Hmm, that Express article on past referenda worldwide looks like rubbish. Independence options have been defeated in referenda in Quebec(twice), Bermuda, New Caledonia, Saba, Sint Maarten, Guam, Bonaire, French Somaliland, to name a few. They also failed to reach required majorities in others such as Nevis. Plenty that passed referenda, such as the Faroes and Western Australia, did not ultimately become independent states.
Incidentally if any cybernats try to discount the validity of a three option referendum in a survey of this sort it should be noted that a three option referendum (status quo, devomax, independence) was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum.
That is just a straightforward "untruth". It is unclear why you feel the need to tell such glaring porkies.
I've been called a liar by better men than you, and I've called them on it as well. I'd be tempted to say put up or shut up, except that if you're really now claiming that Salmond never spent a considerable amount of time trying to get a two question referendum that offered those three options (no to both questions delivers status quo, yes to one delivers independence, yes to the other delivers devomax), then it would be pointless as you're the one with issues with reality, not me.
@TUD If you frame a bet sensibly, I'd consider it for charity. I don't bet for reasons of machismo though, and I can get under 39% at 5/6 with Ladbrokes already.
You can also get 4/1 on 30-35% for Yes, your par. £50 for charity of respective choice that Yes will be 40% or more.
The medium-range forecasts now run up to Christmas Day, and give a probability of snow falling in London of ~10%, and no higher than that elsewhere, except Western Scotland and Northern coasts. This is in line with the climatological average for London and a bit lower than average elsewhere, and appears to be a much lower probability than suggested by the bookmaker's odds - probably because there's a bias among the general public to bet on a White Christmas, rather than against.
This fact sheet from the Met Office (published *before* the Christmas of 2010!), might be useful to those interested in making any bets on a White Christmas this year.
Incidentally if any cybernats try to discount the validity of a three option referendum in a survey of this sort it should be noted that a three option referendum (status quo, devomax, independence) was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum.
Link please.
To what?
I didn't think it was that complicated. A link to a statement or declaration from Salmond or the SNP that 'a three option referendum (status quo, devomax, independence) was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum'.
"However I recognise that there is a significant strand of opinion in the country which might want to consider an alternative for Scotland which lies between the status quo and outright independence.
To consider an additional referendum question which takes account of popular opinion is simply being democratic. The fact that such an option might be popular isn't a good reason for denying people the right to choose it."
Alex Salmond delivering the Hugo young lecture in Janaury 2012. I don't know why I'm borthering, i'm sure you'll accuse me of misreading, or making it up, or something.
"Alex Salmond will unveil a new option for Scotland's future when he publishes his historic white paper on an independence referendum tomorrow.
The new option – dubbed "devo-max" – would see Scotland remain part of the UK, but hand the Scottish Parliament complete control over taxation and the nation's finances.
The First Minister will tomorrow put forward four constitutional choices: the status quo; more devolution along the lines suggested by the Calman Commission; the devo max option; and full separation from the UK.
The strategy shift by Salmond will prompt claims the SNP has accepted the likelihood of defeat on independence and is preparing to settle for a beefed-up version of devolution."
"Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond has strongly indicated that there will be no third option on the independence referendum ballot. In an interview with the LA Times Mr Salmond conceded that the UK government would not allow a “devo-max” option, one which would allow Scots to opt for devolving more powers from Westminster to Holyrood.
He said: “The UK government is clearly not willing to offer devo-max or fiscal autonomy as an option. So I suspect [...] a lot’s going to depend on people who support economic powers for the [Scottish] Parliament but find that the UK government’s stopping them being able to move forward […] I think people in these circumstances would want a change.”"
Hmm, that Express article on past referenda worldwide looks like rubbish. Independence options have been defeated in referenda in Quebec(twice), Bermuda, New Caledonia, Saba, Sint Maarten, Guam, Bonaire, French Somaliland, to name a few. They also failed to reach required majorities in others such as Nevis. Plenty that passed referenda, such as the Faroes and Western Australia, did not ultimately become independent states.
Incidentally if any cybernats try to discount the validity of a three option referendum in a survey of this sort it should be noted that a three option referendum (status quo, devomax, independence) was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum.
That is just a straightforward "untruth". It is unclear why you feel the need to tell such glaring porkies.
I've been called a liar by better men than you, and I've called them on it as well. I'd be tempted to say put up or shut up, except that if you're really now claiming that Salmond never spent a considerable amount of time trying to get a two question referendum that offered those three options (no to both questions delivers status quo, yes to one delivers independence, yes to the other delivers devomax), then it would be pointless as you're the one with issues with reality, not me.
Unionist liar uses newspaper article by another Unionist liar to support his lie.
Must try harder.
(a) I'm not a unionist. (b) I'm not a liar. (c) please see reply to TUD. Is a direct quote from Salmond saying a two question referendum is the most democratic option good enough, or is he a unionist liar too?
Incidentally if any cybernats try to discount the validity of a three option referendum in a survey of this sort it should be noted that a three option referendum (status quo, devomax, independence) was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum.
Link please.
To what?
I didn't think it was that complicated. A link to a statement or declaration from Salmond or the SNP that 'a three option referendum (status quo, devomax, independence) was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum'.
"However I recognise that there is a significant strand of opinion in the country which might want to consider an alternative for Scotland which lies between the status quo and outright independence.
To consider an additional referendum question which takes account of popular opinion is simply being democratic. The fact that such an option might be popular isn't a good reason for denying people the right to choose it."
Alex Salmond delivering the Hugo young lecture in Janaury 2012. I don't know why I'm borthering, i'm sure you'll accuse me of misreading, or making it up, or something.
Salmond recognising that there is "a significant strand of opinion in the country which might want to consider an alternative for Scotland which lies between the status quo and outright independence" does not support your porkie that that "was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum".
Incidentally if any cybernats try to discount the validity of a three option referendum in a survey of this sort it should be noted that a three option referendum (status quo, devomax, independence) was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum.
Link please.
To what?
I didn't think it was that complicated. A link to a statement or declaration from Salmond or the SNP that 'a three option referendum (status quo, devomax, independence) was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum'.
"However I recognise that there is a significant strand of opinion in the country which might want to consider an alternative for Scotland which lies between the status quo and outright independence.
To consider an additional referendum question which takes account of popular opinion is simply being democratic. The fact that such an option might be popular isn't a good reason for denying people the right to choose it."
Alex Salmond delivering the Hugo young lecture in Janaury 2012. I don't know why I'm borthering, i'm sure you'll accuse me of misreading, or making it up, or something.
Salmond recognising that there is "a significant strand of opinion in the country which might want to consider an alternative for Scotland which lies between the status quo and outright independence" does not support your porkie that that "was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum".
No - Salmond fighting for it while the UK government was insisting on a straight in/out question is what does that. You're really getting desperate now, Stuart. Unless of course it's your argument that Salmond actually went against his preferred choice for the sake of opposing the UK government, which is simply juvenile.
I'd demand an apology, except I suspect you don't do decency any more than you do two question referendums.
BTW - I've just realised what is going on here - this is all a distraction to avoid having to admit that that article in the Express you linked to and that was supposed to terrify unionists was actually rubbish, isn't it?
"However I recognise that there is a significant strand of opinion in the country which might want to consider an alternative for Scotland which lies between the status quo and outright independence.
To consider an additional referendum question which takes account of popular opinion is simply being democratic. The fact that such an option might be popular isn't a good reason for denying people the right to choose it."
Alex Salmond delivering the Hugo young lecture in Janaury 2012. I don't know why I'm borthering, i'm sure you'll accuse me of misreading, or making it up, or something.
So no statement or declaration from Salmond or the SNP that 'a three option referendum (status quo, devomax, independence) was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum'. Tellingly you omit the previous sentence:
'As someone who strongly believes that independence would be preferable to enhanced devolution, I believe that the argument for independence could and would be won on a yes/no basis.'
I'll be charitable and put your clinging to this particular myth as ignorance. Polls repeatedly show that Devo whatever tends to be the preferred choice of the Scottish electorate, so Salmond is doing nothing more than stating the bleeding obvious. Perhaps even you might just be able to work out why Salmond refers to an option that's popular with a significant strand of opinion, and then makes it clear that it's Westminster and the Unionists that will not countenance them being given the chance to vote on it.
"However I recognise that there is a significant strand of opinion in the country which might want to consider an alternative for Scotland which lies between the status quo and outright independence.
To consider an additional referendum question which takes account of popular opinion is simply being democratic. The fact that such an option might be popular isn't a good reason for denying people the right to choose it."
Alex Salmond delivering the Hugo young lecture in Janaury 2012. I don't know why I'm borthering, i'm sure you'll accuse me of misreading, or making it up, or something.
So no statement or declaration from Salmond or the SNP that 'a three option referendum (status quo, devomax, independence) was actually Salmond's preferred form of referendum'. Tellingly you omit the previous sentence
Seeing as i never claimed it was a direct quote - that was your attempt at distraction - I'm not sure what I lose by not providing you one. As for omitting the previous sentence - I PROVIDED THE DAMN LINK SO YOU COULD READ IT FOR YOURSELF.
'As someone who strongly believes that independence would be preferable to enhanced devolution, I believe that the argument for independence could and would be won on a yes/no basis.'
Becaus eof course if Alex had really thought independence would likely lose therefore he needed a fall back option he would have just said that, right? If you really believe that, I've got a bridge i'd like to sell you.
,blockquote.I'll be charitable and put your clinging to this particular myth as ignorance. Polls repeatedly show that Devo whatever tends to be the preferred choice of the Scottish electorate, so Salmond is doing nothing more than stating the bleeding obvious. Perhaps even you might just be able to work out why Salmond refers to an option that's popular with a significant strand of opinion, and then makes it clear that it's Westminster and the Unionists that will not countenance them being given the chance to vote on it.
so you demand a direct quote from Salmond, and when you get one it's still not enough? Apparently the latest spin is that it was wasn't Salmond's preferred option at all, he was just heroically sacrificing his own principles in an attempt to better represent the views of the Scottish people/
Is that really what you're reduced to saying now? give me strength...
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
Not sure about referendum. But in the 2011 Scottish election, Salmond turned a 10%+ polling deficit into a 14% lead on polling day.
so you demand a direct quote from Salmond, and when you get one it's still not enough? Apparently the latest spin is that it was wasn't Salmond's preferred option at all, he was just heroically sacrificing his own principles in an attempt to better represent the views of the Scottish people/
Is that really what you're reduced to saying now? give me strength...
You should probably resist commenting on this subject, it appears not to be good for your blood pressure (and sheds no light upon it whatsoever).
That said, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see some dramatic changes in polling closer to the day. It's such a major historical event, it's not impossible that people could find themselves swept up in the moment.
Stepping back though, it's astonishing that we're even talking about the very real possibility of Scottish independence in the near future. You have to give enormous credit to the SNP for that, they're quite something.
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Good example. I stand corrected. It could be argued that most people simply didn't understand what AV meant so had no idea what they were being asked about, nonetheless that provides hope for Yessers, and reminds Unionists to avoid complacency.
The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley. Silly hubris, and embarrassing: the whole thing is overdone. A smaller, nobler, more dignified ceremony would have been infinitely superior.
That are a couple of other interpretations to that poll.
1) People eventually overwhelmingly voted to back the status quo
2) When that ICM poll was conducted, very few people knew what AV actually was, whereas with Scottish Independence they have known to some extent what Scottish Independence is all about.
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Good example. I stand corrected. It could be argued that most people simply didn't understand what AV meant so had no idea what they were being asked about, nonetheless that provides hope for Yessers, and reminds Unionists to avoid complacency.
The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley. Silly hubris, and embarrassing: the whole thing is overdone. A smaller, nobler, more dignified ceremony would have been infinitely superior.
Listening in to work on R5L this morning I got the impression that the stadium was packed, people couldn't get a ticket etc...
If you are trying to base a swingback theory on historical polling data, you need to interpret the data better!
November and December 2008 were Labour's best polling months in the whole of 2008/2009, with an average deficit of 8.5 and 4.6 points respectively. If you took December in isolation then you would postulate that there was a swing away from the government in the latters stages of the parliament!
However, the Conservative lead averaged 17.6, 15.7 and 11.6 in the three preceding months and 11.4, 14.3, 11.5, 14.9, 16.6, 14.6, 15, 15.7 and 12.8 in the first nine months of 2009. Taking the data as a whole, two things are clear: (i) there was a marked swingback to the Government from the mid-term polling; (ii) the swingback occurred well within the last 17 months.
The real question, though, is whether this tells us anything useful? I don't think it does, other than to dismiss your idea that it hasn't happened in the past. Based on average opinion polls during 2001-2005 there was very little swingback (unless, like you, one takes a very selective approach to your data). This time there could be none, or a lot, we simply don't know.
The swingback that occured in 2010 may have been influenced by a number of things, including the nature of the election campaign (in which there was a working assumption that the Conservatives would win and they were scrutinised accordingly), the Conservative's relatively poor campaign, Mandelson's very effective campaign, unwinding of some of the post-expenses polling bubble, and the innate dislike a large portion of the public have for the Tories. None of those (except, perhaps, the latter) will be exactly replicated in the next election. Instead we will have new drivers, which might, for example, include 2010 Lib Dems returning home and UKIP deflating (good for the Tories), a UKIP surge (good for Labour) and a stellar campaign by any of the big parties. We have not seen more than a glimpse of Labour's intended policies and they may be cheered to the rafters or openly heckled.
What should keep Labour awake at night is not the fear of dramatic swingback, but the slow erosion of their lead. We are still in mid-term, not campaign, mode, and their once steady double-digit lead has been steadily whittled down to mid-single figures.
I picked that time period for a like-for-like comparison, because it's where we are now. And I used whole month averages from all the top pollsters, hardly cherry picking.
Your last couple of paragraphs is the point I've been making though. "Swingback" implies that Government recovery is something that Just Happens, an iron law of Social Scientific Nature. But that simply isn't the case.
Which brings us back to the current, very settled, pollling picture. As you can't rely on "swingback" Just Automatically Happening, something is going to have to change people's minds or Ed Miliband is PM. Tractor stats on the economy might do it I suppose. But I can't see it.
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I think the '95 Quebec referendum was showing around 2-1 for No at the start of the two month campaign, and it ended up 50.8 to 49.2. At some points polling showed Yes with a 5% lead.
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Good example. I stand corrected. It could be argued that most people simply didn't understand what AV meant so had no idea what they were being asked about, nonetheless that provides hope for Yessers, and reminds Unionists to avoid complacency.
The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley. Silly hubris, and embarrassing: the whole thing is overdone. A smaller, nobler, more dignified ceremony would have been infinitely superior.
Has someone set up the "Mandela Foundation" and where do us guilty handwringers send the cheques ?
I'm actually writing a thread on polling swingback to see if it exists in the polls.
The one thing I've noticed so far is that, it isn't so much that Governments always recover, it is more a case that the Opposition ceases to be as popular as it was midway during the parliament.
I just need to upload the data into datawrapper so it is easy to explain.
Obviously the major caveat is that there's a coalition, so whether the old rules still apply is another matter.
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Good example. I stand corrected. It could be argued that most people simply didn't understand what AV meant so had no idea what they were being asked about, nonetheless that provides hope for Yessers, and reminds Unionists to avoid complacency.
The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley. Silly hubris, and embarrassing: the whole thing is overdone. A smaller, nobler, more dignified ceremony would have been infinitely superior.
That are a couple of other interpretations to that poll.
1) People eventually overwhelmingly voted to back the status quo
2) When that ICM poll was conducted, very few people knew what AV actually was, whereas with Scottish Independence they have known to some extent what Scottish Independence is all about.
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Good example. I stand corrected. It could be argued that most people simply didn't understand what AV meant so had no idea what they were being asked about, nonetheless that provides hope for Yessers, and reminds Unionists to avoid complacency.
The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley. Silly hubris, and embarrassing: the whole thing is overdone. A smaller, nobler, more dignified ceremony would have been infinitely superior.
Listening in to work on R5L this morning I got the impression that the stadium was packed, people couldn't get a ticket etc...
Has Blair shown up yet ?
But at least Mugabe just got a huge cheer.
Are you sure it wasn't Gordon getting that cheer ?
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Good example. I stand corrected. It could be argued that most people simply didn't understand what AV meant so had no idea what they were being asked about, nonetheless that provides hope for Yessers, and reminds Unionists to avoid complacency.
The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley. Silly hubris, and embarrassing: the whole thing is overdone. A smaller, nobler, more dignified ceremony would have been infinitely superior.
That are a couple of other interpretations to that poll.
1) People eventually overwhelmingly voted to back the status quo
2) When that ICM poll was conducted, very few people knew what AV actually was, whereas with Scottish Independence they have known to some extent what Scottish Independence is all about.
If I were a troll I would add
3) ICM is over rated and got it wrong
Then you'd make yourself look like an idiot.
With their final poll, ICM got the AV referendum spot on.
I'm actually writing a thread on polling swingback to see if it exists in the polls.
The one thing I've noticed so far is that, it isn't so much that Governments always recover, it is more a case that the Opposition ceases to be as popular as it was midway during the parliament.
I just need to upload the data into datawrapper so it is easy to explain.
Obviously the major caveat is that there's a coalition, so whether the old rules still apply is another matter.
Cool. Another major caveat is that polls prior to the Great Reform in the mid-90s should be largely disregarded!
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Good example. I stand corrected. It could be argued that most people simply didn't understand what AV meant so had no idea what they were being asked about, nonetheless that provides hope for Yessers, and reminds Unionists to avoid complacency.
The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley. Silly hubris, and embarrassing: the whole thing is overdone. A smaller, nobler, more dignified ceremony would have been infinitely superior.
That are a couple of other interpretations to that poll.
1) People eventually overwhelmingly voted to back the status quo
2) When that ICM poll was conducted, very few people knew what AV actually was, whereas with Scottish Independence they have known to some extent what Scottish Independence is all about.
If I were a troll I would add
3) ICM is over rated and got it wrong
Then you'd make yourself look like an idiot.
With their final poll, ICM got the AV referendum spot on.
If you are trying to base a swingback theory on historical polling data, you need to interpret the data better!
November and December 2008 were Labour's best polling months in the whole of 2008/2009, with an average deficit of 8.5 and 4.6 points respectively. If you took December in isolation then you would postulate that there was a swing away from the government in the latters stages of the parliament!
However, the Conservative lead averaged 17.6, 15.7 and 11.6 in the three preceding months and 11.4, 14.3, 11.5, 14.9, 16.6, 14.6, 15, 15.7 and 12.8 in the first nine months of 2009. Taking the data as a whole, two things are clear: (i) there was a marked swingback to the Government from the mid-term polling; (ii) the swingback occurred well within the last 17 months.
The real question, though, is whether this tells us anything useful? I don't think it does, other than to dismiss your idea that it hasn't happened in the past. Based on average opinion polls during 2001-2005 there was very little swingback (unless, like you, one takes a very selective approach to your data). This time there could be none, or a lot, we simply don't know.
The swingback that occured in 2010 may have been influenced by a number of things, including the nature of the election campaign (in which there was a working assumption that the Conservatives would win and they were scrutinised accordingly), the Conservative's relatively poor campaign, Mandelson's very effective campaign, unwinding of some of the post-expenses polling bubble, and the innate dislike a large portion of the public have for the Tories. None of those (except, perhaps, the latter) will be exactly replicated in the next election. Instead we will have new drivers, which might, for example, include 2010 Lib Dems returning home and UKIP deflating (good for the Tories), a UKIP surge (good for Labour) and a stellar campaign by any of the big parties. We have not seen more than a glimpse of Labour's intended policies and they may be cheered to the rafters or openly heckled.
What should keep Labour awake at night is not the fear of dramatic swingback, but the slow erosion of their lead. We are still in mid-term, not campaign, mode, and their once steady double-digit lead has been steadily whittled down to mid-single figures.
I picked that time period for a like-for-like comparison, because it's where we are now. And I used whole month averages from all the top pollsters, hardly cherry picking.
Your last couple of paragraphs is the point I've been making though. "Swingback" implies that Government recovery is something that Just Happens, an iron law of Social Scientific Nature. But that simply isn't the case.
Which brings us back to the current, very settled, pollling picture. As you can't rely on "swingback" Just Automatically Happening, something is going to have to change people's minds or Ed Miliband is PM. Tractor stats on the economy might do it I suppose. But I can't see it.
For 2015 there is not a modern UK equivalent that you can compare to.
The usual protest vote (or opinion poll response) party is in power. There is a new protest vote party, but it is in a different place in the Left Right spectrum. There is just one opposition party in parliament. There is no love for any traditional party, and MPs are generally unpopular. 2010 election was twisted and dominated by the financial crisis. 2010 election was between 'Established big hitters in Government' and inexperienced 'boys'
There is very little common between 2015 and the previous two elections. Guessing swingback, in a positive or negative way is pretty fraught with difficulty, if using recent historical precedents.
"Your post is far too much common sense for the clientele around here. Most of them are the pigs, or aspiring pigs, or former pigs, with their snouts firmly stuffed in the trough. They believe what they want to believe. The real world very rarely impinges their view."
I was thinking of this from Mr Dickson, Uniondivvie..
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Good example. I stand corrected. It could be argued that most people simply didn't understand what AV meant so had no idea what they were being asked about, nonetheless that provides hope for Yessers, and reminds Unionists to avoid complacency.
The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley. Silly hubris, and embarrassing: the whole thing is overdone. A smaller, nobler, more dignified ceremony would have been infinitely superior.
Has someone set up the "Mandela Foundation" and where do us guilty handwringers send the cheques ?
Am avoiding news channels like the plague.
The bits of the stadium that aren't empty, are booing and singing through the euologies.
An extraordinary embarrassment for South Africa.
That should cheer up Glasgow - their 25% of tickets unsold for the opening of Commonwealth Games ceremony doesn't look so bad now.
"Your post is far too much common sense for the clientele around here. Most of them are the pigs, or aspiring pigs, or former pigs, with their snouts firmly stuffed in the trough. They believe what they want to believe. The real world very rarely impinges their view."
I was thinking of this from Mr Dickson, Uniondivvie..
That only works if you assume that PB is a nest of Tories, and that they're synonymous with pigs. I'm constantly told that on the contrary, PB is a cornucopia of non-aligned, multifarious free thinking.
I'm watching without sound, but the vicar looks very concerned about what looks on the face of it an inappropriate time to sing and dance (the crowd behind) as the lady in the green, black and gold hat reads out a tribute (methinks)
''I'm constantly told that on the contrary, PB is a cornucopia of non-aligned, multifarious free thinking.''
I freely admit I don't understand Scottish politics one jot, but that doesn;t stop me having a hunch. My hunch is you'll win, because the no campaign can only offer the status quo. Their rhetoric is of necessity very negative, hectoring, and that puts people off.
Salmond can offer something much more positive and inspiring.
I picked that time period for a like-for-like comparison, because it's where we are now. And I used whole month averages from all the top pollsters, hardly cherry picking.
Your last couple of paragraphs is the point I've been making though. "Swingback" implies that Government recovery is something that Just Happens, an iron law of Social Scientific Nature. But that simply isn't the case.
Which brings us back to the current, very settled, pollling picture. As you can't rely on "swingback" Just Automatically Happening, something is going to have to change people's minds or Ed Miliband is PM. Tractor stats on the economy might do it I suppose. But I can't see it.
For 2015 there is not a modern UK equivalent that you can compare to.
The usual protest vote (or opinion poll response) party is in power. There is a new protest vote party, but it is in a different place in the Left Right spectrum. There is just one opposition party in parliament. There is no love for any traditional party, and MPs are generally unpopular. 2010 election was twisted and dominated by the financial crisis. 2010 election was between 'Established big hitters in Government' and inexperienced 'boys'
There is very little common between 2015 and the previous two elections. Guessing swingback, in a positive or negative way is pretty fraught with difficulty, if using recent historical precedents.
One thing I noticed from the limited data I briefly glanced at yesterday was that the beneficiaries of Late Parliament Polling Shifts* were... the Lib Dems.
The third party was squeezed mid term as the Govt/Opposition slugged it out mid term, but picked up votes as the electorate took a closer look and didn't really fancy either of them.
Make of that what you will! Good news for the Kippers perhaps...
*I hereby refuse to use the term "swingback", because it's bollox...
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Good example. I stand corrected. It could be argued that most people simply didn't understand what AV meant so had no idea what they were being asked about, nonetheless that provides hope for Yessers, and reminds Unionists to avoid complacency.
The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley. Silly hubris, and embarrassing: the whole thing is overdone. A smaller, nobler, more dignified ceremony would have been infinitely superior.
That are a couple of other interpretations to that poll.
1) People eventually overwhelmingly voted to back the status quo
2) When that ICM poll was conducted, very few people knew what AV actually was, whereas with Scottish Independence they have known to some extent what Scottish Independence is all about.
If I were a troll I would add
3) ICM is over rated and got it wrong
Then you'd make yourself look like an idiot.
With their final poll, ICM got the AV referendum spot on.
That should cheer up Glasgow - their 25% of tickets unsold for the opening of Commonwealth Games ceremony doesn't look so bad now.
It's heartwarming that you're so desperately keen to see everything that happens in Scotland fail (outwith the walls of Newco Towers of course, though they're certainly no strangers to failure).
That should cheer up Glasgow - their 25% of tickets unsold for the opening of Commonwealth Games ceremony doesn't look so bad now.
It's heartwarming that you're so desperately keen to see everything that happens in Scotland fail (outwith the walls of Newco Towers of course, though they're certainly no strangers to failure).
Cheer up - that will be the fullest that it will be all season.
''I'm constantly told that on the contrary, PB is a cornucopia of non-aligned, multifarious free thinking.''
I freely admit I don't understand Scottish politics one jot, but that doesn;t stop me having a hunch. My hunch is you'll win, because the no campaign can only offer the status quo. Their rhetoric is of necessity very negative, hectoring, and that puts people off.
Salmond can offer something much more positive and inspiring.
Well, there you go, that's certainly not your typical PB Tory view. I agree that if the campaign ever does take off into the realm of hearts and minds, the traffic will be only one way. However we may be stuck on discussing the price of supermarket mince in an independent Scotland for a while yet.
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Good example. I stand corrected. It could be argued that most people simply didn't understand what AV meant so had no idea what they were being asked about, nonetheless that provides hope for Yessers, and reminds Unionists to avoid complacency.
The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley. Silly hubris, and embarrassing: the whole thing is overdone. A smaller, nobler, more dignified ceremony would have been infinitely superior.
That are a couple of other interpretations to that poll.
1) People eventually overwhelmingly voted to back the status quo
2) When that ICM poll was conducted, very few people knew what AV actually was, whereas with Scottish Independence they have known to some extent what Scottish Independence is all about.
If I were a troll I would add
3) ICM is over rated and got it wrong
Then you'd make yourself look like an idiot.
With their final poll, ICM got the AV referendum spot on.
I'm sure you'd be praising ICM if they were showing Survationesque figures for UKIP
I wasn't knocking them, i was winding you up
I agree with the piece Lord Ashcroft wrote, I'm sure all pollsters have the aim of being the most accurate, silly to big up those whose results suit your agenda and pick holes in the ones that don't, hence I don't do it
''I'm constantly told that on the contrary, PB is a cornucopia of non-aligned, multifarious free thinking.''
I freely admit I don't understand Scottish politics one jot, but that doesn;t stop me having a hunch. My hunch is you'll win, because the no campaign can only offer the status quo. Their rhetoric is of necessity very negative, hectoring, and that puts people off.
Salmond can offer something much more positive and inspiring.
Well, there you go, that's certainly not your typical PB Tory view. I agree that if the campaign ever does take off into the realm of hearts and minds, the traffic will be only one way. However we may be stuck on discussing the price of supermarket mince in an independent Scotland for a while yet.
Yes, I can see the big supermarkets ruing that day.
One of my friends works for a major mobile phone company, and one of his roles is to look at how an independent Scotland's mobile phone will operate (particularly for those Scots with mobile contracts now)
The question of an Independent Scotland's membership of the EU is crucial to this, will determine if roaming charges will apply.
There maybe special border masts to prevent things like this happening,
Well, there you go, that's certainly not your typical PB Tory view.
I've come round to thinking that both countries would be far more prosperous apart than they are together (albeit with vastly different economic models).
I imagine Scotland would in some respects follow the Norway example, whereas England without Scottish labour MPs would become the vast free market, free booting repository for the world's excess cash that London is already.
Two very different ways to get rich, but both probably work, nonetheless.
The Catalan government is funding an event this week involving a shed load of Catalan and Valencian academics entitled "Spain against Catalonia" which, it is claimed, will be a discussion of the 300 years of oppression that Catalonia - one the richest parts of Spain - has suffered at the hands of the Spanish state. It is getting more and more unpleasant and dysfunctional down there.
If you read Spanish you can learn more about it here:
I find it utterly vile. To see somewhere you love and have spent some of the best years of your life in embracing victimhood and becoming so closed and parochial is heartbreaking. Whatever happens in Scotland next year I just hope it does not go the same way. It's getting to the point where I don't think I can go back to Catalonia.
I'm actually writing a thread on polling swingback to see if it exists in the polls.
The one thing I've noticed so far is that, it isn't so much that Governments always recover, it is more a case that the Opposition ceases to be as popular as it was midway during the parliament.
I just need to upload the data into datawrapper so it is easy to explain.
Obviously the major caveat is that there's a coalition, so whether the old rules still apply is another matter.
The next president is going to be a hard act to follow for the big set piece events.
Can you imagine Chris Christie, Hillary or one of others doing this? George W would have been interesting.
George W Bush is very popular in Africa.
There is great anticipation in Africa as the inauguration of Barack Obama draws near, but President George W Bush may turn out to have been the continent's best friend.
While Mr Bush has been severely criticised for the invasion of Iraq, his green credentials and the general deterioration of relations with the rest of the world, his African record has won considerable support.
Even normally critical voices, like the aid activist and former rock star, Bob Geldof, gives Mr Bush credit for what he has achieved.
At the top of the list is the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar), initiated in 2003.
At the time just 50,000 Africans were on anti-retroviral drugs.
Since then the US has pumped $18bn (£12bn) into fighting HIV/Aids - much of it in Africa. By 2007, 1.3 million Africans were on medication, much of it paid for by the Bush administration.
''I'm constantly told that on the contrary, PB is a cornucopia of non-aligned, multifarious free thinking.''
I freely admit I don't understand Scottish politics one jot, but that doesn;t stop me having a hunch. My hunch is you'll win, because the no campaign can only offer the status quo. Their rhetoric is of necessity very negative, hectoring, and that puts people off.
Salmond can offer something much more positive and inspiring.
Despite having no links to Scotland whatsoever and no knowledge of Scottish politics I too think - and have said on here before - that I would not be surprised if "Yes" won simply because (a) it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity so why not take it; and (b) the "No" campaign is negative and dreary and condescending to the Scots who - after all - have provided so many great contributions to British history over the years that is insulting and absurd to assume that they will turn into poverty-stricken crofters if they cut the link with the UK.
I would be a bit sorry - for sentimental reasons mainly - and there may be all sorts of unintended consequences and I particularly dislike the rather adolescent sniping at the English as if we were the source of all of Scotland's woes but there is a great deal of value in being an independent and self-determining country (as the English should know) and if that is the way the Scots vote, good luck to them.
"Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond has strongly indicated that there will be no third option on the independence referendum ballot. In an interview with the LA Times Mr Salmond conceded that the UK government would not allow a “devo-max” option, one which would allow Scots to opt for devolving more powers from Westminster to Holyrood.
He said: “The UK government is clearly not willing to offer devo-max or fiscal autonomy as an option. So I suspect [...] a lot’s going to depend on people who support economic powers for the [Scottish] Parliament but find that the UK government’s stopping them being able to move forward […] I think people in these circumstances would want a change.”"
I do not see anywhere in that where he professes that it is his preferred option. I would give up as he never ever at any time said his preference was Devo Max, he did say some people wanted that option and as he believed in democracy that it should therefore be on the table. But as usual Unionist dictators decided what options would or would not be available.
I'm actually writing a thread on polling swingback to see if it exists in the polls.
The one thing I've noticed so far is that, it isn't so much that Governments always recover, it is more a case that the Opposition ceases to be as popular as it was midway during the parliament.
I just need to upload the data into datawrapper so it is easy to explain.
Obviously the major caveat is that there's a coalition, so whether the old rules still apply is another matter.
You do spoil us
But I need to finish this piece on electoral reform first.
Whatever the outcome of the Indyref, will there be electoral reform across the (R)/(F)UK
OT: Anyone got money on Time Person of the Year 2013? Ladbrokes say money is coming in on Assad who is now 8/1 from 100/1 yesterday, but I'd be shocked if it was him. Not only have they not picked a 'baddie' for decades but he hasn't been the most influential person on the world's events for the year. I reckon Edward Snowden is a reasonable front-runner, since his actions have had such impact globally.
That should cheer up Glasgow - their 25% of tickets unsold for the opening of Commonwealth Games ceremony doesn't look so bad now.
It's heartwarming that you're so desperately keen to see everything that happens in Scotland fail (outwith the walls of Newco Towers of course, though they're certainly no strangers to failure).
''I'm constantly told that on the contrary, PB is a cornucopia of non-aligned, multifarious free thinking.''
I freely admit I don't understand Scottish politics one jot, but that doesn;t stop me having a hunch. My hunch is you'll win, because the no campaign can only offer the status quo. Their rhetoric is of necessity very negative, hectoring, and that puts people off.
Salmond can offer something much more positive and inspiring.
Well, there you go, that's certainly not your typical PB Tory view. I agree that if the campaign ever does take off into the realm of hearts and minds, the traffic will be only one way. However we may be stuck on discussing the price of supermarket mince in an independent Scotland for a while yet.
Yes, I can see the big supermarkets ruing that day.
One of my friends works for a major mobile phone company, and one of his roles is to look at how an independent Scotland's mobile phone will operate (particularly for those Scots with mobile contracts now)
The question of an Independent Scotland's membership of the EU is crucial to this, will determine if roaming charges will apply.
There maybe special border masts to prevent things like this happening,
All the major supermarkets have derided yesterdays hysteria, they have rightly said it may just as easily be cheaper as more expensive. You can bet your boots that at least one would break the mould at least once sales dropped. The unionists get ever more desperate with their scare stories.
OT: Anyone got money on Time Person of the Year 2013? Ladbrokes say money is coming in on Assad who is now 8/1 from 100/1 yesterday, but I'd be shocked if it was him. Not only have they not picked a 'baddie' for decades but he hasn't been the most influential person on the world's events for the year. I reckon Edward Snowden is a reasonable front-runner, since his actions have had such impact globally.
OT: Anyone got money on Time Person of the Year 2013? Ladbrokes say money is coming in on Assad who is now 8/1 from 100/1 yesterday, but I'd be shocked if it was him. Not only have they not picked a 'baddie' for decades but he hasn't been the most influential person on the world's events for the year. I reckon Edward Snowden is a reasonable front-runner, since his actions have had such impact globally.
Putin, if Time is brave. Sergei Lavrov if less so.
That should cheer up Glasgow - their 25% of tickets unsold for the opening of Commonwealth Games ceremony doesn't look so bad now.
It's heartwarming that you're so desperately keen to see everything that happens in Scotland fail (outwith the walls of Newco Towers of course, though they're certainly no strangers to failure).
Weren't you taught that it was rude to butt into a conversation (particularly when you have absolutely nothing to say)? Just so I can get an insight into collective Unionist psychology, do you think it would be a good thing if the opening ceremony for the Glasgow games was 25% empty?
OT: Anyone got money on Time Person of the Year 2013? Ladbrokes say money is coming in on Assad who is now 8/1 from 100/1 yesterday, but I'd be shocked if it was him. Not only have they not picked a 'baddie' for decades but he hasn't been the most influential person on the world's events for the year. I reckon Edward Snowden is a reasonable front-runner, since his actions have had such impact globally.
What about someone who set the world on a path towards a diplomatic resolution in Syria by stopping the rush to war?
Serious question for cyberNats, and others: has there ever been a referendum where one side - here, Yes - has gone on to win, despite suffering such a poll deficit, ten months out?
The Yessers are 23 points behind. That looks impossible to climb to me, not least because the polls haven't actually shifted that much in years: Yes hovers around 30-35, with occasional blips either side, No has a wider range, but hovers around 48-58 (ditto).
However, I may be wrong, there may well have been some referendum (perhaps an EU jobby?) where one side has come storming back from a 30 point deficit to triumph six months later. I am happy to be educated, if so.
I'm not a Nat but the Yes to AV Side had a 21 point lead with ICM 12 months before the AV referendum.
Good example. I stand corrected. It could be argued that most people simply didn't understand what AV meant so had no idea what they were being asked about, nonetheless that provides hope for Yessers, and reminds Unionists to avoid complacency.
The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley. Silly hubris, and embarrassing: the whole thing is overdone. A smaller, nobler, more dignified ceremony would have been infinitely superior.
Has someone set up the "Mandela Foundation" and where do us guilty handwringers send the cheques ?
Am avoiding news channels like the plague.
The bits of the stadium that aren't empty, are booing and singing through the euologies.
An extraordinary embarrassment for South Africa.
That should cheer up Glasgow - their 25% of tickets unsold for the opening of Commonwealth Games ceremony doesn't look so bad now.
Only a unionist loser would come out with something as crass as that
I don't think you get why a lot of Scots prefer to vote no, and your in danger of falling for the 'Scots are too weak, too poor etc' myth that some Scots Nats regularly use on here. File the idea of the No campaign being negative and condescending to us Scots in the same pile where its inferred that those that support staying within the Union are somehow less patriotic Scots as a result.
''I'm constantly told that on the contrary, PB is a cornucopia of non-aligned, multifarious free thinking.''
I freely admit I don't understand Scottish politics one jot, but that doesn;t stop me having a hunch. My hunch is you'll win, because the no campaign can only offer the status quo. Their rhetoric is of necessity very negative, hectoring, and that puts people off.
Salmond can offer something much more positive and inspiring.
Despite having no links to Scotland whatsoever and no knowledge of Scottish politics I too think - and have said on here before - that I would not be surprised if "Yes" won simply because (a) it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity so why not take it; and (b) the "No" campaign is negative and dreary and condescending to the Scots who - after all - have provided so many great contributions to British history over the years that is insulting and absurd to assume that they will turn into poverty-stricken crofters if they cut the link with the UK.
I would be a bit sorry - for sentimental reasons mainly - and there may be all sorts of unintended consequences and I particularly dislike the rather adolescent sniping at the English as if we were the source of all of Scotland's woes but there is a great deal of value in being an independent and self-determining country (as the English should know) and if that is the way the Scots vote, good luck to them.
That should cheer up Glasgow - their 25% of tickets unsold for the opening of Commonwealth Games ceremony doesn't look so bad now.
It's heartwarming that you're so desperately keen to see everything that happens in Scotland fail (outwith the walls of Newco Towers of course, though they're certainly no strangers to failure).
Weren't you taught that it was rude to butt into a conversation (particularly when you have absolutely nothing to say)? Just so I can get an insight into collective Unionist psychology, do you think it would be a good thing if the opening ceremony for the Glasgow games was 25% empty?
TUD, as a typical unionist she would love it , prove how great London was with their £10 billion spent as opposed to us having to self fund. They love to see Scotland failing it suits their pysche.
OT: Anyone got money on Time Person of the Year 2013? Ladbrokes say money is coming in on Assad who is now 8/1 from 100/1 yesterday, but I'd be shocked if it was him. Not only have they not picked a 'baddie' for decades but he hasn't been the most influential person on the world's events for the year. I reckon Edward Snowden is a reasonable front-runner, since his actions have had such impact globally.
What about someone who set the world on a path towards a diplomatic resolution in Syria by stopping the rush to war?
Step forward Edward Miliband!
I think Ed is still trying to find his way in the Jo'burg traffic, R0berts.
Not really the right choice for a magazine called "Time".
Comments
Must try harder.
£50 for charity of respective choice that Yes will be 40% or more.
This fact sheet from the Met Office (published *before* the Christmas of 2010!), might be useful to those interested in making any bets on a White Christmas this year.
To consider an additional referendum question which takes account of popular opinion is simply being democratic. The fact that such an option might be popular isn't a good reason for denying people the right to choose it."
Alex Salmond delivering the Hugo young lecture in Janaury 2012. I don't know why I'm borthering, i'm sure you'll accuse me of misreading, or making it up, or something.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/25/alex-salmond-hugo-young-lecture
"28 November
2009 "
"Alex Salmond will unveil a new option for Scotland's future when he publishes his historic white paper on an independence referendum tomorrow.
The new option – dubbed "devo-max" – would see Scotland remain part of the UK, but hand the Scottish Parliament complete control over taxation and the nation's finances.
The First Minister will tomorrow put forward four constitutional choices: the status quo; more devolution along the lines suggested by the Calman Commission; the devo max option; and full separation from the UK.
The strategy shift by Salmond will prompt claims the SNP has accepted the likelihood of defeat on independence and is preparing to settle for a beefed-up version of devolution."
"Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond has strongly indicated that there will be no third option on the independence referendum ballot. In an interview with the LA Times Mr Salmond conceded that the UK government would not allow a “devo-max” option, one which would allow Scots to opt for devolving more powers from Westminster to Holyrood.
He said: “The UK government is clearly not willing to offer devo-max or fiscal autonomy as an option. So I suspect [...] a lot’s going to depend on people who support economic powers for the [Scottish] Parliament but find that the UK government’s stopping them being able to move forward […] I think people in these circumstances would want a change.”"
Thought not. Can't think why.
(b) I'm not a liar.
(c) please see reply to TUD. Is a direct quote from Salmond saying a two question referendum is the most democratic option good enough, or is he a unionist liar too?
"A source said: “The First Minister has come to the conclusion that a second question is required – even if some of his ministers disagree."
I'd demand an apology, except I suspect you don't do decency any more than you do two question referendums.
BTW - I've just realised what is going on here - this is all a distraction to avoid having to admit that that article in the Express you linked to and that was supposed to terrify unionists was actually rubbish, isn't it?
'As someone who strongly believes that independence would be preferable to enhanced devolution, I believe that the argument for independence could and would be won on a yes/no basis.'
I'll be charitable and put your clinging to this particular myth as ignorance. Polls repeatedly show that Devo whatever tends to be the preferred choice of the Scottish electorate, so Salmond is doing nothing more than stating the bleeding obvious. Perhaps even you might just be able to work out why Salmond refers to an option that's popular with a significant strand of opinion, and then makes it clear that it's Westminster and the Unionists that will not countenance them being given the chance to vote on it.
,blockquote.I'll be charitable and put your clinging to this particular myth as ignorance. Polls repeatedly show that Devo whatever tends to be the preferred choice of the Scottish electorate, so Salmond is doing nothing more than stating the bleeding obvious. Perhaps even you might just be able to work out why Salmond refers to an option that's popular with a significant strand of opinion, and then makes it clear that it's Westminster and the Unionists that will not countenance them being given the chance to vote on it.
so you demand a direct quote from Salmond, and when you get one it's still not enough? Apparently the latest spin is that it was wasn't Salmond's preferred option at all, he was just heroically sacrificing his own principles in an attempt to better represent the views of the Scottish people/
Is that really what you're reduced to saying now? give me strength...
That's not far off.
That said, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see some dramatic changes in polling closer to the day. It's such a major historical event, it's not impossible that people could find themselves swept up in the moment.
Stepping back though, it's astonishing that we're even talking about the very real possibility of Scottish independence in the near future. You have to give enormous credit to the SNP for that, they're quite something.
1) People eventually overwhelmingly voted to back the status quo
2) When that ICM poll was conducted, very few people knew what AV actually was, whereas with Scottish Independence they have known to some extent what Scottish Independence is all about.
Has Blair shown up yet
Your last couple of paragraphs is the point I've been making though. "Swingback" implies that Government recovery is something that Just Happens, an iron law of Social Scientific Nature. But that simply isn't the case.
Which brings us back to the current, very settled, pollling picture. As you can't rely on "swingback" Just Automatically Happening, something is going to have to change people's minds or Ed Miliband is PM. Tractor stats on the economy might do it I suppose. But I can't see it.
At the moment I would guess Yes 45 no 55 but I am hoping for better for no to put this to bed for a while.
Am avoiding news channels like the plague.
Where is Ed?
The one thing I've noticed so far is that, it isn't so much that Governments always recover, it is more a case that the Opposition ceases to be as popular as it was midway during the parliament.
I just need to upload the data into datawrapper so it is easy to explain.
Obviously the major caveat is that there's a coalition, so whether the old rules still apply is another matter.
3) ICM is over rated and got it wrong
Nats seem to think we are a bunch of croft burning, highland clearing unionists.
That's a complete straw man created by nats. Many tories couldn't give a t*ss whether Scotland stays or goes.
With their final poll, ICM got the AV referendum spot on.
http://www6.politicalbetting.com/index.php/av-referendum-polling-race-final-outcome/
Who mentioned PB Tories?
The usual protest vote (or opinion poll response) party is in power.
There is a new protest vote party, but it is in a different place in the Left Right spectrum.
There is just one opposition party in parliament.
There is no love for any traditional party, and MPs are generally unpopular.
2010 election was twisted and dominated by the financial crisis.
2010 election was between 'Established big hitters in Government' and inexperienced 'boys'
There is very little common between 2015 and the previous two elections. Guessing swingback, in a positive or negative way is pretty fraught with difficulty, if using recent historical precedents.
They believe what they want to believe. The real world very rarely impinges their view."
I was thinking of this from Mr Dickson, Uniondivvie..
I freely admit I don't understand Scottish politics one jot, but that doesn;t stop me having a hunch. My hunch is you'll win, because the no campaign can only offer the status quo. Their rhetoric is of necessity very negative, hectoring, and that puts people off.
Salmond can offer something much more positive and inspiring.
The third party was squeezed mid term as the Govt/Opposition slugged it out mid term, but picked up votes as the electorate took a closer look and didn't really fancy either of them.
Make of that what you will! Good news for the Kippers perhaps...
*I hereby refuse to use the term "swingback", because it's bollox...
I agree that if the campaign ever does take off into the realm of hearts and minds, the traffic will be only one way. However we may be stuck on discussing the price of supermarket mince in an independent Scotland for a while yet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325893/President-Obama-makes-U-S-Marine-break-rules-does-look-happy-it.html
which led to this memorable internet meme
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-exiQF4zI6X0/UZWkE9Qls1I/AAAAAAAAbIQ/pFpUP077_rU/s400/obama+umbrella+queen.jpg
I agree with the piece Lord Ashcroft wrote, I'm sure all pollsters have the aim of being the most accurate, silly to big up those whose results suit your agenda and pick holes in the ones that don't, hence I don't do it
One of my friends works for a major mobile phone company, and one of his roles is to look at how an independent Scotland's mobile phone will operate (particularly for those Scots with mobile contracts now)
The question of an Independent Scotland's membership of the EU is crucial to this, will determine if roaming charges will apply.
There maybe special border masts to prevent things like this happening,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291077/T-Mobile-users-charged-roaming-fees-calls-KENT.html
'The Mandela memorial appears to be playing out in a 3/4 empty stadium, it's like watching Wimbledon FC play a home game at Wembley.'
Wrong,as a former Wimbledon FC season ticket holder, the stadium would be at least half empty,except if Man U were in town.
I've come round to thinking that both countries would be far more prosperous apart than they are together (albeit with vastly different economic models).
I imagine Scotland would in some respects follow the Norway example, whereas England without Scottish labour MPs would become the vast free market, free booting repository for the world's excess cash that London is already.
Two very different ways to get rich, but both probably work, nonetheless.
Arf.
Thought Cameron's was quite good, Miliband's was very good, Clegg's average and was disappointed that Rifkind's entire speech wasn't played.
Can you imagine Chris Christie, Hillary or one of others doing this? George W would have been interesting.
If you read Spanish you can learn more about it here:
http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2013/12/09/catalunya/1386621537_878776.html
I find it utterly vile. To see somewhere you love and have spent some of the best years of your life in embracing victimhood and becoming so closed and parochial is heartbreaking. Whatever happens in Scotland next year I just hope it does not go the same way. It's getting to the point where I don't think I can go back to Catalonia.
There is great anticipation in Africa as the inauguration of Barack Obama draws near, but President George W Bush may turn out to have been the continent's best friend.
While Mr Bush has been severely criticised for the invasion of Iraq, his green credentials and the general deterioration of relations with the rest of the world, his African record has won considerable support.
Even normally critical voices, like the aid activist and former rock star, Bob Geldof, gives Mr Bush credit for what he has achieved.
At the top of the list is the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar), initiated in 2003.
At the time just 50,000 Africans were on anti-retroviral drugs.
Since then the US has pumped $18bn (£12bn) into fighting HIV/Aids - much of it in Africa.
By 2007, 1.3 million Africans were on medication, much of it paid for by the Bush administration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm
I would be a bit sorry - for sentimental reasons mainly - and there may be all sorts of unintended consequences and I particularly dislike the rather adolescent sniping at the English as if we were the source of all of Scotland's woes but there is a great deal of value in being an independent and self-determining country (as the English should know) and if that is the way the Scots vote, good luck to them.
Barry should have learnt from Nelson.
A colourful shirt, a song, a dance and an unrelenting, beatific smile was all that was needed.
Instead he addressed the crowd as if they were members of the Harvard University Law Society.
Thanks goodness for global warming, or climate change or whatever it's called this week, imagine how cold it would be otherwise....
With or without Lady Hamilton on his arm ?
Whatever the outcome of the Indyref, will there be electoral reform across the (R)/(F)UK
Mandela only has himself to blame.
The unionists get ever more desperate with their scare stories.
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/current-affairs/time-person-of-the-year?ev_oc_grp_ids=997194
I like the look of Hassan Rouhani
Step forward Edward Miliband!
Winner: Clegg. A lovely, joyous picture. Full of fun and love.
Close runner-up: Salmond. A topical picture for a good cause, but I can't imagine it staying long on my mantelpiece. Last year's was much better.
Miliband: A good attempt at a holiday snap, but incredibly bland and totally non-Christmasy. It's winter, not summer.
Cameron: A pleasant family photo, although boring and bland. They should have used the photo of him napping at a wedding earlier in the year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2426172/Wedding-guest-PM-caught-napping-Barefoot-Cameron-pictured-fast-asleep-red-dispatch-box-sister-law-big-day.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520662/Neil-Phillips-quizzed-8-HOURS-police-Nelson-Mandela-Twitter-jokes.html
Titters ....
You should read Tim Stanley in the Telegraph, on why life for ordinary SA folk is better now than under white rule.
The comments section after his article is....er......closed!
Not really the right choice for a magazine called "Time".
Mandela did well but the ANC & the SA Gov badly organized his world memorial witch host 100 world leaders, the stadium is empty to the world"
Twitter.com/IbothaboAfrica1/status/410386794559971329
Mandela Memorial. The 3 'spillover' stadiums are empty. http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/person-walks-in-an-empty-tribune-of-orlando-stadium-in-news-photo/454637499 …"
twitter.com/Skytwitius/status/410375951818559488