."
Calm down, chaps. You're getting yourselves into a ridiculous flap over nothing.
1. The likelihood is that it's a No, for the reasons very succinctly laid out in Shadsy's excellent piece.
2. If it's a No, Cameron is safe. All the fuss about Barnett will be forgotten rapidly. This is especially true if, as is likely, the margin is reasonably big.
3. In fact, in the event of a clear No, Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question.
4. In the unlikely event that it's a Yes, things are much more unpredictable. The likelihood is that Cameron will remain PM, although I agree there's a small chance that he might resign. In practice the focus will be on the enormity of the shock, in the EU as well as in the UK. That shock will be bigger for Labour than for the Conservatives, of course, for all the reasons SeanT has eloquently expressed in the past.
1. The polls say it's too close to call.
2. Yes, if its NO, Cameron wont resign.
3. Even if NO wins by a small margin as polls suggest, Cameron will take no credit since NO had been sliding for weeks until westminster panicked, there is no credit for panicked reactions.
4. If its a YES then Cameron will not remain PM even if he wanted to, the 1922 committee will finish him off with the backbench letters of no confidence.
Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman) 17/09/2014 12:55 Just been called 'scum' and told to 'f***ing get out of my way' by a no voter as I followed Yes. Will post shortly on what happened next
Bookies are just reacting to the punters. If they get a stream of London gentlemen coming through the door looking to lay £800,000 on a result they need to set a price to balance the books.
@JohnRentoul: Correction: Wm Hill customer from SW London has now put total of £900k on No to win #indyref (£400k, £200k x2, £100k today). Wd win £193k.
Western Isles is predicted to be the first result to declare. If it votes YES the markets will probably over-react since it'll be the only real data for them to work with. Some good betting opportunities may present themselves at that point.
I thought that Orkney was predicted for the same time (and looking at your spreadsheet has a slightly smaller electorate and is less spread out in terms of getting ballot boxes to a central location (presumably Kirkwall)). Given Orkney is likely to be No, which of the 2 declares first could totally affect the betting markets in either direction.
Yes that's right. I'm slightly influenced by previous Scottish elections when I think Orkney took longer to come through, but I don't have the data I'm front of me so I might be misremembering.
Bookies are just reacting to the punters. If they get a stream of London gentlemen coming through the door looking to lay £800,000 on a result they need to set a price to balance the books.
@JohnRentoul: Correction: Wm Hill customer from SW London has now put total of £900k on No to win #indyref (£400k, £200k x2, £100k today). Wd win £193k.
Bookies are just reacting to the punters. If they get a stream of London gentlemen coming through the door looking to lay £800,000 on a result they need to set a price to balance the books.
@JohnRentoul: Correction: Wm Hill customer from SW London has now put total of £900k on No to win #indyref (£400k, £200k x2, £100k today). Wd win £193k.
Described in today's FT as "thought to be the largest wager on a political event in modern history". Which made me wonder quite how old financier must be.
Bookies are just reacting to the punters. If they get a stream of London gentlemen coming through the door looking to lay £800,000 on a result they need to set a price to balance the books.
@JohnRentoul: Correction: Wm Hill customer from SW London has now put total of £900k on No to win #indyref (£400k, £200k x2, £100k today). Wd win £193k.
"Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make. It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders....
UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world. Modernity has raised the people’s expectations of how much better things could be."
Calm down, chaps. You're getting yourselves into a ridiculous flap over nothing.
1. The likelihood is that it's a No, for the reasons very succinctly laid out in Shadsy's excellent piece.
2. If it's a No, Cameron is safe. All the fuss about Barnett will be forgotten rapidly. This is especially true if, as is likely, the margin is reasonably big.
3. In fact, in the event of a clear No, Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question.
4. In the unlikely event that it's a Yes, things are much more unpredictable. The likelihood is that Cameron will remain PM, although I agree there's a small chance that he might resign. In practice the focus will be on the enormity of the shock, in the EU as well as in the UK. That shock will be bigger for Labour than for the Conservatives, of course, for all the reasons SeanT has eloquently expressed in the past.
1. The polls say it's too close to call.
2. Yes, if its NO, Cameron wont resign.
3. Even if NO wins by a small margin as polls suggest, Cameron will take no credit since NO had been sliding for weeks until westminster panicked, there is no credit for panicked reactions.
4. If its a YES then Cameron will not remain PM even if he wanted to, the 1922 committee will finish him off with the backbench letters of no confidence.
Bollocks! Every one knows that if NO prevails, it was Gordon wot did it ! He even frightened off that scum Murdoch !
"Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make. It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders....
UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world. Modernity has raised the people’s expectations of how much better things could be."
Sounds brilliant. Well done him. Carswell for Leader.
All you need to do now is detoxify (!) your on the ground election literature* and you will be a lot closer to being that young, visionary political party of the future.
Oh yes and you need a vision also, but I'm sure that will come.
*don't panic you are not alone in this, as is well known the LD's had (have?) some of the nastiest election literature out there.
"Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make. It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders....
UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world. Modernity has raised the people’s expectations of how much better things could be."
If we get a YES it'll mean they were all totally and wildly wrong. Has that ever happened before? All the bookies and all the pollsters calling it wrong?
All the polls have it 48-52, in a 2 way battle you only need a 2% swing to get the opposite result, that is why I declare it too close to call.
On the other hand, virtually all of the (proper) polls have No winning.
2 polls this year have put YES ahead. I think it would be an amazing feat for them to win in those circumstances, People sometimes mention 1992, but the Tories were actually ahead in 10 polls out of 50 during that campaign.
Scotland can expect to be thrust outside the EU, for five years, minimum. With all that means for investment, business, jobs.
Will the Scots really vote for this??
If Scotland is forced out of the EU for a few years, then we should see what the effect of BOO is on a country very similar to rUK. It may be a useful lesson before any Brexit referendum.
I can remember when pb Nats were reassuring us that Scotland would remain a member of the EU and wouldn't even have to rejoin.
That was about three months ago. Now they've essentially admitted that was a total lie, and instead that say Ooh it will be easy, take 18 months, bish bosh, then we're back in the EU. And that's another lie.
Pity the Scots if they buy this guff.
What bollocks, what makes you an expert to say it is a lie. Only a thicko would make such a stupid statement. You may think it will take longer but it is purely conjecture and bias that drives that. It is as likely to be 18 months or less as it is to be many years.
I have enormous respect for your many talents, malcolmg, but I'm not sure they include possession of a veto over future EU members - unlike the prime minister of Spain. So I'm tending to believe his word over yours.
And by the way, here is that SNP lie in black and white:
"An independent Scotland will remain an integral part of the European Union and will not have to re-apply for EU membership. This is the clear position of the Scottish Government despite attempts by anti-independence proponents to cast doubt on Scotland’s future position in Europe."
You see? That was a lie. As even you now admit. And now you're lying again.
Depends how you read those words Sean. You can interpret two ways. Your way or you can take it that it will remain a member till real independence day and will have negotiated continuing membership in the interim and so will indeed never have been out and so never had to re-apply, merely changed from being lumped in with UK to being Scotland only.
You won't be going within 100 yards of EU membership if you repudiate the share of your debt obligations to rUK following independence.
Calm down, chaps. You're getting yourselves into a ridiculous flap over nothing.
1. The likelihood is that it's a No, for the reasons very succinctly laid out in Shadsy's excellent piece.
2. If it's a No, Cameron is safe. All the fuss about Barnett will be forgotten rapidly. This is especially true if, as is likely, the margin is reasonably big.
3. In fact, in the event of a clear No, Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question.
4. In the unlikely event that it's a Yes, things are much more unpredictable. The likelihood is that Cameron will remain PM, although I agree there's a small chance that he might resign. In practice the focus will be on the enormity of the shock, in the EU as well as in the UK. That shock will be bigger for Labour than for the Conservatives, of course, for all the reasons SeanT has eloquently expressed in the past.
Well said
Say a 65% chance of a NO and not a lot really changing. But a YES, while less likely, will create such upheaval that not being calm seems entirely appropriate. This would have been a Black Swan i.e. 1 in 100+ chance of occurrence just a few months back...
You could quite easily put "Should the UK be an independent country" as the question referendum on leaving the EU. How on earth did they get allowed to put that on the ballot paper.
As Eck wants to join the EU IMHO "Should Scotland be an independent country" could be construed as misleading; as being an independent country is not offer, only a change from being a UK dependency to an EU dependency
Which is not a pedantic thing to say post Lisbon, now that the EU has a legal personality and can issue regulations with the force of law not just directives to member governments asking them to change their law.
Someone asked me a couple of days back on what grounds legal challenges could be made if the result was very close Yes. There is one.
Brain of Britain is on , next you will be saying Germany is not an independent country because it is in the EU, barking.
AndyJs makes a good point about the Western Isles.
Certainly if it does not vote Yes then No has won very comfortably.
Be careful making assumptions about the western isles. Yes, they speak Gallic, are strongly SNP and have one of the lowest tory vote-shares in the country, yet it wouldn't surprise me if they come in as No, or only slightly yes.
The reason being there's a fair amount of money out there, reasonable education levels and comparatively low levels of deprivation. There's also an MOD missile firing range which employs quite a few people.
Personally, I wouldn't read much at all from the Western isles result.
Calm down, chaps. You're getting yourselves into a ridiculous flap over nothing.
1. The likelihood is that it's a No, for the reasons very succinctly laid out in Shadsy's excellent piece.
2. If it's a No, Cameron is safe. All the fuss about Barnett will be forgotten rapidly. This is especially true if, as is likely, the margin is reasonably big.
3. In fact, in the event of a clear No, Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question.
4. In the unlikely event that it's a Yes, things are much more unpredictable. The likelihood is that Cameron will remain PM, although I agree there's a small chance that he might resign. In practice the focus will be on the enormity of the shock, in the EU as well as in the UK. That shock will be bigger for Labour than for the Conservatives, of course, for all the reasons SeanT has eloquently expressed in the past.
1. Yes of course it's likely that it will be a NO. Hope for the best and plan for the worst.
2. If it is a No then Cameron will be seen to be a ditherer who once more has the resolve of a plate of blancmange. He was not in Scotland, then he was in Scotland then he is not in Scotland. Saying something about effing Tories which will be one of the soundbites of the campaign.
3. He will have seen off the break-up of the union with absolutely no input from him. Events will have happened to him rather than him having been a strong and decisive leader. I mean there's laissez faire and there's laissez faire. He won't be able to take credit for a clear No. That will go down to Gordo. More ammunition for the idiot wing of his backbenchers.
Bookies are just reacting to the punters. If they get a stream of London gentlemen coming through the door looking to lay £800,000 on a result they need to set a price to balance the books.
@JohnRentoul: Correction: Wm Hill customer from SW London has now put total of £900k on No to win #indyref (£400k, £200k x2, £100k today). Wd win £193k.
Has to be Eck.
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Eck, for lack of a better word, is good. Eck is right, Eck works. Eck clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the Devolutionary spirit. Eck, in all of his forms; Eck for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Eck, you mark my words, will not only save the YES Campaign, but that other malfunctioning corporation called Scotland. Thank you very much.
"Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make. It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders....
UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world. Modernity has raised the people’s expectations of how much better things could be."
Carswell setting his agenda on reforming UKIP, from an "angry, populist rejection of the modern world" to a modern party, I see.
Well no doubt he is the kind of person we need
He is certainly as likely to ruffle feathers within UKIP as well as outside. I suspect that he will bring some intellectual clarity. The question is whether the British public like that clarity.
Bookies are just reacting to the punters. If they get a stream of London gentlemen coming through the door looking to lay £800,000 on a result they need to set a price to balance the books.
@JohnRentoul: Correction: Wm Hill customer from SW London has now put total of £900k on No to win #indyref (£400k, £200k x2, £100k today). Wd win £193k.
Scotland can expect to be thrust outside the EU, for five years, minimum. With all that means for investment, business, jobs.
Will the Scots really vote for this??
If Scotland is forced out of the EU for a few years, then we should see what the effect of BOO is on a country very similar to rUK. It may be a useful lesson before any Brexit referendum.
Pity the Scots if they buy this guff.
What bollocks, what makes you an expert to say it is a lie. Only a thicko would make such a stupid statement. You may think it will take longer but it is purely conjecture and bias that drives that. It is as likely to be 18 months or less as it is to be many years.
I have enormous respect for your many talents, malcolmg, but I'm not sure they include possession of a veto over future EU members - unlike the prime minister of Spain. So I'm tending to believe his word over yours.
And by the way, here is that SNP lie in black and white:
"An independent Scotland will remain an integral part of the European Union and will not have to re-apply for EU membership. This is the clear position of the Scottish Government despite attempts by anti-independence proponents to cast doubt on Scotland’s future position in Europe."
You see? That was a lie. As even you now admit. And now you're lying again.
Depends how you read those words Sean. You can interpret two ways. Your way or you can take it that it will remain a member till real independence day and will have negotiated continuing membership in the interim and so will indeed never have been out and so never had to re-apply, merely changed from being lumped in with UK to being Scotland only.
You won't be going within 100 yards of EU membership if you repudiate the share of your debt obligations to rUK following independence.
Ha Ha Ha you lost that one long time ago
I don't understand why the SNP wants to stay in the EU so much it wants to leave the EU permanently. Anyway the question is settled, the only positive on scottish independence is that it will never be an EU member. Spain, Italy and Belgium will veto scottish entry for ever and ever.
Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman) 17/09/2014 12:55 Just been called 'scum' and told to 'f***ing get out of my way' by a no voter as I followed Yes. Will post shortly on what happened next
Dear God, the atrocities of which humanity is capable. Neither side is blameless.
Rumours on twitter that a Yes supporter has been seen lighting a cigar without removing the band.
2 polls this year have put YES ahead. I think it would be an amazing feat for them to win in those circumstances, People sometimes mention 1992, but the Tories were actually ahead in 10 polls out of 50 during that campaign.
Only requires the polls to be 2% for Yes to win. The polls were 10% out in 92.
Rather amazingly (I think) Hollande is rated much less likely to win the next French Presidential election than his own PM (11/2 V 7/2 with Paddy Power). There has to be a good chance that his term is viewed as such a disaster that he doesnt even stand for re-election. Can you imagine the speech?
"This has been quite the f-up, hasnt it? Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."
Bookies are just reacting to the punters. If they get a stream of London gentlemen coming through the door looking to lay £800,000 on a result they need to set a price to balance the books.
@JohnRentoul: Correction: Wm Hill customer from SW London has now put total of £900k on No to win #indyref (£400k, £200k x2, £100k today). Wd win £193k.
Blimey, a brave chap. - must be as rich as Croesus, or have balls like naffi carrier bags..
One of the reasons I'm predicting Falkirk to go YES narrowly is that the Chairman of the Yes campaign, Dennis Canavan, was MP for the town for many years, and he's still an influential figure in the area AFAIK.
O/T Mr Llama - sorry to hear about the Brute ascending to the Great Cat Flap in the sky where the daily saucer of warm milk will be on tap for eternity. I'll include a toast when the eagerly awaited bottle of fizz is consumed. Any chance for tomorrow night....it would be fitting to get gently sloshed as the results flow in.
Mr. O., thank you for your kind words about the, late, Brute. I have done my bit with RidgeView, whether the bottle arrives on the day is in the hands of FedEx. Enjoy.
P.S. The Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society is also richer by fifty quid.
Scotland can expect to be thrust outside the EU, for five years, minimum. With all that means for investment, business, jobs.
Will the Scots really vote for this??
If Scotland is forced out of the EU for a few years, then we should see what the effect of BOO is on a country very similar to rUK. It may be a useful lesson before any Brexit referendum.
Pity the Scots if they buy this guff.
What bollocks, what makes you an expert to say it is a lie. Only a thicko would make such a stupid statement. You may think it will take longer but it is purely conjecture and bias that drives that. It is as likely to be 18 months or less as it is to be many years.
I have enormous respect for your many talents, malcolmg, but I'm not sure they include possession of a veto over future EU members - unlike the prime minister of Spain. So I'm tending to believe his word over yours.
And by the way, here is that SNP lie in black and white:
"An independent Scotland will remain an integral part of the European Union and will not have to re-apply for EU membership. This is the clear position of the Scottish Government despite attempts by anti-independence proponents to cast doubt on Scotland’s future position in Europe."
You see? That was a lie. As even you now admit. And now you're lying again.
Depends how you read those words Sean. You can interpret two ways. Your way or you can take it that it will remain a member till real independence day and will have negotiated continuing membership in the interim and so will indeed never have been out and so never had to re-apply, merely changed from being lumped in with UK to being Scotland only.
You won't be going within 100 yards of EU membership if you repudiate the share of your debt obligations to rUK following independence.
Ha Ha Ha you lost that one long time ago
I don't understand why the SNP wants to stay in the EU so much it wants to leave the EU permanently. Anyway the question is settled, the only positive on scottish independence is that it will never be an EU member. Spain, Italy and Belgium will veto scottish entry for ever and ever.
Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question. .
The what? Good luck with making it a doorstep issue, especially as we've all just promised to keep matters as they are, only more so.
And I'd like to believe that the issue will be closed down by a No tomorrow, but frankly I doubt it.
O/T Mr Llama - sorry to hear about the Brute ascending to the Great Cat Flap in the sky where the daily saucer of warm milk will be on tap for eternity. I'll include a toast when the eagerly awaited bottle of fizz is consumed. Any chance for tomorrow night....it would be fitting to get gently sloshed as the results flow in.
Mr. O., thank you for your kind words about the, late, Brute. I have done my bit with RidgeView, whether the bottle arrives on the day is in the hands of FedEx. Enjoy.
P.S. The Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society is also richer by fifty quid.
Scotland can expect to be thrust outside the EU, for five years, minimum. With all that means for investment, business, jobs.
Will the Scots really vote for this??
If Scotland is forced out of the EU for a few years, then we should see what the effect of BOO is on a country very similar to rUK. It may be a useful lesson before any Brexit referendum.
I can remember when pb Nats were reassuring us that Scotland would remain a member of the EU and wouldn't even have to rejoin.
Pity the Scots if they buy this guff.
What bollocks, what makes you an expert to say it is a lie. Only a thicko would make such a stupid statement. You may think it will take longer but it is purely conjecture and bias that drives that. It is as likely to be 18 months or less as it is to be many years.
I have enormous respect for your many talents, malcolmg, but I'm not sure they include possession of a veto over future EU members - unlike the prime minister of Spain. So I'm tending to believe his word over yours.
And by the way, here is that SNP lie in black and white:
"An independent Scotland will remain an integral part of the European Union and will not have to re-apply for EU membership. This is the clear position of the Scottish Government despite attempts by anti-independence proponents to cast doubt on Scotland’s future position in Europe."
You see? That was a lie. As even you now admit. And now you're lying again.
Depends how you read those words Sean. You can interpret two ways. Your way or you can take it that it will remain a member till real independence day and will have negotiated continuing membership in the interim and so will indeed never have been out and so never had to re-apply, merely changed from being lumped in with UK to being Scotland only.
You won't be going within 100 yards of EU membership if you repudiate the share of your debt obligations to rUK following independence.
Ha Ha Ha you lost that one long time ago
I didn't lose that one a long time ago nor even just now.
If iScotland says that's it s&d your debt then that is, to all intents and purposes, a default.
Try getting that past Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium.
You could quite easily put "Should the UK be an independent country" as the question referendum on leaving the EU. How on earth did they get allowed to put that on the ballot paper.
As Eck wants to join the EU IMHO "Should Scotland be an independent country" could be construed as misleading; as being an independent country is not offer, only a change from being a UK dependency to an EU dependency
Which is not a pedantic thing to say post Lisbon, now that the EU has a legal personality and can issue regulations with the force of law not just directives to member governments asking them to change their law.
Someone asked me a couple of days back on what grounds legal challenges could be made if the result was very close Yes. There is one.
Brain of Britain is on , next you will be saying Germany is not an independent country because it is in the EU, barking.
Germany is the EU (at least the eurozone bit). All countries in the eurozone get their orders from Berlin.
Pong is right about Western Isles, it wouldn't be a good idea to draw any conclusions from the result there IMO. It's had an SNP MP for most of the last 45 years but some Yes campaigners don't seem to be very confident of winning. One rated it as 2/10 for Yes potential.
Scotland can expect to be thrust outside the EU, for five years, minimum. With all that means for investment, business, jobs.
Will the Scots really vote for this??
If Scotland is forced
Pity the Scots if they buy this guff.
What bollocks, what makes you an expert to say it is a lie. Only a thicko would make such a stupid statement. You may think it will take longer but it is purely conjecture and bias that drives that. It is as likely to be 18 months or less as it is to be many years.
I have enormous respect for your many talents, malcolmg, but I'm not sure they include possession of a veto over future EU members - unlike the prime minister of Spain. So I'm tending to believe his word over yours.
And by the way, here is that SNP lie in black and white:
"An independent Scotland will remain an integral part of the European Union and will not have to re-apply for EU membership. This is the clear position of the Scottish Government despite attempts by anti-independence proponents to cast doubt on Scotland’s future position in Europe."
You see? That was a lie. As even you now admit. And now you're lying again.
Depends how you read those words Sean. You can interpret two ways. Your way or you can take it that it will remain a member till real independence day and will have negotiated continuing membership in the interim and so will indeed never have been out and so never had to re-apply, merely changed from being lumped in with UK to being Scotland only.
You won't be going within 100 yards of EU membership if you repudiate the share of your debt obligations to rUK following independence.
Ha Ha Ha you lost that one long time ago
I don't understand why the SNP wants to stay in the EU so much it wants to leave the EU permanently. Anyway the question is settled, the only positive on scottish independence is that it will never be an EU member. Spain, Italy and Belgium will veto scottish entry for ever and ever.
2 polls this year have put YES ahead. I think it would be an amazing feat for them to win in those circumstances, People sometimes mention 1992, but the Tories were actually ahead in 10 polls out of 50 during that campaign.
Only requires the polls to be 2% for Yes to win. The polls were 10% out in 92.
They overestimated YES, which is (perhaps temporary) comfort for those of a unionist persuasion. Yes was also far less controversial.
Rather amazingly (I think) Hollande is rated much less likely to win the next French Presidential election than his own PM (11/2 V 7/2 with Paddy Power). There has to be a good chance that his term is viewed as such a disaster that he doesnt even stand for re-election. Can you imagine the speech?
"This has been quite the f-up, hasnt it? Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."
The only thing amazing is that anyone is surprised it's been such a disaster. Except REd.
2 polls this year have put YES ahead. I think it would be an amazing feat for them to win in those circumstances, People sometimes mention 1992, but the Tories were actually ahead in 10 polls out of 50 during that campaign.
Only requires the polls to be 2% for Yes to win. The polls were 10% out in 92.
mile off in 2011 as well even though they had SNP winning they were nowhere near the result
Bookies are just reacting to the punters. If they get a stream of London gentlemen coming through the door looking to lay £800,000 on a result they need to set a price to balance the books.
@JohnRentoul: Correction: Wm Hill customer from SW London has now put total of £900k on No to win #indyref (£400k, £200k x2, £100k today). Wd win £193k.
Blimey, a brave chap. - must be as rich as Croesus, or have balls like naffi carrier bags..
Must be stupid as well , given he could have bought a flat in London and been sitting on guaranteed profit rather than losing the lot.
The what? Good luck with making it a doorstep issue, especially as we've all just promised to keep matters as they are, only more so.
It's not a doorstep issue, and I'm not expecting it ever will be, any more than Barnett ever will be. I'm hoping - perhaps forlornly - that the Labour Party in particular, which used to be a democratic party, will finally be shamed into admitting the disgrace of relying on Scottish MPs to determine purely English matters, so that something can actually be done about it.
"Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make. It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders....
UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world. Modernity has raised the people’s expectations of how much better things could be."
Carswell setting his agenda on reforming UKIP, from an "angry, populist rejection of the modern world" to a modern party, I see.
Well no doubt he is the kind of person we need
He is certainly as likely to ruffle feathers within UKIP as well as outside. I suspect that he will bring some intellectual clarity. The question is whether the British public like that clarity.
Will ukip supporters have time to listen while brandishing blazing torches and running immigrants out of town?
Scotland can expect to be thrust outside the EU, for five years, minimum. With all that means for investment, business, jobs.
Will the Scots really vote for this??
If Scotland is forced out of the EU for a few years, then we should see what the effect of BOO is on a country very similar to rUK. It may be a useful lesson before any Brexit referendum.
Pity the Scots if they buy this guff.
What bollocks, what makes you an expert to say it is a lie. Only a thicko would make such a stupid statement. You may think it will take longer but it is purely conjecture and bias that drives that. It is as likely to be 18 months or less as it is to be many years.
I have enormous respect for your many talents, malcolmg, but I'm not sure they include possession of a veto over future EU members - unlike the prime minister of Spain. So I'm tending to believe his word over yours.
And by the way, here is that SNP lie in black and white:
You see? That was a lie. As even you now admit. And now you're lying again.
Depends how you read those words Sean. You can interpret two ways. Your way or you can take it that it will remain a member till real independence day and will have negotiated continuing membership in the interim and so will indeed never have been out and so never had to re-apply, merely changed from being lumped in with UK to being Scotland only.
You won't be going within 100 yards of EU membership if you repudiate the share of your debt obligations to rUK following independence.
Ha Ha Ha you lost that one long time ago
I didn't lose that one a long time ago nor even just now.
If iScotland says that's it s&d your debt then that is, to all intents and purposes, a default.
Try getting that past Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium.
Regardless of the debt issue, scottish EU entry will be vetoed, because the existence of certain EU member states (Spain, Italy and Belgium) depends on scotland crashing to the ground. They will try to make the life of the scots as miserable as possible, just to prevent their own restive regions of getting ideas.
Pong is right about Western Isles, it wouldn't be a good idea to draw any conclusions from the result there IMO. It's had an SNP MP for most of the last 45 years but some Yes campaigners don't seem to be very confident of winning. One rated it as 2/10 for Yes potential.
Indeed. Although Betfair is likely to react so if one trades back to as if it was being ignored there might be a good trading opportunity
Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question. .
The what? Good luck with making it a doorstep issue, especially as we've all just promised to keep matters as they are, only more so.
And I'd like to believe that the issue will be closed down by a No tomorrow, but frankly I doubt it.
Agree. Certainly not an issue. Yet. Do you think it should be an issue though? What would you tell your possible future constituents? To not to worry about such things? They are not for the little people you see...
Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman) 17/09/2014 12:55 Just been called 'scum' and told to 'f***ing get out of my way' by a no voter as I followed Yes. Will post shortly on what happened next
Dear God, the atrocities of which humanity is capable. Neither side is blameless.
Rumours on twitter that a Yes supporter has been seen lighting a cigar without removing the band.
Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question. .
The what? Good luck with making it a doorstep issue, especially as we've all just promised to keep matters as they are, only more so.
And I'd like to believe that the issue will be closed down by a No tomorrow, but frankly I doubt it.
You've promised to keep funding as it is, but with powers you're promising changes. That will surely mean changes to English devolution too.
Whenever Alex Salmond is asked about allegations of intimidation, or instances where politicians have been heckled and threatened, he has insisted that this has been on the whole a positive and civilised campaign. But he never goes further and condemns anyone in a ‘Yes’ T-shirt who is letting the side down. Perhaps he feels he needs those activists too much, or perhaps he thinks the ‘No’ camp are sitting in a greenhouse chucking stones at the roof when they make these allegations. Perhaps he thinks that by ignoring the allegations, he can stop them gaining credence. That would be easier if so many of them hadn’t been filmed by the media thronging around politicians and campaigners.
But it’s not just a failure to condemn. It’s the language Salmond himself uses. ‘Team Scotland’ means you’re a ‘Yes’ voter in Salmond’s world. He uses the term himself. If you’re ‘No’, you’re not on ‘Team Scotland’. Your patriotism is lacking. You’re not a real Scot. He fails to condemn and encourages that dangerous identity game that lesser men than he then play on the streets.
"Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make. It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders....
UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world. Modernity has raised the people’s expectations of how much better things could be."
Carswell setting his agenda on reforming UKIP, from an "angry, populist rejection of the modern world" to a modern party, I see.
Well no doubt he is the kind of person we need
He is certainly as likely to ruffle feathers within UKIP as well as outside. I suspect that he will bring some intellectual clarity. The question is whether the British public like that clarity.
Will ukip have time to listen while brandishing blazing torches and running immigrants out of town?
I suspect not, so possibly Carswell may quit UKIP (or be expelled) and sit independently.
Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman) 17/09/2014 12:55 Just been called 'scum' and told to 'f***ing get out of my way' by a no voter as I followed Yes. Will post shortly on what happened next
Rumours on twitter that a Yes supporter has been seen lighting a cigar without removing the band.
Pong is right about Western Isles, it wouldn't be a good idea to draw any conclusions from the result there IMO. It's had an SNP MP for most of the last 45 years but some Yes campaigners don't seem to be very confident of winning. One rated it as 2/10 for Yes potential.
"Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make. It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders....
UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world. Modernity has raised the people’s expectations of how much better things could be."
An excellent article by Douglas Carswell, but I'm puzzled by this bit:
UKIP, a party that believes in direct democracy and far-reaching political reform. Unlike the established political parties, UKIP is not the private property of small cliques. It is a party committed to free markets, free trade and direct democracy.
Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make.
Has he perhaps confused UKIP with some other party?
Strikingly, more people dislike Mr Miliband, 63 per cent, than dislike the other leaders. He is also less popular than the party he leads. Some 31 per cent said they like him, while 50 per cent liked Labour.
The opposite was true of the Prime Minister. Only 42 per cent liked the Conservatives, but 48 per cent liked Mr Cameron.
Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman) 17/09/2014 12:55 Just been called 'scum' and told to 'f***ing get out of my way' by a no voter as I followed Yes. Will post shortly on what happened next
Rumours on twitter that a Yes supporter has been seen lighting a cigar without removing the band.
Whenever Alex Salmond is asked about allegations of intimidation, or instances where politicians have been heckled and threatened, he has insisted that this has been on the whole a positive and civilised campaign. But he never goes further and condemns anyone in a ‘Yes’ T-shirt who is letting the side down. Perhaps he feels he needs those activists too much, or perhaps he thinks the ‘No’ camp are sitting in a greenhouse chucking stones at the roof when they make these allegations. Perhaps he thinks that by ignoring the allegations, he can stop them gaining credence. That would be easier if so many of them hadn’t been filmed by the media thronging around politicians and campaigners.
But it’s not just a failure to condemn. It’s the language Salmond himself uses. ‘Team Scotland’ means you’re a ‘Yes’ voter in Salmond’s world. He uses the term himself. If you’re ‘No’, you’re not on ‘Team Scotland’. Your patriotism is lacking. You’re not a real Scot. He fails to condemn and encourages that dangerous identity game that lesser men than he then play on the streets.
"Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make. It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders....
UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world. Modernity has raised the people’s expectations of how much better things could be."
Carswell setting his agenda on reforming UKIP, from an "angry, populist rejection of the modern world" to a modern party, I see.
Well no doubt he is the kind of person we need
He is certainly as likely to ruffle feathers within UKIP as well as outside. I suspect that he will bring some intellectual clarity. The question is whether the British public like that clarity.
Will ukip have time to listen while brandishing blazing torches and running immigrants out of town?
I suspect not, so possibly Carswell may quit UKIP (or be expelled) and sit independently.
Neither says anything about "staying away". Please don't make things up. And Aberdeen at its worst really, really isn't Gaza.
Tom Bradby said: "I have a confession this morning, which is that I am not enjoying covering the Scottish referendum. I should be. All journalists live for the chance to report on great events and they don’t come more momentous than the potential break-up of the UK.
But pretty much all reporters I chatted to yesterday agreed that the level of abuse and even intimidation being meted out by some in the ‘Yes’ campaign was making this referendum a rather unpleasant experience.
And whilst I am sure both sides have been guilty, the truth - uncomfortable as it is to say it – is that most of the heckling and abuse does seem to be coming from the Nationalists."
@BethRigby: Paddy Power says 3 out of 4 cities look set to vote No. Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen odds moving to No. Dundee likely to go Yes #scotref
How the F do they know about regional changes?
I'd like to believe it's true as if Glasgae, Edinboro and Aberdeen all go NO then NO must very likely win.
But I am deeply suspicious of their info. Who or what is their source?
Maybe Beth Rigby doesn't understand betting either. It looks like she's noted the change in prices and thinks they're making a prediction, rather than responding to the market.
"Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make. It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders....
UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world. Modernity has raised the people’s expectations of how much better things could be."
An excellent article by Douglas Carswell, but I'm puzzled by this bit:
UKIP, a party that believes in direct democracy and far-reaching political reform. Unlike the established political parties, UKIP is not the private property of small cliques. It is a party committed to free markets, free trade and direct democracy.
Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make.
Has he perhaps confused UKIP with some other party?
I don't think so, the bit you left off is the difference between ukip and the others
"It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders...."
Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question. .
The what? Good luck with making it a doorstep issue, especially as we've all just promised to keep matters as they are, only more so.
And I'd like to believe that the issue will be closed down by a No tomorrow, but frankly I doubt it.
True I suspect, it is not a great one on the doorstep, but how is it right I in Cardiff get a more valuable vote than someone from Bristol just a stone's throw away. I get a say on Bristol schools, NHS, etc whereas someone there gets no effective say in my NHS, or schools. If we start devolving serious tax powers too to Scotland it gets even worse.
Isn't Ed standing on "fairness" and "standing up to vested interest"?
@BethRigby: Paddy Power says 3 out of 4 cities look set to vote No. Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen odds moving to No. Dundee likely to go Yes #scotref
How the F do they know about regional changes?
I'd like to believe it's true as if Glasgae, Edinboro and Aberdeen all go NO then NO must very likely win.
But I am deeply suspicious of their info. Who or what is their source?
Maybe Beth Rigby doesn't understand betting either. It looks like she's noted the change in prices and thinks they're making a prediction, rather than responding to the market.
Having the pubs open all night for the vote should seal the deal.
@SunNewsdesk: Scottish police fear mob violence on referendum night – stoked by pubs staying open 23 hours: bit.ly/YSiJBF twitter.com/SunNewsdesk/status/512230838751481856/photo/1
Whenever Alex Salmond is asked about allegations of intimidation, or instances where politicians have been heckled and threatened, he has insisted that this has been on the whole a positive and civilised campaign. But he never goes further and condemns anyone in a ‘Yes’ T-shirt who is letting the side down. Perhaps he feels he needs those activists too much, or perhaps he thinks the ‘No’ camp are sitting in a greenhouse chucking stones at the roof when they make these allegations. Perhaps he thinks that by ignoring the allegations, he can stop them gaining credence. That would be easier if so many of them hadn’t been filmed by the media thronging around politicians and campaigners.
But it’s not just a failure to condemn. It’s the language Salmond himself uses. ‘Team Scotland’ means you’re a ‘Yes’ voter in Salmond’s world. He uses the term himself. If you’re ‘No’, you’re not on ‘Team Scotland’. Your patriotism is lacking. You’re not a real Scot. He fails to condemn and encourages that dangerous identity game that lesser men than he then play on the streets.
Pong is right about Western Isles, it wouldn't be a good idea to draw any conclusions from the result there IMO. It's had an SNP MP for most of the last 45 years but some Yes campaigners don't seem to be very confident of winning. One rated it as 2/10 for Yes potential.
Is there any particular reason that Dundee is the most pro-independence of Scottish cities?
I don;t know Scotland well and don;t want an insult from Malcolm G, but Frankie Boyle likes to characterize Dundee as rather...er.....shall we say 'client state'
A scottish friend characterized yes and no to me that way the other day, with yes voters tending to be public sector or welfare and no voters private sector,
Is there any particular reason that Dundee is the most pro-independence of Scottish cities?
I don;t know Scotland well and don;t want an insult from Malcolm G, but Frankie Boyle likes to characterize Dundee as rather...er.....shall we say 'client state'
A scottish friend characterized yes and no to me that way the other day. I make no comment myself, I don;t know Scotland.
From 1974 to 1987 the only two SNP MPs were in Western Isles and Dundee East.
@BethRigby: Paddy Power says 3 out of 4 cities look set to vote No. Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen odds moving to No. Dundee likely to go Yes #scotref
How the F do they know about regional changes?
I'd like to believe it's true as if Glasgae, Edinboro and Aberdeen all go NO then NO must very likely win.
But I am deeply suspicious of their info. Who or what is their source?
Maybe Beth Rigby doesn't understand betting either. It looks like she's noted the change in prices and thinks they're making a prediction, rather than responding to the market.
How did your interview go?
I think it went well, thanks for asking and thanks to all those who wished me luck. I decided it was best not ask about what anti-money is, or how on earth one could launder such a thing! I'll know if I got the job by the end of the week..
Having the pubs open all night for the vote should seal the deal.
@SunNewsdesk: Scottish police fear mob violence on referendum night – stoked by pubs staying open 23 hours: bit.ly/YSiJBF twitter.com/SunNewsdesk/status/512230838751481856/photo/1
Wonder what their source is, as it directly contradicts what the Scottish Police Federation said......
Those of us who have served our time on PB.com know only too well what a clever old schrewdie is Ladbrokes' very own Shadsy is when it comes to judging political betting markets. It's interesting to note therefore that he's estimating the Indy result as being 45% Yes : 55% No. How might one invest in an attempt to take advantage of his expertise? One way is to bet on the percentage of Yes voters in 5% bands. Here, as regards covering the 45% - 50% band, Ladbrokes themselves offer the best odds at 5/4. Should you instead favour the adjacent 40% - 45% band, then those nice people at BETFRED will kindly oblige at odds of 11/4, slightly better than twice the price therefore of betting on the other side of the 45% mark; what a difference a vote makes!
Pong is right about Western Isles, it wouldn't be a good idea to draw any conclusions from the result there IMO. It's had an SNP MP for most of the last 45 years but some Yes campaigners don't seem to be very confident of winning. One rated it as 2/10 for Yes potential.
@BethRigby: Paddy Power says 3 out of 4 cities look set to vote No. Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen odds moving to No. Dundee likely to go Yes #scotref
Is there any particular reason that Dundee is the most pro-independence of Scottish cities?
All the bookies seem to have it on the best odds.
Dundee is a pretty remote place, has a similar feeling to Hull in some ways. The SNP have had a decent foothold in the city for a while, combined with a lack of links to other parts of Scotland/UK, and thus a greater willingness to 'go it alone' Id imagine.
Aberdeen would probably be similar were it not for the oil and prosperity.
You could quite easily put "Should the UK be an independent country" as the question referendum on leaving the EU. How on earth did they get allowed to put that on the ballot paper.
As Eck wants to join the EU IMHO "Should Scotland be an independent country" could be construed as misleading; as being an independent country is not offer, only a change from being a UK dependency to an EU dependency
Which is not a pedantic thing to say post Lisbon, now that the EU has a legal personality and can issue regulations with the force of law not just directives to member governments asking them to change their law.
Someone asked me a couple of days back on what grounds legal challenges could be made if the result was very close Yes. There is one.
Brain of Britain is on , next you will be saying Germany is not an independent country because it is in the EU, barking.
Germany is the EU (at least the eurozone bit). All countries in the eurozone get their orders from Berlin.
France, Italy , do you need any more to make you laugh louder at the cretin's suggestion
Is there any particular reason that Dundee is the most pro-independence of Scottish cities?
I don;t know Scotland well and don;t want an insult from Malcolm G, but Frankie Boyle likes to characterize Dundee as rather...er.....shall we say 'client state'
A scottish friend characterized yes and no to me that way the other day, with yes voters tending to be public sector or welfare and no voters private sector,
I make no comment myself, I don;t know Scotland.
I was last in Dundee 30 years ago as part of a football team. The wind off the North Sea in November made it rather bleak. The rest I can only remember as consisting of large volumes of 90 bob. It surprised me that decimal coinage was not yet in usage...
They will almost certainly succeed in their attempt to rejoin (unless, as you say, they renege on debt - or they decide they actually quite like being on their own (unlikely)).
It's question of how long it will take. Spanish politicians, from the PM down, are saying anything from five to eight years.
That and what terms they'll have to agree to to get all 28 existing members to sign (rebate, Schengen, VAT etc).
Rather amazingly (I think) Hollande is rated much less likely to win the next French Presidential election than his own PM (11/2 V 7/2 with Paddy Power). There has to be a good chance that his term is viewed as such a disaster that he doesnt even stand for re-election. Can you imagine the speech?
"This has been quite the f-up, hasnt it? Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."
The socialists are dead in France, they have gone into the political black hole.
When a party becomes unpopular some of its members will want to change course or change leadership. If however that party is in power then it cannot do so without the risk of an election, which will cost not only in power but in seats. So the fear of losing power and getting a kicking, trumps the good of the party. By delaying the inevitable they just make it worse and they get wiped out.
Think Tories in 1992-97.
Hollande won his confidence vote yesterday, but with a plurality not a majority, the socialists preffered to keep his government to escape early elections, but in a minority position so that's a lame duck government that is unable to do much. The socialists will not exist as a coherent party by 2017.
Comments
"Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make. It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders....
UKIP is not an angry, populist rejection of the modern world. Modernity has raised the people’s expectations of how much better things could be."
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/opinion/douglas-carswell-britains-sclerotic-politics.html?_r=1&referrer=
Given the stresses of the situation we should be a lot more understanding of Wellbeck's misses last night.
2. Yes, if its NO, Cameron wont resign.
3. Even if NO wins by a small margin as polls suggest, Cameron will take no credit since NO had been sliding for weeks until westminster panicked, there is no credit for panicked reactions.
4. If its a YES then Cameron will not remain PM even if he wanted to, the 1922 committee will finish him off with the backbench letters of no confidence.
Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman)
17/09/2014 12:55
Just been called 'scum' and told to 'f***ing get out of my way' by a no voter as I followed Yes. Will post shortly on what happened next
All you need to do now is detoxify (!) your on the ground election literature* and you will be a lot closer to being that young, visionary political party of the future.
Oh yes and you need a vision also, but I'm sure that will come.
*don't panic you are not alone in this, as is well known the LD's had (have?) some of the nastiest election literature out there.
The reason being there's a fair amount of money out there, reasonable education levels and comparatively low levels of deprivation. There's also an MOD missile firing range which employs quite a few people.
Personally, I wouldn't read much at all from the Western isles result.
http://labourlist.org/2014/09/gordon-browns-barnstorming-speech-in-defence-of-the-union/
2. If it is a No then Cameron will be seen to be a ditherer who once more has the resolve of a plate of blancmange. He was not in Scotland, then he was in Scotland then he is not in Scotland. Saying something about effing Tories which will be one of the soundbites of the campaign.
3. He will have seen off the break-up of the union with absolutely no input from him. Events will have happened to him rather than him having been a strong and decisive leader. I mean there's laissez faire and there's laissez faire. He won't be able to take credit for a clear No. That will go down to Gordo. More ammunition for the idiot wing of his backbenchers.
4. More than small chance.
Anyway the question is settled, the only positive on scottish independence is that it will never be an EU member.
Spain, Italy and Belgium will veto scottish entry for ever and ever.
Rumours on twitter that a Yes supporter has been seen lighting a cigar without removing the band.
"This has been quite the f-up, hasnt it? Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."
P.S. The Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society is also richer by fifty quid.
A 51% YES would be bigger than a 51% NO.
Who won't be on Ecks recrimination list?
And I'd like to believe that the issue will be closed down by a No tomorrow, but frankly I doubt it.
If iScotland says that's it s&d your debt then that is, to all intents and purposes, a default.
Try getting that past Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium.
All countries in the eurozone get their orders from Berlin.
Breaking: Reports of an attempted assault on a Skynews Cameraman in Aberdeen by a Yes Campaigner #indyref
http://imgur.com/cutjqbR
Agree. Certainly not an issue. Yet. Do you think it should be an issue though? What would you tell your possible future constituents? To not to worry about such things? They are not for the little people you see...
Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen odds moving to No. Dundee likely to go Yes
#scotref
They put the milk in before the tea!
Every last one of them
Are there no depths to their depravity?
UKIP, a party that believes in direct democracy and far-reaching political reform. Unlike the established political parties, UKIP is not the private property of small cliques. It is a party committed to free markets, free trade and direct democracy.
Far from being anti-immigrant, we recognize and respect the contribution that migrants make.
Has he perhaps confused UKIP with some other party?
He's still more disliked than the evil Tories
Strikingly, more people dislike Mr Miliband, 63 per cent, than dislike the other leaders. He is also less popular than the party he leads. Some 31 per cent said they like him, while 50 per cent liked Labour.
The opposite was true of the Prime Minister. Only 42 per cent liked the Conservatives, but 48 per cent liked Mr Cameron.
www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-good-in-crisis-but-out-of-touch-9737775.html
But pretty much all reporters I chatted to yesterday agreed that the level of abuse and even intimidation being meted out by some in the ‘Yes’ campaign was making this referendum a rather unpleasant experience.
And whilst I am sure both sides have been guilty, the truth - uncomfortable as it is to say it – is that most of the heckling and abuse does seem to be coming from the Nationalists."
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-16/i-have-a-confession-to-make-i-am-not-enjoying-covering-the-scottish-referendum/
All the bookies seem to have it on the best odds.
I disagree (while not being a constitutional expert).
Then again, Stephen Tierney is a constitutional expert and he expects Scotland, should it wish, to succeed in becoming an EU member (plenty of references: futureukandscotland.ac.uk/papers/independent-scotland-road-membership-european-union)
Unless of course they decide to reject their share of the debt (est: £120bn).
"It is surely reasonable that we decide who comes, and that we expect our government to control our borders...."
Isn't Ed standing on "fairness" and "standing up to vested interest"?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11101331/Nigel-Farage-accuses-Alex-Salmond-of-inciting-riots.html
So Alastair Carmichael and Johann Lamont are for NO.
Turnout over 81.5% @ 5/6 BFSB
Aberdeen NO @ 4/6 PP
Dundee NO @ 7/1 PP
I don;t know Scotland well and don;t want an insult from Malcolm G, but Frankie Boyle likes to characterize Dundee as rather...er.....shall we say 'client state'
A scottish friend characterized yes and no to me that way the other day, with yes voters tending to be public sector or welfare and no voters private sector,
I make no comment myself, I don;t know Scotland.
It's interesting to note therefore that he's estimating the Indy result as being 45% Yes : 55% No.
How might one invest in an attempt to take advantage of his expertise? One way is to bet on the percentage of Yes voters in 5% bands. Here, as regards covering the 45% - 50% band, Ladbrokes themselves offer the best odds at 5/4. Should you instead favour the adjacent 40% - 45% band, then those nice people at BETFRED will kindly oblige at odds of 11/4, slightly better than twice the price therefore of betting on the other side of the 45% mark; what a difference a vote makes!
Aberdeen would probably be similar were it not for the oil and prosperity.
Seen lots of reports of very high returns for postal votes so far, Edinburgh CC today reported 90% of postal votes returned so far.
Could this be a big indicator for the turnout markets?
When a party becomes unpopular some of its members will want to change course or change leadership. If however that party is in power then it cannot do so without the risk of an election, which will cost not only in power but in seats.
So the fear of losing power and getting a kicking, trumps the good of the party.
By delaying the inevitable they just make it worse and they get wiped out.
Think Tories in 1992-97.
Hollande won his confidence vote yesterday, but with a plurality not a majority, the socialists preffered to keep his government to escape early elections, but in a minority position so that's a lame duck government that is unable to do much. The socialists will not exist as a coherent party by 2017.