politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Unless Salmond can find a way of turning the oldies in the

SimonStClare said:

Oldies don't like change.

Stuart_Dickson said:

rogerh said:

The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

20% ?? err... you'll need a rock-solid source for that please.

The guesstimates I've seen are around the 10% level, and a significant number of them are Yes voters.

Freggles said:

If the winning side has less than 55% of the vote it's going to get very uncomfortable.
The next few polls should tell us if Yes really has momentum or just a bounce.My feeling is that if there's further movement, however slight, to Yes then they will get a narrow win

JosiasJessop said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

IndyRef - best prices

Yes 11/4 (various)
No 3/10 (various)

Stuart, whilst you are on, do you have any links for your "Scottish waters contain 95% of the European Union's oil reserves" claim from yesterday morning?

Naturally, we need to be ready to respond to any aggression against Russia. Our partners, no matter what the situation in their countries and the foreign policy ideas they follow, always need to be aware that it is better not to enter into any potential armed conflict against us. Fortunately though, I don’t think anyone has the intention today of trying to start a large-scale conflict against Russia.

Let me remind you that Russia is one of the world’s biggest nuclear powers. These are not just words – this is the reality. What’s more, we are strengthening our nuclear deterrent capability and developing our armed forces. They have become more compact and effective and are becoming more modern in terms of the weapons at their disposal. We are continuing this work to build up our potential and will keep doing so, not in order to threaten anyone, but so as to be able to feel safe, ensure our security and be able to carry out our economic and social development plans.

DavidL said:

The reason oldies play such a dominant role in our political culture is that they vote. If you get an 80% turnout then their USP is at least diminished.

There is no question that the oldies are a key part of BT though. I think this is because they remember a time when the UK was a lot more United in the pre-devolution days. At the meeting I was at in Dundee last week Archie MacPherson, the old BBC football commentator was the star turn by a distance.

Pensions have also been an underrated issue in the campaign. The technical problems that would cause enormous problems for private sector pensions now in deficit in Scotland (pretty much all of them) have probably passed them by but the risks of having your pension paid by something you are no longer a part of has not.

There was an excellent debate in Dundee yesterday compered by Victoria Derbyshire which my daughter was at. What I found noticeable watching it (and her) on the I-player last night is that as we come to the crunch all of the issues are fading away somewhat and this is becoming a question of whether you want to be British or simply Scottish.

One of the sources of my nervousness about this is that I am not sure that BT have been positive enough about this throughout the campaign. They have spent their time and energy knocking down the latest gibberish from Salmond and demonstrating its idiocy. In the last 2 weeks they really need to make it clear that we are British and damned proud of it. Archie had no doubt about that and neither do I.

asjohnstone said:

I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

DavidL said:

asjohnstone said:

I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

I agree with that to an extent but even poor oldies are more likely to be no voters. The poor are much readier to believe that things might be better in an independent Scotland, that it would be more egalitarian or in other words more would be spent on them.

When you see some of the areas I have been canvassing it is not hard to see why they might want to believe that. This is a painfully unequal country and far too many lives are blighted by poverty, poor living conditions and public sector squalor caused by a combination of a lack of funds and neglect.

It is the height of naivety to believe this would be better in an independent Scotland and a failure of imagination to appreciate that it might in fact get a lot worse as the tax base diminishes and spending cuts are demanded by the markets reluctant to lend to a country without a track record whose leadership talk so glibly of default.

But it is not hard to understand why this snake oil (pun intended) sounds so tempting. (Am I spending too much time with Labour party activists?)

Sean_F said:

asjohnstone said:

I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

Looking at the Certainty to Vote figures, though, the oldies have the highest numbers. Also, they're the group that make most use of postal votes. If, say, 85% of older voters vote, compared to 70% of 18-40 year olds, that still gives an edge to older voters, albeit less than in a typical election.

PeterC said:

asjohnstone said:

I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

This is right. The analysis presented in the thread is conventional wisdom. The question is whether the polls can adequately model an 80% plus turnout. This has not been seen in a GE since 1951. There will be large numbers voting who have never voted before; many of those will be beyond the reach of landline telephones and internet panels, the tools the polling companies rely on.

DavidL said:

asjohnstone said:

I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

But it is not hard to understand why this snake oil (pun intended) sounds so tempting. (Am I spending too much time with Labour party activists?)

Easterross said:

If the slippage has become a slide in the Scottish Labour vote to YES then bye bye 300 year old union.

CarlottaVance said:

SINDY - among VI

Net Trust:
Cameron: +57
Miliband: +5
Salmond: +74
Sturgeon: +70
Darling: +13
Lamont: +2
Rennie:+8
Davidson:+30
Brown: +20

Can anyone spot the weakest links?

Alanbrooke said:

Only 15 days of this drivel left.

MonikerDiCanio said:

Sean_F said:

asjohnstone said:

I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

Looking at the Certainty to Vote figures, though, the oldies have the highest numbers. Also, they're the group that make most use of postal votes. If, say, 85% of older voters vote, compared to 70% of 18-40 year olds, that still gives an edge to older voters, albeit less than in a typical election.

Salmond has also included 16-18 year olds, which makes an 80% turnout even less likely.

foxinsoxuk said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

malcolmg said:

rogerh said:

The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

Of English people I have heard giving an opinion I would estimate it has been at least 80% for YES, it appears they are more for it than locals.

I doubt they'd be entirely frank about their voting intentions within your earshot.

The level of earache that people get from canvassers/coworkers/family/other monomaniacs may make for a lot of different voting in the privacy of a voting booth with pencil poised.

MonikerDiCanio said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

malcolmg said:

rogerh said:

The other large group who Salmond has to persuade are residents of Scotland of English origin.From memory they make up 20% of the electorate and you Gov had them i think 80;20 in the no camp.It could be a repeat of the Quebec referendum where natives of Quebec voted for independence but outsiders tipped the balance to give a narrow no vote.

Of English people I have heard giving an opinion I would estimate it has been at least 80% for YES, it appears they are more for it than locals.

I doubt they'd be entirely frank about their voting intentions within your earshot.

The level of earache that people get from canvassers/coworkers/family/other monomaniacs may make for a lot of different voting in the privacy of a voting booth with pencil poised.

Any normal person, when approached by an aggressive bore like Malcolm, would agree with him and leave.

Sean_F said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

The reason oldies play such a dominant role in our political culture is that they vote. If you get an 80% turnout then their USP is at least diminished.

There is no question that the oldies are a key part of BT though. I think this is because they remember a time when the UK was a lot more United in the pre-devolution days. At the meeting I was at in Dundee last week Archie MacPherson, the old BBC football commentator was the star turn by a distance.

Pensions have also been an underrated issue in the campaign. The technical problems that would cause enormous problems for private sector pensions now in deficit in Scotland (pretty much all of them) have probably passed them by but the risks of having your pension paid by something you are no longer a part of has not.

There was an excellent debate in Dundee yesterday compered by Victoria Derbyshire which my daughter was at. What I found noticeable watching it (and her) on the I-player last night is that as we come to the crunch all of the issues are fading away somewhat and this is becoming a question of whether you want to be British or simply Scottish.

One of the sources of my nervousness about this is that I am not sure that BT have been positive enough about this throughout the campaign. They have spent their time and energy knocking down the latest gibberish from Salmond and demonstrating its idiocy. In the last 2 weeks they really need to make it clear that we are British and damned proud of it. Archie had no doubt about that and neither do I.

Ha Ha Ha , A washed up football commentator who everyone laughed their heads off at his wistful memories of 1950. Archie like the unionists is stuck in 1950 , most of Scotland has moved on. In Dundee yesterday the BBC struggled to get NO voters for the audience, BT are washed up they are run by WASP's fixated on the SNP and have missed the point completely. The people are going in a different direction, Labour choosing to be Tories little helpers have destroyed them , it is crumbling and the move is all to YES. Using failed Labour duffers was not a good idea.

I think there are a large number of Scots like David L, who are as committed to remaining in the UK, as you are to leaving it.

Innocent_Abroad said:

Plea to OGH: can you please offer Malcolm a thread of his own once a week for, say, the next fortnight? Then we could ask Shaddsy to open a book on who he'll be most abusive to. I'd feel very proud to be at 100-30 or less...

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

The reason oldies play such a dominant role in our political culture is that they vote. If you get an 80% turnout then their USP is at least diminished.

There is no question that the oldies are a key part of BT though. I think this is because they remember a time when the UK was a lot more United in the pre-devolution days. At the meeting I was at in Dundee last week Archie MacPherson, the old BBC football commentator was the star turn by a distance.

Pensions have also been an underrated issue in the campaign. The technical problems that would cause enormous problems for private sector pensions now in deficit in Scotland (pretty much all of them) have probably passed them by but the risks of having your pension paid by something you are no longer a part of has not.

There was an excellent debate in Dundee yesterday compered by Victoria Derbyshire which my daughter was at. What I found noticeable watching it (and her) on the I-player last night is that as we come to the crunch all of the issues are fading away somewhat and this is becoming a question of whether you want to be British or simply Scottish.

One of the sources of my nervousness about this is that I am not sure that BT have been positive enough about this throughout the campaign. They have spent their time and energy knocking down the latest gibberish from Salmond and demonstrating its idiocy. In the last 2 weeks they really need to make it clear that we are British and damned proud of it. Archie had no doubt about that and neither do I.

Very well said DavidL. #proudtobebritish

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

asjohnstone said:

I don't normally agree with much that Stuart writes, but he's entirely correct here, as turnout increases the differential turnout for older voters gets degraded. Once turnout hits 80%, it's gone.

I don't think the battle is generational, it's class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote yes. The have less skin in the game when it comes to maintaining the status quo

I agree with that to an extent but even poor oldies are more likely to be no voters. The poor are much readier to believe that things might be better in an independent Scotland, that it would be more egalitarian or in other words more would be spent on them.

When you see some of the areas I have been canvassing it is not hard to see why they might want to believe that. This is a painfully unequal country and far too many lives are blighted by poverty, poor living conditions and public sector squalor caused by a combination of a lack of funds and neglect.

It is the height of naivety to believe this would be better in an independent Scotland and a failure of imagination to appreciate that it might in fact get a lot worse as the tax base diminishes and spending cuts are demanded by the markets reluctant to lend to a country without a track record whose leadership talk so glibly of default.

But it is not hard to understand why this snake oil (pun intended) sounds so tempting. (Am I spending too much time with Labour party activists?)

than NO hope.

A much more reasonable post, Malcolm.

Many of us in England (myself included) feel the same - the mainstream parties have let us down and are letting us down.

Where I differ from you is that I feel it's not necessary to break up our British family in order to do this. They're not listening to the people but there are plenty of other political and voting reforms I'd put first.

malcolmg said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Plea to OGH: can you please offer Malcolm a thread of his own once a week for, say, the next fortnight? Then we could ask Shaddsy to open a book on who he'll be most abusive to. I'd feel very proud to be at 100-30 or less...

Innocent , you are just a jessie , you would not even know abusive if it slapped you on the chops, too much of a wimp. I would not want you crying.

Financier said:

At present it appears that Salmond (Yes) is strong on passion and weak on facts and Darling (No) is weak on passion and strong on facts. Also Murphy appears to be trying to rectify Darling's weakness.

Having listened to people like Castro and the recordings of Hitler, the people often followed the passion more than the facts, but came to rue their choice in the end.

Much has been said of the ensuing poverty due to the benign neglect by Labour in parts of Scotland.

The hymn, "All things Bright & Beautiful" contains a verse that is now usually omitted due to political correctness.

"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate."

Wherever I have been on this globe and whether the regime is communist, fascist, dictatorship or democracy, the people at the top usually arranged things (to a greater or lesser degree) that they were the rich ones and the rest were the poor. So if Yes or No wins, I would not expect the rich/poor situation to change markedly in Scotland or rUK.

The only people who will move across economic boundaries are those who have the initiative and determination to do so, waiting for any form of government to do it for you is a a very false hope.

Financier said:

At present it appears that Salmond (Yes) is strong on passion and weak on facts and Darling (No) is weak on passion and strong on facts. Also Murphy appears to be trying to rectify Darling's weakness.

Having listened to people like Castro and the recordings of Hitler, the people often followed the passion more than the facts, but came to rue their choice in the end.

Much has been said of the ensuing poverty due to the benign neglect by Labour in parts of Scotland.

The hymn, "All things Bright & Beautiful" contains a verse that is now usually omitted due to political correctness.

"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate."

Wherever I have been on this globe and whether the regime is communist, fascist, dictatorship or democracy, the people at the top usually arranged things (to a greater or lesser degree) that they were the rich ones and the rest were the poor. So if Yes or No wins, I would not expect the rich/poor situation to change markedly in Scotland or rUK.

The only people who will move across economic boundaries are those who have the initiative and determination to do so, waiting for any form of government to do it for you is a a very false hope.

Easterross said:

Alanbrooke said:

Easterross said:

Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

How's that different from the rest of us ?

Alanbrooke for the rest of you, the decisions are being taken in your capital city by politicians you elect. Few Scots see London as our capital city and thanks to Tony Blair, our government, the one which determines most issues affecting our lives, is based in Edinburgh. I am a Unionist but every day I watch the TV news and overwhelmingly the domestic news is actually English only news. It has no relevance to Scotland.
This week day 3 and typically
1) The first test for the national football team under new captain Wayne Rooney- not my nation or my team
2) Free school meals issue for all primary schools- not relevant to Scotland where children don't even attend primary school for the same length of time as in England, 7 years in Scotland.
3) Back to school- well no actually Scots schools went back last month.
4) Hospital parking charges- well no we haven't had them in Scotland for several years
5) London Estuary Airport- little relevance here. Recently on a trip to Inverness to discuss flight connectivity with local business and council leaders, the MD of Heathrow had to fly to Glasgow and then drive to Inverness because there are no flights between Inverness and Heathrow! They were removed several years ago so the slots could be used for USA flights. We can however fly from Inverness to the main airport of 2 other EU members, Dublin and Amsterdam.

I could go on. We simply have very little in common with England any more.

MonikerDiCanio said:

Easterross said:

Alanbrooke said:

Easterross said:

Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

How's that different from the rest of us ?

Alanbrooke for the rest of you, the decisions are being taken in your capital city by politicians you elect. Few Scots see London as our capital city and thanks to Tony Blair, our government, the one which determines most issues affecting our lives, is based in Edinburgh. I am a Unionist but every day I watch the TV news and overwhelmingly the domestic news is actually English only news. It has no relevance to Scotland.
This week day 3 and typically
1) The first test for the national football team under new captain Wayne Rooney- not my nation or my team
2) Free school meals issue for all primary schools- not relevant to Scotland where children don't even attend primary school for the same length of time as in England, 7 years in Scotland.
3) Back to school- well no actually Scots schools went back last month.
4) Hospital parking charges- well no we haven't had them in Scotland for several years
5) London Estuary Airport- little relevance here. Recently on a trip to Inverness to discuss flight connectivity with local business and council leaders, the MD of Heathrow had to fly to Glasgow and then drive to Inverness because there are no flights between Inverness and Heathrow! They were removed several years ago so the slots could be used for USA flights. We can however fly from Inverness to the main airport of 2 other EU members, Dublin and Amsterdam.

I could go on. We simply have very little in common with England any more.

Why didn't the MD fly to Aberdeen?

malcolmg said:

Financier said:

At present it appears that Salmond (Yes) is strong on passion and weak on facts and Darling (No) is weak on passion and strong on facts. Also Murphy appears to be trying to rectify Darling's weakness.

Having listened to people like Castro and the recordings of Hitler, the people often followed the passion more than the facts, but came to rue their choice in the end.

Much has been said of the ensuing poverty due to the benign neglect by Labour in parts of Scotland.

The hymn, "All things Bright & Beautiful" contains a verse that is now usually omitted due to political correctness.

"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate."

Wherever I have been on this globe and whether the regime is communist, fascist, dictatorship or democracy, the people at the top usually arranged things (to a greater or lesser degree) that they were the rich ones and the rest were the poor. So if Yes or No wins, I would not expect the rich/poor situation to change markedly in Scotland or rUK.

The only people who will move across economic boundaries are those who have the initiative and determination to do so, waiting for any form of government to do it for you is a a very false hope.

Your first couple of lines show your total and utter lack of any knowledge of Scotland and the politics going on there. Murphy is a joke , followed about by a chicken yesterday. NO have no clue and no facts or policies to pass on. Murphy may have done better if he was not constantly lying , at least he has ventured outside the private meetings , but he has no story to tell other than Labour at Westminster are now right wing poodles of the Tories. People know this and hence they treat him and his lies accordingly.

OldKingCole said:

To be fair, Malcolm has a good point about “Hope”. Better Together, from what I have seen and heard, seems to be saying “We can’t afford it, we won’t manage alone" and so on. Summed up a long time ago as “too poor, too wee, too stupid”.
And that doesn’t send a positive message.
The problem for BT is that lots of comments coming up from England (or perhaps, really London) suggest that life in the UK isn’t good. “People don’t like being in the EU, and that nasty clique in Westminister are stopping us leaving". And so on. Energy firms ripping off customers, Rotherhams, top jobs reserved for an elite, the list at the moment seems endless.

The SNP are offering a way out. Do it ourselves, with our people at the top.

It would tempt me if I were in Scotland. A country where my children and grandchildren could get to the top from an “ordinary background”.

rottenborough said:

malcolmg said:

Financier said:

At present it appears that Salmond (Yes) is strong on passion and weak on facts and Darling (No) is weak on passion and strong on facts. Also Murphy appears to be trying to rectify Darling's weakness.

Having listened to people like Castro and the recordings of Hitler, the people often followed the passion more than the facts, but came to rue their choice in the end.

Much has been said of the ensuing poverty due to the benign neglect by Labour in parts of Scotland.

The hymn, "All things Bright & Beautiful" contains a verse that is now usually omitted due to political correctness.

"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate."

Wherever I have been on this globe and whether the regime is communist, fascist, dictatorship or democracy, the people at the top usually arranged things (to a greater or lesser degree) that they were the rich ones and the rest were the poor. So if Yes or No wins, I would not expect the rich/poor situation to change markedly in Scotland or rUK.

The only people who will move across economic boundaries are those who have the initiative and determination to do so, waiting for any form of government to do it for you is a a very false hope.

Your first couple of lines show your total and utter lack of any knowledge of Scotland and the politics going on there. Murphy is a joke , followed about by a chicken yesterday. NO have no clue and no facts or policies to pass on. Murphy may have done better if he was not constantly lying , at least he has ventured outside the private meetings , but he has no story to tell other than Labour at Westminster are now right wing poodles of the Tories. People know this and hence they treat him and his lies accordingly.

They'll need more chickens then, as Telegraph reporting that Brown, John Reid and Charlie K are joining the central belt fray:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11071210/Gordon-Brown-and-John-Reid-to-lead-Labour-fightback-against-nationalist-surge.html

MonikerDiCanio said:

Easterross said:

Alanbrooke said:

Easterross said:

Something everyone has to realise is that for a large part of the Scottish electorate issues like currency, EU and NATO membership etc just don't matter. They have had enough. They believe all the politicians are liars and self serving. They do believe the closer to them decisions are taken, the more likely those decisions will impact positively on their lives.

For someone living in Glasgow, Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee or Edinburgh, are the decisions affecting your life better taken in Edinburgh by Scots or in London by people who often couldn't care less about Scotland? Very difficult to argue against that line.

How's that different from the rest of us ?

Alanbrooke for the rest of you, the decisions are being taken in your capital city by politicians you elect. Few Scots see London as our capital city and thanks to Tony Blair, our government, the one which determines most issues affecting our lives, is based in Edinburgh. I am a Unionist but every day I watch the TV news and overwhelmingly the domestic news is actually English only news. It has no relevance to Scotland.
This week day 3 and typically
1) The first test for the national football team under new captain Wayne Rooney- not my nation or my team
2) Free school meals issue for all primary schools- not relevant to Scotland where children don't even attend primary school for the same length of time as in England, 7 years in Scotland.
3) Back to school- well no actually Scots schools went back last month.
4) Hospital parking charges- well no we haven't had them in Scotland for several years
5) London Estuary Airport- little relevance here. Recently on a trip to Inverness to discuss flight connectivity with local business and council leaders, the MD of Heathrow had to fly to Glasgow and then drive to Inverness because there are no flights between Inverness and Heathrow! They were removed several years ago so the slots could be used for USA flights. We can however fly from Inverness to the main airport of 2 other EU members, Dublin and Amsterdam.

I could go on. We simply have very little in common with England any more.

Why didn't the MD fly to Aberdeen?