politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Four final polls published, two more to come, and it looks

Ask Nick Clegg about how quickly pledges are forgotten.

Richard_Nabavi said:

It will be forgotten by the end of next week, but even if that weren't the case, don't you think your comment migh tbe a tad over the top?

It really isn't as thin as it looks. You have to remember that a bet on yes, is exactly the same as laying no. Look at the amount of money available on 'No' - more than £50,000 if you want to back between 1.22 and 1.24, and £40,000 if you want to lay between 1.25 and 1.27

Bond_James_Bond said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

This is rubbish. Scotland receives 24% more money per person than the South West does, despite being wealthier. There's absolutely no way that would happen in a needs-based system.

Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.

I just keep a sense of proportion, one of the very few here who seem capable of doing so. Your very own figures, quoted upthread, show how insane your hysteria on this is (not just yours, I accept):

I found the last time a regional analysis of UK accounts was done. This allocates North Sea oil revenue to Scotland, so no nationalist whingers please. Net contributions:

Scotland: -£2.1bn

So maybe it should be £1.5bn, or even 0. So what? it's hardly the biggest anomaly in the UK. Meanwhile, any sane person knows that providing public services in a sparsely-populated and remote part of the country will have higher costs.

Yes, the Barnett formula is arbitrary and out of date. Replacing it might be a good idea in the abstract, leading to a marginally different settlement. This is the United Kingdom. There are all sorts of anomalies, of which this is a minor one.

And those costs should be borne by those who have chosen to live there, Richard. Look, there must be advantages to living in Scotland. Whatever those are - cheap houses, nice scenery, deep fried Mars Bars, the attractive and intelligible regional accent - they are offsetting benefits to set against the disadvantages of living in a sparsely populated and remote part of the country.

WTF should the rest of us, who have foregone those benefits, be expropriated to cushion those who enjoy them from the financial drawbacks of their choices?

Although that argument could be made for Hampstead keeping all of the income tax receipts of its residents. As someone pointed out, we are supposed to be a United Kingdom, and it is inevitable that some regions will be richer than others.

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

So does the word "bitch" but I'd still consider it inappropriate as an insult to a woman. Especially one who wasn't doing anything wrong. We have far too few women on here and this sort of abuse doesn't help.

Carnyx said:

Socrates said:

Are the mods going to put up with misogynistic insults to one of our few female posters?

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Gadfly said:

CarlottaVance said:

Roger said:

Carlotta

"Afaik it is used for "door knocking" - no point in going round to the homes of people who have already voted - so it will create a list of "no" voters who have not yet voted to encourage them to do so...."

That sounds more interesting. So I will be doing my bit for the union!

Indeed!

Did you catch the Gordon Brown interview last night - worth watching - puts the current generation in the shade....

I'd forgotten about that. This morning I have been blaming the bedtime cheese for last night's amazing dream in which I found myself agreeing with Gordon Brown.

Yes - he was a man transformed on his own turf, eloquent, fluent, persuasive - very different from the brooding sulk in No 10......

LOL.........fanny alert

Fanny has more than one meaning, especially up here, and not just the unfortunate Miss Adams of Alton.

Rumours that pb.com is going to have all women threads are completely baseless...

For shame! I'm sure me and Beverley C could have a very interesting conversation about shoes!!!

Could I point out that Hannibal had the better taste in sandals...

@Isam

'Shaun Wright wrote to Keith Vaz to 'supplement the answers he gave' under oath. Is supplement a new word for change?'

Yes,it's new leftie speak,similar to an exam failure being called a deferred success.

Socrates said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

As usual, there seems to be a spectacular lack of a sense of proportion regarding the Barnett formula. Any needs-based settlement would give a broadly similar result. As Cameron said in 2010:

there would be no “pot of gold” for the English if a needs-based system was introduced, and Scotland would still receive “substantial” funding.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7745702/Barnett-formula-given-stay-of-execution.html

This is rubbish. Scotland receives 24% more money per person than the South West does, despite being wealthier. There's absolutely no way that would happen in a needs-based system.

Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.

See my long note below. The really outrageous levels of public spending go to London. The Scottish allocation is made in reference to all spending in England, including London. As London takes more than its share of the English spending, there's much less available to English regions. Perhaps that's an argument for devolution in England.

SeanT said:

I cannot believe Scotland is about to vote YES to this package of lies told by Salmond. Perhaps they know it is all lies, yet do not care?

Lies from yes (the standard type of lies we have at every election: more for free, everything will turn up rosy) v lies from no (we're all doomed 100 times over, even in ways which sound good to me like not being allowed into the eu or not having to guarantee the savings of either English or Scottish residents cos all the banks have buggered off down south). It is all lies, so we're better off sticking to first principles (whatever they might be: varies by voter).

Keeping power as close as feasible to home, screwing Labour, fighting against unfair asymmetric devolution....take your pick.

Alistair said:

SeanT said:

And fair play to him: that's his choice, and entirely worthy of respect. However I suspect he is a small minority of YES voters. Most of them have, I reckon, swallowed Salmond's different and various lies.

One of the more common Yes slogans you'll see is a variant along the lines of "Don't tell me not to buy my dream house just because you don't like the paintjob"

Salmond and the SNP are the paintjob, the house is independence.

I think you'd be surprised about how many people are voting for independence who will then be voting against the SNP at the first available election.

On here they think on the ballot paper it is "Should Alex Salmond be an Independent Country", not caught up yet.

CD13 said:

Sean T,

I suspect the Yes voters know that Salmond is lying but they want to believe him so they will.

I think they are barmy but if I were Scottish, I would vote Yes anyway. It's a big adventure and worth the pain. But I guarantee my wife (who's Irish anyway) would vote No for the same reason.

He is not lying , he is looking at it with optimism rather than BT viewpoint which is pessimistic. His glass is half full , BT's glass is near empty. I don't follow pessimists, they are gloomy and boring people.

SeanT said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

hucks67 said:

We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.

I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.

It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020

Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.

For all the rhetoric the US will not want them or if they were to take them they would rip them with massive charges

"the plan would ensure that our four Trident missile-carrying Vanguard submarines would not remain in the hands of a Non-Nato foreign country and deprive Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond of any “leverage” in post -independence negotiations.

The call, which one senior US politician last night said would be “overwhelmingly supported” in Congress"

http://nuclear-news.net/2014/09/15/uk-military-chiefs-want-trident-nuclear-weapons-moved-to-usa-if-scots-win-independence/

LOL, bet they are oiling their wheelbarrows as we speak.

FF42 said:

Patrick said:

SeanT said:

Swiss_Bob said:

Scot ref odds coming back in slowly. 5.1 now.

I cannot believe Scotland is about to vote YES to this package of lies told by Salmond. Perhaps they know it is all lies, yet do not care?

One of my work colleagues and all round good bloke is from Aberdeen. He fully recognises it'll be freedom n vinegar not freedom n jam. But doesn't care. He's looking 50 years ahead and says so. An unmovable YES voter.

I have really good friends who will be heartbroken if it's a No. I have respect for their vision, even though I am committed to breaking their hearts to avoid a bigger disaster. What drives me mad with frustration are those that think that it will be milk and honey and then rant about freedom and courage.

The Yes campaign have put forward seven reasons for voting Yes, every one of them false. The Better Together's five claims are at the very least defensible. I am not being partisan in this assessment. But if it is Yes, it will be a very narrow win on prospectus that was totally false.

Take of those Tory rose tinted specs and look again

Baskerville said:

TGOHF said:

Baskerville said:

Within a generation, emigre Scots will have returned,
.

That sounds optimistic - as one myself.

Not all of them, Ghostly Harry, but enough to make a difference, and enough to show the next generation that you don't have to emigrate to make it.

Oh, and you'll need a proper international airport as well. But don't worry there are plenty of banks (mostly based in London, but they're not chauvinist; money's money) who will finance one if Scotland starts to look outwards, rather than inwards.

No more being robbed and having to fly to the London cesspit to get anywhere so they can hog all the international slots.

CarlottaVance said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

I have been thinking about why the referendum is so close.

The economic arguments for remaining in our larger domestic market, the sharing of the risks of the inevitable financial turbulence of the next few years, having the security of effective armed forces and having a position of some weight in the EU are just so overwhelming that this should be an incredibly easy decision.

But, for at least half of Scots it isn't. Why?

What Salmond has achieved is to make this referendum a contest between the Westminster Establishment and the Scottish people. It is a remarkable achievement, especially as he himself has been in power now for a number of years with responsibility for health, education and social services.

Salmond claims that Scots are different because they don't like the Westminster establishment. This, of course, is where he is wrong. Who does? If a vote against the Westminster establishment were possible then most, possibly even all areas of the UK outside London itself would be inclined to vote against it. That is exactly what happened in the Euros where the population were given a free hit to vote against the established parties for a body of minimal perceived consequence in their lives.

To manage to run as anti establishment whilst being First Minister is indeed an incredible achievement but his success shows how much is wrong with our politics and our country. The suspicion is that there will be business as usual (with a twist of further devolution) will follow a no vote but there is an incredible opportunity for anyone who can capture that anti Westminster sentiment. It has proven to be incredibly strong.

Spiked came to a similar conclusion:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-flimsy-fantasy-politics-of-the-yes-campaing/15803#.VBlfIclwaBY

I think the obsession with devolution and europe is going to dominate the next parliament, while the real issues are ignored.

There is an anti-politics feeling that is quite dangerous to democracy, but the politicians answer is just to argue and create more jobs for themselves in Westminster/Brussels/Holyrood.

I posted a link earlier to a Soton Uni article on anti-politics - unfortunately it didn't cover the SNP.

Probably never heard of Scotland

malcolmg said:

FF42 said:

Patrick said:

SeanT said:

Swiss_Bob said:

Scot ref odds coming back in slowly. 5.1 now.

I cannot believe Scotland is about to vote YES to this package of lies told by Salmond. Perhaps they know it is all lies, yet do not care?

One of my work colleagues and all round good bloke is from Aberdeen. He fully recognises it'll be freedom n vinegar not freedom n jam. But doesn't care. He's looking 50 years ahead and says so. An unmovable YES voter.

I have really good friends who will be heartbroken if it's a No. I have respect for their vision, even though I am committed to breaking their hearts to avoid a bigger disaster. What drives me mad with frustration are those that think that it will be milk and honey and then rant about freedom and courage.

The Yes campaign have put forward seven reasons for voting Yes, every one of them false. The Better Together's five claims are at the very least defensible. I am not being partisan in this assessment. But if it is Yes, it will be a very narrow win on prospectus that was totally false.

Take of those Tory rose tinted specs and look again

The opposite. I came into the referendum broadly neutral. Although I am team player type and I like the idea of doing things together - which is also why I support the EU - I was very clear, and am very clear, that if independence was going to work better for us, that's we should go for. When I started to looking at the implications of independence it became that it simply didn't stack up. The more you look, the more unstacked it becomes.

I am not saying everything in the Yes manifesto is false because I support the other team. I am saying it because everything in the manifesto is false. My objections to independence and my support for the other team come from that. Apart from anything, if independence is such a great thing, why do the Yes team feel a need to be dishonest?

There isn't an equivalence that all campaigns are dishonest. While Better Together have indulged in some of Alex Salmond's "scare-mongering" their basic claims do stack up, unlike those of Yes Scotland.