"James's headlines are almost certainly aimed at his wide PB fanbase."
One of the quirks of PB is that posters who get the Kelly/Tim/Snowflake treatment are invariably the most interesting. Tell him to stop being a big Jessie and get back here
What 'treatment'? Thought they all flounced off, never to return under their old logins.
"James's headlines are almost certainly aimed at his wide PB fanbase."
One of the quirks of PB is that posters who get the Kelly/Tim/Snowflake treatment are invariably the most interesting. Tell him to stop being a big Jessie and get back here
What 'treatment'? Thought they all flounced off, never to return under their old logins.
"James's headlines are almost certainly aimed at his wide PB fanbase."
One of the quirks of PB is that posters who get the Kelly/Tim/Snowflake treatment are invariably the most interesting. Tell him to stop being a big Jessie and get back here
What 'treatment'? Thought they all flounced off, never to return under their old logins.
"James's headlines are almost certainly aimed at his wide PB fanbase."
One of the quirks of PB is that posters who get the Kelly/Tim/Snowflake treatment are invariably the most interesting. Tell him to stop being a big Jessie and get back here
What 'treatment'? Thought they all flounced off, never to return under their old logins.
Yes: it's a well known fact that Rupert Murdoch is in some kind of conspiracy with child molesters from Pakistan. All I can assume is they have some dirt on him, which is why he's told his papers - as much as possible - to completely ignore the story, and to lead on some crap about Scotland which nobody cares about.
Also interesting to note that Survation Phone Poll was unweighted 558 Men 435 Female but their last online poll was 397 Men 603 Female.
So, if anything, this should have been more favourable for Yes?
My stats may be crap but give that the results are weighted I think having a smaller raw number of a predominantly No group would make it more likely to look more No than if they sample more people.
Also interesting to note that Survation Phone Poll was unweighted 558 Men 435 Female but their last online poll was 397 Men 603 Female.
So, if anything, this should have been more favourable for Yes?
My stats may be crap but give that the results are weighted I think having a smaller raw number of a predominantly No group would make it more likely to look more No than if they sample more people.
I may write a simulation to test this thought.
Hm, not sure I see the logic there. Perhaps the margin of error on the no figure would be larger, but the difference between 400 and 500 people is probably quite small in terms of the moe.
Yes: it's a well known fact that Rupert Murdoch is in some kind of conspiracy with child molesters from Pakistan. All I can assume is they have some dirt on him, which is why he's told his papers - as much as possible - to completely ignore the story, and to lead on some crap about Scotland which nobody cares about.
Really?
I thought they were all leading about dogs in NW England?
Also interesting to note that Survation Phone Poll was unweighted 558 Men 435 Female but their last online poll was 397 Men 603 Female.
So, if anything, this should have been more favourable for Yes?
My stats may be crap but give that the results are weighted I think having a smaller raw number of a predominantly No group would make it more likely to look more No than if they sample more people.
I may write a simulation to test this thought.
Well: the unweighted numbers would favour 'yes', as men are more likely to vote yes. Did they upweight women to remove the bias?
Also: do we think we'll get similar male/female turnout on the day?
Yes: it's a well known fact that Rupert Murdoch is in some kind of conspiracy with child molesters from Pakistan. All I can assume is they have some dirt on him, which is why he's told his papers - as much as possible - to completely ignore the story, and to lead on some crap about Scotland which nobody cares about.
Really?
I thought they were all leading about dogs in NW England?
The Times led on Sctoland, The Sun led on the puppies.
You're right, though, I could have made it funnier if I'd used the dogs.
So looking at the deomographics, for the 2011 Holyrood election the turnout was 50%, so 50% Did Not Vote. Survation have the DNV as 25% of the weighted sample.
Surely, with a massive turnout predicted this is not a good weighting?
Why do you believe this crap about 80% vote ? There is no proof.
Look what happened to Fraser Nelson yesterday when he was trying to interview someone about the Indy Ref campaign, I think he was quite shocked to personally experience this kind of intimidation from Yes a activist. Fraser Nelson and I have one thing in common, we were both born in Inverness.
Stand by for a shitstorm, beeboid interviewer saying she came across widespread intimidation from Yes during the campaign. Interviewing reid and Murphy.
Also interesting to note that Survation Phone Poll was unweighted 558 Men 435 Female but their last online poll was 397 Men 603 Female.
So, if anything, this should have been more favourable for Yes?
My stats may be crap but give that the results are weighted I think having a smaller raw number of a predominantly No group would make it more likely to look more No than if they sample more people.
I may write a simulation to test this thought.
Well: the unweighted numbers would favour 'yes', as men are more likely to vote yes. Did they upweight women to remove the bias?
Also: do we think we'll get similar male/female turnout on the day?
Yes, men downrated from 558->434 and women uprated from 435-463
Also interesting to note that Survation Phone Poll was unweighted 558 Men 435 Female but their last online poll was 397 Men 603 Female.
So, if anything, this should have been more favourable for Yes?
Quite honestly don't you think that the polls, all of them, are having a nervous breakdown.
As I have said before, I don't see how polling can resolve the essential conflict many have, between heart and head. But I think we can say it has been a good few days for the head, with business telling some serious home truths - and the SNP showing how dark its heart really is....
"YES campaign wants Indy youngsters to persuade NO-voting grannies 'with poems, and independence chat' http://t.co/Ov1scByRbN"
I sometimes think my Mum prefers my Dad as much as me, You ought to see the pile of beans she gives my Dad for tea, I need Heinz beans as much as him — in fact I need them more ’Cause my Dad’s very very old — and me I’m only four. (I’m six really, but it didn’t fit.)
Would be interesting to see how many people living in England would vote if they were able to
Do you mean all people living in England, or just Scots living there? I saw something yesterday which had all English VI (hypothetical) at 60/20/20 for No/Yes/DK.
Alex Salmond, "I’m afraid that Mr Cameron and his Tory friends in Downing Street, and their Labour frontmen in Scotland, are going to get their comeuppance next Thursday, because Scotland is going to go for yes in very substantial proportions."
How will he cope if Scotland says No, cry that the ballot boxes were stuffed.
Just back from the pub with a Scottish friend of mine, used to be yes - it will end the dependency culture - now strongly no - the dependency culture too engrained. Interesting travel from hope to fear.
"What will happen to Scottish officers not attached to regiments on independence?"
Why just unattached officers? The same question applies to every serviceman or woman. The squaddie, bootneck or jolly jack has taken an oath of loyalty to HMtQ, not to the UK not to England or Scotland by to the Crown. If HMtQ is to be head of state of an independent Scotland can she, through the generals and officers set over them, order her service personnel to serve in the new Jockanese forces?
If she cannot I think iScotland's defence plans have just hit another problem. Even if they can scratch up the cash to pay where are they going to get the people from? I am sure that there will be a sufficient number of senior NCOs that will go for it, but they will be looking for an easy life to see out until pension time. What about the youngsters who actually make the whole thing viable?
Always found both Salmond and Sturgeon cold fish, excuse the pun. Salmond has a great habit of pausing, and then letting out a little laugh before he tells a whopper in an interview. And Sturgeon's party piece is to try to heckle other politicians during a debate when they are delivering unpalatable facts that undermine the SNP/Yes agenda.
Stand by for a shitstorm, beeboid interviewer saying she came across widespread intimidation from Yes during the campaign. Interviewing reid and Murphy.
I've never understood the popularity of Salmond - he is slimy on the surface and that only hides a really nasty underbelly. If that's what the Scots like they really are 'another country'. Sturgeon is another matter - personable and a good debater albeit another misguided leftie.
Would be interesting to see how many people living in England would vote if they were able to
Do you mean all people living in England, or just Scots living there? I saw something yesterday which had all English VI (hypothetical) at 60/20/20 for No/Yes/DK.
I meant all people living in England, but was talking about turnout rather than how they would vote
Why just unattached officers? The same question applies to every serviceman or woman. The squaddie, bootneck or jolly jack has taken an oath of loyalty to HMtQ, not to the UK not to England or Scotland by to the Crown. If HMtQ is to be head of state of an independent Scotland can she, through the generals and officers set over them, order her service personnel to serve in the new Jockanese forces?
I think you are overthinking this. Who pays their wages? Who supplies their equipment? Who pays for exercises, ammunition, kit etc?
If the paymaster is down south, the squaddies et al will be down south too.
So looking at the deomographics, for the 2011 Holyrood election the turnout was 50%, so 50% Did Not Vote. Survation have the DNV as 25% of the weighted sample.
Surely, with a massive turnout predicted this is not a good weighting?
Why do you believe this crap about 80% vote ? There is no proof.
You'll be making mad bank on betting under the turnout line then?
Look what happened to Fraser Nelson yesterday when he was trying to interview someone about the Indy Ref campaign, I think he was quite shocked to personally experience this kind of intimidation from Yes a activist. Fraser Nelson and I have one thing in common, we were both born in Inverness.
Stand by for a shitstorm, beeboid interviewer saying she came across widespread intimidation from Yes during the campaign. Interviewing reid and Murphy.
Fantastic. YES campaign wants Indy youngsters to persuade NO-voting grannies 'with poems, and independence chat' http://t.co/Ov1scByRbN
"Hello Granny, I know you're a bit old and dim, and voting NO, but I've knitted a special cushion cover saying YES to persuade you."
probably to the reply -"sod off ye wee shite or your not getting anything for Xmas"
Didn't The Guardian try something similar urging British people to ring Americans during a US Presidential election campaign and urge them not to vote Republican? That backfired spectacularly.
Of course there's no proof. If there were, there'd be no market.
There is form though and the best form line I could find was the Quebec referendum which had a 93% turnout. Now obviously you cannot make a straight comparison but on balance there seems every reason to think Scotland will follow the Canadian precedent closely.
I'd be very surprised if turnout is <80% and something nearer the Quebec figure is perfectly possible.
Why just unattached officers? The same question applies to every serviceman or woman. The squaddie, bootneck or jolly jack has taken an oath of loyalty to HMtQ, not to the UK not to England or Scotland by to the Crown. If HMtQ is to be head of state of an independent Scotland can she, through the generals and officers set over them, order her service personnel to serve in the new Jockanese forces?
I think you are overthinking this. Who pays their wages? Who supplies their equipment? Who pays for exercises, ammunition, kit etc?
If the paymaster is down south, the squaddies et al will be down south too.
But Mrs C in the White Paper it has been set out what the iScotland defence forces will be. I am merely exploring where the people will come from. If HMtQ cannot direct them to serve I think there might be a shortfall.
Of course there's no proof. If there were, there'd be no market.
There is form though and the best form line I could find was the Quebec referendum which had a 93% turnout. Now obviously you cannot make a straight comparison but on balance there seems every reason to think Scotland will follow the Canadian precedent closely.
I'd be very surprised if turnout is <80% and something nearer the Quebec figure is perfectly possible.</p>
I very much doubt that turnout will hit 90%, particularly with previously unregistered voters (by definition, the most disengaged in the process), having been proactively signed up to be added to the electoral roll by activists.
A good comparison might be the 1998 Good Friday referendum, which had an 81% turnout. I could see Scotland just about topping that, but it'd be close. I'd be very surprised at 85%+, never mind 90%.
Which side just marched 10000 odd people in pseudo-military uniforms through the centre of the capital?
The march seems to have been well stewarded and in good spirits.
The loyal Orange lodges are making an emotional appeal to British patriotism. It doesn't sound as if it was intimidating, just a celebration of Loyalism.
Look what happened to Fraser Nelson yesterday when he was trying to interview someone about the Indy Ref campaign, I think he was quite shocked to personally experience this kind of intimidation from Yes a activist. Fraser Nelson and I have one thing in common, we were both born in Inverness.
If YES wins then I really feel that all the elements are there for the creation of a fascist state. Simmering resentment & hatred at a strawman (the English / tories / FEB's), the cult of the Leader, the flying squads, the revenge policies, control of the legislature, intolerance of criticism, fantasy policies, "yes men" clapping the leader, slapping down of journalists, disrespect towards people.
If I lived up there, I would not be waiting for the referendum. I would have gone already.
Of course there's no proof. If there were, there'd be no market.
There is form though and the best form line I could find was the Quebec referendum which had a 93% turnout. Now obviously you cannot make a straight comparison but on balance there seems every reason to think Scotland will follow the Canadian precedent closely.
I'd be very surprised if turnout is <80% and something nearer the Quebec figure is perfectly possible.</p>
I very much doubt that turnout will hit 90%, particularly with previously unregistered voters (by definition, the most disengaged in the process), having been proactively signed up to be added to the electoral roll by activists.
A good comparison might be the 1998 Good Friday referendum, which had an 81% turnout. I could see Scotland just about topping that, but it'd be close. I'd be very surprised at 85%+, never mind 90%.
A fair number of the undecideds may well not vote. The value may well be in the under 80% band.
But Mrs C in the White Paper it has been set out what the iScotland defence forces will be. I am merely exploring where the people will come from. If HMtQ cannot direct them to serve I think there might be a shortfall.
Mr Llama, people are loyal to their paypackets. They have to be, you cannot eat ideals nor feed your family with them.
Look what happened to Fraser Nelson yesterday when he was trying to interview someone about the Indy Ref campaign, I think he was quite shocked to personally experience this kind of intimidation from Yes a activist. Fraser Nelson and I have one thing in common, we were both born in Inverness.
If YES wins then I really feel that all the elements are there for the creation of a fascist state. Simmering resentment & hatred at a strawman (the English / tories / FEB's), the cult of the Leader, the flying squads, the revenge policies, intolerance of criticism, fantasy policies, "yes men" clapping the leader, slapping down of journalists, disrespect towards people.
If I lived up there, I would not be waiting for the referendum. I would have gone already.
Careful, that amount of hysteria could do you a mischief.
Of course there's no proof. If there were, there'd be no market.
There is form though and the best form line I could find was the Quebec referendum which had a 93% turnout. Now obviously you cannot make a straight comparison but on balance there seems every reason to think Scotland will follow the Canadian precedent closely.
I'd be very surprised if turnout is <80% and something nearer the Quebec figure is perfectly possible.</p>
I very much doubt that turnout will hit 90%, particularly with previously unregistered voters (by definition, the most disengaged in the process), having been proactively signed up to be added to the electoral roll by activists.
A good comparison might be the 1998 Good Friday referendum, which had an 81% turnout. I could see Scotland just about topping that, but it'd be close. I'd be very surprised at 85%+, never mind 90%.
I very much doubt that turnout will hit 90%, particularly with previously unregistered voters (by definition, the most disengaged in the process), having been proactively signed up to be added to the electoral roll by activists.
The activists have all the names and addresses. They could always save the voters a trip to the polling station and just vote YES for them and then lose the registers a la Glenrothes.....
BetFair's odds haven't moved much since yesterday; now at ~5.25 for YES. The size of the market and the sensitivity to the polls makes me wonder at the potential for insider trading. Not even sure it is illegal, however. Might explain why the odds haven't shifted. Another poll comes tonight. YES still looks excellent value; it will obviously shorten if the new poll shows a closer race...
But Mrs C in the White Paper it has been set out what the iScotland defence forces will be. I am merely exploring where the people will come from. If HMtQ cannot direct them to serve I think there might be a shortfall.
Mr Llama, people are loyal to their paypackets. They have to be, you cannot eat ideals nor feed your family with them.
I think we are missing each other on this one, Mrs. C. Lets see if we can't settle it out.
I think very few people current service personnel will volunteer to join to the new Scottish Defence Forces (should such ever come into existence). Do you disagree with that? If so why?
Which side just marched 10000 odd people in pseudo-military uniforms through the centre of the capital?
The march seems to have been well stewarded and in good spirits.
The loyal Orange lodges are making an emotional appeal to British patriotism. It doesn't sound as if it was intimidating, just a celebration of Loyalism.
Careful, that amount of hysteria could do you a mischief.
I will be fine. I am down here and have been for decades.
I want to see a NO vote I really do, but I think that the YES campaign wants YES at any price - too fervently and I worry about what will happen when they win, because I think they will win.
Unless NO voters are so intimidated that they are lying en masse to the pollsters, then I think that the thin margin between YES and NO is dangerous. It will be too tempting to "blur the lines" to get a YES, a little bit of "rule bending" for such a glorious outcome. The end WILL justify the means.
I look at the bullying, the nastiness, the vicious bile and hatred and it seems to me that reason has already left the campaign.
I worry for those in Scotland. I have no worries for myself.
Which side just marched 10000 odd people in pseudo-military uniforms through the centre of the capital?
The march seems to have been well stewarded and in good spirits.
The loyal Orange lodges are making an emotional appeal to British patriotism. It doesn't sound as if it was intimidating, just a celebration of Loyalism.
I caught the tail end of the Orange march. Was surprised by the makeup of the crowd. A lot of National Trust type older women out with their children and grandchildren. Couldn't be more respectable. They were pretty subdued I thought.
BetFair's odds haven't moved much since yesterday; now at ~5.25 for YES. The size of the market and the sensitivity to the polls makes me wonder at the potential for insider trading. Not even sure it is illegal, however. Might explain why the odds haven't shifted. Another poll comes tonight. YES still looks excellent value; it will obviously shorten if the new poll shows a closer race...
I badly misjudged the polling reaction today and have pissed away almost all of my traded gains from the last couple of days. I an still green out but I'm in now where near as good a position as I was.
I think very few people current service personnel will volunteer to join to the new Scottish Defence Forces
I would agree with that. I think that swearing an oath to Her Majesty is not the issue because they can carry out that oath outside Scotland. In England, for example.
Careful, that amount of hysteria could do you a mischief.
I will be fine. I am down here and have been for decades.
I want to see a NO vote I really do, but I think that the YES campaign wants YES at any price - too fervently and I worry about what will happen when they win, because I think they will win.
Unless NO voters are so intimidated that they are lying en masse to the pollsters, then I think that the thin margin between YES and NO is dangerous. It will be too tempting to "blur the lines" to get a YES, a little bit of "rule bending" for such a glorious outcome. The end WILL justify the means.
I look at the bullying, the nastiness, the vicious bile and hatred and it seems to me that reason has already left the campaign.
I worry for those in Scotland. I have no worries for myself.
Hysteria doesn't have to be on one's own behalf, and yours seems entirely based on cockeyed media reports and vestigial knowledge. Try some objective analysis for yourself: how many verifiable reports of assaults, broken windows, threats of violence and acts of vandalism connected to the referendum can you find?
"What will happen to Scottish officers not attached to regiments on independence?"
Why just unattached officers? The same question applies to every serviceman or woman. The squaddie, bootneck or jolly jack has taken an oath of loyalty to HMtQ, not to the UK not to England or Scotland by to the Crown. If HMtQ is to be head of state of an independent Scotland can she, through the generals and officers set over them, order her service personnel to serve in the new Jockanese forces?
Why unattached officers? Because they aren't attached to a regiment e.g. Black Watch. This applies to all Royal Naval and RAF personnel.
As for your ridiculous assertion about ordering troops to join the new Scottish Army, see the disbanding of Irish regiments I mentioned. Most of the troops joined other regiments.
Considering the general thuggishness of the YES campaign, I think they'll be no problem recruiting personnel for the new Scottish Army. The Irish Free State used the IRA, after all.
All segments moving slightly to No there, including 15% of 2011 SNP voters. Looks promising.
My local Labour E Midlands office is virtually closed, having flung all the key organisers into the Scottish battle (my key seat organisers has been up there for 3 months now). And it's started registering on the doorstep in my patch - several voters asking which way I thought it would go.
Canvassed a strong Tory ward today - quite a lot of UKIP from both major parties but Labour doing slightly better net than in previous canvasses. And the first sighting reported of an unidentified canvass team from another party, presumably Tory since neither LibDems nor UKIP have candidates here yet. Voters are getting quite interested now - lots of requests for postal votes "in case we're away, don't want to miss it" and similar remarks.
But Mrs C in the White Paper it has been set out what the iScotland defence forces will be. I am merely exploring where the people will come from. If HMtQ cannot direct them to serve I think there might be a shortfall.
Mr Llama, people are loyal to their paypackets. They have to be, you cannot eat ideals nor feed your family with them.
I think very few people current service personnel will volunteer to join to the new Scottish Defence Forces
Why would they want to - it's the difference between being a Community Support Officer and a real Policeman.
Stay with the whatever the British Army becomes, and there's an opportunity to travel the globe, and possibly see some action or do something useful (which lets face it, is what soldiers train to do).
Join the Defence Force and stay at home, occasionally peering at Spanish trawlers plundering fish stocks, through binoculars.
Careful, that amount of hysteria could do you a mischief.
I will be fine. I am down here and have been for decades.
I want to see a NO vote I really do, but I think that the YES campaign wants YES at any price - too fervently and I worry about what will happen when they win, because I think they will win.
Unless NO voters are so intimidated that they are lying en masse to the pollsters, then I think that the thin margin between YES and NO is dangerous. It will be too tempting to "blur the lines" to get a YES, a little bit of "rule bending" for such a glorious outcome. The end WILL justify the means.
I look at the bullying, the nastiness, the vicious bile and hatred and it seems to me that reason has already left the campaign.
I worry for those in Scotland. I have no worries for myself.
Hysteria doesn't have to be on one's own behalf, and yours seems entirely based on cockeyed media reports and vestigial knowledge. Try some objective analysis for yourself: how many verifiable reports of assaults, broken windows, threats of violence and acts of vandalism connected to the referendum can you find?
How many accounts of Muslims raping White girls could you find - until recently.
The same rotten political logic could apply in this case.
Why just unattached officers? The same question applies to every serviceman or woman. The squaddie, bootneck or jolly jack has taken an oath of loyalty to HMtQ, not to the UK not to England or Scotland by to the Crown. If HMtQ is to be head of state of an independent Scotland can she, through the generals and officers set over them, order her service personnel to serve in the new Jockanese forces?
I think you are overthinking this. Who pays their wages? Who supplies their equipment? Who pays for exercises, ammunition, kit etc?
If the paymaster is down south, the squaddies et al will be down south too.
But Mrs C in the White Paper it has been set out what the iScotland defence forces will be. I am merely exploring where the people will come from. If HMtQ cannot direct them to serve I think there might be a shortfall.
The Scottish regiments cannot fill their ranks as things currently stand, they have approx 10% manning from the commonwealth mainly Fiji, as things currently stand. When the opportunities are reduced to being a home defence force they stand no chance of recruiting enough people. But it matters not as no are going to win.
BetFair's odds haven't moved much since yesterday; now at ~5.25 for YES. The size of the market and the sensitivity to the polls makes me wonder at the potential for insider trading. Not even sure it is illegal, however. Might explain why the odds haven't shifted. Another poll comes tonight. YES still looks excellent value; it will obviously shorten if the new poll shows a closer race...
I badly misjudged the polling reaction today and have pissed away almost all of my traded gains from the last couple of days. I an still green out but I'm in now where near as good a position as I was.
Sorry to hear that. Long YES and showing a loss. Tonight's poll likely to be better for YES than last one, if only for reasons of mean reversion (an 8pt lead is the highest seen for a few weeks).
Careful, that amount of hysteria could do you a mischief.
I will be fine. I am down here and have been for decades.
I want to see a NO vote I really do, but I think that the YES campaign wants YES at any price - too fervently and I worry about what will happen when they win, because I think they will win.
Unless NO voters are so intimidated that they are lying en masse to the pollsters, then I think that the thin margin between YES and NO is dangerous. It will be too tempting to "blur the lines" to get a YES, a little bit of "rule bending" for such a glorious outcome. The end WILL justify the means.
I look at the bullying, the nastiness, the vicious bile and hatred and it seems to me that reason has already left the campaign.
I worry for those in Scotland. I have no worries for myself.
Hysteria doesn't have to be on one's own behalf, and yours seems entirely based on cockeyed media reports and vestigial knowledge. Try some objective analysis for yourself: how many verifiable reports of assaults, broken windows, threats of violence and acts of vandalism connected to the referendum can you find?
How many accounts of Muslims raping White girls could you find - until recently.
The same rotten political logic could apply in this case.
On the evidence I'll bow to your mastery of rotten political logic. Or rotten logic for that matter.
Stand by for a shitstorm, beeboid interviewer saying she came across widespread intimidation from Yes during the campaign. Interviewing reid and Murphy.
Of course, this is what Nationalism is all about. If you spend all your time dividing people into 'us and them' its no wonder the hate spills out.
If you are biased as BBC and listen to liars like Reid and Murphy what do you expect , certainly not facts.
BetFair's odds haven't moved much since yesterday; now at ~5.25 for YES. The size of the market and the sensitivity to the polls makes me wonder at the potential for insider trading. Not even sure it is illegal, however. Might explain why the odds haven't shifted. Another poll comes tonight. YES still looks excellent value; it will obviously shorten if the new poll shows a closer race...
I badly misjudged the polling reaction today and have pissed away almost all of my traded gains from the last couple of days. I an still green out but I'm in now where near as good a position as I was.
You're not alone
I also made Graziano Pelle the best bet of the season so far on FGS and couldn't get on! oh well
"What will happen to Scottish officers not attached to regiments on independence?"
Why just unattached officers? The same question applies to every serviceman or woman. The squaddie, bootneck or jolly jack has taken an oath of loyalty to HMtQ, not to the UK not to England or Scotland by to the Crown. If HMtQ is to be head of state of an independent Scotland can she, through the generals and officers set over them, order her service personnel to serve in the new Jockanese forces?
Why unattached officers? Because they aren't attached to a regiment e.g. Black Watch. This applies to all Royal Naval and RAF personnel.
As for your ridiculous assertion about ordering troops to join the new Scottish Army, see the disbanding of Irish regiments I mentioned. Most of the troops joined other regiments.
Considering the general thuggishness of the YES campaign, I think they'll be no problem recruiting personnel for the new Scottish Army. The Irish Free State used the IRA, after all.
I didn't actually make an assertion, I merely asked a question.
As to your last paragraph, I fear if you think thugs make good soldiers you are very wide of the mark.
Stand by for a shitstorm, beeboid interviewer saying she came across widespread intimidation from Yes during the campaign. Interviewing reid and Murphy.
Of course, this is what Nationalism is all about. If you spend all your time dividing people into 'us and them' its no wonder the hate spills out.
If you are biased as BBC and listen to liars like Reid and Murphy what do you expect , certainly not facts.
As if by magic, up pops Malcontent to provide a perfect illustration.
Careful, that amount of hysteria could do you a mischief.
I will be fine. I am down here and have been for decades.
I want to see a NO vote I really do, but I think that the YES campaign wants YES at any price - too fervently and I worry about what will happen when they win, because I think they will win.
Unless NO voters are so intimidated that they are lying en masse to the pollsters, then I think that the thin margin between YES and NO is dangerous. It will be too tempting to "blur the lines" to get a YES, a little bit of "rule bending" for such a glorious outcome. The end WILL justify the means.
I look at the bullying, the nastiness, the vicious bile and hatred and it seems to me that reason has already left the campaign.
I worry for those in Scotland. I have no worries for myself.
Hysteria doesn't have to be on one's own behalf, and yours seems entirely based on cockeyed media reports and vestigial knowledge. Try some objective analysis for yourself: how many verifiable reports of assaults, broken windows, threats of violence and acts of vandalism connected to the referendum can you find?
How many accounts of Muslims raping White girls could you find - until recently.
The same rotten political logic could apply in this case.
Hysteria doesn't have to be on one's own behalf, and yours seems entirely based on cockeyed media reports and vestigial knowledge. Try some objective analysis for yourself: how many verifiable reports of assaults, broken windows, threats of violence and acts of vandalism connected to the referendum can you find?
It never occurred to me to count incidents so I could not say. I have a lot of friends in Scotland and I go by what they tell me. I have known them for 30+ years and I trust them.
The media and bloggers and journos on the ground report a lot of the same. Salmond's press conferences have an air of the surreal about them as he ignores facts he dislikes and questions he does not want to hear. The whole thing conveys an impression and a bad one at that.
People's feeling and moods are often set by impressions rather than facts - a technique that YES seems to be employing to a spectacular advantage - but it is a techniques that works both ways and it paints YES as nasty and intolerant.
Obviously you disagree with me and I have no issues with that. All I am doing is responding with how I feel, how what I see affects me and why I worry for those who, unlike me, are caught in the middle of this.
YES might be right Mr Divvie. This might be the best thing that could ever happen to Scotland, but how come no one else in the world seems to see it that way?. Whatever view the YES campaign has, it is not a balanced one, it cannot be because only victory matters. But surely you must acknowledge that it is a bit odd that only one small group with a vested interest is right compared to a much larger group of well-informed largely impartial people who say the opposite.
Salmond does not even offer counter-arguments to those he disagrees with, he merely brushes their arguments aside as irrelevant or not worth discussing. Does that really not worry you?
So looking at the deomographics, for the 2011 Holyrood election the turnout was 50%, so 50% Did Not Vote. Survation have the DNV as 25% of the weighted sample.
Surely, with a massive turnout predicted this is not a good weighting?
Yes, I think I'd be surprised by over 85%, and equally surprised by under 80%.
I'm in the fortunate position of having got on the spreads at 79% and I would be very surprised to lose. I really don't see there is much likelihood of a lower figure, but I do think it is possible we could see something very high.
I suppose what I am saying is that the risk for the oddsmakers is with high turnout and if I were starting a book from scratch I would pitch the line at about 81%, which is more or less where it is.
Stand by for a shitstorm, beeboid interviewer saying she came across widespread intimidation from Yes during the campaign. Interviewing reid and Murphy.
Like the planned Nat 'Intimidation' Parades on Election Day.
Those are utterly disgusting, IMO.
And you don't know anything about them except that there will be facepaint! and balloons!!
Hysteria doesn't have to be on one's own behalf, and yours seems entirely based on cockeyed media reports and vestigial knowledge. Try some objective analysis for yourself: how many verifiable reports of assaults, broken windows, threats of violence and acts of vandalism connected to the referendum can you find?
It never occurred to me to count incidents so I could not say. I have a lot of friends in Scotland and I go by what they tell me. I have known them for 30+ years and I trust them.
The media and bloggers and journos on the ground report a lot of the same. Salmond's press conferences have an air of the surreal about them as he ignores facts he dislikes and questions he does not want to hear. The whole thing conveys an impression and a bad one at that.
People's feeling and moods are often set by impressions rather than facts - a technique that YES seems to be employing to a spectacular advantage - but it is a techniques that works both ways and it paints YES as nasty and intolerant.
Obviously you disagree with me and I have no issues with that. All I am doing is responding with how I feel, how what I see affects me and why I worry for those who, unlike me, are caught in the middle of this.
YES might be right Mr Divvie. This might be the best thing that could ever happen to Scotland, but how come no one else in the world seems to see it that way?. Whatever view the YES campaign has, it is not a balanced one, it cannot be because only victory matters. But surely you must acknowledge that it is a bit odd that only one small group with a vested interest is right compared to a much larger group of well-informed largely impartial people who say the opposite.
Salmond does not even offer counter-arguments to those he disagrees with, he merely brushes their arguments aside as irrelevant or not worth discussing. Does that really not worry you?
So no facts or evidence, just feelings, impressions and 2nd hand anecdotes? Good job you're not a scientist.
'For every negativity from Bob Dudley of BP there is the positivity of Tim Martin of Wetherspoons.'
So the oil industry is f****d but we'll still sell you cheap curry and beer.
More unemployed = More customers
Exactly. Wetherspoons are hardly going to piss off their key demographic by coming out against independence. By the same token I'm astonished ANY supermarket has admitted prices will rise, not that one or two have decided to remain silent.
Wetherspoons are great , had nice Arran Blonde today , only 2.35 a pint , unbelievable.
Hysteria doesn't have to be on one's own behalf, and yours seems entirely based on cockeyed media reports and vestigial knowledge. Try some objective analysis for yourself: how many verifiable reports of assaults, broken windows, threats of violence and acts of vandalism connected to the referendum can you find?
It never occurred to me to count incidents so I could not say. I have a lot of friends in Scotland and I go by what they tell me. I have known them for 30+ years and I trust them.
The media and bloggers and journos on the ground report a lot of the same. Salmond's press conferences have an air of the surreal about them as he ignores facts he dislikes and questions he does not want to hear. The whole thing conveys an impression and a bad one at that.
People's feeling and moods are often set by impressions rather than facts - a technique that YES seems to be employing to a spectacular advantage - but it is a techniques that works both ways and it paints YES as nasty and intolerant.
Obviously you disagree with me and I have no issues with that. All I am doing is responding with how I feel, how what I see affects me and why I worry for those who, unlike me, are caught in the middle of this.
YES might be right Mr Divvie. This might be the best thing that could ever happen to Scotland, but how come no one else in the world seems to see it that way?. Whatever view the YES campaign has, it is not a balanced one, it cannot be because only victory matters. But surely you must acknowledge that it is a bit odd that only one small group with a vested interest is right compared to a much larger group of well-informed largely impartial people who say the opposite.
Salmond does not even offer counter-arguments to those he disagrees with, he merely brushes their arguments aside as irrelevant or not worth discussing. Does that really not worry you?
So no facts or evidence, just feelings, impressions and 2nd hand anecdotes? Good job you're not a scientist.
"So no facts or evidence, just feelings, impressions"
Stand by for a shitstorm, beeboid interviewer saying she came across widespread intimidation from Yes during the campaign. Interviewing reid and Murphy.
Like the planned Nat 'Intimidation' Parades on Election Day.
Those are utterly disgusting, IMO.
And you don't know anything about them except that there will be facepaint! and balloons!!
Paint to hide faces, and petrol filled balloons?
The whole thing stinks.
If you think the average balloon can hold petrol without dissolving in a few moments, I don't want to be anywhere near you when you try the experiment!
He is a balloon , it is a pity someone would not fill him
Yes, I think I'd be surprised by over 85%, and equally surprised by under 80%.
I'm in the fortunate position of having got on the spreads at 79% and I would be very surprised to lose. I really don't see there is much likelihood of a lower figure, but I do think it is possible we could see something very high.
I suppose what I am saying is that the risk for the oddsmakers is with high turnout and if I were starting a book from scratch I would pitch the line at about 81%, which is more or less where it is.
PtP - iirc didn't you follow OGH in a couple of weeks ago with Ladbrokes' two pronged NO/<80% turnout bet?
Comments
beguiled again,
a whimpering, simpering child again,
bewitched, bothered and bewildered am I.
Joanne Bonnar @STVJoanne 13m
Rupert Murdoch tells @STVNews that the Sun newspaper is considering backing a Yes vote. #indyref #ScotDecides
I think the indyref will drive us all crazy before the vote is over
"I rather like those, your adventures in the patisserie were much missed."
Patisserie Valerie isn't what it was. They've now opened everywhere. I'm surprised they haven't opened a blue one in Ludlow
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ciPwFNoQM4s/SWE-fSowBOI/AAAAAAAAB3c/VnfWtryTbKY/s1600-h/Patisserie_Valerie.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29190755
Martin McGuinness signs book of condolence for Ian Paisley.
Would David Cameron sign something similar for Salmond?
Yes: it's a well known fact that Rupert Murdoch is in some kind of conspiracy with child molesters from Pakistan. All I can assume is they have some dirt on him, which is why he's told his papers - as much as possible - to completely ignore the story, and to lead on some crap about Scotland which nobody cares about.
I may write a simulation to test this thought.
BlokeNHSF...UP UKIP @Bnhsfup 12m
ISIS and moderate Syrian rebels strike truce… with Al Qaeda’s help – reports — RT News http://rt.com/news/187580-isis-deal-syrian-rebels/#.VBRjZVCqLKw.twitter …
Really?
I thought they were all leading about dogs in NW England?
Also: do we think we'll get similar male/female turnout on the day?
Perhaps take a little more water with it!
I thought they were all leading about dogs in NW England?
The Times led on Sctoland, The Sun led on the puppies.
You're right, though, I could have made it funnier if I'd used the dogs.
http://www.praguepost.com/viewpoint/41517-from-scotland-to-eastern-ukraine
Interesting interpretation of how states could be subdivided.
Salmond's dividing them.
Fraser Nelson in the Spectator Blogs - How Scotland’s ‘yes’ side mastered the art of mob politics
Granny will be sent to a 're-education camp' in the highlands after YES wins...never to return.
It's getting ever more sinister.
Re-education, Re-education, Re-education.
Mind, if I disagreed I'd make my views clear!
I sometimes think my Mum prefers my Dad as much as me,
You ought to see the pile of beans she gives my Dad for tea,
I need Heinz beans as much as him — in fact I need them more
’Cause my Dad’s very very old — and me I’m only four.
(I’m six really, but it didn’t fit.)
Go Scotland!
"I’m afraid that Mr Cameron and his Tory friends in Downing Street, and their Labour frontmen in Scotland, are going to get their comeuppance next Thursday, because Scotland is going to go for yes in very substantial proportions."
How will he cope if Scotland says No, cry that the ballot boxes were stuffed.
Now we just have to wait for them to lose the vote.
http://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=U_jNE32FDZ8
"What will happen to Scottish officers not attached to regiments on independence?"
Why just unattached officers? The same question applies to every serviceman or woman. The squaddie, bootneck or jolly jack has taken an oath of loyalty to HMtQ, not to the UK not to England or Scotland by to the Crown. If HMtQ is to be head of state of an independent Scotland can she, through the generals and officers set over them, order her service personnel to serve in the new Jockanese forces?
If she cannot I think iScotland's defence plans have just hit another problem. Even if they can scratch up the cash to pay where are they going to get the people from? I am sure that there will be a sufficient number of senior NCOs that will go for it, but they will be looking for an easy life to see out until pension time. What about the youngsters who actually make the whole thing viable?
Id guess less than 60% turnout
A good decisive vote is what is needed.
Must be like Christmas for pollsters.
If the paymaster is down south, the squaddies et al will be down south too.
Home to Man United next Sunday. With the way we are playing and ManU the way they are, its worth a few quid on a Leicester win.
Of course there's no proof. If there were, there'd be no market.
There is form though and the best form line I could find was the Quebec referendum which had a 93% turnout. Now obviously you cannot make a straight comparison but on balance there seems every reason to think Scotland will follow the Canadian precedent closely.
I'd be very surprised if turnout is <80% and something nearer the Quebec figure is perfectly possible.
A good comparison might be the 1998 Good Friday referendum, which had an 81% turnout. I could see Scotland just about topping that, but it'd be close. I'd be very surprised at 85%+, never mind 90%.
The loyal Orange lodges are making an emotional appeal to British patriotism. It doesn't sound as if it was intimidating, just a celebration of Loyalism.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/13/orange-order-march-edinburgh-scottish-independence-vote
If I lived up there, I would not be waiting for the referendum. I would have gone already.
78-84% for me currently on turnout.
The size of the market and the sensitivity to the polls makes me wonder at the potential for insider trading. Not even sure it is illegal, however. Might explain why the odds haven't shifted.
Another poll comes tonight. YES still looks excellent value; it will obviously shorten if the new poll shows a closer race...
I think very few people current service personnel will volunteer to join to the new Scottish Defence Forces (should such ever come into existence). Do you disagree with that? If so why?
I want to see a NO vote I really do, but I think that the YES campaign wants YES at any price - too fervently and I worry about what will happen when they win, because I think they will win.
Unless NO voters are so intimidated that they are lying en masse to the pollsters, then I think that the thin margin between YES and NO is dangerous. It will be too tempting to "blur the lines" to get a YES, a little bit of "rule bending" for such a glorious outcome. The end WILL justify the means.
I look at the bullying, the nastiness, the vicious bile and hatred and it seems to me that reason has already left the campaign.
I worry for those in Scotland. I have no worries for myself.
Try some objective analysis for yourself: how many verifiable reports of assaults, broken windows, threats of violence and acts of vandalism connected to the referendum can you find?
As for your ridiculous assertion about ordering troops to join the new Scottish Army, see the disbanding of Irish regiments I mentioned. Most of the troops joined other regiments.
Considering the general thuggishness of the YES campaign, I think they'll be no problem recruiting personnel for the new Scottish Army. The Irish Free State used the IRA, after all.
My local Labour E Midlands office is virtually closed, having flung all the key organisers into the Scottish battle (my key seat organisers has been up there for 3 months now). And it's started registering on the doorstep in my patch - several voters asking which way I thought it would go.
Canvassed a strong Tory ward today - quite a lot of UKIP from both major parties but Labour doing slightly better net than in previous canvasses. And the first sighting reported of an unidentified canvass team from another party, presumably Tory since neither LibDems nor UKIP have candidates here yet. Voters are getting quite interested now - lots of requests for postal votes "in case we're away, don't want to miss it" and similar remarks.
Stay with the whatever the British Army becomes, and there's an opportunity to travel the globe, and possibly see some action or do something useful (which lets face it, is what soldiers train to do).
Join the Defence Force and stay at home, occasionally peering at Spanish trawlers plundering fish stocks, through binoculars.
The same rotten political logic could apply in this case.
Edit to add link
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/recruitment-crisis-means-one-in-10-1096793
Tonight's poll likely to be better for YES than last one, if only for reasons of mean reversion (an 8pt lead is the highest seen for a few weeks).
I also made Graziano Pelle the best bet of the season so far on FGS and couldn't get on! oh well
As to your last paragraph, I fear if you think thugs make good soldiers you are very wide of the mark.
The media and bloggers and journos on the ground report a lot of the same. Salmond's press conferences have an air of the surreal about them as he ignores facts he dislikes and questions he does not want to hear. The whole thing conveys an impression and a bad one at that.
People's feeling and moods are often set by impressions rather than facts - a technique that YES seems to be employing to a spectacular advantage - but it is a techniques that works both ways and it paints YES as nasty and intolerant.
Obviously you disagree with me and I have no issues with that. All I am doing is responding with how I feel, how what I see affects me and why I worry for those who, unlike me, are caught in the middle of this.
YES might be right Mr Divvie. This might be the best thing that could ever happen to Scotland, but how come no one else in the world seems to see it that way?. Whatever view the YES campaign has, it is not a balanced one, it cannot be because only victory matters. But surely you must acknowledge that it is a bit odd that only one small group with a vested interest is right compared to a much larger group of well-informed largely impartial people who say the opposite.
Salmond does not even offer counter-arguments to those he disagrees with, he merely brushes their arguments aside as irrelevant or not worth discussing. Does that really not worry you?
Yes, I think I'd be surprised by over 85%, and equally surprised by under 80%.
I'm in the fortunate position of having got on the spreads at 79% and I would be very surprised to lose. I really don't see there is much likelihood of a lower figure, but I do think it is possible we could see something very high.
I suppose what I am saying is that the risk for the oddsmakers is with high turnout and if I were starting a book from scratch I would pitch the line at about 81%, which is more or less where it is.
Panel base also.
http://tinyurl.com/opkmq8d
that;s just so funny in its own way.