Scottish Independence yea or nay

alastair

tipptom wrote: »

Any idea when Cameron was down on his knees begging for his political life of the Scottish people with his big bribes promises that he decided to leave out the little part about "in tandem and at the same pace as reforms to England" at that time?.Im sure the Labour supporters in Scotland would like to have another vote on that when he stuck it in the next morning.


Scared the **** out of Scottish people in to remaining with Britain more like.


Hah,the cheek of us Irish having an opinion on the Scottish referendum and what we think is best for Scotland according to ye unionists,well heres news for you we even have a vote in our own country now?.

Have you seen the polling data on when No voters made up their minds? It contradicts this notion that people were scared into voting No. If anything the late interventions seem to have helped generate Yes votes. They certainly didn't hinder them.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Have you seen the polling data

No, I haven't. Can you post your sources please?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I haven't. Can you post your sources please?

The link was posted a few pages back: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92307154&postcount=1399

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The link was posted a few pages back: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92307154&postcount=1399

The swing shown here indicates to me that the last few weeks of campaigning where pivotal.
http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker

Sam Russell

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The GLC was replaced with the current borough system.
So local government was devolved further with the breakup of the GLC.

No, the GLC was an overarching assembly that was created above the LBC structure. It was removed by Margaret Thatcher because it was solidly Labour. It reverted back to how it was before.

The new structure of a London Mayor is more acceptable (because it is held by a Tory).

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The swing shown here indicates to me that the last few weeks of campaigning where pivotal.
http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker

The swing that ended up with the same number of No's as the very first poll, and the Yes vote increased?

alastair

Sam Russell wrote: »

The new structure of a London Mayor is more acceptable (because it is held by a Tory).

(When it's not held by a Labour candidate)

smcgiff

alastair wrote: »

The swing that ended up with the same number of No's as the very first poll, and the Yes vote increased?

Yes, as the final referendum was not what was originally expected.

In the end it was effectively independence versus Devo Max, not independence or the status quo.

alastair

smcgiff wrote: »

Yes, as the final referendum was not what was originally expected.

In the end it was effectively independence versus Devo Max, not independence or the status quo.

Which would be a different argument than that of the scaring of the populace into a No vote. The No vote didn't alter much for the entirety of the two years, while the Yes vote substantially increased.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The swing that ended up with the same number of No's as the very first poll, and the Yes vote increased?

Can you explain why the No vote suddenly rises from an all time low of 45% on 2nd Sept to 50% on 9th Sept?

I can, interventions from Scottish Banks and Business and the portrayal of that intervention by a largely biased media. i.e. scare tactics.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Can you explain why the No vote suddenly rises from an all time low of 45% on 2nd Sept to 50% on 9th Sept?

I can, interventions from Scottish Banks and Business and the portrayal of that intervention by a largely biased media. i.e. scare tactics.

At the same time as the Yes vote increased? Rather more likely that it was a rogue poll than 'scare tactics' benefitting both side's vote.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

At the same time as the Yes vote increased? Rather more likely that it was a rogue poll than 'scare tactics' benefitting both side's vote.

Obviously polls are like the Bible...open to curious 'interpretation'.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Obviously polls are like the Bible...open to curious 'interpretation'.

They're like any data, you need to apply some common sense and context to make sense of them. Polls telling us that the No voters were, in the main, decided from the get-go, while Yes voters came to their decision much later, doesn't paint a picture of a populace scared into voting no.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

They're like any data, you need to apply some common sense and context to make sense of them. Polls telling us that the No voters were, in the main, decided from the get-go, while Yes voters came to their decision much later, doesn't paint a picture of a populace scared into voting no.

As usual the point has been missed...the pivotal swing happened at a time when reactionary interventions where made by business interests, government and media (by their interpretations and representing of those interventions).

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

As usual the point has been missed...the pivotal swing happened at a time when reactionary interventions where made by business interests, government and media (by their interpretations and representing of those interventions).

No it did not. There's one incongruous poll outcome in a sea of polls telling a consistent story - of a essentially stagnant No vote cohort, and a gradually increasing Yes vote. That Yes vote didn't reach a majority, and that Yes vote was clearly not scared off by any 'reactionary interventions'.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

No it did not. There's one incongruous poll outcome in a sea of polls telling a consistent story - of a essentially stagnant No vote cohort, and a gradually increasing Yes vote. That Yes vote didn't reach a majority, and that Yes vote was clearly not scared off by any 'reactionary interventions'.

If Cameron and his cohort and the banks and big business had shown the same confidence we might believe you.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

If Cameron and his cohort and the banks and big business had shown the same confidence we might believe you.

What confidence am I presenting? I'm referencing the fact of the growth in the Yes vote - in the face of these interventions you're claiming scared them from voting yes.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

What confidence am I presenting? I'm referencing the fact of the growth in the Yes vote - in the face of these interventions you're claiming scared them from voting yes.

There was a steady decline in the NO vote, a percentage (enough to get them over the line) of whom where 'persuaded' back to the NO side after the unprecedented interventions.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

There was a steady decline in the NO vote, a percentage (enough to get them over the line) of whom where 'persuaded' back to the NO side after the unprecedented interventions.

There was no steady decline in the no vote. There was one incongruous poll which suggested a sudden dip, but that's all. The no vote remained essentially unchanged, with the bulk of action in the undecideds/yes blocs.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

There was no steady decline in the no vote. There was one incongruous poll which suggested a sudden dip, but that's all. The no vote remained essentially unchanged, with the bulk of action in the undecideds/yes blocs.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2a5bdce0-c4a4-11e3-b2fb-00144feabdc0.html

Maybe it's my eyesight, but on that graph the red line is GOING DOWN(Decline) from 15th of Aug.
Prompting the unprecedented intervention.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2a5bdce0-c4a4-11e3-b2fb-00144feabdc0.html

Maybe it's my eyesight, but on that graph the red line is GOING DOWN(Decline) from 15th of Aug.
Prompting the unprecedented intervention.

It's going down slightly, from a slight peak beforehand. It ends up essentially where it started, so there's no steady decline evident. The no vote essentially remained unchanged - it's the success of the Yes campaign on the undecideds that is the mark of this referendum. A success that's at odds with this whole narrative of people being scared into voting no.

Don't know how anyone can look at that graph and not see the bleeding obvious.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It's going down

Thank you.

from a slight peak beforehand. It ends up essentially where it started, so there's no steady decline evident. The no vote essentially remained unchanged - it's the success of the Yes campaign on the undecideds that is the mark of this referendum. A success that's at odds with this whole narrative of people being scared into voting no.

Don't know how anyone can look at that graph and not see the bleeding obvious.

A decline is a DECLINE. And nobody knew where it was going to finish.
Did it worry some? Yes it patently did, the extraordinary and panicked nature of the interventions proves that.
Did that decline need to be addressed? Yes, it patently did.
Was it addressed and did the minds of those who had defected need to be changed? Yes and yes.
Where minds changed? Yes they where.
How they where changed is what is being discussed.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Thank you.

For what?

Happyman42 wrote: »

A decline is a DECLINE.

It's not a steady decline. If you believe that's a steady decline, you could equally claim a steady increase. Neither would be correct. The no vote is essentially a flat line with a bit of noise.

Happyman42 wrote: »

And nobody knew where it was going to finish.
Did it worry some? Yes it patently did, the extraordinary and panicked nature of the interventions proves that.

Sure. No argument there.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did that decline need to be addressed? Yes, it patently did.
Was it addressed and did the minds of those who had defected need to be changed? Yes and yes.

Indeed.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where minds changed? Yes they where.

Eh, now hold on. There's no evidence to support that. The No voters didn't budge in any meaningful sense, and the Yes vote increased. Whose minds are you suggesting were changed?

Happyman42 wrote: »

How they where changed is what is being discussed.

See above. Also see the poll of when no and yes voters determined their vote. The largest bloc of late decision voters went into the Yes camp. So if the late interventions had any effect, it was in raising the yes vote.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

For what?

For admitting that it was going down. You had previously claimed it was 'stagnant' 'didn't alter' and 'remained unchanged'

It's not a steady decline. If you believe that's a steady decline, you could equally claim a steady increase. Neither would be correct. The no vote is essentially a flat line with a bit of noise.

The point is that the NO vote declined and prompted an intervention. The nature of which is under discussion.

Eh, now hold on. There's no evidence to support that. The No voters didn't budge in any meaningful sense, and the Yes vote increased. Whose minds are you suggesting were changed?


See above. Also see the poll of when no and yes voters determined their vote. The largest bloc of late decision voters went into the Yes camp. So if the late interventions had any effect, it was in raising the yes vote.

Look at the poll data and final result
Yes started at 37% and ended at 45%
No started at 46% and ended at 55%
8% V 9%

donegaLroad

why were there no exit polls on the day of the referendum?

Democratic deficit, anybody?

oscarBravo

donegaLroad wrote: »

why were there no exit polls on the day of the referendum?

Democratic deficit, anybody?

Seriously?

The people got to vote, but it's not real democracy because they weren't asked how they voted as they left the polling station?

Jesus.

donegaLroad

oscarBravo wrote: »

Seriously?

The people got to vote, but it's not real democracy because they weren't asked how they voted as they left the polling station?

Jesus.

why were there no exit polls?

Godge

donegaLroad wrote: »

why were there no exit polls?

Because nobody could be bothered paying for one.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Thank you.


A decline is a DECLINE. And nobody knew where it was going to finish.
Did it worry some? Yes it patently did, the extraordinary and panicked nature of the interventions proves that.
Did that decline need to be addressed? Yes, it patently did.
Was it addressed and did the minds of those who had defected need to be changed? Yes and yes.
Where minds changed? Yes they where.
How they where changed is what is being discussed.

The idea that a decline is going to continue ad infinitum and result in a "Yes" vote sounds eerily similar to the discredited notion that nationalists would outbreed unionists by the 1980s in Northern Ireland.

No trend is linear and unchanging.

donegaLroad

Godge wrote: »

Because nobody could be bothered paying for one.

and do you think that having exit polls as part of this referendum would have been a good idea?

Considering the magnitude of this referendum, it is very surprising that there were no exit polls.

Would it be that rigging the Exit polls would have been an impossibility?

Exit polls would have caused a serious problem if they hugely differed from the pre referendum opinion polls, and the actual referendum result.