All it takes is the ability to look through the mathematically illiterate media bullshit insisting it's 'too close to call' (which, as I've said from the beginning, was always going to happen because the media never like to report on a horserace where only one horse is going to win. It doesn't sell papers.). There is a very consistent 4-6 point lead for No in most of the polls - people don't use that to say 'oh the Tories are within the margin of error!!!' when it happens for Labour, not least because it happens so consistently. There would need to be either a systematic flaw in all of the polling, or an unprecedented last minute changing of minds and an overwhelming 4:1 split in favour of Yes amongst Don't Knows for the No lead to be overcome at this stage.

 

It's deeply unlikely to happen, and something like this just shows it - the vast sums placed on No at Betfair aren't something they'd want to piss away if there was any chance Yes could win.

All it takes is the ability to look through the mathematically illiterate media bullshit insisting it's 'too close to call' (which, as I've said from the beginning, was always going to happen because the media never like to report on a horserace where only one horse is going to win. It doesn't sell papers.). There is a very consistent 4-6 point lead for No in most of the polls - people don't use that to say 'oh the Tories are within the margin of error!!!' when it happens for Labour, not least because it happens so consistently. There would need to be either a systematic flaw in all of the polling, or an unprecedented last minute changing of minds and an overwhelming 4:1 split in favour of Yes amongst Don't Knows for the No lead to be overcome at this stage.

 

It's deeply unlikely to happen, and something like this just shows it - the vast sums placed on No at Betfair aren't something they'd want to piss away if there was any chance Yes could win.

Do you know how much is involved? Political bets have generally not been a major source of income. Call me a cynic but the sum may be small enough for them to consider it to be a cheap way of generating publicity.

Do you know how much is involved? Political bets have generally not been a major source of income. Call me a cynic but the sum may be small enough for them to consider it to be a cheap way of generating publicity.

I read that as of last week the referendum was the biggest political betting event ever in terms of money put down across all bookies, but I don't know the exact figures.

I read that as of last week the referendum was the biggest political betting event ever in terms of money put down across all bookies, but I don't know the exact figures.

I'm not sure how much general elections get so it is still possible that "biggest political event ever" isn't saying much. Certainly the amounts staked on leadership elections are very small indeed.

Presidential elections get a fair bit.

I read it wasn't all bets just a proportion they had under some odds they'd made up. Still could be a stunt but as has been said bookies tend not to give owt away...

I think its most def a No vote now simply due to the less urgency there is in the media - Yes' main time was wed-fri last week!

 

It's a pity as this was the best chance the people had of disrupting the establishment - back to normal now!

Edited September 16, 201410 yr by steve201

I saw some of Gordon Brown's speech yesterday. He was funny and he was passionate. If he had shown more of that in the last election campaign it could have been worth a few more seats for Labour.

I think its most def a No vote now simply due to the less urgency there is in the media - Yes' main time was wed-fri last week!

 

It's a pity as this was the best chance the people had of disrupting the establishment - back to normal now!

 

I rather suspect the cat is out of the bag for all of the UK now, regardless of the result. I think the establishment has had a fairly good kickin' all round and the writing is on the wall that they have to adapt or there will be a next time and it will mean break-up or extremism. The rich might be powerful but they don't have that many votes and the message has got through that the non-rich are sick of it. It's a warning-shot across the bows....

Theyll still go back to the norm though in my opinion - this campaign has just highlighted how corporate interests have taken over Britains due to Neo-Liberalism. The people were only heard through social media whereas as the mainstream media all supported the establishment!

Good grief...

Last 4 polls have all given Yes 48% / No 52%.

 

I'd expect the result to be pretty much that, maybe the gap might be 1-2% bigger.

Id say 55-60% No for me!

This is very interesting.

 

Now that all the Scottish referendum votes are in, a new received wisdom is emerging. This says the contest was always the No camp’s to lose but that by running an uninspired, negative campaign that was forced to offer hurried concessions at the 11th hour, it won victory at the price of constitutional uncertainty. The problem with this narrative is that it does not stand up to the facts.

 

If you look closely at the underlying attitudes among the population, the inconvenient truth is that Scotland had become a pro-independence country – all other things being equal – if no change had been on offer.

 

Better Together’s achievement lies in securing a No vote by demonstrating that all other things would not have been equal in the event of independence, twinned with the promise that real change would be forthcoming.

 

When Populus started polling for Better Together more than a year ago, we found just under 40 per cent committed to voting No and just under 30 per cent committed to Yes; the rest were undecided. In general elections, parties can focus on a handful of key marginal seats. In a referendum campaign, this is not possible, so the result depended on isolating and understanding the motivations of the uncommitted voters.

 

To take a leaf out of Alex Salmond’s book, you should hold three figures in mind about this key bloc who ultimately determined the outcome: 64 per cent, 9 per cent and 70 per cent.

The 64 per cent refers to the proportion of undecided voters a year ago who said they would vote for independence if they were certain Scotland would be no worse off. Small wonder, then, that as polling day drew closer and uncommitted voters began to make up their minds, the headline gap between No and Yes closed or disappeared altogether. This was not because the No campaign was too negative or prosaic, but because the risks of independence had yet to hit home.

 

Those who yearned for a more emotionally upbeat No campaign from the start should think of the second figure: 9 per cent. That is the proportion of undecided voters who back in the summer of 2013 said they shared a common bond with people who were like them in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The message, “Let’s stay together”, may have galvanised those who were already committed to voting No, and brought succour to their allies among the UK media and political classes, but it was never likely to shift more than a tiny proportion of those whose votes would prove decisive.

 

Which brings us to the final figure: 70 per cent. That was the share of undecided voters from a year ago who liked the idea of independence but thought it represented too big an economic risk. These are the people who ultimately opted for No in sufficient numbers to keep Scotland part of the UK.

 

It took the guarantee of extra powers for the Scottish parliament – and also a warning from George Osborne that an independent Scotland would not be allowed to share the pound; big supermarkets saying food prices might have to go up; and Scottish banks threatening to relocate their headquarters south of the border – to turn these voters away, however grudgingly, from choosing Yes in the hope that everything would be all right on the night.

 

The lesson of the Scottish referendum for campaigners is that to be successful you have to focus on what the evidence says rather than what commentators say. Victory belongs to those with the greatest understanding of what really drives the decisions of the people who actually matter in elections – not those who assume that wavering voters are thinking about the decision in the same terms as themselves.

 

Fast-forward to a potential referendum campaign on UK membership of the EU in 2017. Once again, this would probably be decided by swing voters who at best have a transactional relationship with a wider union. Again, a successful appeal for continued membership will need to combine constitutional concessions with warnings of the practical difficulties that would result from leaving. There will still be those arguing for the need to put a more inspiring, positive case for our EU membership. The chances are they will be speaking mainly to, and for, themselves.

 

Rick Nye is the managing director of Populus, which carried out polling for the No campaign

If that analysis is true, and Scotland is fundamentally a pro-independence country, that does not exactly bode well for the next referendum within 5-10 years.

You're saying it like it's a definite. Like I said in the other thread, it'd need the SNP to get another majority (or SNP + the Greens, who have a ceiling of about four MSPs) to even be possible, which relies on the SNP maintaining the unprecedented support levels of 2011. Not impossible, but very, very difficult. That's without even taking into account that it'd be pretty bad practice to push for another one without a proper reason. Devolution's entering disagreements now given the Tories are trying to use it as a way of limiting English issues to English MPs, but that doesn't mean there isn't going to be a devolution settlement at all.

You're saying it like it's a definite. Like I said in the other thread, it'd need the SNP to get another majority (or SNP + the Greens, who have a ceiling of about four MSPs) to even be possible. That's without even taking into account that it'd be pretty bad practice to push for another one without a proper reason. Devolution's entering disagreements now given the Tories are trying to use it as a way of limiting English issues to English MPs, but that doesn't mean there isn't going to be a devolution settlement at all.

 

I think it's extremely likely the SNP will either get a majority or just fall short in 2016. I mean, just the "Yes" vote alone would probably give the SNP another majority, and it's not like there's any signs their rivals are going to get more popular. Why wouldn't they continue to feed off the massive anger and disillusionment there is with the Westminster parties?

Edited September 19, 201410 yr by Danny

Hang on, haven't people been spending the last year trying to say 'independence isn't all about the SNP'? Or going on about how Yes has been boosted by Labour voters? And those voters are supposed to be just going over to the SNP wholesale now despite the insistence that you didn't have to be a Nat to be pro-independence? There's anger and disillusionment - but that's what the SNP having been feeding off of anyway to get to this stage. There are only so many of those votes going, and they already had most of them in 2011.

 

They had 45% of the vote in 2011, while Labour had 26%. Given Labour have been consistently polling in the mid-30s in Scotland for the past two years (even through the referendum, even through the surge) and winning by-elections against the SNP, it's massively unlikely Labour are going to gain ten points at best, five at worst, and that still translate into an SNP majority under the Additional Member System, given it's *expressly designed* to prevent majorities. It needs rivals to be collapsing to about half the vote of the leading party to allow a majority, as happened in 2011.

#takeuswithyouScotland

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/manch...d-10250453.html

 

A campaign to make Manchester part of Scotland has gathered momentum after a surprising 72 per cent of respondents voted in favour of secession.

 

The results of an online poll conducted by the Manchester Evening News revealed that thousands of people want the city to be ruled from Edinburgh, rather than London.

 

A Twitter campaign with the hashtag #TakeUsWithYouScotland is being used on social media, and a Change.org petition has already been signed by 17,000 people.

 

It seems Northern England wants to become part of 'New Scotland' (!)

Still think it's unlikely we're going to get a second majority in 12months Tyron?