politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Take the Ladbrokes 10-11 IndyRef NO victory with turnout un

Alanbrooke said:

RobD said:

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

Only thing wrong with Mike's proposition is that it will be YES and so you just lose all your money exactly the same as if you had backed NO at 1-6. Only consolation is that you will have had fun thinking you were going to win more money but same end result.

A smart bettor would have hopefully be in a situation where they win regardless of the outcome, taking advantage of changing prices to hedge bets one way or the other.

Must say, you seem to be in a good mood today.. you've posted three times and not had a go at anyone... ;-)

LOL, I am indeed in a sunny mood, all is well

Then don't read this then:


When will the penny drop for Alex Salmond?
Monday’s TV debate was no triumph for the SNP leader – it was his biggest deceit. He may have got cheap cheers from the studio audience but his currency plans, whether A or B, don’t add up


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11056857/When-will-the-penny-drop-for-Alex-Salmond.html

Well, not a surprise given who penned it!

LOL, mad cochers the arch unionist , financial expert and all round TURNIP. Luckily he is moving to a foreign country soon.

So a bit like Scotland's financial sector then ;-)

No need to worry, there'll be oil-a-plenty to fill that particular gap.

ROFL

so 8% of GDP disappears and a declining asset fills the gap ?

Well it's a view.

Who says it is declining Alan and who says the others will move.

NickPalmer said:

Agree with Mike that 80% is a tall order. 5% or so of the electorate aren't actually there - they've died or moved. Perhaps another 5% are not really compos mentis. Of the remainder, 20% are telling pollsters they still don't know how they'll vote, which to me suggests more lack of interest than thoughtful indecision.

RobD said:

Just be thankful we aren't subjected to three hour debates:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/11057911/Dilma-Rousseff-and-Marina-Silva-in-weak-Brazil-TV-debate-stalemate.html

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

Financier said:

dr_spyn said:

Ed Balls agrees to do ice bucket challenge - will he nominate Osborne?

Only a person of little brain and seeking publicity would do this - especially when he should be formulating credible economic plans for the UK - of course he cannot do that if he has little brain.

If someone is taking a few minutes out to raise money for research into MND I applaud them. MND is a dreadful, currently incurable, disease. It’s not even possible to slow it’s “progress”!

And, RobD, if a member of HMG or senior opposition member wants to support a particular health charity, why on earth not?

Because I believe it could be construed as a conflict of interest, especially if they are in charge of how money is being distributed.

I suspect we will be seeing more of these donate-or-be-shamed drives in the future, given the success of this one.

I know what you mean and I think charity is best done privately. But they're hard to refuse - all politicians get challenges like that (ice buckets are just the latest variation, sometimes they're basically just a demand for a donation/sponsorship) and they're public so the choice is do them or look like a wimp and/or a cheapskate. I used to routinely say that I couldn't appropriately donate publicly to one cause rather than another, and invariably got a mildly grumpy look.

BTW, I see YouGov have tweaked their panel rating, the effect being to increase UKIP by 1% with everyone else fractionally down - they say it's to reflect post-2010 changes in the electorate with UKIP rising. Details here:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/27/update-labour-lead-4/

Just be grateful you don't have to put "favourite charity" along with political affiliation on the ballot paper.

Yet.

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

Only thing wrong with Mike's proposition is that it will be YES and so you just lose all your money exactly the same as if you had backed NO at 1-6. Only consolation is that you will have had fun thinking you were going to win more money but same end result.

A smart bettor would have hopefully be in a situation where they win regardless of the outcome, taking advantage of changing prices to hedge bets one way or the other.

Must say, you seem to be in a good mood today.. you've posted three times and not had a go at anyone... ;-)

LOL, I am indeed in a sunny mood, all is well

Then don't read this then:


When will the penny drop for Alex Salmond?
Monday’s TV debate was no triumph for the SNP leader – it was his biggest deceit. He may have got cheap cheers from the studio audience but his currency plans, whether A or B, don’t add up


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11056857/When-will-the-penny-drop-for-Alex-Salmond.html

LOL, why would some lies in the Telegraph upset me. He was very clear he has a plan A and at least 3 Plan B's, even the most stupid unionist should be able to take that in.
The doom mongers can say it is all very scary but as almost 200 other countries manage to have a currency I am pretty sure we will manage to have one as well.
Only fools will be concerned.

No one is saying you wouldn't be able to have a currency, the argument is (should be) about the consequences of each choice.

Rob, that would be fine but as we see the NO nutters do not want to discuss anything , they just want to say scary, scary , you will not be allowed , etc.
They are scared to discuss anything in detail and when they do they look stupid.

Actually, Darling was quite clear about some of the downsides to being in a Panama-like situation, where you don't have a central bank (crucial for a big financial industry), and can't set your own interest rates. These are all facts, and not some scare story designed to frighten the voters.

Darling has 100% downsides view, if he was honest and could bring himself to say that some things could be good instead of just scary scary, then people may listen.
I am sure you know about the boy that cried wolf too often.

JosiasJessop said:

Socrates said:

Lost in the news yesterday was the Russian troops captured 30km inside Ukraine. We now have concrete proof that one country has invaded another for the second time, after previously annexing part of it. Is there a more basic principle of international law we should defend? This is sheer aggression by Russia, and all our MPs do is wring their hands.

Ssshhhh, someone'll be along soon to say that they were not Russian troops but EU troops masquerading as Russian troops who were about to invade Crimea to shoot down Putin's plane as it overflew Syria. There would probably be chemical weapons in there somewhere as well, along with an escort of fictitious Ukrainian fighter planes.

Still no news on MH17, I wonder why?

FalseFlag said:

JosiasJessop said:

Socrates said:

Lost in the news yesterday was the Russian troops captured 30km inside Ukraine. We now have concrete proof that one country has invaded another for the second time, after previously annexing part of it. Is there a more basic principle of international law we should defend? This is sheer aggression by Russia, and all our MPs do is wring their hands.

Ssshhhh, someone'll be along soon to say that they were not Russian troops but EU troops masquerading as Russian troops who were about to invade Crimea to shoot down Putin's plane as it overflew Syria. There would probably be chemical weapons in there somewhere as well, along with an escort of fictitious Ukrainian fighter planes.

Still no news on MH17, I wonder why?

There's plenty of news on MH17. Take your tinfoil hat off and you might even be able to read some of it.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mh17&tbm=nws

Socrates said:

Lost in the news yesterday was the Russian troops captured 30km inside Ukraine. We now have concrete proof that one country has invaded another for the second time, after previously annexing part of it. Is there a more basic principle of international law we should defend? This is sheer aggression by Russia, and all our MPs do is wring their hands.

The Donbass rebels seem to have turned the military tide, violence, repression and armed force has proven a failure as a strategy to solve a political crisis.

Also the political tide has turned for the Kiev regime and its US backers too. Nudelman Kagan and her clan have presided over another foreign policy debacle.
http://euobserver.com/foreign/125331
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

Just have to hope the peoples of the East are given free and fair elections to decide where they see their future.

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

Only thing wrong with Mike's proposition is that it will be YES and so you just lose all your money exactly the same as if you had backed NO at 1-6. Only consolation is that you will have had fun thinking you were going to win more money but same end result.

A smart bettor would have hopefully be in a situation where they win regardless of the outcome, taking advantage of changing prices to hedge bets one way or the other.

Must say, you seem to be in a good mood today.. you've posted three times and not had a go at anyone... ;-)

LOL, I am indeed in a sunny mood, all is well

Then don't read this then:


When will the penny drop for Alex Salmond?
Monday’s TV debate was no triumph for the SNP leader – it was his biggest deceit. He may have got cheap cheers from the studio audience but his currency plans, whether A or B, don’t add up


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11056857/When-will-the-penny-drop-for-Alex-Salmond.html

Well, not a surprise given who penned it!

LOL, mad cochers the arch unionist , financial expert and all round TURNIP. Luckily he is moving to a foreign country soon.

So a bit like Scotland's financial sector then ;-)

We will see if the doom mongers are correct Alan, we have heard it all before and they went nowhere. You would think by now they would just shut up or move.

Malc if it's the wrong answer on the 19th I'll be moving my pensions from Edinburgh as any sane person would to avoid the currency hit.

Likewise I'd be banking with the newly created Natwest Group instead of RBS at some point.

Alan, moving them to another UK organisation seems a bit premature but hey ho , maybe there will be lots of people moving their cash the other way. Given you will be with Nat West whilst we will be with RBS and all with the same company it does seem a bit odd for an intelligent person. Moving brass plates will change nothing , but you paying the spivs lots of commission to move your cash will benefit someone. I have to admit they do know how to fleece people, scary scary move your cash and thank you very much.

Gadfly said:

Misreading of the worst kind. I said my cousins have "historically" been SNP supporter

Some might say missing out the word 'ardent' when quoting yourself is a tad misleading.

JosiasJessop said:

FalseFlag said:

JosiasJessop said:

Socrates said:

Lost in the news yesterday was the Russian troops captured 30km inside Ukraine. We now have concrete proof that one country has invaded another for the second time, after previously annexing part of it. Is there a more basic principle of international law we should defend? This is sheer aggression by Russia, and all our MPs do is wring their hands.

Ssshhhh, someone'll be along soon to say that they were not Russian troops but EU troops masquerading as Russian troops who were about to invade Crimea to shoot down Putin's plane as it overflew Syria. There would probably be chemical weapons in there somewhere as well, along with an escort of fictitious Ukrainian fighter planes.

Still no news on MH17, I wonder why?

There's plenty of news on MH17. Take your tinfoil hat off and you might even be able to read some of it.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mh17&tbm=nws

Must have been chemical weapons Assad is using that shot down MH17, perhaps he borrowed them off of Saddam. Must invade Iran now in case they build nuclear power plants rather than solar enabling the Palestinians to start a new holocaust as the new Tsar Putin watches on whilst jailing oligarchs.

TheScreamingEagles said:

dugarbandier said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The best thing about the independence referendum is that I've learnt there is an economist called Professor Ronald MacDonald.

He's a Unionist.

His counterpart on the Nat side is Mickey Mouse. Though increasingly it may be Dumbo.

you seem confused. the arch-nemesis of Ronald mcDonald is Hamburglar. I am not sure how this pertains to the referendum debate.

IN Japan, Ronald McDonald is Donald McDonald for some reason

A CURRENCY union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK would collapse within months, plunging the country into a devastating recession, a leading economist has warned.

Speaking at a briefing organised by the pro-UK Better Together campaign, Professor Ronald MacDonald of Glasgow University, said Alex Salmond's proposal to share the pound after a Yes vote was doomed to fail because an "oil effect" would create a huge mismatch between the Scottish and UK economies.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/top-economist-currency-union-would-collapse.25052847

"a leading economist has warned" - The most fantastical 5 words in the English language ?

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

Only thing wrong with Mike's proposition is that it will be YES and so you just lose all your money exactly the same as if you had backed NO at 1-6. Only consolation is that you will have had fun thinking you were going to win more money but same end result.

A smart bettor would have hopefully be in a situation where they win regardless of the outcome, taking advantage of changing prices to hedge bets one way or the other.

Must say, you seem to be in a good mood today.. you've posted three times and not had a go at anyone... ;-)

LOL, I am indeed in a sunny mood, all is well

Then don't read this then:


When will the penny drop for Alex Salmond?
Monday’s TV debate was no triumph for the SNP leader – it was his biggest deceit. He may have got cheap cheers from the studio audience but his currency plans, whether A or B, don’t add up


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11056857/When-will-the-penny-drop-for-Alex-Salmond.html

Well, not a surprise given who penned it!

LOL, mad cochers the arch unionist , financial expert and all round TURNIP. Luckily he is moving to a foreign country soon.

So a bit like Scotland's financial sector then ;-)

We will see if the doom mongers are correct Alan, we have heard it all before and they went nowhere. You would think by now they would just shut up or move.

Malc if it's the wrong answer on the 19th I'll be moving my pensions from Edinburgh as any sane person would to avoid the currency hit.

Likewise I'd be banking with the newly created Natwest Group instead of RBS at some point.

Moving brass plates will change nothing.

- one brass plate has a lender of last resort behind it
- the other brass plate doesn't.

Which would you choose?

Innocent_Abroad said:

Socrates said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, but the Scottish voters will worry about it. The politicians this side of the border have been clear, and if they changed their minds voters would be furious.

Mr. Socrates, I did mention it, but for obvious reasons there were other matters being discussed. Nothing will happen from the West.

I'm sure China will be taking notes. When they come to invade Taiwan or Mongolia, all they need to do is invade with unmarked uniforms and tanks, pretend its "pro-Chinese militias" unrelated to them, stage fixed referendums and then agree to annexation. We didn't stand for countries invading their neighbours in 1914 or 1939 or 1979 or 1991 - what's happened to us?

Nuclear weapons?

Grenada? Haiti? Angola?

TheScreamingEagles said:

dugarbandier said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The best thing about the independence referendum is that I've learnt there is an economist called Professor Ronald MacDonald.

He's a Unionist.

His counterpart on the Nat side is Mickey Mouse. Though increasingly it may be Dumbo.

you seem confused. the arch-nemesis of Ronald mcDonald is Hamburglar. I am not sure how this pertains to the referendum debate.

IN Japan, Ronald McDonald is Donald McDonald for some reason

A CURRENCY union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK would collapse within months, plunging the country into a devastating recession, a leading economist has warned.

Speaking at a briefing organised by the pro-UK Better Together campaign, Professor Ronald MacDonald of Glasgow University, said Alex Salmond's proposal to share the pound after a Yes vote was doomed to fail because an "oil effect" would create a huge mismatch between the Scottish and UK economies.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/top-economist-currency-union-would-collapse.25052847

the lack of a quote from prof. Ham Bugler of Glasgow Caley is proof of media bias

JosiasJessop said:

FalseFlag said:

JosiasJessop said:

FalseFlag said:

JosiasJessop said:

Socrates said:

Lost in the news yesterday was the Russian troops captured 30km inside Ukraine. We now have concrete proof that one country has invaded another for the second time, after previously annexing part of it. Is there a more basic principle of international law we should defend? This is sheer aggression by Russia, and all our MPs do is wring their hands.

Ssshhhh, someone'll be along soon to say that they were not Russian troops but EU troops masquerading as Russian troops who were about to invade Crimea to shoot down Putin's plane as it overflew Syria. There would probably be chemical weapons in there somewhere as well, along with an escort of fictitious Ukrainian fighter planes.

Still no news on MH17, I wonder why?

There's plenty of news on MH17. Take your tinfoil hat off and you might even be able to read some of it.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mh17&tbm=nws

Must have been chemical weapons Assad is using that shot down MH17, perhaps he borrowed them off of Saddam. Must invade Iran now in case they build nuclear power plants rather than solar enabling the Palestinians to start a new holocaust as the new Tsar Putin watches on whilst jailing oligarchs.

Assad said he had no chemical weapons.
Assad uses chemical weapons.
Assad then agrees the chemical weapons he does not have should be destroyed.
The international community destroys those weapons.
Assad uses other chemical weapons.

And you support Assad.

Assad did not use chemical weapons and does not have chemical weapons anymore than Saddam did.

I am British, I am loyal to this country and this one alone, I don't care about Assad.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/08/24/isis-made-in-washington-riyadh-and-tel-aviv/

What seems clear from this debate (and all others) is that the rUK, and England in particular, is in a lose lose situation wrt Scottish independence. The English will be blamed no matter what the outcome. Plus ca change

Those currency options in full:

Plan A: a currency union.
rUK says no. There are no obvious benefits to them and substantial detriments so this is a rational position. Just not going to happen.

Plan B: using Sterling without a currency union.
Means no lender of last resort and the departure of most of our financial services industry which currently produces 8% of Scotland's GDP. Makes it very difficult and expensive to borrow. Simply catastrophic for the economy. Works for small countries with basic economies but not for a sophisticated economy like Scotland.

Plan B2. Use the Euro.
So we can be treated with the same care and consideration as Greece, Portugal and Ireland presumably. Not something Alec really wants to talk about given the state of the EZ.

Plan B3 Have our own currency.
Frankly inevitable if we are daft enough to vote for independence. Not without risks of course and there is that small matter of negotiating membership of the EU... A Scottish Pound will be more volatile than the rUK pound because of our vulnerability to the price of oil. It will demonstrate the transaction costs to our exporters for whom rUK is by far the largest market. It frankly shows what a bad idea independence is which is why Alec doesn't want to talk about this either.

So there are no good options really...except of course being Better Together.

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: engine maker with worst engine decides freezing engine development* is not a good thing:
http://www.espn.co.uk/ferrari/motorsport/story/172719.html

*It's not a full freeze, but development is limited and become more so each year.

Edited extra bit: just read an interesting comment on Joe Saward's blog suggesting the 'point' Rosberg was making was that if Hamilton could ignore team orders (as per Hungary) then so could he. That could be true.

Suspect Hamilton could well leave Mercedes if he is not allowed to be 'top dog'. His naturally rebellious streak and his self-belief that he is the best, makes him a difficult person to be an equal part of a team. Could he replace Alonso at Ferrari?

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: engine maker with worst engine decides freezing engine development* is not a good thing:
http://www.espn.co.uk/ferrari/motorsport/story/172719.html

*It's not a full freeze, but development is limited and become more so each year.

Edited extra bit: just read an interesting comment on Joe Saward's blog suggesting the 'point' Rosberg was making was that if Hamilton could ignore team orders (as per Hungary) then so could he. That could be true.

It just shows how badly that team is being managed. Team orders that are expected to be followed should be given by senior manager not just a race engineer..

However it doesn't excuse what Rosberg did as his action cost Mercedes 25 points.

DavidL said:

Those currency options in full:

Plan A: a currency union.
rUK says no. There are no obvious benefits to them and substantial detriments so this is a rational position. Just not going to happen.

Plan B: using Sterling without a currency union.
Means no lender of last resort and the departure of most of our financial services industry which currently produces 8% of Scotland's GDP. Makes it very difficult and expensive to borrow. Simply catastrophic for the economy. Works for small countries with basic economies but not for a sophisticated economy like Scotland.

Plan B2. Use the Euro.
So we can be treated with the same care and consideration as Greece, Portugal and Ireland presumably. Not something Alec really wants to talk about given the state of the EZ.

Plan B3 Have our own currency.
Frankly inevitable if we are daft enough to vote for independence. Not without risks of course and there is that small matter of negotiating membership of the EU... A Scottish Pound will be more volatile than the rUK pound because of our vulnerability to the price of oil. It will demonstrate the transaction costs to our exporters for whom rUK is by far the largest market. It frankly shows what a bad idea independence is which is why Alec doesn't want to talk about this either.

So there are no good options really...except of course being Better Together.

David, you will be fine you can move your fortune to England and smile smugly at all those poor people and say told you so.
You could join the D&G Tories at their Champagne Brunch celebration on the 19th, I am sure there are plenty of the £35 tickets available, though you will likely be attending your local one.

I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that we can talk about on here atm (Mods, please delete if necessary):

The stereotypical belief that boys are less vulnerable to child sexual exploitation means they are receiving insufficient protection from frontline services, Barnardo's has claimed.

The children's charity says new findings reveal up to a third of victims are male.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28935733

An issue I've been mentioning on here from time to time. And one that makes yesterday's announcement by Labour of appointing a shadow minister for preventing violence against women and girls seem rather misandric.

Do Labour care for boys, or is it just girls they want to protect?

Financier said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: engine maker with worst engine decides freezing engine development* is not a good thing:
http://www.espn.co.uk/ferrari/motorsport/story/172719.html

*It's not a full freeze, but development is limited and become more so each year.

Edited extra bit: just read an interesting comment on Joe Saward's blog suggesting the 'point' Rosberg was making was that if Hamilton could ignore team orders (as per Hungary) then so could he. That could be true.

Suspect Hamilton could well leave Mercedes if he is not allowed to be 'top dog'. His naturally rebellious streak and his self-belief that he is the best, makes him a difficult person to be an equal part of a team. Could he replace Alonso at Ferrari?

Only if he is willing to accept that he will never be World Champion again..

JosiasJessop said:

FalseFlag said:

Assad did not use chemical weapons and does not have chemical weapons anymore than Saddam did.

I am British, I am loyal to this country and this one alone, I don't care about Assad.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/08/24/isis-made-in-washington-riyadh-and-tel-aviv/

Do we agree that someone used chemical weapons?

If so, it has to be either Assad's regime, one of the various Islamic groups at the time, or the FSA. Look at where the attacks were, who had access, who had the delivery mechanisms, and who had most to gain from the attacks. The best-fit to all of these questions is the Assad regime.

However, that does not necessarily mean that Assad ordered them; it could have been a localised decision by a Syrian Army commander. But it is still Assad's responsibility.

The latest chemical attacks are of chlorine (I won't reproduce the links again, as you don't believe them). If you're saying Assad and Syria doesn't have access to chlorine then you're being rather silly.

You seem to support Russia and Assad more than you do Britain. Perhaps you need to retune your tinfoil hat. Or perhaps take it off ...

Such certitude regarding events occurring in the fog of war in a far off country. On such basis should matters of war be decided.

Mr. Jessop, I saw that story, and share your view. The continual downplaying of male victims of domestic violence is also unhelpful.

TheWatcher said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

Only thing wrong with Mike's proposition is that it will be YES and so you just lose all your money exactly the same as if you had backed NO at 1-6. Only consolation is that you will have had fun thinking you were going to win more money but same end result.

A smart bettor would have hopefully be in a situation where they win regardless of the outcome, taking advantage of changing prices to hedge bets one way or the other.

Must say, you seem to be in a good mood today.. you've posted three times and not had a go at anyone... ;-)

LOL, I am indeed in a sunny mood, all is well

Then don't read this then:


When will the penny drop for Alex Salmond?
Monday’s TV debate was no triumph for the SNP leader – it was his biggest deceit. He may have got cheap cheers from the studio audience but his currency plans, whether A or B, don’t add up


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11056857/When-will-the-penny-drop-for-Alex-Salmond.html

LOL, why would some lies in the Telegraph upset me. He was very clear he has a plan A and at least 3 Plan B's, even the most stupid unionist should be able to take that in.
The doom mongers can say it is all very scary but as almost 200 other countries manage to have a currency I am pretty sure we will manage to have one as well.
Only fools will be concerned.

Is that why he can't tell anyone what those plans might be be?

Fingers crossed, eh, Malky.

So you are unable to hear or read.

JosiasJessop said:

I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that we can talk about on here atm (Mods, please delete if necessary):

The stereotypical belief that boys are less vulnerable to child sexual exploitation means they are receiving insufficient protection from frontline services, Barnardo's has claimed.

The children's charity says new findings reveal up to a third of victims are male.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28935733

An issue I've been mentioning on here from time to time. And one that makes yesterday's announcement by Labour of appointing a shadow minister for preventing violence against women and girls seem rather misandric.

Do Labour care for boys, or is it just girls they want to protect?

A good Minister for Children would help. Tim Loughton was on Newsnight last night and was very impressive. A shame he was sacked by Cameron; one of the latter's more stupid decisions.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Financier, I'm not sure he would demand number one status, but he could leave the team if trust with Rosberg (who has a new contract, unlike Hamilton) vanishes entirely. Ferrari and maybe Red Bull will be watching with interest.

The downside of moving is that the Mercedes is a monster of a car, whereas the prancing horse is more of a lame donkey.

Mr. Eeek, jein. They've actually been managing the situation much better than I expected, until very recently. I did predict they'd miss Ross Brawn and the last race (and maybe Hungary) confirmed that, I feel. Brawn's experience and gravitas far exceeds that of Wolff and Lowe (and Lauda), and he was, as he put it, the single point of reference (ie sole boss).

I agree with you entirely that team orders should be sent via the boss himself (as Lowe did in Bahrain), not by a race engineer.

I don't think Hungary shows anything. I almost think something like this happended:-

Rosberg engineer: Can you ask Hamilton to move over, Rosberg is on a different strategy
Hamilton engineer: no
R Engineer: You have to
H Engineer: no point he'll just say no
R Engineer: you have to
H Engineer: ok then, Hamilton let him through
Hamilton: No
H Engineer: Told ya

malcolmg said:

asjohnstone said:

I'm not convinced on turnout below 80%, I recently spent some time in Scotland, in the housing estate of the western central belt.

People who have never been politically engaged in the slightest appear certain to vote, what stunned me was how strong the tide to "yes" was esp amongst the very poor.

It was explained to me that the poorer you are, the less potency the scare stories have; they have nothing to lose and are willing to take a chance on change.

Turnout is going to be massive, esp amongst the very poor

The Tories on here do not want to hear sensible stuff like that. They know that we are all so stupid we will vote to continue getting subsidised and leading the high life chanting Better Together. They think it is paradise up here and they are paying for us to sup champagne and nibble caviar on the dole, whilst selecting holiday locations.

The "Tories on here" have been saying for quite some time that it will be the traditional Labour vote, in particular in the poorer western parts of the central belt that decide this - and praying daily for SLAB to get its act together.

But if you read anything anyone else wrote, instead of just reacting with bile and invective, you'd know that.

Theuniondivvie said:

Jeremy_Brown said:

What seems clear from this debate (and all others) is that the rUK, and England in particular, is in a lose lose situation wrt Scottish independence. The English will be blamed no matter what the outcome. Plus ca change

Did you really want to have that bit of hackneyed self pity as your first ever comment? Though tbf you've found the spiritual home of that sort of guff.

It's not my self pity; that lies on the other side of the border - it's merely a rather jaded prediction. We'll see the outcome no matter what.

Anorak said:

malcolmg said:

asjohnstone said:

I'm not convinced on turnout below 80%, I recently spent some time in Scotland, in the housing estate of the western central belt.

People who have never been politically engaged in the slightest appear certain to vote, what stunned me was how strong the tide to "yes" was esp amongst the very poor.

It was explained to me that the poorer you are, the less potency the scare stories have; they have nothing to lose and are willing to take a chance on change.

Turnout is going to be massive, esp amongst the very poor

The Tories on here do not want to hear sensible stuff like that. They know that we are all so stupid we will vote to continue getting subsidised and leading the high life chanting Better Together. They think it is paradise up here and they are paying for us to sup champagne and nibble caviar on the dole, whilst selecting holiday locations.

Why do the polling companies seem to access a totally different group of people than on-the-street canvassers? Stories from both BT and Nat supporters on here seem to indicate a great deal more YES support than is seen in any poll, so I'm minded to discount confirmation bias as being behind the reports.

It's bloody weird, whatever the reason.

The people AS is talking about are not on the books of polling companies , most will not have computers and would not be involved in political polls.
He is correct and it is fairly common elsewhere. I posted a video recently of Jim Murphy in Motherwell, Tories on here tut tutted but ignored the point. In what was previously solid 100% labour territory , their supposed big beast was booed by almost the whole crowd and was unable even with loudspeaker to have one word heard. Poor people , working class people are not happy, and they are not concerned about what currency we will have, as someone said this week they just want something.
People are in for a shock.

Oops! Yesser who claimed to be descendant of Kier Hardie isn't, deletes twitter account:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/yes-campaigner-who-tweeted-descendant-4111682

Socrates said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tim Montgomerie explains UKIP to the cousins:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ukip-britains-tea-party-11127

And what drivel he writes. UKIP are not anti-globalization. They openly want trade deals with Brazil and India.

Isn't Montgomerie's point that there is a tension between what UKIP set out to be, and what many of its supporters believe?

Any reason why no one is talking about the biggest story of the last few days on here? Especially as it has an important political angle.

Is it not allowed or something daft like that?

Theuniondivvie said:

asjohnstone said:

I'm not convinced on turnout below 80%, I recently spent some time in Scotland, in the housing estate of the western central belt.

People who have never been politically engaged in the slightest appear certain to vote, what stunned me was how strong the tide to "yes" was esp amongst the very poor.

It was explained to me that the poorer you are, the less potency the scare stories have; they have nothing to lose and are willing to take a chance on change.

Turnout is going to be massive, esp amongst the very poor

Yep, the history books may end up defining this referendum as much more about class than nationality.

Agree - and it's been pretty consistent in the polling - let's hope once they start using their vote they keep using it.

JosiasJessop said:

I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that we can talk about on here atm (Mods, please delete if necessary):

The stereotypical belief that boys are less vulnerable to child sexual exploitation means they are receiving insufficient protection from frontline services, Barnardo's has claimed.
The children's charity says new findings reveal up to a third of victims are male.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28935733
An issue I've been mentioning on here from time to time. And one that makes yesterday's announcement by Labour of appointing a shadow minister for preventing violence against women and girls seem rather misandric.
Do Labour care for boys, or is it just girls they want to protect?
No they are really really worried about male partners telling females they are fat. Beyond parody in the list of priorities.

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

asjohnstone said:

I'm not convinced on turnout below 80%, I recently spent some time in Scotland, in the housing estate of the western central belt.

People who have never been politically engaged in the slightest appear certain to vote, what stunned me was how strong the tide to "yes" was esp amongst the very poor.

It was explained to me that the poorer you are, the less potency the scare stories have; they have nothing to lose and are willing to take a chance on change.

Turnout is going to be massive, esp amongst the very poor

The Tories on here do not want to hear sensible stuff like that. They know that we are all so stupid we will vote to continue getting subsidised and leading the high life chanting Better Together. They think it is paradise up here and they are paying for us to sup champagne and nibble caviar on the dole, whilst selecting holiday locations.

The "Tories on here" have been saying for quite some time that it will be the traditional Labour vote, in particular in the poorer western parts of the central belt that decide this - and praying daily for SLAB to get its act together.

But if you read anything anyone else wrote, instead of just reacting with bile and invective, you'd know that.

Dear Dear, mrs gloom and doom pauses from posting blatant propaganda to berate me once again. Is that your Tory get out clause , "it was labour that lost it".
It is cowardly Tories trying to get Labour to do their dirty work that has scuppered both of them. Tories are a busted flush but creepy enough to have taken Labour patsies to the cleaners. Throw in the Lib Dumbs and you have a full set of rogues.

If you ever bothered to read the polls:

Net "no" (excl DK)
Con: +82
Lab: +50

There aren't many Tories left to persuade to vote no......

malcolmg said:

CopperSulphate said:

Any reason why no one is talking about the biggest story of the last few days on here? Especially as it has an important political angle.

Is it not allowed or something daft like that?

They are too busy worrying about what currency Scotland will use and how we will cope with being flooded by oil

While the referendum is obviously important it appears to be the go to subject when you can't talk about what you want to talk about.

Luckily there's never any abuse thrown about on that topic I suppose.

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Oops! Yesser who claimed to be descendant of Kier Hardie isn't, deletes twitter account:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/yes-campaigner-who-tweeted-descendant-4111682

crime of the century , silly wee boy makes a cod of himself.
Not like the Record to not have it headlined as BLOW TO SALMOND , random tweet incorrect.

Thousands of Yes campaigners leapt on the message, retweeting it and sharing pictures of the exchange.

CopperSulphate said:

Any reason why no one is talking about the biggest story of the last few days on here? Especially as it has an important political angle.

Is it not allowed or something daft like that?

They are too busy worrying about what currency Scotland will use and how we will cope with being flooded by oil

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

asjohnstone said:

I'm not convinced on turnout below 80%, I recently spent some time in Scotland, in the housing estate of the western central belt.

People who have never been politically engaged in the slightest appear certain to vote, what stunned me was how strong the tide to "yes" was esp amongst the very poor.

It was explained to me that the poorer you are, the less potency the scare stories have; they have nothing to lose and are willing to take a chance on change.

Turnout is going to be massive, esp amongst the very poor

The Tories on here do not want to hear sensible stuff like that. They know that we are all so stupid we will vote to continue getting subsidised and leading the high life chanting Better Together. They think it is paradise up here and they are paying for us to sup champagne and nibble caviar on the dole, whilst selecting holiday locations.

The "Tories on here" have been saying for quite some time that it will be the traditional Labour vote, in particular in the poorer western parts of the central belt that decide this - and praying daily for SLAB to get its act together.

But if you read anything anyone else wrote, instead of just reacting with bile and invective, you'd know that.

Dear Dear, mrs gloom and doom pauses from posting blatant propaganda to berate me once again. Is that your Tory get out clause , "it was labour that lost it".
It is cowardly Tories trying to get Labour to do their dirty work that has scuppered both of them. Tories are a busted flush but creepy enough to have taken Labour patsies to the cleaners. Throw in the Lib Dumbs and you have a full set of rogues.

If you ever bothered to read the polls:

Net "no" (excl DK)
Con: +82
Lab: +50

There aren't many Tories left to persuade to vote no......

There aren't many Tories