After spending the day in the care of very over-stretched nursing staff in the NHS,the feedback from a group of NHS patients in England is we really do want you to stay.I learnt that many Scottish farmers,many dairy, had moved into Norfolk and Suffolk in the 30s when land was relatively cheap.I met a couple of "Anglised" Scots who were passionate about it.Gordon Brown had struck a chord with them and "gone up in our estimation".An 87 year old lady who told me her family tree showed her family were involved in the Peterloo Massacre became very animated that "we mustn't throw it all away".The poor nursing staff just wanted us all to shut up!
Jeez. You take the night off to go to a nude erotic cabaret with a Weimar theme, having established that YES was going to win and economic apocalypse was assured, and you come back to find NO will probably win, and virtually nothing will change.
I've had ENOUGH.
Scotland, stop fidgeting.
Well we are debating whether Shetland and Orkney will declare independence from Scotland. That's something to laugh about, seeing the SNP fighting against independence of the Shetlands is highly humorous.
To be fair, there are arguments both ways...normally final "yes" polls in referendums on change overstates final yes result, especially in close run contests, as widely observed Quebec etc.
Interesting exception though:
"In no less than 12 out of the 16 cases the average vote for Yes (which in each case was also the change option) in the final polls was higher than was found in the ballot boxes.
"Strikingly one of the remaining four cases was the Scottish Parliament referendum in 1997, which involved two questions. The final polls (after excluding Don’t Knows) underestimated the vote for establishing a parliament by one point, while support for tax raising powers was underestimated by four points, the only case where the Yes vote was underestimated by more than the margin of error for an individual poll. By contrast, the polls overestimated Yes by more than the traditional +/- 3 margin of error in seven of the 16 referendums."
To be fair though:
"There does not seem to be a precedent for a close referendum in which the final polls underestimated the Yes vote."
The polls got the Scottish devo referendum wrong by between 1-4% depending on how you look at it; proves nothing of course, but maybe we can't call this done?
This is all propaganda bolox. This referendum campaign has seen millions chew over the issues in schools, bars, workplaces, town halls, parks, streets and so on and on. People have been engaged in politics - many of them for the first time in their lives. And the slime-bucket establishment didn't like it so they set their media dogs to craft stories out of nothing but their own febrile and repugnant imaginations.
Good morning. In less than seven hours, voters from here will join others from around Scotland. And you will be launching the largest electoral battle in the history of mankind. "Mankind." That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it's fate that today is the 18th of September, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom... Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution... but from annihilation. We are fighting for our right to live. To exist. And should we win the day, the 18th of September will no longer be known as a Scottish holiday, but as the day the world declared in one voice: "We will not go quietly into the night!" We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!"
Uncomfortable question, I know, but would anyone hazard a guess as to what proportion of the Scots are "ultras" in their hatred of the UK and the English, analogous to say Sinn Fein/IRA?
In Quebec they broke for No in the polling booth leading to an overstatement of Yes's by final polls...but...in Quebec this was the question:
"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"
That question is enough to surely make you lose the will to live. I could barely read it to the end. Alot of voters will have just marked "yes" or "no" without engaging with the question.
Tomorrow the question is:
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
That's a very different question in terms of likely emotional reaction by voters...
I don't think we can necessarily assume we will see a "Quebec effect" breaking to no in the ballot booth tomorrow.
The market seems to be pricing in the "Quebec effect" however.
I agree with your point that we should not compare Quebec. Not just for the reason you give. But also because this is 20 years later and people are more anti-establishment.
The other things in my mind are:
*in *every* previous referendum (i.e. both of them) in Scotland the Scots always went for the one that gave the maximal power. *in the 1998 Scottish referendum the polls *underestimated* the vote for change. Surely this is more relevant than Quebec? Every nation is different.
Uncomfortable question, I know, but would anyone hazard a guess as to what proportion of the Scots are "ultras" in their hatred of the UK and the English, analogous to say Sinn Fein/IRA?
Uncomfortable question, I know, but would anyone hazard a guess as to what proportion of the Scots are "ultras" in their hatred of the UK and the English, analogous to say Sinn Fein/IRA?
Uncomfortable question, I know, but would anyone hazard a guess as to what proportion of the Scots are "ultras" in their hatred of the UK and the English, analogous to say Sinn Fein/IRA?
The Scottish Sun have moved the page 3 tits to make space for a 2-page Yes ad.
They also report that the Yes campaign will provide Yes-branded taxis to take 300,000 first-time voters to the polling stations. Er, regardless of how the punters will vote. But, er, the Yessers will explain the polling process to them during the free ride.
Excuse my ignorance, but how on earth can that be lawful?? Or are the Sun making it up? And if so, why?
Howard I'm with you about signif of devo precedent; obviously 1997 a different sort of referendum with lowish turnout and less close, but the fact remains - the final polls underestimated yes by 1-4%. I don't fully understand why, but I guess the reason Yes still has a 20% chance is made up of either: a) the possibility this happens again and b) a further late swing to yes.
22-23% probability might be low to cover both these possibilities?
Arguably "yes" couldn't hope to be in a better position at this stage - within touching distance, but just behind so every possible yes voter maximally motivated to turn out and participate in a vote for "freedom" from the colonial yoke! They need this as their vote is probably softer - if they were way behind or far in front, or even just ahead, their turnout might falter. Right now, they are likely to achieve the best they can.
One other argument for yes: With the question phrased the way it is, I could see young more idealistic demographics breaking more for "yes" in the booth when compared to final polls.
The Scottish Sun have moved the page 3 tits to make space for a 2-page Yes ad.
They also report that the Yes campaign will provide Yes-branded taxis to take 300,000 first-time voters to the polling stations. Er, regardless of how the punters will vote. But, er, the Yessers will explain the polling process to them during the free ride.
Excuse my ignorance, but how on earth can that be lawful?? Or are the Sun making it up? And if so, why?
Surely "Yes" campaigners can do/say what they like to voters on the way to a polling station, as long as they don't literally walk into the polling booth with them and fill out the ballot paper for them
The Scottish Sun have moved the page 3 tits to make space for a 2-page Yes ad.
They also report that the Yes campaign will provide Yes-branded taxis to take 300,000 first-time voters to the polling stations. Er, regardless of how the punters will vote. But, er, the Yessers will explain the polling process to them during the free ride.
Excuse my ignorance, but how on earth can that be lawful?? Or are the Sun making it up? And if so, why?
The filth being printed by the gutter press about the campaign is really Goebbels-like. I mean I've seen some Yes supporters with black eyes got from the extreme right and the Orange lodge on the No side but nothing from the mainstream Yes or No campaigns. Isolated incidents where tempers spill over whereas the 99.99% majority experience is democratic flowering - a carnival of democracy.
The Scottish Sun have moved the page 3 tits to make space for a 2-page Yes ad.
They also report that the Yes campaign will provide Yes-branded taxis to take 300,000 first-time voters to the polling stations. Er, regardless of how the punters will vote. But, er, the Yessers will explain the polling process to them during the free ride.
Excuse my ignorance, but how on earth can that be lawful?? Or are the Sun making it up? And if so, why?
Free rides to polling stations have been done for donkey's years, usually on an ad hoc basis.
The Scottish Sun have moved the page 3 tits to make space for a 2-page Yes ad.
They also report that the Yes campaign will provide Yes-branded taxis to take 300,000 first-time voters to the polling stations. Er, regardless of how the punters will vote. But, er, the Yessers will explain the polling process to them during the free ride.
Excuse my ignorance, but how on earth can that be lawful?? Or are the Sun making it up? And if so, why?
Surely "Yes" campaigners can do/say what they like to voters on the way to a polling station, as long as they don't literally walk into the polling booth with them and fill out the ballot paper for them
It's unlawful to offer lifts (or anything else) to someone in return for them voting for your side. That's why they try to protect themselves by saying they'll be offering free taxi rides to people completely regardless of how they might vote. BUT they are still saying they will offer you a free lift if you agree to ride in one of their campaign vehicles and thereby help their campaign. If people hear a lot of propaganda in the car, some people might feel beholden. You can say silly them, but it is not lawful to encourage the free ride getters to feel beholden.
The Scottish Sun have moved the page 3 tits to make space for a 2-page Yes ad.
They also report that the Yes campaign will provide Yes-branded taxis to take 300,000 first-time voters to the polling stations. Er, regardless of how the punters will vote. But, er, the Yessers will explain the polling process to them during the free ride.
Excuse my ignorance, but how on earth can that be lawful?? Or are the Sun making it up? And if so, why?
It was The Sun wot won it....
Would the last person to leave Scotland please turn out the lights?
The Scottish Sun have moved the page 3 tits to make space for a 2-page Yes ad.
They also report that the Yes campaign will provide Yes-branded taxis to take 300,000 first-time voters to the polling stations. Er, regardless of how the punters will vote. But, er, the Yessers will explain the polling process to them during the free ride.
Excuse my ignorance, but how on earth can that be lawful?? Or are the Sun making it up? And if so, why?
Free rides to polling stations have been done for donkey's years, usually on an ad hoc basis.
In branded vehicles telling people outside the car how to vote?
It's unlawful to offer lifts (or anything else) to someone in return for them voting for your side. That's why they try to protect themselves by saying they'll be offering free taxi rides to people completely regardless of how they might vote. BUT they are still saying they will offer you a free lift if you agree to ride in one of their campaign vehicles and thereby help their campaign. If people hear a lot of propaganda in the car, some people might feel beholden. You can say silly them, but it is not lawful to encourage the free ride getters to feel beholden.
Whether it is lawful or not depends on the construction of the provisions of the Bribery Act 2010 and/or schedule 7 to the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013. Until you can make a reasoned argument that the practice contravenes a specific provision of those enactments, you will have difficulty in demonstrating that it is unlawful.
Tomorrow night, while the world sleeps, Scotland may be getting closer to regaining her own fish stocks, or whatever............................
"Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, Scotland will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, then an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance."
The Scottish Sun have moved the page 3 tits to make space for a 2-page Yes ad.
They also report that the Yes campaign will provide Yes-branded taxis to take 300,000 first-time voters to the polling stations. Er, regardless of how the punters will vote. But, er, the Yessers will explain the polling process to them during the free ride.
Excuse my ignorance, but how on earth can that be lawful?? Or are the Sun making it up? And if so, why?
Free rides to polling stations have been done for donkey's years, usually on an ad hoc basis.
In branded vehicles telling people outside the car how to vote?
The cars are usually strewn with banners, etc yes.
There's a polling station and inside that no campaigning allowed. And you're not allowed to block/interfere with the entrance etc. Outside of that campaigning is fair game. If you wish to carry voters to just outside the polling station in a carnival float with your logo on it 20ft high you may do so.
It's unlawful to offer lifts (or anything else) to someone in return for them voting for your side. That's why they try to protect themselves by saying they'll be offering free taxi rides to people completely regardless of how they might vote. BUT they are still saying they will offer you a free lift if you agree to ride in one of their campaign vehicles and thereby help their campaign. If people hear a lot of propaganda in the car, some people might feel beholden. You can say silly them, but it is not lawful to encourage the free ride getters to feel beholden.
Whether it is lawful or not depends on the construction of the provisions of the Bribery Act 2010 and/or schedule 7 to the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013.
Schedule 7, s12. Offence of bribery: making a gift to any person (e.g. free ride) in order to induce that person to procure or attempt to procure any outcome (e.g. helping give impression that hordes of people are riding about in Yes campaign vehicles, which is tantamount to campaigning). What do you think will happen if a punter says sure, they'd love a lift to the polling station, but only if it's in an unmarked vehicle? Maybe I'll try it, carrying a concealed videocamera?
The Scottish Sun have moved the page 3 tits to make space for a 2-page Yes ad.
They also report that the Yes campaign will provide Yes-branded taxis to take 300,000 first-time voters to the polling stations. Er, regardless of how the punters will vote. But, er, the Yessers will explain the polling process to them during the free ride.
Excuse my ignorance, but how on earth can that be lawful?? Or are the Sun making it up? And if so, why?
Free rides to polling stations have been done for donkey's years, usually on an ad hoc basis.
In branded vehicles telling people outside the car how to vote?
The cars are usually strewn with banners, etc yes.
There's a polling station and inside that no campaigning allowed. And you're not allowed to block/interfere with the entrance etc. Outside of that campaigning is fair game. If you wish to carry voters to just outside the polling station in a carnival float with your logo on it 20ft high you may do so.
Saying "we'll only give you a lift to the polling station if you help us campaign" is unlawful, on my interpretation of Schedule 7 s12.
Wifi on planes certainly makes journeys more interesting. I was posting comments earlier from 38,000 feet over Greenland. Just arrived in Boston. Trying to work out how to watch the referendum coverage while I'm here.
Just caught up with Sean T's article.I very much admire his bilious style,although I must say Paddy McGuffin beats him hands down on that score.I'm not sure about his use of the word "cretin".Here's Wiki on it reminding us that there is a serious disease relating to the lack of production of thyroxine from the thyroid gland,a moon-shaped face is a clear symptom with no energy.The opposite too much thyroxine,thryrotoxicosis,often mimics mania/amphetamine psychosis. So,in fact the people named are not "cretins" as they do not suffer from this particular disorder. I met a man today who was paralysed,at 36,from the chest down.I can assure you he is not a "cretin" either and neither am I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism
Just caught up with Sean T's article.I very much admire his bilious style,although I must say Paddy McGuffin beats him hands down on that score.I'm not sure about his use of the word "cretin".Here's Wiki on it reminding us that there is a serious disease relating to the lack of production of thyroxine from the thyroid gland,a moon-shaped face is a clear symptom with no energy.The opposite too much thyroxine,thryrotoxicosis,often mimics mania/amphetamine psychosis. So,in fact the people named are not "cretins" as they do not suffer from this particular disorder. I met a man today who was paralysed,at 36,from the chest down.I can assure you he is not a "cretin" either and neither am I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism
He's a professional writer. probably he's allowed metaphors
Just caught up with Sean T's article.I very much admire his bilious style,although I must say Paddy McGuffin beats him hands down on that score.I'm not sure about his use of the word "cretin".Here's Wiki on it reminding us that there is a serious disease relating to the lack of production of thyroxine from the thyroid gland,a moon-shaped face is a clear symptom with no energy.The opposite too much thyroxine,thryrotoxicosis,often mimics mania/amphetamine psychosis. So,in fact the people named are not "cretins" as they do not suffer from this particular disorder. I met a man today who was paralysed,at 36,from the chest down.I can assure you he is not a "cretin" either and neither am I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism
He's a professional writer. probably he's allowed metaphors
He has put himself at risk of being accused of discrimination against disabled people,of whom I am one,of being disablist. I will seek further guidance form DPAC and The Black Triangle.They will keep him on the straight and narrow.
Wait, what, five new threads in one day? How am I supposed to keep up? Can we have a sustained effort to make PB less popular, sot here will be far fewer posters and far fewer comments being written? Then I might have a chance to read through them all.
btw, when I enetered the Predikshun Competition, the wording was contradictory and/or ambiguous and/or confusing. I predicted Yes 45.68% and No 54.32%, so I put 45.68 in the box where it asked for a percentage.
Howard I'm with you about signif of devo precedent; obviously 1997 a different sort of referendum with lowish turnout and less close, but the fact remains - the final polls underestimated yes by 1-4%. I don't fully understand why, but I guess the reason Yes still has a 20% chance is made up of either: a) the possibility this happens again and b) a further late swing to yes.
22-23% probability might be low to cover both these possibilities?
Arguably "yes" couldn't hope to be in a better position at this stage - within touching distance, but just behind so every possible yes voter maximally motivated to turn out and participate in a vote for "freedom" from the colonial yoke! They need this as their vote is probably softer - if they were way behind or far in front, or even just ahead, their turnout might falter. Right now, they are likely to achieve the best they can.
One other argument for yes: With the question phrased the way it is, I could see young more idealistic demographics breaking more for "yes" in the booth when compared to final polls.
Spot on.
The 1997 devolution referendum polls underestimated the Yes vote by several points. Punters beware.
Polling places (as they're known in Scotland) are due to open in just over three hours.
I'm not sure if there are different laws on polling places for Scotland and England, but in England there is a difference between "polling station" (the actual room or building) and "polling place" (the whole grounds of the church / school etc.).
It is actually far worse than that. In 1980 it was////
"The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?"
Based on that logic, the proportion of yes votes is negatively correlated with the length of the question.
Greetings form the southern end of the Outer Hebrides. The sun has just crested the mountains on a perfect day - not a sigh of breath, not a ripple on the water.
In the Outer Hebrides.
If you ever needed a sign....this is an unusual day!
Just caught up with Sean T's article.I very much admire his bilious style,although I must say Paddy McGuffin beats him hands down on that score.I'm not sure about his use of the word "cretin".Here's Wiki on it reminding us that there is a serious disease relating to the lack of production of thyroxine from the thyroid gland,a moon-shaped face is a clear symptom with no energy.The opposite too much thyroxine,thryrotoxicosis,often mimics mania/amphetamine psychosis. So,in fact the people named are not "cretins" as they do not suffer from this particular disorder. I met a man today who was paralysed,at 36,from the chest down.I can assure you he is not a "cretin" either and neither am I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism
As ever with the English Language, you might be better off consulting a dictonary rather than a gang of political activists trying to force other to comply with their instructions.
If political stunt merchants such as DPAC and The Black Triangle wish to get upset about the standard use of the standard English language, then perhaps they need to seek some help from an English teacher.
Uncomfortable question, I know, but would anyone hazard a guess as to what proportion of the Scots are "ultras" in their hatred of the UK and the English, analogous to say Sinn Fein/IRA?
1%?
Higher?
Is there an SRA?
Let's just put it this way - the very idea is so much a joke that the name Tartan Army was gleefully adopted by the Scottish international team's footie fans.
Remind me, if the Union breaks up, who would be the Conservative and Unionist PM in charge of the Union at the time?
It's probably not going to break up, but, if it does, then Michael Ancram will be yet another Conservative spokesman from the early days of the Blair government who turned out to be absolutely right:
The Government's proposals carry within them the virus that will begin to eat away, and eventually cause to unravel, the bonds that hold the United Kingdom together. It is not written into the White Paper, but the virus is there. The proposals are the first step on the way to an independent Scotland and the break-up of the United Kingdom.
If the Conservative and Unionist PM David Cameron doesn't oversee the breakup of his Union, he will have a hell of job trying to reconcile his Party with Gordon Brown's DevoMore that ultimately saved the Union.
Embarrassing yourself again if you think "Conservative and Unionist" is making some kind of point. Wrong Union. Stick to misogyny.
To be fair, Hugh's being perfectly accurate (if from our Scottish perspective. It's called the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party up here.
The 60+ favour remaining in the Union, the 16 - 24 and 40 - 59 are split 50-50. Only the 25 - 39 age bracket is in favour of independence.
Or to put it another way, only the 60+ favour the Union.
Yes - but I was responding to a tweet above that implied that only the 60+ favoured the Union. My version is exactly the same but stating how few want independence.
Since Yes --> No = 4% and No--> Yes = 2% this is a slight advantage to the Nos. (especially as the 'polling booth' effect will tend to favour the Nos and won't be included in the polling)
I think the problem for "no" has always been that YesSNP have had the political cards stacked in their favour. No have been massively handicapped by all their best people being based in Westminster whereas the SNP big guns are camped in Holyrood. And this has been the case ever since the first wave of Holyrood politicians moved on. Understandably Holyrood is just not seen as attractive to ambitious Union supporting politicians. Even Salmond stayed away at first until he realized the value the Parliament added to the nationalist cause. It is for this reason that one might hope Brown/Darling et all carry through on their suggestion that they will stand for the Scottish Parliament.
Secondly YesSNP have had a massive advantage simply by how they were able to frame the campaign as Scotland vs Westminster, whilst convincing Westminster politicians (who are obviously mostly English) that they should keep their noses out of an "internal Scottish matter". Ultimately I think we can judge that this gave the SNP a free run and staying out (until a very late stage) was a mistake.
Ultimately i think the big problem for "NO" is that YesSNP have held all the political trump cards. Firstly they have been massively handicapped by the fact that all their big guns are based in Westminster and have been since the first wave of Holyrood politicians (Donald Dewar et al) moved on. It is not surprising that ambitious Union supporting politicians do not see Holyrood as the place to be, certainly not on a long term basis. Even Alex Salmond took some time before he saw the potential in moving to Holyrood as a massive boost to the SNP cause. It is one reason why i think Union supporters should hope that Brown, Darling etc carry through on their suggestion of standing for Holyrood at the next election.
Secondly the SNP have been able to frame the referendum debate in terms which massively favoured them in the context of the above. They have successfully pulled off the trick of framing the debate as "Scotland" vs "Westminster" whilst simultaneously convincing Westminster politicians (the majority of whom are obviously English) to keep their noses out of "Scotland's business". With hindsight giving YesSNP free run of the field of play in this way was a grave mistake only rectified in the dying days of the campaign. "No" have relied too much on a presumed natural "lobby fodder" majority for the Union and not enough on persuading people.
Comments
That's something to laugh about, seeing the SNP fighting against independence of the Shetlands is highly humorous.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/accurate-will-scottish-independence-referendum-polls/
To be fair, there are arguments both ways...normally final "yes" polls in referendums on change overstates final yes result, especially in close run contests, as widely observed Quebec etc.
Interesting exception though:
"In no less than 12 out of the 16 cases the average vote for Yes (which in each case was also the change option) in the final polls was higher than was found in the ballot boxes.
"Strikingly one of the remaining four cases was the Scottish Parliament referendum in 1997, which involved two questions. The final polls (after excluding Don’t Knows) underestimated the vote for establishing a parliament by one point, while support for tax raising powers was underestimated by four points, the only case where the Yes vote was underestimated by more than the margin of error for an individual poll. By contrast, the polls overestimated Yes by more than the traditional +/- 3 margin of error in seven of the 16 referendums."
To be fair though:
"There does not seem to be a precedent for a close referendum in which the final polls underestimated the Yes vote."
The polls got the Scottish devo referendum wrong by between 1-4% depending on how you look at it; proves nothing of course, but maybe we can't call this done?
A carnival of democracy is what has taken place.
1%?
Higher?
They also report that the Yes campaign will provide Yes-branded taxis to take 300,000 first-time voters to the polling stations. Er, regardless of how the punters will vote. But, er, the Yessers will explain the polling process to them during the free ride.
Excuse my ignorance, but how on earth can that be lawful?? Or are the Sun making it up? And if so, why?
22-23% probability might be low to cover both these possibilities?
Arguably "yes" couldn't hope to be in a better position at this stage - within touching distance, but just behind so every possible yes voter maximally motivated to turn out and participate in a vote for "freedom" from the colonial yoke! They need this as their vote is probably softer - if they were way behind or far in front, or even just ahead, their turnout might falter. Right now, they are likely to achieve the best they can.
One other argument for yes: With the question phrased the way it is, I could see young more idealistic demographics breaking more for "yes" in the booth when compared to final polls.
"It’s very exciting, very friendly. I’ve not seen any of the aggressive actions being reported in the media."
Read more:
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/09/17/foreign-correspondents-us-germany-spain-and-australia-tell-us-how-theyre-finding?
The filth being printed by the gutter press about the campaign is really Goebbels-like. I mean I've seen some Yes supporters with black eyes got from the extreme right and the Orange lodge on the No side but nothing from the mainstream Yes or No campaigns. Isolated incidents where tempers spill over whereas the 99.99% majority experience is democratic flowering - a carnival of democracy.
There's a polling station and inside that no campaigning allowed. And you're not allowed to block/interfere with the entrance etc. Outside of that campaigning is fair game. If you wish to carry voters to just outside the polling station in a carnival float with your logo on it 20ft high you may do so.
Only fools like me who is at work tonight are around.
So,in fact the people named are not "cretins" as they do not suffer from this particular disorder.
I met a man today who was paralysed,at 36,from the chest down.I can assure you he is not a "cretin" either and neither am I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism
I will seek further guidance form DPAC and The Black Triangle.They will keep him on the straight and narrow.
btw, when I enetered the Predikshun Competition, the wording was contradictory and/or ambiguous and/or confusing. I predicted Yes 45.68% and No 54.32%, so I put 45.68 in the box where it asked for a percentage.
The 1997 devolution referendum polls underestimated the Yes vote by several points. Punters beware.
In the Outer Hebrides.
If you ever needed a sign....this is an unusual day!
Cretin: "noun
1. a person suffering from cretinism.
2. a stupid, obtuse, or mentally defective person.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cretin?s=t
If political stunt merchants such as DPAC and The Black Triangle wish to get upset about the standard use of the standard English language, then perhaps they need to seek some help from an English teacher.
The 60+ favour remaining in the Union, the 16 - 24 and 40 - 59 are split 50-50. Only the 25 - 39 age bracket is in favour of independence.
Since Yes --> No = 4% and No--> Yes = 2% this is a slight advantage to the Nos. (especially as the 'polling booth' effect will tend to favour the Nos and won't be included in the polling)
Still TCTC
Secondly YesSNP have had a massive advantage simply by how they were able to frame the campaign as Scotland vs Westminster, whilst convincing Westminster politicians (who are obviously mostly English) that they should keep their noses out of an "internal Scottish matter". Ultimately I think we can judge that this gave the SNP a free run and staying out (until a very late stage) was a mistake.
Secondly the SNP have been able to frame the referendum debate in terms which massively favoured them in the context of the above. They have successfully pulled off the trick of framing the debate as "Scotland" vs "Westminster" whilst simultaneously convincing Westminster politicians (the majority of whom are obviously English) to keep their noses out of "Scotland's business". With hindsight giving YesSNP free run of the field of play in this way was a grave mistake only rectified in the dying days of the campaign. "No" have relied too much on a presumed natural "lobby fodder" majority for the Union and not enough on persuading people.