politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first Indyref conducted after Osborne’s intervention is

Theuniondivvie said:

George Eaton on Labour finally wakening up to various possibilities.

'As a Labour MP put it to me, “If we lose Scotland, we could be completely buggered.”'

http://tinyurl.com/om9egrs

Guess they should have thought things through before they buggered around with the constitution.

Pulpstar said:

May I remind both sides of the debate though

We have not seen what the currency issue does to VI - the fieldwork is before this. Why thy are quite so slow getting the poll out I don't know.

I'm still confused after seeing several posts about this. Isn't the position that TNS was before the currency debate but Survation was afterwards?

Pulpstar said:

May I remind both sides of the debate though

We have not seen what the currency issue does to VI - the fieldwork is before this. Why thy are quite so slow getting the poll out I don't know.

Yes we do, the survation fieldwork was post the currency union intervention.

The TNS was before.

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

May I remind both sides of the debate though

We have not seen what the currency issue does to VI - the fieldwork is before this. Why thy are quite so slow getting the poll out I don't know.

I'm still confused after seeing several posts about this. Isn't the position that TNS was before the currency debate but Survation was afterwards?

Exactly.

TheLastBoyScout said:

taffys said:

Triumph for Osborne!

Let's face it Osborne had no choice. None of the main parties has a choice

The party that gives an independent Scotland a say on sterling would be eviscerated at the RUK polls.

Why? Most people in the Uk support a currency union with an independent Scotland. Jersey/Guernsey/Man have a currency union – and they aren't even in the EU, never mind the UK. It's a silly debate.

Wasn't there a poll suggesting otherwise, I thought over 50% opposed, with ~20% support.

TheLastBoyScout said:

Most people in the Uk support a currency union with an independent Scotland.

I'm not sure that's what the latest polling shows.

TheLastBoyScout said:

Jersey/Guernsey/Man have a currency union

They dont.

I think all that can possibly be said about a currency union has been said. It's not the be all and end all of the debate but the approach taken to it by the unionist parties has not been to their credit (nor has it yet been to their advantage).

TheLastBoyScout said:

taffys said:

Triumph for Osborne!

Let's face it Osborne had no choice. None of the main parties has a choice

The party that gives an independent Scotland a say on sterling would be eviscerated at the RUK polls.

Why? Most people in the Uk support a currency union with an independent Scotland. Jersey/Guernsey/Man have a currency union – and they aren't even in the EU, never mind the UK. It's a silly debate.

Recent polling shows people in RUK don't want the Scots to even use the pound, let alone be in a currency union with an Independent Scotand.

I think why people are opposed to it in RUK is that Scotland has a large banking sector, in a way the Crown Dependencies do not, and the banks that were bailed out recently had Scottish sounding names, they don't want to go through that again, as we'd be the ones bailing them out again.

Alanbrooke said:

Theuniondivvie said:

George Eaton on Labour finally wakening up to various possibilities.

'As a Labour MP put it to me, “If we lose Scotland, we could be completely buggered.”'

http://tinyurl.com/om9egrs

Guess they should have thought things through before they buggered around with the constitution.

TBF they did think they were 'killing nationalism stone dead', and devolution was pretty much promised to Dewar & SLAB. If they hadn't gone through with it that may have resulted in a p!ssed-off SLAB and an SNP stirring up further discontent. It might have ended up better for Unionism, it might not.

Why? Most people in the Uk support a currency union with an independent Scotland.

Oh Come on LBS, if that's the case then why have Alexander and Balls cravenly fallen in behind Osborne??

Why isn't Milli in Edinburgh now championing the union and/or a currency union if Scotland decides to secede (to loud cheers from England!).

Indeed, labour's insouciance on this is quite staggering. Do you realise the threat you are facing?

In a matter of months you could be driving MPs from a Foreign Country through Westminster lobbies to defeat English conservative bills....

TheLastBoyScout said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sean_F said:

http://survation.com/2014/02/a-note-on-methodology-for-our-recent-scottish-poll/

Survation have now published their note on methodological changes.

The lead for No has been reduced by 10.8%, compared to the previous poll. Of this, 6.5% is due to weighting changes (SNP supporters are weighted up from 30% to 37%) and 4.3% is a shift in opinion.

......the change in methodology means that the results of our most recent Scottish poll should not be described as showing changes in public opinion compared to our previous Scottish poll

Oh dear.......as some of us pointed out well before the Eckgasm took over......but it didn't last long....

It still shows a move to Yes, just not quite as pronounced.

It may have hardened SNP supporters resolve - there is no evidence the 'currency bullying' (sic) has shifted other voters in favour of independence.....

Theuniondivvie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Theuniondivvie said:

George Eaton on Labour finally wakening up to various possibilities.

'As a Labour MP put it to me, “If we lose Scotland, we could be completely buggered.”'

http://tinyurl.com/om9egrs

Guess they should have thought things through before they buggered around with the constitution.

TBF they did think they were 'killing nationalism stone dead', and devolution was pretty much promised to Dewar & SLAB. If they hadn't gone through with it that may have resulted in a p!ssed-off SLAB and an SNP stirring up further discontent. That might have ended up better for Unionism, it might not.

Well I'd certainly agree that Labour called it wrong. Salmond also played a blinder in getting Labour to keep their focus on an exhausted Conservative party while he went from strength to strength in their own backyard.

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Theuniondivvie said:

George Eaton on Labour finally wakening up to various possibilities.

'As a Labour MP put it to me, “If we lose Scotland, we could be completely buggered.”'

http://tinyurl.com/om9egrs

Guess they should have thought things through before they buggered around with the constitution.

TBF they did think they were 'killing nationalism stone dead', and devolution was pretty much promised to Dewar & SLAB. If they hadn't gone through with it that may have resulted in a p!ssed-off SLAB and an SNP stirring up further discontent. That might have ended up better for Unionism, it may not.

They shouldn't have done a half-arsed job. Proper federalism for all four countries of the UK would have been much better.

The only problem being that noone in England seemed to want devolution. You cant blame :Labour for not inflicting a constitutional position England didnt want on the English people.

TGOHF said:

Neil said:

TGOHF said:

TheWatcher said:

TGOHF said:

Theuniondivvie said:

George Eaton on Labour finally wakening up to various possibilities.

'As a Labour MP put it to me, “If we lose Scotland, we could be completely buggered.”'

http://tinyurl.com/om9egrs

Yes - and Bwave Sir Ed hiding behind the sofa.

... waiting for Len to work out what to do.

That's a point. What happens to unions post Independence? Do they split, or continue to function on a pan country basis?

Most business will flee the Venezuela of the North for the more market friendly rUK.

Do you intend to canvass on behalf of the 'no' side before the referendum? It might be useful for people to know so they can adjust their positions.

You can't blame a chap for lamenting the demise of his homeland ?

I thought your side was miles ahead? You're more up and down on this issue than a jetlagged SeanT.

Neil said:

taffys said:

In a matter of months you could be driving MPs from a Foreign Country through Westminster lobbies to defeat English conservative bills....

Scottish representation at Westminster will end with independence.

And that is timetabled well after the 2015 GE - For betting purposes it has zero effect on the slim chance of Conservative Majority but it does decrease the chance of a Labour Majority (SNPers more likely to be elected at the expense of SLAB)

Scottish representation at Westminster will end with independence.

Really? On what basis do you make that assertion? won't Scotland deserve representation until the ts are crossed and the is dotted??

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Voters - some gems from the Survation poll:

In the May 2011 election for the Scottish Parliament, half of Scottish people voted and the other half did not vote.
Can you remember whether you voted in that particular election?
Voted: 74
Did Not: 23
DK: 3

And who were the voters 'driven into the Yes camp by the currency bullying (sic)'

Made me (much/somewhat) more likely to vote 'Yes': 'No' (%)

Con: 4 / 28
Lab: 22 / 30
LibD: 16 / 29
SNP: 53 / 10

So the "Currency bullying" has only made SNP voters more likely to vote for independence.....everyone else.....less....

Actually, it made them not more likely to vote yes, not more likely to vote no ;-)

Since we're picking nits....and this question was asked of those who intend to vote, while there is a possibility that instead of voting yes, they now intend to spoil their ballot paper, the more likely interpretation is that they will vote no.....of course ±50%+ said it made no difference to their vote.....

Oh I misread the Yes:No bit on the poll question, sorry!

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, I also agree it is unlikely to occur (although it could be a sensible alternative to the possible insanity of having Scottish MPs on both sides of the negotiating table). However, if the proposal were laid down and Labour/the Lib Dems voted against it then come the election that would be a very significant issue.

Or indeed come the elections (plural). A real dilemma for a monolithic Labour party without a separate Scottish organization.

UKIP: "...we want to know from Mr Clegg that Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband are invited as well and that he has in mind a comprehensive and live leaders’ debate on a major broadcast outlet."

http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1178-ukip-director-of-communications-patrick-o-flynn-says-televised-leaders-debate-a-very-interesting-idea

Sean_F said:

anotherDave said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Re: Clegg's invitation to debate with Farage.
Clearly Clegg thinks that cementing in the voters minds, the principle that the LDs are the main party advocating the EC is a winner.
Of course he may be overlooking the 40%+ of his voters who actually would vote to leave the EC.
Just one of those unforeseen consequences?

I do wonder if this might help the LD candidates in the EU Parliament elections, while hurting the LD candidates in the local elections.

There's a niche of voters who are fervently committed to the EU, so it makes sense for the Lib Dems to target them.

There's a tipping point (at about 10% of the vote) where the Lib Dems go from having 8 or 9 MEPs to having just 1 or 2. It's vital for them to remain above that tipping point.

I agree that it makes sense for the Lib Dems to target pro-EU voters in the Euros. However their PPB for the Euros was a disaster. They've taken a battering in the polls due to their allegience at Westminster with the Tories. The great advantage about the Euros is they aren't in coalition with the Tories in Brussels. So who do we get fronting the PPB? Yep, Mr Popularity, Nick Clegg himself. If they'd focussed on their MEPs and what they actually do it would have helped. The strength of the party's brand - nice ordinary campaigners who are more 'normal' than Labour or Tory politicians, who are constructively working in Brussels for Britain's benefit although yeah it's difficult at times and there's lots of compromises blah blah - could have worked for them. It appears Clegg's vanity demanded he be at the centre of things himself, even though he elecotral poison.

There's a striking difference if you compare the advert to that used by Labour in the 2005 general election campaign, when another leader accused of being a narcissist, Tony Blair, didn't feature. He, or certainly the party, appeared to realise he'd lost his lustre. I can only assume there is no-one in Lib Dem central office who'll stand up to Clegg or they're just completely clueless. I'd be furious if I was a Lib Dem MEP.

TheScreamingEagles said:

The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.

I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)

Pulpstar said:

Neil said:

taffys said:

In a matter of months you could be driving MPs from a Foreign Country through Westminster lobbies to defeat English conservative bills....

Scottish representation at Westminster will end with independence.

And that is timetabled well after the 2015 GE

Timetabled by whom?

Westminster, which actually has the power,

Or Salmond, which we can add to his wish list of "currency union" "three question ballot" and "automatic membership of the EU"....

Easterross said:

<

There will be nothing to stop David Cameron laying a Parliament Act bill before the HoC in October after the summer recess disqualifying all 59 Scottish constituencies as from the Dissolution of the 2010 Parliament. If it is passed as it will be by English, Welsh and Ulster MPs, it becomes the law and Scotland ceases to have Westminster MPs from March 2015. The courts would not have authority to overturn any legislation passed under the Parliament Act. Any attempt in the courts could take longer to be resolved than the independence negotiations.

The logical thing would be to do a deal with Holyrood whereby from May next year until the date of Independence, the 56 regional Scottish MSPs could be delegated by Holyrood to attend Westminster and vote on any UK legislation which needs a Scottish input.


Interesting suggestion, thanks though whether Labour and the LDs would sign up to it I am not sure. I also doubt it would happen in quite that way because the list MSPs are probably not typical of the parliament as a whole (disproportionately Labour IIRC). .

Edit: And also Tory - Ms Davidson is a List MSP IIRC.



Carnyx the reason I suggest the List MSPs is firstly because there are almost exactly the same number as Scottish Westminster MPs (3 fewer) and secondly, they are more representative of the voting intentions of the Scots in 2011 i.e. they saved the bacon of the 3 unionist parties who lost a great many of their constituency seats to the SNP. It also gives the Greens and Margo a say.

In the year 2015-16 it is hard to see Westminster passing much legislation which would actually take effect before Independence, given that most legislation comes into force a year or so after the Royal Assent. As a Scot, if we do vote for Independence, I feel uncomfortable at the prospect of MPs representing Scottish constituencies potentially being on the rUK side of the discussions. They must have a major conflict of interest.

Thanks. My distinct memory was that the SNP were badly underrepresented in the List MSPs but if I am wrong I happily stand to be corrected. I'm still unhappy about taxation without representation, etc., but as EWNI is a majority anyway ... It also avoids the potential problem of those MPs having an interest in spinning things out or even derailing negotiations. And public views on people getting pensions for an incomplete job.

Anyway some of the other suggestions o the thread are also interesting.

CarlottaVance said:

TheLastBoyScout said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sean_F said:

http://survation.com/2014/02/a-note-on-methodology-for-our-recent-scottish-poll/

Survation have now published their note on methodological changes.

The lead for No has been reduced by 10.8%, compared to the previous poll. Of this, 6.5% is due to weighting changes (SNP supporters are weighted up from 30% to 37%) and 4.3% is a shift in opinion.

......the change in methodology means that the results of our most recent Scottish poll should not be described as showing changes in public opinion compared to our previous Scottish poll

Oh dear.......as some of us pointed out well before the Eckgasm took over......but it didn't last long....

It still shows a move to Yes, just not quite as pronounced.

It may have hardened SNP supporters resolve - there is no evidence the 'currency bullying' (sic) has shifted other voters in favour of independence.....

Survation Independence poll shows 10.8 point reduction in No lead. Which even after methodology changes is still a 4.3 point reduction in the No lead and a swing to Yes.

I award you the sturttruth memorial video for refusing to see the bleeding obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk

You may now continue to shriek about passports or whatever it is you think is a winner for No today.

LOL

CarlottaVance said:

Westminster, which actually has the power

Given that the question has been put to the people then Westminster's hands are somewhat tied. I mean Westminster *could* have legislated to introduce AV after it was defeated in the referendum but that would have been very silly, wouldnt it? Westminster *could* seek to delay the Scottish Government's arrangements for formalising independence but it would also be very silly.

Pulpstar said:

Neil said:

RodCrosby said:

MPC: interest rates likely to start rising in spring 2015...

9/2 with Paddy Power:

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/current-affairs/economy-specials?ev_oc_grp_ids=1199482

Richard Dawkins for next pope at 666-1 !

It's the 2/5 on a not guilty verdict for Oscar Pistorius that really got me!

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.

I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)

It might well be, now that Patrick O'Flynn has derailed my thread.

I'd get that "why the Ukraine is bad news for Ed Miliband" thread out quick before Dan beats you to it.

I'm thinking electoral reform.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.

I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)

It might well be, now that Patrick O'Flynn has derailed my thread.

I'd get that "why the Ukraine is bad news for Ed Miliband" thread out quick before Dan beats you to it.

I'm thinking electoral reform.

Why electoral reform is Scotland is bad news for Ed Miliband ?

Carnyx - I fail to see why Scottish MPs should not continue to have a voice at Westminster so long as Scotland is in the Union. The sensible thing would be to hold the 2015 election as usual and then deseat(?) the Scottish MPs when the independence deal is signed.

Of course with the fixed term parliament act I presume we couldn't immediately head into another GE around 2016-17? Though we could see a change in government - if Labour are in power thanks to Scotland.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Neil said:

Pulpstar said:

Neil said:

RodCrosby said:

MPC: interest rates likely to start rising in spring 2015...

9/2 with Paddy Power:

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/current-affairs/economy-specials?ev_oc_grp_ids=1199482

Richard Dawkins for next pope at 666-1 !

It's the 2/5 on a not guilty verdict for Oscar Pistorius that really got me!

Still not as bad as their Obama to get assassinated bet

Their recent highlight of sponsoring a basketball tour to North Korea came close though.

It's almost unethical to be with them but as it's usually taking money from them I'm sure it's justifiable. (Though in their favour they seem to have a better attitude towards FOBT than their competitors.)

TGOHF said:

FrankBooth said:

Carnyx - I fail to see why Scottish MPs should not continue to have a voice at Westminster so long as Scotland is in the Union. The sensible thing would be to hold the 2015 election as usual and then deseat(?) the Scottish MPs when the independence deal is signed.

Of course with the fixed term parliament act I presume we couldn't immediately head into another GE around 2016-17? Though we could see a change in government - if Labour are in power thanks to Scotland.

So Ed gets in - spends 12 months dealing with separation then doesn't have the numbers once the 59 have left - loses no confidence motion - new elections..

Possibly. However if Scotland votes Yes, I can see an SNP landslide in the 2015 election (it's certainly a possibility, although trying to predict what will happen in that election in Scotland after a yes vote seems near impossible). Certainly the SNP may be seen as the people who will fight for the best deal for Scotland, so why not vote them into Westminster? If Ed has a majority he's probably safe - if Scotland loses him a net 20 votes in the Commons, just do a deal with the Lib Dems who'll have at least 30 MPs. More interesting would be if there was a Lib Lab coalition from 2015.

I can't see how it would be right to disqualify Scottish MPs when Scots are still paying taxes in the Treasury and haven't yet got their freedom.

TGOHF said:

FrankBooth said:

Carnyx - I fail to see why Scottish MPs should not continue to have a voice at Westminster so long as Scotland is in the Union. The sensible thing would be to hold the 2015 election as usual and then deseat(?) the Scottish MPs when the independence deal is signed.

Of course with the fixed term parliament act I presume we couldn't immediately head into another GE around 2016-17? Though we could see a change in government - if Labour are in power thanks to Scotland.

So Ed gets in - spends 12 months dealing with separation then doesn't have the numbers once the 59 have left - loses no confidence motion - new elections..

12 month will be more than enough time for Mister Market to shred Labour.

Mick - Whatever the polling impact at least people in Scotland will now know how the rUK will react post-independence. It would be unfair to them not to correct Salmond's absurd bluster.

Mick_Pork said:

CarlottaVance said:

Mick_Pork said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheLastBoyScout said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sean_F said:

http://survation.com/2014/02/a-note-on-methodology-for-our-recent-scottish-poll/

Survation have now published their note on methodological changes.

The lead for No has been reduced by 10.8%, compared to the previous poll. Of this, 6.5% is due to weighting changes (SNP supporters are weighted up from 30% to 37%) and 4.3% is a shift in opinion.

......the change in methodology means that the results of our most recent Scottish poll should not be described as showing changes in public opinion compared to our previous Scottish poll

Oh dear.......as some of us pointed out well before the Eckgasm took over......but it didn't last long....

It still shows a move to Yes, just not quite as pronounced.

It may have hardened SNP supporters resolve - there is no evidence the 'currency bullying' (sic) has shifted other voters in favour of independence.....

You may now continue to shriek about passports or whatever it is you think is a winner for No today.

LOL

I understand

Do you understand that the week long PB Osbornegasm was hilariously stupid and pointless. No?

Osborne isn't the one without a currency plan, or polling showing over half his supporters saying he needs one.

That would be Eck......

HurstLlama said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The afternoon thread maybe slightly later than usual, as I've only started to write it after spending 2 hours trying to work out what I should write about.

I do hope it's Scotland. ;-)

Oooh, Yes! We haven'y had a Scottish thread for so long. Another 8 hours of mostly the same people repeating mostly the same things is just what the site needs.

Cammie, Osbrowne, PB Tories, PB Romney, Chorttle, Osbornegasm, Unspoofable, Hilarious, Shrieking etc. etc.

No pandas today? Disappointing.

EDIT: Checked. No pandas. I expected more.

FrankBooth said:

TGOHF said:

FrankBooth said:

Carnyx - I fail to see why Scottish MPs should not continue to have a voice at Westminster so long as Scotland is in the Union. The sensible thing would be to hold the 2015 election as usual and then deseat(?) the Scottish MPs when the independence deal is signed.

Of course with the fixed term parliament act I presume we couldn't immediately head into another GE around 2016-17? Though we could see a change in government - if Labour are in power thanks to Scotland.

So Ed gets in - spends 12 months dealing with separation then doesn't have the numbers once the 59 have left - loses no confidence motion - new elections..

Possibly. However if Scotland votes Yes, I can see an SNP landslide in the 2015 election (it's certainly a possibility, although trying to predict what will happen in that election in Scotland after a yes vote seems near impossible). Certainly the SNP may be seen as the people who will fight for the best deal for Scotland, so why not vote them into Westminster? If Ed has a majority he's probably safe - if Scotland loses him a net 20 votes in the Commons, just do a deal with the Lib Dems who'll have at least 30 MPs. More interesting would be if there was a Lib Lab coalition from 2015.

I can't see how it would be right to disqualify Scottish MPs when Scots are still paying taxes in the Treasury and haven't yet got their freedom.

Couldn't disqualify Scottish MP's as you say (they might deliberately sit aside on rUK only questions for a year - no point antagonising your future neighbour as you are trying to keep the Pound), but it wouldn't half make Parliament a nightmare depending on the numbers. Ed could go from majority to minority, to smaller than the Tories, to less than the Tories even with the Lib Dems, to (just about) majority to Tory majority - though that last scenario would take some really weird electoral calculus I guess.

I'd agree the SNP should do really well post any yes vote ("sticking up for Scotland" and all that) which would make life more difficult for Ed as he'd have to make up any Scottish losses in England and Wales. I would suspect too that the dynamic of any election in rUK would change utterly with the central question being "who will stick up best for rUK " in the negotiations 2015-16. Unlikely to be Ed's strong suit methinks, given his party started the devolution ball rolling, and it would have blown up in their faces big style.

Should the polls tighten and a yes look like a real goer (not there yet really) than I suspect Labour/Lib Dems will really have to get fingers out, as losing Scotland clearly has a compensation for the Tories but is nothing less than dire for the other two.

@McChicken - post a link to your poll of "about a week ago" along with their question then.

I leave others to conclude what they will from Panelbase's question - you keep blustering away....since you have no other answer.....who does that remind me of......?

FrankBooth said:

Mick - Whatever the polling impact at least people in Scotland will now know how the rUK SNP will react post-independence. It would be unfair to them not to correct Salmond's Osborne's absurd bluster.

Fixed that for you.

And so the Osbornegasm continues with not a whiff of reality creeping in to the right wing dominated PB.

It's a Yes/No referendum. Both sides are not going to agree. Give that searingly obvious fact pretending that all the No side's assertions are facts and are also somehow immutable to scottish public opinion simply isn't going to get the No side anywhere. Particularly when we've just had polling evidence that shows all Osborne's intervention has done is narrow the polling even further. You don't need to like it, but that is precisely what has happened.

Mick_Pork said:

Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?

Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.

Pulpstar said:

Mick_Pork said:

Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?

Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.

The TNS poll was before, the Survation was in the middle of Eck greetin about being bullied by the posh boys - and shows more than half "yes" voters wanting a plan B....(and only SNP voters more likely to vote Yes as a result of the currency issue)

Pulpstar said:

Mick_Pork said:

Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?

Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.

Pulpstar said:

Mick_Pork said:

Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?

Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.

The TNS poll was before, the Survation after.

TheLastBoyScout said:

Pulpstar said:

Mick_Pork said:

Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?

Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.

Pulpstar said:

Mick_Pork said:

Do you understand that a poll after Obrowne's incompetent and toxic intervention shows the Yes and No vote still narrowing no matter how much you wish it didn't? No?

Mick Pork - The fieldwork is BEFORE the currency debate exploded. Certainly before any of the public noticed it - please bear in mind this. It may be a positive or a negative but this poll can't be a reflection of that as the fieldwork was prior.

The TNS poll was before, the Survation after.

Mea culpa !

Neil said:

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Theuniondivvie said:

George Eaton on Labour finally wakening up to various possibilities.

'As a Labour MP put it to me, “If we lose Scotland, we could be completely buggered.”'

http://tinyurl.com/om9egrs

Guess they should have thought things through before they buggered around with the constitution.

TBF they did think they were 'killing nationalism stone dead', and devolution was pretty much promised to Dewar & SLAB. If they hadn't gone through with it that may have resulted in a p!ssed-off SLAB and an SNP stirring up further discontent. That might have ended up better for Unionism, it may not.

They shouldn't have done a half-arsed job. Proper federalism for all four countries of the UK would have been much better.

The only problem being that noone in England seemed to want devolution. You cant blame :Labour for not inflicting a constitutional position England didnt want on the English people.

Most people in England still don't seem that bothered. And Scotland isn't holding a referendum on independence as a way to resolve the West Lothian Question.