politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The rolling IndyRef polling thread…New online poll from ICM

SeanT - I've never understood this 3 way referendum thing. Surely it's a ludicrous idea? What if none of the three options got 50%. Would we have an independent Scotland based on 38% of the vote? Or would it be some kind of conditional?

@FrankBooth
First and second choice on the ballot paper?

grex9101 said:

isam said:

adamandcat said:

A Brit beheads a fellow Brit over British foreign policy.

Why do we continue to persist in calling these foreigners "Brits". They're not - they're 2nd/3rd generation immigrants at best, and they have clearly chosen their side. There are millions of "Brits" in this country who do not share our culture, beliefs, or indeed speak our language. Why do we lie to ourselves?

I'm too tired and too freaked by this to get into it all... It's a massive mess that could easily been avoided but for bleeding hearts taking us all down the wrong path.

Now we pay the price

I feel sorry for David Cameron, he is only human, he must have the weight on the world on his shoulders, now this...

grex9101 said:

jam2809 said:

AndyJS said:

4.7 becomes 4.8:

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.110033387

The odds remain very strange. All the value is on YES.

I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult to understand? The way bookies work, the less likely an outcome, the higher the odds. Essentially, the bookies are confident that a YES vote will not happen. Bookies are rarely incorrect.

Um, being patronising (to AndyJS who's been posting here forever) and wrong at the same time is odd. Bookies don't usually set odds in accordance with their personal opinions. They set them to balance the books and make a profit either way. That's ESPECIALLY true of Betfair, where the bookies have no interest whatever in who wins, merely that they get lots of bets, and the odds are determined entirely by the punters. Bet a few thousand quid either way and you can change the "bookies' view" all by yourself.

But welcome to the forum.

FrankBooth said:

SeanT - I've never understood this 3 way referendum thing. Surely it's a ludicrous idea? What if none of the three options got 50%. Would we have an independent Scotland based on 38% of the vote? Or would it be some kind of conditional?

In principal, a three way choice could be made using some alternate voting system, like the single transferable vote, but that would lead to a lot of debate over the merits of using the same system for a Westminster election. By sticking to a binary choice, Cameron has spared us that.

Why does anyone think a narrow Yes win is going to be any less damaging for Scotland?! Can you imagine the resentment of those whose livelihoods or job security might be effected by a Yes vote, and where are the jobs going to appear immediately to make up for the losses? What about the fact that we may see thousands choosing to relocate with their jobs down South in the Finance sector to name just one example of one industry? If other companies head South, how will that job/people drain effect Scotland or impact on rest of UK?

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Here's what I think is happening. And I realise it's not scientific, but I do live here. There is an active and fervent group of 'yes' supporters, both veterans and new believers. They bombard their friends and colleagues with 'yes' 'lines to take' day after day. Whilst irritating, these arguments have benefited from repetition (and the total lack of a counter-narrative being expressed), and they also benefit from the fertile ground of an existing left wing bias, and the fact that they feed into a visceral patriotism and a feeling of unfairness. Thereby 'yes' has continued to grow steadily.

At the same time as many being persuaded away from 'no', others have reacted to the domination of the argument by 'yes' with annoyance and growing concern. This has been internalised rather than expressed up to now. I believe in the shy unionist -I believe that 'certain to vote, but undecided' doesn't really exist in large numbers -I think the vast majority of these are 'No'. I can't see a yes supporter pretending they're undecided -they want to maximise confidence in 'yes'.

I still think there will be a narrow win for 'no'.

A narrow 'no' will not be enough in the long term. Scotland is not Quebec.

David, I made a similar point last night, now really worried about the longer term impact to investment in Scotland whatever the result.

DavidL said:

chestnut said:

DavidL said:

And how does getting 51% of the population to back independence on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies sound as the launch pad for a new nation?

If you're running the UK government, how does investing in Scotland look when you know very close to half of it's residents want to go, even "on the back of a pack of lies and fantasies" ?

A couple who come close to divorce will spend an eternity learning to trust and believe in each other again, and in the meantime they'll tread carefully, cautiously and won't properly commit to each other. They'll hedge their bets.

The damage done to Scotland by this will be long term and serious, particularly for the financial services industry which currently employs well over 100K Scots.

There are no winners from this but there are degrees of losers.

There is something very, very off with these killings. I think it's bullshit.

isam said:

grex9101 said:

isam said:

adamandcat said:

A Brit beheads a fellow Brit over British foreign policy.

Why do we continue to persist in calling these foreigners "Brits". They're not - they're 2nd/3rd generation immigrants at best, and they have clearly chosen their side. There are millions of "Brits" in this country who do not share our culture, beliefs, or indeed speak our language. Why do we lie to ourselves?

I'm too tired and too freaked by this to get into it all... It's a massive mess that could easily been avoided but for bleeding hearts taking us all down the wrong path.

Now we pay the price

I feel sorry for David Cameron, he is only human, he must have the weight on the world on his shoulders, now this...

Cameron won't care any more than he has to - his wealth will serve as a cushion to protect him from the harsh reality of the failed multiculturalism experiment. Had we not allowed/embraced this influx of foreigners some years ago, we would now not be wringing our hands and wondering why they're going off to fight in foreign conflicts and trying to kill us in our own country. You can't say that though - it's "racist". I've yet to work out which race, exactly, but still, "racist".

@SeanT - that's a brilliant opening paragraph in your Times travel piece today.

When it came down to Cameron vs Davis, I thought Davis was the right choice because he came from a working-class background and had had to work his way up. But he didn't appear quite as confident as Cameron.

The great thing about PB is that a lot of SeanT's new travel piece was available on here about 7 months' ago, in real time.

A government's first responsibility is to safeguard the country over which it governs. When Scotland votes Yes on Thursday this government will have failed in its primary duty. Whether Cameron stays as a massively diminished leader or goes as a broken man is up to him, but he will know that posterity will remember him for one thing only: as the PM who lost the Union.

@grex9101
The short answer is yes, the larger bets will be coming from people with Cameron's view.
How could any country risk its finances for an "idea"?

Getting to Iraq/Syria must be the easiest thing in the world. Go from the UK to Germany. Then go to Turkey (since loads of Turkish Germans must be doing it all the time). And then cross the border into Iraq with no problems.

@Seant, I am sticking my previous prediction a few days ago. 60-65% No and 35-40% Yes, and its the young, women and over 55's who will deliver that No vote comfortable. As I posted a few days ago, 'its going to be the economy stupid' that decides this momentous decision. And it is that factor above everything else which will swing the female vote and the over 55's rather than the gamble on the flag of nationalism that many men seem prepared to take right now.

And while at most elections its usually the grey vote that is often targeted by politicians and political parties as they turn out in greatest numbers. We really mustn't ignore the under 24 voters and their impact in this Indy Referendum, and despite the fact they are usually notoriously poor at turning out to vote. The focus and momentum with this voting group has been like nothing I have ever witnessed before. Forget the Cleggism with students before the last GE, I think the big surprise at this Indy Ref will not only be an incredible high turnout, but that far more youngsters under 24 will vote than is normal at any election.

The SNP were relying on the young to be big Yes voters where the over 55's were not, hence their desperate desire to drop the voting age for this Referendum. But as many schools and Uni Referendum votes have proved, they are overwhelmingly in the No camp. That was a big surprise to me initially, and I have posted a few times about this over last two years on PB. But really thinking about it and why they are genuinely motivated to vote No, it shouldn't have been a surprise. Youngsters are very outward looking, the world is getting so much more accessible and they just don't see the need to make their base camp that bit smaller and to put up barriers where there should be none.

I don't think that Salmond or Sturgeon care that much if its a No vote by the slimmest of margins, it will be job done splitting the Scots Nation down the middle and allowing them to fight another day whatever the costs to Scotland.

@fitalass Brave of you to go against the polls to such an extent. What's your prediction for Aberdeenshire?

SeanT said:

perdix said:

SeanT said:

You know what depresses me? The fact I am obviously smarter than David Cameron.

I'm a ridiculous, semi-alcoholic thriller writer with bipolarity and a history of drug abuse and blatant whoring. I barely made it alive into my 40s.

Yet I could run this country better than our Etonian Prime Minister, inasmuch as I wouldn't have been so careless as to lose (or nearly lose) 30% of it. Even when I was totally hammered on high quality heroin I wouldn't have been that dim.

Eesh. We are governed by narcissistic cretins.

You don't appear to have run your own life successfully let alone being fit to run a nation. Self indulgent is the word.

I earn £200k a year, travel the world first class for free, have two beautiful daughters, and, at the age of 51, I am at present stepping out with a very attractive 26 year old. This after a lifetime of roistering, partying, and ridiculous self indulgence, sufficient to fill two memoirs (the first of which was an international best-seller).

You?

SeanT said:

perdix said:

SeanT said:

You know what depresses me? The fact I am obviously smarter than David Cameron.

I'm a ridiculous, semi-alcoholic thriller writer with bipolarity and a history of drug abuse and blatant whoring. I barely made it alive into my 40s.

Yet I could run this country better than our Etonian Prime Minister, inasmuch as I wouldn't have been so careless as to lose (or nearly lose) 30% of it. Even when I was totally hammered on high quality heroin I wouldn't have been that dim.

Eesh. We are governed by narcissistic cretins.

You don't appear to have run your own life successfully let alone being fit to run a nation. Self indulgent is the word.

I earn £200k a year, travel the world first class for free, have two beautiful daughters, and, at the age of 51, I am at present stepping out with a very attractive 26 year old. This after a lifetime of roistering, partying, and ridiculous self indulgence, sufficient to fill two memoirs (the first of which was an international best-seller).

You?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOrI6uqS-vk

fitalass said:

@Seant, I am sticking my previous prediction a few days ago. 60-65% No and 35-40% Yes, and its the young, women and over 55's who will deliver that No vote comfortable. Its going to be 'the economy stupid' that decides this momentous decision, and that is the factor which will swing the female vote and the over 55's rather than the gamble on the flag of nationalism that many men seem prepared to take right now.

And while at most elections its usually the grey vote that is often targeted by politicians and political parties as they turn out in greatest numbers. We really mustn't ignore the under 24 voters and their impact in this Indy Referendum, and despite the fact they are usually notoriously poor at turning out to vote. The focus and momentum with this voting group has been like nothing I have ever witnessed before. Forget the Cleggism with students before the last GE, I think the big surprise at this Indy Ref will not only be an incredible high turnout, but that far more youngsters under 24 will vote than is normal at any election.

The SNP were relying on the young to be big Yes voters where the over 55's were not, hence their desperate desire to drop the voting age for this Referendum. But as many schools and Uni Referendum votes have proved, they are overwhelmingly in the No camp. That was a big surprise to me initially for me, and I have posted a few times about this over last two years on PB. But really thinking about it and why they are genuinely motivated to vote No, it shouldn't have been a surprise. Youngsters are very outward looking, the world is getting so much more accessible and they just don't see the need to make their base camp that bit smaller and to put up barriers where there should be none.

I don't think that Salmond or Sturgeon care that much if its a No vote by the slimmest of margins, it will be job done splitting the Scots Nation down the middle and allowing them to fight another day whatever the costs to Scotland.

Whilst I appreciate what you're saying, there have been rumours abound that, during the last "big big debate" (televised thurs night) feat. 16/17 year olds, that the shows producers had to ask some if the audience to "pretend" that they were in the no/undecided camps as there were far to many YES kids in attendance (and we all know how much the beeb needs "balance").

Having watched the "debate", it did seem very obvious that all of the NO kids were toffee nosed little cunts who obviously feared for their daddys chartered accountancy job....

Perhaps the dividing lines are as simple as poor people voting yes, rich people voting no?

grex9101 said:

fitalass said:

@Seant, I am sticking my previous prediction a few days ago. 60-65% No and 35-40% Yes, and its the young, women and over 55's who will deliver that No vote comfortable. Its going to be 'the economy stupid' that decides this momentous decision, and that is the factor which will swing the female vote and the over 55's rather than the gamble on the flag of nationalism that many men seem prepared to take right now.

And while at most elections its usually the grey vote that is often targeted by politicians and political parties as they turn out in greatest numbers. We really mustn't ignore the under 24 voters and their impact in this Indy Referendum, and despite the fact they are usually notoriously poor at turning out to vote. The focus and momentum with this voting group has been like nothing I have ever witnessed before. Forget the Cleggism with students before the last GE, I think the big surprise at this Indy Ref will not only be an incredible high turnout, but that far more youngsters under 24 will vote than is normal at any election.

The SNP were relying on the young to be big Yes voters where the over 55's were not, hence their desperate desire to drop the voting age for this Referendum. But as many schools and Uni Referendum votes have proved, they are overwhelmingly in the No camp. That was a big surprise to me initially for me, and I have posted a few times about this over last two years on PB. But really thinking about it and why they are genuinely motivated to vote No, it shouldn't have been a surprise. Youngsters are very outward looking, the world is getting so much more accessible and they just don't see the need to make their base camp that bit smaller and to put up barriers where there should be none.

I don't think that Salmond or Sturgeon care that much if its a No vote by the slimmest of margins, it will be job done splitting the Scots Nation down the middle and allowing them to fight another day whatever the costs to Scotland.

Whilst I appreciate what you're saying, there have been rumours abound that, during the last "big big debate" (televised thurs night) feat. 16/17 year olds, that the shows producers had to ask some if the audience to "pretend" that they were in the no/undecided camps as there were far to many YES kids in attendance (and we all know how much the beeb needs "balance").

Having watched the "debate", it did seem very obvious that all of the NO kids were toffee nosed little cunts who obviously feared for their daddys chartered accountancy job....

Perhaps the dividing lines are as simple as poor people voting yes, rich people voting no?

That's certainly true in the Glasgow area I think. Councils like East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire will vote No by heavy margins and the main reason is because they're more wealthy than average.

Norm said:

The thing that puzzles me right now is why the Scots aren't gobbling up the Devomax option. It pretty much gives them all they want without the downsides. Roger made an interesting point earlier. All new entrants to the EU have to pay a minimum of 5% VAT on food (zero rated in the UK). Some of the poor voters the SNP mafia are conning will feel this the most. That's when they eventually gain admission courtesy of Spain..

DevoMax not on the table.

Norm said:

The thing that puzzles me right now is why the Scots aren't gobbling up the Devomax option. It pretty much gives them all they want without the downsides. Roger made an interesting point earlier. All new entrants to the EU have to pay a minimum of 5% VAT on food (zero rated in the UK). Some of the poor voters the SNP mafia are conning will feel this the most. That's when they eventually gain admission courtesy of Spain..

Because David Cameron had the Devo Max option removed from the ballot paper?

Having read your pretty nasty little comment, I almost didn't bother replying. But then I decided to show it to my kids who are all voting, especially with you nailing your colours to the mast in such a small minded ignorant way. I did see the latest twilight zone SNP/Yes conspiracy hit the ground running with the Big Debate on the night on twitter.

And I cannot let this latest paranoid claim enter into the mythical folklore that is the SNP/Yes campaign spin operation. My youngest son was at the Big debate, and he didn't get home until quite late. But the first question I asked him in light of these rumours was, were you asked or canvassed on your voting intention at any point during the proceedings of this event by the producers of the programme. His answer was emphatically a NO.

My son actually really enjoyed the whole experience of this Big Debate. But I think your comments about the Scots lads and lassies who were at the Big Debate and are voting No deserve a wider audience because they say more about you and your cause than they do about those kids so galvanised and motivated to vote in this Indy Referendum

grex9101 said:

fitalass said:

SNIP

Whilst I appreciate what you're saying, there have been rumours abound that, during the last "big big debate" (televised thurs night) feat. 16/17 year olds, that the shows producers had to ask some if the audience to "pretend" that they were in the no/undecided camps as there were far to many YES kids in attendance (and we all know how much the beeb needs "balance").

Having watched the "debate", it did seem very obvious that all of the NO kids were toffee nosed little cunts who obviously feared for their daddys chartered accountancy job....

Perhaps the dividing lines are as simple as poor people voting yes, rich people voting no?

I am getting pretty sick of this dishonesty about an Independence Referendum that needs to deliver at least 50% of the population to be a valid reflection of the will of the Scots people. For the record, unlike you, I would really like this vote to really represent the settled will of the majority of Scots taking part and voting as it really matters to me what the outcome is at the end of the day. The SNP didn't run on a campaign for a referendum on DevoMax before the 2011 Holyrood elections, and just months after that result I pointed out that they should have done, and that they would have won big and delivered on it!!

NO, they wanted a clear In/Out Independence Referendum, it was only when they bucked the trend and got the slimmest of majorities at Holyrood that this changed. Suddenly, they wanted the best of both worlds, a Referendum that gave them either Independence or more powers without any pain of losing the fight. But lets just look at how ridiculous a Referendum it might have been with three options on the table, Yes, DevoMax and No, but that Independence or a No won over the argument by the slimmest of margins while the majority voted for the other two options. It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy. But again, those who spin for the SNP/Yes or against Cameron won't point this little fact out.

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Norm said:

The thing that puzzles me right now is why the Scots aren't gobbling up the Devomax option. It pretty much gives them all they want without the downsides. Roger made an interesting point earlier. All new entrants to the EU have to pay a minimum of 5% VAT on food (zero rated in the UK). Some of the poor voters the SNP mafia are conning will feel this the most. That's when they eventually gain admission courtesy of Spain..

Because David Cameron had the Devo Max option removed from the ballot paper?

Classic Cameron, this. Wouldn't let them put the option on the ballot paper, but then back-pedals and offers concessions, but now the people who are being offered the concessions don't trust him to deliver them.

Really?! That is certainly not how I remember the debate on this site at the time when this third option was raised. But I did comment in the early months after the SNP victory at Holyrood that they had made a major mistake by not campaigning on going for an early Referendum on DevoMax powers first before setting a timetable for an Independence referendum at a later date. The SNP Government could have clearly have won this, and it would have delivered further powers to the Scots without any need for an Indy Referendum in this Parliament. But they didn't do this because Salmond was never going to be able to sell this option to his party membership.

fitalass said:

I am getting pretty sick of this dishonesty about an Independence Referendum that needs to deliver at least 50% of the population to be a valid reflection of the will of the Scots people. For the record, unlike you, I would really like this vote to really represent the settled will of the majority of Scots taking part and voting as it really matters to me what the outcome is at the end of the day. The SNP didn't run on a campaign for a referendum on DevoMax before the 2011 Holyrood elections, and just months after that result I pointed out that they should have done, and that they would have won big and delivered on it!!

NO, they wanted a clear In/Out Independence Referendum, it was only when they bucked the trend and got the slimmest of majorities at Holyrood that this changed. Suddenly, they wanted the best of both worlds, a Referendum that gave them either Independence or more powers without any pain of losing the fight. But lets just look at how ridiculous a Referendum it might have been with three options on the table, Yes, DevoMax and No, but that Independence or a No won over the argument by the slimmest of margins while the majority voted for the other two options. It would have been a complete and utter joke in a democracy. But again, those who spin for the SNP/Yes or against Cameron won't point this little fact out.

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Norm said:

The thing that puzzles me right now is why the Scots aren't gobbling up the Devomax option. It pretty much gives them all they want without the downsides. Roger made an interesting point earlier. All new entrants to the EU have to pay a minimum of 5% VAT on food (zero rated in the UK). Some of the poor voters the SNP mafia are conning will feel this the most. That's when they eventually gain admission courtesy of Spain..

Because David Cameron had the Devo Max option removed from the ballot paper?

Classic Cameron, this. Wouldn't let them put the option on the ballot paper, but then back-pedals and offers concessions, but now the people who are being offered the concessions don't trust him to deliver them.

Devomax should not be on the table. It would be a disaster for the UK, having a quasi-independent country operating as a tax haven from within, while still having the UK as a backstop. An independent Scotland is infinitely preferable.

Fitalass you don't have spout some mince the SNP won with a clear majority you must be one of those Labour deniers that still think your side won. What part of a clear majority do you not understand your side lost get over it and you will lose again the yes movement is now unstoppable.Got my single malt ready to party.

fitalass said:

Having read your pretty nasty little comment, I almost didn't bother replying. But then I decided to show it to my kids who are all voting, especially with you nailing your colours to the mast in such a small minded ignorant way. I did see the latest twilight zone SNP/Yes conspiracy hit the ground running with the Big Debate on the night on twitter.

And I cannot let this latest paranoid claim enter into the mythical folklore that is the SNP/Yes campaign spin operation. My youngest son was at the Big debate, and he didn't get home until quite late. But the first question I asked him in light of these rumours was, were you asked or canvassed on your voting intention at any point during the proceedings of this event by the producers of the programme. His answer was emphatically a NO.

My son actually really enjoyed the whole experience of this Big Debate. But I think your comments about the Scots lads and lassies who were at the Big Debate and are voting No deserve a wider audience because they say more about you and your cause than they do about those kids so galvanised and motivated to vote in this Indy Referendum

grex9101 said:

fitalass said:

SNIP

Whilst I appreciate what you're saying, there have been rumours abound that, during the last "big big debate" (televised thurs night) feat. 16/17 year olds, that the shows producers had to ask some if the audience to "pretend" that they were in the no/undecided camps as there were far to many YES kids in attendance (and we all know how much the beeb needs "balance").

Having watched the "debate", it did seem very obvious that all of the NO kids were toffee nosed little cunts who obviously feared for their daddys chartered accountancy job....

Perhaps the dividing lines are as simple as poor people voting yes, rich people voting no?

So you say it didn't happen. Perhaps by the time your son was asked, the numbers had already been balanced? Plenty of comments around on the Internet that said it did. Someone is lying, obviously.

As for nailing my colours to the mast... One comment does not mean a thing.

How's the chartered accountancy business going anyway?