If this is anywhere near the result in Scotland a second referendum would be a necessity and if the Scots decide to go alone that should be an acceptable position and both sides waive a fond farewell to each other but grow closer together through cooperation on both sides of the new border
I don't agree. I think it would be absurd to have a second referendum straight after the last one.
If this is anywhere near the result in Scotland a second referendum would be a necessity and if the Scots decide to go alone that should be an acceptable position and both sides waive a fond farewell to each other but grow closer together through cooperation on both sides of the new border
What when England and Wales will move even closer to withdrawing from the EU and rUK will have to put up strong border controls to ensure immigrants to Scotland under Scotland's liberal immigration policy are not just using it as an access route to rUK?
And thats not even mentioning the finacial settlements.
Divorces almost invariably get messy!
It is not going to be easy but if it is the will of the Scots then it has to be respected just as an exit from Europe would have to be respected if a referendum voted to leave
I've no problem with the Scots determining their own future. i just do not think it will be the bed of roses that some others tend to portray a post Union relationship would be.....
Delighted to see it looks as though David Mundell will repel the Yessers. If Ashcroft has a TIE then he should be able to hold on.
Had SNP canvassers in my close this evening, not my door but I had a wee eavesdrop as they canvassed next door, skilled sales patter, asking questions to establish the individuals issues before they go in hard with any policy detail, then driving home the message on those issues.
The SNP have got 100k members to go out doing this. I think Mundell is toast. Murphy too. The idea that the Westminster Elite can cling on is risible.
It would not just be a wonderful thing for Salmond but a great thing for Scotland if these polls do come to pass as results. However, the whole complexion of Scottish politics since the referendum does indicate that Salmond is the smartest operator by a mile in UK public life.
He set the tone by his dignified resignation on September 19th and the Better Together bunch have been reaping the whirlwind ever since!
Will Scottish voters please think about my Scottish Tories vs The Pandas bet
Still highly winnable. Will Berwickshire go SNP or Tory though.
Mundell probably holds...
See this is a misconception.
There seems to be an idea that the Labour Party hierarchy and their vocal social media posters can issue a command and their vote will jump on for the Tories.
This isn't feasible in Scotland. Labour voters will not vote Tory. If anything, the publicity of the poll will drive Labour voters in Mundells constituency into the arms of a welcoming SNP.
This isn't West Central Scotland where Sectarianism is in play. Labour voters outside that area are not bound by allegiance to the Union/Queen/Northern Ireland.
If this is anywhere near the result in Scotland a second referendum would be a necessity and if the Scots decide to go alone that should be an acceptable position and both sides waive a fond farewell to each other but grow closer together through cooperation on both sides of the new border
I don't agree. I think it would be absurd to have a second referendum straight after the last one.
There's no evidence that the SNP would win a second referendum. The reason the SNP is clearing up is because they are the main repository for nationalist votes while the unionist vote is divided e.g. they are taking Dumfries here on 34% of the vote. If you amalgamate the parties into Nationalist (SNP+Green) and Unionist (Con+Lab+LD+UKIP) votes you get the following from these polls:
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
If this is anywhere near the result in Scotland a second referendum would be a necessity and if the Scots decide to go alone that should be an acceptable position and both sides waive a fond farewell to each other but grow closer together through cooperation on both sides of the new border
I don't agree. I think it would be absurd to have a second referendum straight after the last one.
There's no evidence that the SNP would win a second referendum. The reason the SNP is clearing up is because they are the main repository for nationalist votes while the unionist vote is divided e.g. they are taking Dumfries here on 34% of the vote. If you amalgamate the parties into Nationalist (SNP+Green) and Unionist (Con+Lab+LD+UKIP) votes you get the following from these polls:
Looking at the previous round of poll Unionists are also ahead in Airdrie, Coatbridge, Glasgow NE, Glasgow NW, Glasgow SW and Gordon
You seem to have highlighted your own erroneous analysis.
We know that Glasgow was a Yes vote. We know those constituents went out and votes Yes on a damp, grey day in September. Yet despite this demonstrable fact, you're equating SNP vote = Nationalist and non-SNP vote = Unionist.
You also don't seem to be classifying Other (which is almost entirely Green and SSP - both Independence supporting parties) in the Nationalist column even if there was merit in your analysis.
Some interesting things from the mega national poll
Which parties would you seriously consider: Lab 37 Con 35 UKIP 29 LD 22 42% think we should continue with austerity. 35% prefer Conservative government after election, 34% Labour 17% Lab/LD 14% Con/LD
@MSmithsonPB@simonblackwell I don't take his polls that seriously. He buys data from others then "interprets it". twitter.com/ayres_the_baker/status/573202020250853376
Well, quite. His piece this evening begins "Good evening and welcome. If you have ever wondered what a pollster does to celebrate his birthday, now you know." So if I sometimes travel by taxi does that make me a cabby?
If this is anywhere near the result in Scotland a second referendum would be a necessity and if the Scots decide to go alone that should be an acceptable position and both sides waive a fond farewell to each other but grow closer together through cooperation on both sides of the new border
I don't agree. I think it would be absurd to have a second referendum straight after the last one.
There's no evidence that the SNP would win a second referendum. The reason the SNP is clearing up is because they are the main repository for nationalist votes while the unionist vote is divided e.g. they are taking Dumfries here on 34% of the vote. If you amalgamate the parties into Nationalist (SNP+Green) and Unionist (Con+Lab+LD+UKIP) votes you get the following from these polls:
Looking at the previous round of poll Unionists are also ahead in Airdrie, Coatbridge, Glasgow NE, Glasgow NW, Glasgow SW and Gordon
There's also a big element of the voters giving the SNP something of a consolation prize: 'Yes, we comprehensively rejected your nationalist silliness but are prepared to grant you the next best thing: a free hand in any post-referendum devolution renegotiations.' But I suspect the SNP are still very much on probation.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
I agree that a second result could affirm the Union but the Scots would be entitled to a second referendum on these figures. As I have said before maybe David Cameron would at the very least offer full fiscal control to Holyrood, something labour would not
The SNP winneing a majority at Holyrood 2016 is a precondition to a second indyref vote.
Rather than SNP you should say Pro-Independence parties and with the Greens consistently hitting 10% in the List VI, a Pro-Indepdendence majority is pretty much guaranteed.
Although the SNP could actually hit a Majority just on FPTP seats.
If this is anywhere near the result in Scotland a second referendum would be a necessity and if the Scots decide to go alone that should be an acceptable position and both sides waive a fond farewell to each other but grow closer together through cooperation on both sides of the new border
What when England and Wales will move even closer to withdrawing from the EU and rUK will have to put up strong border controls to ensure immigrants to Scotland under Scotland's liberal immigration policy are not just using it as an access route to rUK?
And thats not even mentioning the finacial settlements.
Divorces almost invariably get messy!
It is not going to be easy but if it is the will of the Scots then it has to be respected just as an exit from Europe would have to be respected if a referendum voted to leave
No - the EU/ UK Parliament would demand a second vote and spend a few hundred million €€€€ to ensure the correct result was obtained.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
While I agree with that, and the skill of the SNP (fine, proIndy) leadership, in my fleeting moments of optimism I do try and remember that they were adamant they were going to win the IndyRef and scornfully mocking toward anyone expressing a dissenting view about it, so even discounting a certain amount of bluff and bluster on their part, a necessary part of the game, they don't call everything right.
I have said before that I think Scotland is no longer a viable member of the UK. I think the polling tonight confirms this - even without another referendum a result of this nature would potentially destroy the RUK - I think we need to let Scotland go and wish them well.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Another referendum in the space of 2-3 years would be ridiculous. I can't see Westminster agreeing to it. And why would the Scots want one unless they feel they've been duped?
The SNP winneing a majority at Holyrood 2016 is a precondition to a second indyref vote.
Rather than SNP you should say Pro-Independence parties and with the Greens consistently hitting 10% in the List VI, a Pro-Indepdendence majority is pretty much guaranteed.
Although the SNP could actually hit a Majority just on FPTP seats.
Yeah, realised my error after posting but too late to correct. Seems like people are seriously thinking about the SNP-Constituency-Green-List as a serious tactic.
I have said before that I think Scotland is no longer a viable member of the UK. I think the polling tonight confirms this - even without another referendum a result of this nature would potentially destroy the RUK - I think we need to let Scotland go and wish them well.
We can't "let them go", there's no mechanism for it. They can jump but not be pushed.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Another referendum in the space of 2-3 years would be ridiculous. I can't see Westminster agreeing to it. And why would the Scots want one unless they feel they've been duped?
You've kind of answered your own question (and that would be the only scenario for another referendum).
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Another referendum in the space of 2-3 years would be ridiculous. I can't see Westminster agreeing to it. And why would the Scots want one unless they feel they've been duped?
You've kind of answered your own question (and that would be the only scenario for another referendum).
So you're saying Scots are gullible?
Just as well you lot voted to remain under English rule, The Scots too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Another referendum in the space of 2-3 years would be ridiculous. I can't see Westminster agreeing to it. And why would the Scots want one unless they feel they've been duped?
You've kind of answered your own question (and that would be the only scenario for another referendum).
So you're saying Scots are gullible?
Just as well you lot voted to remain under English rule, The Scots too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs.
You seem a bit worked up (and tardy with the edit).
Unfortunately for your "analysis" the last three YouGov polls are showing YES in the lead for a re run!
In September 2013 they were 30 points behind, a year ago 20 points behind and on rferendum day 8 points behind all on YouGov. Now they are ahead and heading to a well merited and comprehensive rout of their unionist opponents.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Another referendum in the space of 2-3 years would be ridiculous. I can't see Westminster agreeing to it. And why would the Scots want one unless they feel they've been duped?
You've kind of answered your own question (and that would be the only scenario for another referendum).
So you're saying Scots are gullible?
Just as well you lot voted to remain under English rule, The Scots too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs.
You seem a bit worked up (and tardy with the edit).
Worked up? I'm loving it. If the polling remains as it, I'm going to be a very happy man (thanks to Antifrank)
I meant to edit out a superfluous full stop at the end of my comment and took out the final sentence.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
While I agree with that, and the skill of the SNP (fine, proIndy) leadership, in my fleeting moments of optimism I do try and remember that they were adamant they were going to win the IndyRef and scornfully mocking toward anyone expressing a dissenting view about it, so even discounting a certain amount of bluff and bluster on their part, a necessary part of the game, they don't call everything right.
It will be interesting to read what is in Salmond's book. My suspicion is that they did not expect the vehemence of the panicked attacks from Establishment in the last few days to be quite as strident and factually nonsense while still unquestioned by the media.
The BBC news led on the Deutche Bank "report" (either Cameron or Osborne's brother is their Director of Communications) three days out from the vote. I genuinely believed they under-anticipated the level of Shock and Awe particularly from the BBC.
1) so how much of this marginal poll is current and how much is mixed up from prev stuff??
2) the "tim" twitter feed is hilarious.. I remember he used to go on and on about Martin Day.. but he has morphed into a Labour Martin Day.. What larks eh!!
The SNP winneing a majority at Holyrood 2016 is a precondition to a second indyref vote.
Rather than SNP you should say Pro-Independence parties and with the Greens consistently hitting 10% in the List VI, a Pro-Indepdendence majority is pretty much guaranteed.
Although the SNP could actually hit a Majority just on FPTP seats.
Yeah, realised my error after posting but too late to correct. Seems like people are seriously thinking about the SNP-Constituency-Green-List as a serious tactic.
It's what I intend to do. Why have two votes if you don't use both of them!
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
'Clear what they stand for?' 2011 54%, 2015 33% 'Competent and capable?' 2011 47%, 2015 37% 'Shares my values?' 2011 33%, 2015 27% 'Stands for fairness?' 2011 35%, 2015 22% 'Heart in the right place?' 2011 40%, 2015 22%
No noticeable change for On the side of people like me 24%/25% Tough decisions for the long term 50%/48% Will do what they say 26%/26%
1) so how much of this marginal poll is current and how much is mixed up from prev stuff??
2) the "tim" twitter feed is hilarious.. I remember he used to go on and on about Martin Day.. but he has morphed into a Labour Martin Day.. What larks eh!!
Martin was a bit crackers; 'tim' is proper mental, unhinged even.
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
Hmm, obviously he keeps shifting position in order to ensure the debates don't happen while trying not to be blamed for it on account of cowardice (and surely the broadcasters won't like the idea of not getting their own exclusive debate to broadcast), but I'm really unclear what his problem with the format that was eventually proposed was - he got other left wing and regional parties who will potentially harm Labour's chances more than his involved, and a head to head with Ed M which though I don't think he would win as easily as many might think, would still be expected to work in his favour.
What was the problem with that from his perspective?
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Another referendum in the space of 2-3 years would be ridiculous. I can't see Westminster agreeing to it. And why would the Scots want one unless they feel they've been duped?
You've kind of answered your own question (and that would be the only scenario for another referendum).
So you're saying Scots are gullible?
Just as well you lot voted to remain under English rule, The Scots too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs.
Is that clever or funny? Or is it a bit like saying that Uk muslims are all jihadi child-molesters?
I doubt if Salmond will pull many punches. It maybe a political biog well worth a read. In any case Salmond's political achievements in breaking Labour's 50 year stranglehold of Scottish poltics, winning an overall majority in a PR system and then giving the estbalishment the fright of their lives in the indyref outclass anything at Westminster certainly since Blair and Salmond didn't start wars!
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Another referendum in the space of 2-3 years would be ridiculous. I can't see Westminster agreeing to it. And why would the Scots want one unless they feel they've been duped?
You've kind of answered your own question (and that would be the only scenario for another referendum).
So you're saying Scots are gullible?
Just as well you lot voted to remain under English rule, The Scots too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs.
Is that clever or funny? Or is it a bit like saying that Uk muslims are all jihadi child-molesters?
It is a pastiche of the Nats, they kept on telling us the Unionist parties said Scots were too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs. I asked who said that, and all I got was silence.
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
Hmm, obviously he keeps shifting position in order to ensure the debates don't happen while trying not to be blamed for it on account of cowardice (and surely the broadcasters won't like the idea of not getting their own exclusive debate to broadcast), but I'm really unclear what his problem with the format that was eventually proposed was - he got other left wing and regional parties who will potentially harm Labour's chances more than his involved, and a head to head with Ed M which though I don't think he would win as easily as many might think, would still be expected to work in his favour.
What was the problem with that from his perspective?
I think part of the problem was too many debates and too close to the election.
They would have dominated the campaign, it was just too much.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Another referendum in the space of 2-3 years would be ridiculous. I can't see Westminster agreeing to it. And why would the Scots want one unless they feel they've been duped?
You've kind of answered your own question (and that would be the only scenario for another referendum).
So you're saying Scots are gullible?
Just as well you lot voted to remain under English rule, The Scots too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs.
You seem a bit worked up (and tardy with the edit).
Worked up? I'm loving it. If the polling remains as it, I'm going to be a very happy man (thanks to Antifrank)
I meant to edit out a superfluous full stop at the end of my comment and took out the final sentence.
I've added it back.
Glad to see your unionism is only skin deep. Profit rules!
If it all pans out Antifrank should certainly be chief contender for TOTY, certain predecessors being so flabby and behind the curve.
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
Hmm, obviously he keeps shifting position in order to ensure the debates don't happen while trying not to be blamed for it on account of cowardice (and surely the broadcasters won't like the idea of not getting their own exclusive debate to broadcast), but I'm really unclear what his problem with the format that was eventually proposed was - he got other left wing and regional parties who will potentially harm Labour's chances more than his involved, and a head to head with Ed M which though I don't think he would win as easily as many might think, would still be expected to work in his favour.
What was the problem with that from his perspective?
I think he thinks he has nothing to gain from a debate (he leads Milliband), and could potentially lose.
IMHO, the broadcasters ought to stage the debate with the chicken standing in for Cameron.
I have said before that I think Scotland is no longer a viable member of the UK. I think the polling tonight confirms this - even without another referendum a result of this nature would potentially destroy the RUK - I think we need to let Scotland go and wish them well.
We can't "let them go", there's no mechanism for it. They can jump but not be pushed.
Well - ok - then we need a new constitutional settlement with maybe a Federal UK - I suspect the Scots would go for that. Either way - a one party Scotland destroys the essence of the Union - it simply could not stand the strain for long.
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
He's going to overdo it. I mean he has to realise that he personally can't say no in the end, it has to be that somebody else pulls the plug, and he has already gone from having to have to get blasted by Bland and Clegg from the left and NWA from the right, to it being a messy 7 way where nobody will win, and now even the tv companies are willing to move things around for him.
By the fairly piss poor way Cameron's negotiations normally go, he has so far done very well. If he can't hold his own in a couple of 7 way debates and avoid getting beat up by Miliband does he really deserve to be in No 10. I reckon I could manage the above task at hand.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Another referendum in the space of 2-3 years would be ridiculous. I can't see Westminster agreeing to it. And why would the Scots want one unless they feel they've been duped?
You've kind of answered your own question (and that would be the only scenario for another referendum).
So you're saying Scots are gullible?
Just as well you lot voted to remain under English rule, The Scots too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs.
You seem a bit worked up (and tardy with the edit).
Worked up? I'm loving it. If the polling remains as it, I'm going to be a very happy man (thanks to Antifrank)
I meant to edit out a superfluous full stop at the end of my comment and took out the final sentence.
I've added it back.
Glad to see your unionism is only skin deep. Profit rules!
If it all pans out Antifrank should certainly be chief contender for TOTY, certain predecessors being so flabby and behind the curve.
Scotland has been a very profitable area in recent years.
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
Hmm, obviouslyk, would still be expected to work in his favour.
What was the problem with that from his perspective?
I think part of the problem was too many debates and too close to the election.
They would have dominated the campaign, it was just too much.
That doesn't strike me as a very convincing reason for Cameron to be so cold over them, particularly given the broadcasters bent over backwards to try to accommodate his previous demands. Three debates is hardly onerous, and they would only dominate the campaigns if the parties know their campaigns were going to be even crapper than usual.
Regardless, even if he does personally think there were too many and they would dominate the campaign in a way which he does not like, the format that was proposed would have been to his benefit as much as could be had it seems, and a single debate, or him being empty chaired, seems to have less potential to benefit him.
It is inconceivable to me that an arch political animal like Cameron would take a stand on principle over a campaigning issue (I do believe he can and has done so on proper policy issues), so I can only presume he sees more potential benefit from having none or just attending the one (whether it be the only one or not), but at present I don't see how that is better for him than what was proposed previously, hence my confusion. What actual advantage for himself does he think he is getting by messing with the broadcaster's' plans further? Because there is no way, none, that he is not doing it because he thinks it will advantage himself.
At present the only clear thing I get from this is that Cameron sees no advantage to himself taking Ed M on one on one (seen often enough week to week anyway, not enough additional benefit perhaps?) or maximising himself taking on the others. Lack of confidence or acknowledging what positives he does have on the Tory vote will not be enhanced in such a scenario?
I have said before that I think Scotland is no longer a viable member of the UK. I think the polling tonight confirms this - even without another referendum a result of this nature would potentially destroy the RUK - I think we need to let Scotland go and wish them well.
We can't "let them go", there's no mechanism for it. They can jump but not be pushed.
Well - ok - then we need a new constitutional settlement with maybe a Federal UK - I suspect the Scots would go for that. Either way - a one party Scotland destroys the essence of the Union - it simply could not stand the strain for long.
Quite. I've not been a fan of a FederalUK myself, but it seems like the only thing that might keep things together, but personally it feels like it's too late, we've been overtaken by events.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Another referendum in the space of 2-3 years would be ridiculous. I can't see Westminster agreeing to it. And why would the Scots want one unless they feel they've been duped?
You've kind of answered your own question (and that would be the only scenario for another referendum).
So you're saying Scots are gullible?
Just as well you lot voted to remain under English rule, The Scots too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs.
You seem a bit worked up (and tardy with the edit).
Worked up? I'm loving it. If the polling remains as it, I'm going to be a very happy man (thanks to Antifrank)
I meant to edit out a superfluous full stop at the end of my comment and took out the final sentence.
I've added it back.
Glad to see your unionism is only skin deep. Profit rules!
If it all pans out Antifrank should certainly be chief contender for TOTY, certain predecessors being so flabby and behind the curve.
It is a pastiche of the Nats, they kept on telling us the Unionist parties said Scots were too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs. I asked who said that, and all I got was silence.
Johann Lamont said Scots were "not genetically programmed to make political decisions".
I have said before that I think Scotland is no longer a viable member of the UK. I think the polling tonight confirms this - even without another referendum a result of this nature would potentially destroy the RUK - I think we need to let Scotland go and wish them well.
We can't "let them go", there's no mechanism for it. They can jump but not be pushed.
Well - ok - then we need a new constitutional settlement with maybe a Federal UK - I suspect the Scots would go for that. Either way - a one party Scotland destroys the essence of the Union - it simply could not stand the strain for long.
Quite. I've not been a fan of a FederalUK myself, but it seems like the only thing that might keep things together, but personally it feels like it's too late, we've been overtaken by events.
A federal solution would be... well no solution. There is no federal arrangement that would be able to satisfy both the aspirations of the minority - the Scots, Welsh and N.Irish - and the possible will of the overwhelming majority - the English.
Take the most obvious example to start with. If there were a majority in England to leave the EU as expressed either through a referendum or through the electoral mandate given to a committed anti-EU party, how would you reconcile that with the apparent firm will of the Scots to stay in the EU?
It is a pastiche of the Nats, they kept on telling us the Unionist parties said Scots were too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs. I asked who said that, and all I got was silence.
Johann Lamont said Scots were "not genetically programmed to make political decisions".
Labour ran on the slogan of "Break up Britian, Scotland goes Broke" in 2005.
BigGNorthWales Not necessarily at all, after the 1980 referendum the Quebec nationalists won a majority and there was not another referendum for 15 years. In the 1993 Canadian general election the Quebec nationalists won over 50 seats and 49% and still lost the 1995 referendum
Given the skill of their leadership and the well-oiled machine at their disposal, I'm sure the SNP are well aware of any potential comparisons with Quebec (and differences).
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Another referendum in the space of 2-3 years would be ridiculous. I can't see Westminster agreeing to it. And why would the Scots want one unless they feel they've been duped?
You've kind of answered your own question (and that would be the only scenario for another referendum).
So you're saying Scots are gullible?
Just as well you lot voted to remain under English rule, The Scots too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs.
Is that clever or funny? Or is it a bit like saying that Uk muslims are all jihadi child-molesters?
It is a pastiche of the Nats, they kept on telling us the Unionist parties said Scots were too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs. I asked who said that, and all I got was silence.
I never took it as anything other than a summary of the case against them, not a direct quotation. A Unionist would've said "small".
I have said before that I think Scotland is no longer a viable member of the UK. I think the polling tonight confirms this - even without another referendum a result of this nature would potentially destroy the RUK - I think we need to let Scotland go and wish them well.
We can't "let them go", there's no mechanism for it. They can jump but not be pushed.
Well - ok - then we need a new constitutional settlement with maybe a Federal UK - I suspect the Scots would go for that. Either way - a one party Scotland destroys the essence of the Union - it simply could not stand the strain for long.
Quite. I've not been a fan of a FederalUK myself, but it seems like the only thing that might keep things together, but personally it feels like it's too late, we've been overtaken by events.
A federal solution would be... well no solution. There is no federal arrangement that would be able to satisfy both the aspirations of the minority - the Scots, Welsh and N.Irish - and the possible will of the overwhelming majority - the English.
Take the most obvious example to start with. If there were a majority in England to leave the EU as expressed either through a referendum or through the electoral mandate given to a committed anti-EU party, how would you reconcile that with the apparent firm will of the Scots to stay in the EU?
Just one reason I've not been a fan of the idea - but as pessimistic as I am, I just hope someone can come up with some miracle solution that would reconcile the problems that abound with it, as it seems like it has more potential at least (if probably not enough). I've not seen one yet, and time is running out, if it hasn't already, alas.
So it's confirmed, no Unionist ever said "Scots are too wee, too poor, too stupid"
No on ever said they did. As Ishmael said it was a condensed version of the argument.
Or rather a condensed version of the opposing side's interpretation of the argument - standard political language tactics from any party really. 'SideA literally said X, but we, SideB, are telling you that X really means Y, where Y is a much harsher and without context and ungenerous interpretation of what X might mean'
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
Hmm, obviously he keeps shifting position in order to ensure the debates don't happen while trying not to be blamed for it on account of cowardice (and surely the broadcasters won't like the idea of not getting their own exclusive debate to broadcast), but I'm really unclear what his problem with the format that was eventually proposed was - he got other left wing and regional parties who will potentially harm Labour's chances more than his involved, and a head to head with Ed M which though I don't think he would win as easily as many might think, would still be expected to work in his favour.
What was the problem with that from his perspective?
The broadcasters should have taken a firmer line from the start.
They should have set out a series of debates that would be considered reasonable - a 2/3/7 or 2/4/7 structure - and then invited the parties to take part. That would surely have satisfied the rules on fairness (with perhaps the only argument being between a 2/3/7 as the Lib Dems have more seats and are in Government and a 2/4/7 given that UKIP are polling twice as much as the Lib Dems)
Any party that didn't take part would do so at their own risk. No need for anything as dramatic as empty chairing just making clear throughout the programme that they were invited but chose not to be involved.
It is a pastiche of the Nats, they kept on telling us the Unionist parties said Scots were too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs. I asked who said that, and all I got was silence.
Johann Lamont said Scots were "not genetically programmed to make political decisions".
Labour ran on the slogan of "Break up Britian, Scotland goes Broke" in 2005.
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
Hmm, obviously he keeps shifting position in order to ensure the debates don't happen while trying not to be blamed for it on account of cowardice (and surely the broadcasters won't like the idea of not getting their own exclusive debate to broadcast), but I'm really unclear what his problem with the format that was eventually proposed was - he got other left wing and regional parties who will potentially harm Labour's chances more than his involved, and a head to head with Ed M which though I don't think he would win as easily as many might think, would still be expected to work in his favour.
What was the problem with that from his perspective?
The broadcasters should have taken a firmer line from the start.
Yes, in an attempt to get as many people as possible on board so they can have the most exciting spectacle possible, they allowed those opposed to the idea to seize the opportunity to scupper the whole thing. Like a lion tamer not using their whip or any other techniques to get the damn thing to participate and having it just wander off.
So it's confirmed, no Unionist ever said "Scots are too wee, too poor, too stupid"
My understanding is that it was the SNP themselves - specifically John Swinney - who invented the phrase to characterise the way the unionists regarded Scotland.
It is a pastiche of the Nats, they kept on telling us the Unionist parties said Scots were too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs. I asked who said that, and all I got was silence.
Johann Lamont said Scots were "not genetically programmed to make political decisions".
Labour ran on the slogan of "Break up Britian, Scotland goes Broke" in 2005.
So that covers Too Stupid and Too Poor.
Do you have a link for this? The only two links I see on google are you talking about it!
It is a pastiche of the Nats, they kept on telling us the Unionist parties said Scots were too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs. I asked who said that, and all I got was silence.
Johann Lamont said Scots were "not genetically programmed to make political decisions".
Labour ran on the slogan of "Break up Britian, Scotland goes Broke" in 2005.
So that covers Too Stupid and Too Poor.
Pooling and Sharing pretty much covers "Too Wee".
Nah, Oooling and Sharing is still too poor. To wee was all the no voice in the world stuff.
So it's confirmed, no Unionist ever said "Scots are too wee, too poor, too stupid"
From a cursory Gurgle:
"Mr Swinney said Labour and the Tories believed that those living in Scotland were incapable of running their own country.
"They are terrified of the idea that the lives of millions of Scots would be improved if control of Scottish resources were in Scottish hands," he said.
"And that is why they will always run down the Scots - why they will always say we are too stupid and too poor to be trusted to run the affairs of our own country.
"And that is why it is essential that we have a party that says precisely the opposite."
Ashcroft together with recent polls gives firm evidence Tories are likely to be most seats IMHO. Therefore a buy on the Tories on the Betfair most seats market looks interesting at 1.60.
Well I'll be off, these polls are depressing as all hell if only because it naturally leads to talking about the death of the Union that will result, so I don't think I have the energy anymore to fight even tiny rhetorical internet arguments about how, for example, better together does not mean one side would be too wee or poor, even if some idiot could be found who had said it and meant it, or even put up a case anymore. The proIndy's beat me mentally long ago.
Better to have another quick referendum so the Scots can make the choice they clearly want to make if they are planning to give such a huge mandate to the party who's overriding goal is independence, and the lackluster support for the union given the failure of the success of the No side to translate in to any pro union sentiment, better that than drag it out even longer, potentially screwing over the other Home nations in an attempt to keep things together.
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
I think this shows some of the problem for constituency polls. Even if they are balanced and reliable they tend to go out of date fairly quickly and reflect the national polling at the time they have taken.
Since most of these polls were taken there has clearly been a movement in favour of the Tories and, to a lesser extent, Labour from the smaller parties. It is very likely the tories are now ahead in the Tory/Lab marginals where the lead is all of 1% but the reality is that the guesswork grows by the day with these polls and they all too soon tell us very little at all.
Will Scottish voters please think about my Scottish Tories vs The Pandas bet
Still highly winnable. Will Berwickshire go SNP or Tory though.
Mundell probably holds...
See this is a misconception.
There seems to be an idea that the Labour Party hierarchy and their vocal social media posters can issue a command and their vote will jump on for the Tories.
This isn't feasible in Scotland. Labour voters will not vote Tory. If anything, the publicity of the poll will drive Labour voters in Mundells constituency into the arms of a welcoming SNP.
This isn't West Central Scotland where Sectarianism is in play. Labour voters outside that area are not bound by allegiance to the Union/Queen/Northern Ireland.
No, it's the rural, conservative Borders, which overwhelmingly voted No at the referendum.
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
Hmm. So the gordon brown factor in Kirkcaldy was about 8%. I had overestimated his local popularity slightly.
Edinburgh South West is the real shock of the polls - the SNP @ 40% vs Lab 27% & Con 19%
SLAB might as well give up and go home.
Edinburgh South West was 38% Yes at the referendum Edinburgh North & Leith was 40% Yes and at longer SNP odds to Edinburgh South West
That's what I found so astonishing. Based on the westminster constituency yes % breakdown, I was fairly confident that Edinburgh SW would underwhelm SNP expectations - Especially given the fairly low levels of deprivation.
I had the more affluent labour seats with decent majorities, like Edinburgh S, W & SW & East renfrewshire as *difficult* for the SNP to breach 30%. How wrong was I...
Comments
Lab 1% lead.
The SNP have got 100k members to go out doing this. I think Mundell is toast. Murphy too. The idea that the Westminster Elite can cling on is risible.
It would not just be a wonderful thing for Salmond but a great thing for Scotland if these polls do come to pass as results. However, the whole complexion of Scottish politics since the referendum does indicate that Salmond is the smartest operator by a mile in UK public life.
He set the tone by his dignified resignation on September 19th and the Better Together bunch have been reaping the whirlwind ever since!
There seems to be an idea that the Labour Party hierarchy and their vocal social media posters can issue a command and their vote will jump on for the Tories.
This isn't feasible in Scotland. Labour voters will not vote Tory. If anything, the publicity of the poll will drive Labour voters in Mundells constituency into the arms of a welcoming SNP.
This isn't West Central Scotland where Sectarianism is in play. Labour voters outside that area are not bound by allegiance to the Union/Queen/Northern Ireland.
Dumfries - Nationalist 36%, Unionist 64%
Aberdeenshire W - Nationalist 41%, Unionist 58%
Ayr - Nationalist 42%, Unionist 57%
Dumfriesshire etc - Nationalist 36%, Unionist 63%
Edinburgh SW - Nationalist 47%, Unionist 54%
Renfrewshire E - Nationalist 36%, Unionist 63%
Ross - Nationalist 45%, Unionist 55%
Kirkcaldy - Nationalist 48%, Unionist 52%
Looking at the previous round of poll Unionists are also ahead in Airdrie, Coatbridge, Glasgow NE, Glasgow NW, Glasgow SW and Gordon
George Eaton @georgeeaton 9 mins9 minutes ago
SNP surge is arguably most significant development in British party politics in post-45 era.
We know that Glasgow was a Yes vote. We know those constituents went out and votes Yes on a damp, grey day in September. Yet despite this demonstrable fact, you're equating SNP vote = Nationalist and non-SNP vote = Unionist.
You also don't seem to be classifying Other (which is almost entirely Green and SSP - both Independence supporting parties) in the Nationalist column even if there was merit in your analysis.
Which parties would you seriously consider: Lab 37 Con 35 UKIP 29 LD 22
42% think we should continue with austerity.
35% prefer Conservative government after election, 34% Labour 17% Lab/LD 14% Con/LD
twitter.com/ayres_the_baker/status/573202020250853376
Well, quite. His piece this evening begins "Good evening and welcome. If you have ever wondered what a pollster does to celebrate his birthday, now you know." So if I sometimes travel by taxi does that make me a cabby?
They won't wait 15 years for the second referendum. 2017 or 2018 is likely.
I'm surprised there is no market for this yet other than Paddy Power's rather wide range of bands. Before 2024 at 9/4 is not the sort of odds I'd get on at.
Although the SNP could actually hit a Majority just on FPTP seats.
"To Sir with Love" on the box. The East End is a bit different now!
Just as well you lot voted to remain under English rule, The Scots too wee, too poor, too stupid to run their own affairs.
(and tardy with the edit).
Oh, nice re-edit.
Well played sir!
Edinburgh South West is the real shock of the polls - the SNP @ 40% vs Lab 27% & Con 19%
SLAB might as well give up and go home.
Unfortunately for your "analysis" the last three YouGov polls are showing YES in the lead for a re run!
In September 2013 they were 30 points behind, a year ago 20 points behind and on rferendum day 8 points behind all on YouGov. Now they are ahead and heading to a well merited and comprehensive rout of their unionist opponents.
I meant to edit out a superfluous full stop at the end of my comment and took out the final sentence.
I've added it back.
The BBC news led on the Deutche Bank "report" (either Cameron or Osborne's brother is their Director of Communications) three days out from the vote. I genuinely believed they under-anticipated the level of Shock and Awe particularly from the BBC.
2) the "tim" twitter feed is hilarious.. I remember he used to go on and on about Martin Day.. but he has morphed into a Labour Martin Day.. What larks eh!!
David Cameron issues TV debate ultimatum
David Cameron has issued an ultimatum to the broadcasters over the TV debates, saying he will only take part in one contest featuring at least seven party leaders
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11450542/David-Cameron-issues-TV-debate-ultimatum.html
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MAA-4-March-presentation-for-website.pdf
The Conservatives have declined on most measures.
'Clear what they stand for?' 2011 54%, 2015 33%
'Competent and capable?' 2011 47%, 2015 37%
'Shares my values?' 2011 33%, 2015 27%
'Stands for fairness?' 2011 35%, 2015 22%
'Heart in the right place?' 2011 40%, 2015 22%
No noticeable change for
On the side of people like me 24%/25%
Tough decisions for the long term 50%/48%
Will do what they say 26%/26%
What was the problem with that from his perspective?
I doubt if Salmond will pull many punches. It maybe a political biog well worth a read. In any case Salmond's political achievements in breaking Labour's 50 year stranglehold of Scottish poltics, winning an overall majority in a PR system and then giving the estbalishment the fright of their lives in the indyref outclass anything at Westminster certainly since Blair and Salmond didn't start wars!
I think part of the problem was too many debates and too close to the election.
They would have dominated the campaign, it was just too much.
One seven-way seems like fun.
If it all pans out Antifrank should certainly be chief contender for TOTY, certain predecessors being so flabby and behind the curve.
IMHO, the broadcasters ought to stage the debate with the chicken standing in for Cameron.
By the fairly piss poor way Cameron's negotiations normally go, he has so far done very well. If he can't hold his own in a couple of 7 way debates and avoid getting beat up by Miliband does he really deserve to be in No 10. I reckon I could manage the above task at hand.
The Indyref was profitable, ditto 2011.
Regardless, even if he does personally think there were too many and they would dominate the campaign in a way which he does not like, the format that was proposed would have been to his benefit as much as could be had it seems, and a single debate, or him being empty chaired, seems to have less potential to benefit him.
It is inconceivable to me that an arch political animal like Cameron would take a stand on principle over a campaigning issue (I do believe he can and has done so on proper policy issues), so I can only presume he sees more potential benefit from having none or just attending the one (whether it be the only one or not), but at present I don't see how that is better for him than what was proposed previously, hence my confusion. What actual advantage for himself does he think he is getting by messing with the broadcaster's' plans further? Because there is no way, none, that he is not doing it because he thinks it will advantage himself.
At present the only clear thing I get from this is that Cameron sees no advantage to himself taking Ed M on one on one (seen often enough week to week anyway, not enough additional benefit perhaps?) or maximising himself taking on the others. Lack of confidence or acknowledging what positives he does have on the Tory vote will not be enhanced in such a scenario?
Edinburgh North & Leith was 40% Yes and at longer SNP odds to Edinburgh South West
Take the most obvious example to start with. If there were a majority in England to leave the EU as expressed either through a referendum or through the electoral mandate given to a committed anti-EU party, how would you reconcile that with the apparent firm will of the Scots to stay in the EU?
So that covers Too Stupid and Too Poor.
They should have set out a series of debates that would be considered reasonable - a 2/3/7 or 2/4/7 structure - and then invited the parties to take part. That would surely have satisfied the rules on fairness (with perhaps the only argument being between a 2/3/7 as the Lib Dems have more seats and are in Government and a 2/4/7 given that UKIP are polling twice as much as the Lib Dems)
Any party that didn't take part would do so at their own risk. No need for anything as dramatic as empty chairing just making clear throughout the programme that they were invited but chose not to be involved.
"Mr Swinney said Labour and the Tories believed that those living in Scotland were incapable of running their own country.
"They are terrified of the idea that the lives of millions of Scots would be improved if control of Scottish resources were in Scottish hands," he said.
"And that is why they will always run down the Scots - why they will always say we are too stupid and too poor to be trusted to run the affairs of our own country.
"And that is why it is essential that we have a party that says precisely the opposite."
John Swinney, 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1198681.stm
A rhetorical summary of his opponents' case, which I thought was what everyone thought anyway.
The percentage that have definitely decided their vote is highest in Scotland (89%).
"All the Asians are sitting in one corner, all the white people are on Radio 1 and all the black people are on 1Xtra," he said.
"That is not diversity, that is silos."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31731397
Better to have another quick referendum so the Scots can make the choice they clearly want to make if they are planning to give such a huge mandate to the party who's overriding goal is independence, and the lackluster support for the union given the failure of the success of the No side to translate in to any pro union sentiment, better that than drag it out even longer, potentially screwing over the other Home nations in an attempt to keep things together.
Good, bleak night to all.
Since most of these polls were taken there has clearly been a movement in favour of the Tories and, to a lesser extent, Labour from the smaller parties. It is very likely the tories are now ahead in the Tory/Lab marginals where the lead is all of 1% but the reality is that the guesswork grows by the day with these polls and they all too soon tell us very little at all.
Now goes to 404 for me - it was there before.
I had the more affluent labour seats with decent majorities, like Edinburgh S, W & SW & East renfrewshire as *difficult* for the SNP to breach 30%. How wrong was I...