politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trying to call the Scottish Independence Referendum has be
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trying to call the Scottish Independence Referendum has become a nightmare with so much variation between the pollsters
There’s a new YouGov IndyRef poll out overnght which has, after the exclusion of the DKs, NO with a comfortable 20% lead. This is exactly in line with the average of YouGov IndyRef polls so far this year.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
OGH - why do you pay attention to online/panel bases surveys? Surely these will be impacted by differential obsessiveness - helping the nationalist cause? It's very similar in the way that online overstates UKIP vs phone polls.
"More than half of Labour's MP candidates in winnable seats for the general election have already worked in politics, new research has found.
The party has stuffed its hit list of potential new MPs with former special advisers, party workers and lobbyists - compared to just 17 per cent of Conservative candidates with political backgrounds, and 46 per cent of Liberal Democrats.
It will fuel concerns about the development of a 'political class' of people who have never worked in real world jobs, which the public repeatedly say in polls turns them off voting. "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660810/The-Labour-candidates-whove-never-real-job-Half-standing-winnable-seats-job-politics.html#ixzz34xlVzJYp
3 hours
"One thing’s for sure – NO is not a certainty."
......................................................................
Almost correct - NO is a racing certainty
The only Scottish appetite I detect presently is a very healthy one for the destruction of my wonderfully unhealthy cooked breakfast .....
"enlightened self interest" is why they joined a Union in 1707, and enlightened self interest is why they will choose to remain in 2014.
Disregarding the possibility of the remaining three months of the campaign changing minds, it must be pretty close to certain. At least 90% likely if the referendum were today.
There is, as you say, a large variation between pollsters, but even that range of 16 in the lead has all polls giving NO a lead. All the polls would look rubbish if the true NO lead was about 2%, but that would still be enough for victory in a referendum held today.
The main reason to be wary about committing to a NO victory are the relatively late changes in voting intention for the AV referendum and Holyrood elections - both in 2011. That sort of swing in Salmond's favour this September sees Scotland vote for Independence.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-conservative-battleground-june-2014.html
I've had a look at how prices have changed on the Conservatives in the seats where they're likely to be competitive.
I've probably time left to do about three more posts now before I disappear for three months. I shall probably be using them to look at the Labour price changes and then reviewing where the Lib Dems are placed following the recent bout of elections.
I also agree with Mike, however. How much confidence can we have in any of the polling given the lack of a track record, no guidance as to weighting etc.? Weighting by previous voting is problematic.
Not all SNP voters, many of whom were just sick of Labour and wanted an alternative, are going to vote Yes. There is the odd tory who is going to vote Yes although they are the most homogeneous group so far as I can see. Weighting by social group really doesn't help when you have no comparator as to how that social group voted before.
The building blocks that I see are that the tories and most Lib Dems will vote no. The vast majority, although not all of SNP supporters will vote yes. In the middle is the very large Labour vote. How will that split?
If it goes majority no then no wins. At the moment that is the most likely but there are risk factors. One is the truly awful perception of Ed Miliband. The figures that Scott_P has linked to are really worth a look. 58% of Scots on the subsample think he doesn't have a single good quality and another 11% don't know. Large numbers of Labour voters in Scotland are completely uninspired by voting for or being led by the dork.
Another is the still strong hostility to the tories in Scotland. If they gain national leads Labour supporters unenamoured with Ed will give serious thought as to whether we would be better off without these English tory persons of doubtful heritage.
I do not see perceptions of Ed improving. The risk factor in the Indy referendum remains the second one. If the tories gain national leads by September this will be to close to call. If they don't I think No wins.
1 hour 1minute 1 second
I stuck a portion of my winnings from Maria Miller's resignation (I tipped her at 14/1 as next out of the cabinet, have I ever mentioned that?)
My logic was given the huge amounts involved (90k in expenses) and that a lot of her constituents do the daily commute from Basingstoke to London, her standing again in 2015 may cause some antipathy and anger at her and the right UKIP candidate could do well, especially if Labour voters vote tactically to unseat her.
But I understand why you and Pulpstar have gone for the 1/6. I may join you both shortly.
Ed is Crap is PM (Less than 11 months to go)
Mr. F, I quite agree, particularly after we had 13 years of Scottish chancellors and the PM's predecessor was Scottish.
The Flamin' Galahs to beat The Netherlands (16/1)
Chile to beat Spain (11/2)
Cameroon to defeat Croatia. (19/4)
It is often forgotten Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh
Based on the evidence he has put in front of us NO is a certainty but the body of the article says it isn't .
Seems somewhat schizophrenic to me....
If Scotland does vote Yes I think the only fair thing would for Blair to be split between the two countries.
When James Bond was expelled from Eton he went to Fettes
11 minutes 11 seconds
That these Labour gents were Scottish (and in what senses? birth, residence, holding a Scots passport, spirit of mind, Scottish or, to quote Mr Brown's little, I assume, joke, 'North British'?) is meaningless to a true Unionist: they will be sometimes Scots, mostly English, occasionally Welsh as the chips fall.
Mr F's original comment ignores the point that the SNP is a centrist party, and also misses the point completely. He is blaming the Scots for not supporting right-wing parties when the real problem is what on earth it was that the Tories did to the Scots to lose them so comprehensively. I think he is forgetting that the Scots might prefer to be ruled by their own right-wing party than by the London one - I suspect it is not just the voting system which gives the Tories more MSPs than MPs - and that in any case it is only a small but critical subset for which Tory rule in London has become a vote-changing issue. Mr L was pretty much on the ball on this point earlier this morning.
Not out again until next Tuesday.
The original article was from the Guardian, which contains further info.
"The Conservatives have so far selected fewer candidates for 2015 than Labour, but of the 52 marginals where they would need a swing of less than 5% to win or have a retiring MP, about one in five candidates has a link to Westminster politics.
The majority have backgrounds in business and finance, with a number of lawyers, military officers and private sector PR consultants also standing for office. In contrast to Labour, which has selected more women than men, fewer than a third of the Conservative party's candidates in these seats are female."
It would appear given your posting name, an alternative career beckons?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/17/labour-candidates-marginal-seats-westminster-insiders
But it even had a UUP MP... That's how true blue it is
No - Eton is the Scots Eton
Blair is yours and you're keeping him.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection as follows :
"Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?"
YES - 39% (NC) .. NO - 61% (NC)
Turnout Projection 81% (-0.5%)
..............................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - My Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
However, your central point is a fair one - rather than blaming Scots and the Labour party for their decline in Scotland the Tories would be better advised to ask themselves what they have done to make their brand so toxic in Scotland.
Want to guess their views on Eton and Fettes?
Obviously as a Sheffield public schoolboy, I was the only one who was educated at a decent private school.
Seems very high to me - what are the chances of voters staying at home if the result is a foregone conclusion. - nice Arse btw. ; )
Titters ....
I don't have much time for the reverse view, that it would be great if Scotland seceded because it would entrench right wing government in RUK. Profound constitutional changes should never be about fleeting party political advantage.
Both sides are extremely motivated. Indeed the betting turnout wagers available represent some of the only remaining value in the market - Almost 100% return over 3 months - marginally better than some of TSE's World Cup bets.
@Edin_Roz I agree with that. It is one of the reasons that No Thanks (such a better name) has been so personal on their attacks on Salmond. There is always a risk that this could get counter-productive but not, I think, with the key swing group. And Salmond has given them so much ammunition.
The brand is not nearly as toxic as some people like to think.
Of course some posters claimed that George Osborne was a toxic brand. How is that working out?
I'd opt for a political "stew" - more flavoursome with age, second time around.
You just need to adopt a contrarian pattern to his tips: so if he backs someone at 50/1 for the US presidency, you lay the same bet. Take as much as you can. Let us know how you get on.
It matters not how often you are "nearly always wrong" (and Mike is often correct) but the ratio of odds when you are correct.
One 50/1 winner pays for 49 losers.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/who-do-business-for-scotland-represent.html?m=1
Labour in Cambridge are bizarrely putting up the candidate who came a rank 3rd in 2010 - mostly due to his own weird antics.
For a marginal seat that seems "brave"..
If you are a white middle class male you will struggle to become a Cons PPC.
Is that good or bad? Well you takes your pick....
http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/17/revealed-britains-spies-are-watching-your-facebook-and-internet-use-right-now-4765686/
Spooks are using a legal loophole to spy on everyday Facebook updates and Twitter messages because they believe it will help them fight terrorism, it emerged.
I am increasingly warming to my forecast of last week that England will get eliminated in the most disappointing way possible, i.e. they will lose their first two games and then win the last one, one that doesn't matter because they'll already have been eliminated.
The team will thereby go home feeling unjustifiably that they have somehow saved some face by not losing all three of their games. Satisfied with this nugatory level of achievement they'll repeat it next time and the next time and so on.
That or losing all three games seem the likeliest outcomes.
Presumably these England players look good at other times only because they have foreign players in their usual teams to help them look good?
by Hopi Sen
Betting PostBacked Massa at 9, each way, to be Winner Without Hamilton/Rosberg.
The Williams was mighty in Canada and Austria looks comparable to me (the circuit diagram suggests straight line speed will pave the way to victory). The relatively lacklustre result for Williams was due entirely to a slow pit stop for Massa coupled with the crash, and Bottas was nursing a slightly wounded car home.
As mentioned before, win or lose this won't count towards the 'official' count of my tips, which only includes those mentioned in my articles.
Desperate desperate stuff even by your standards, you are now bottom feeding a la Scottp. No more barrel to scrape.
Interesting. The UK healthcare system ranks very highly on this - except I note "healthy lives" which is essentially an aggregate proxy for a few mortality measures.
Something doesn't quite fit there ^^;
Team 1 beats Team 2 and 3, and draws to Team 4 (you) - They qualify on 7 points.
Team 4 draws to all other teams, ending on 3 points.
Teams 2 and 3 both lost to Team 1, both draw with Team 4 and then draw against each other, ending on 2 points.
Thus Team 4 qualifies without a win.
The second scenario can happen a couple of ways, but the easiest is for there to be a group whipping boy who you fail to beat.
Team 1 beats Team 2 and 3, and draws to Team 4 (you) - qualifying on 7 points.
Team 4 draws to all other teams, ending on 3 points.
Team 2 beats Team 3 and draws with Team 4 - Team 2 qualifies with 4 points (Team 3 crashes out with 1).
New Zealand got knocked out in the 2010 World Cup with 3 draws (Group F). Chile qualified to the knockout rounds in 1998 despite no wins (Group
Spain beat Chile, Chile beat Netherlands.
Spain's thrashing could yet sink them even if they win tonight. A point will be huge for Chile.
Of course, if you'd read the article you'd have read:
I want to be very clear about this: I am not questioning the right of any of these individuals to have a view on the Independence Referendum or to speak out . I am merely seeking to answer the questions that the Business for Scotland MD seems so reluctant to address;
Roughly how many Scottish Employees are represented by their members?
Do they represent any businesses involved in Trade with rUK?
But we know what it is with Nats and opposing opinions - try to shout it down with personal abuse.....