Scottish Independence yea or nay

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

'Fraid not - you claimed a 'steady decline'. It certainly wasn't a steady decline, and the overall story of the No. Vote was it's unchanged nature over the entirety of the campaign. So I'm still disputing your claim, and you should feel no need to thank me, unless it's for clarifying why you're mistaken.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

As is the validity of that claim. Again - if the thesis is that voters were scared into voting No, why did the Yes vote increase to a greater degree, and why was the No vote so stable for more than a year?

Happyman42 wrote: »

FLook 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%

No didn't start at 46%. If you take the No poll for a year before the vote (18-09-2013), it stood at 52% compared to Yes at 32%. So that would be a gain of 3% vs 13%. I know which side made the more impressive gains.

Godge

donegaLroad wrote: »

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.

Do you know anything about exit polls?

(1) Government does not pay for them.
(2) Media companies pay for them.
(3) They are most useful to media companies when they need something to write/talk about
(4) They are costly compared to telephone polls
(5) There were none in Ireland for years because of the cost.
(6) There would have to have been some mad conspiracy for months between all of the media and the government if the reason for no exit poll was so that the vote could be rigged.
(7) Only an idiot would believe (6) was possible.

Sam Russell

There was no point in an exit poll since the count started straight away and the result would be ready by 6am. Only the Friday morning papers would miss out.

If you suspect electoral fraud, I think you are in a minority of one.

donegaLroad

@Godge, I know a bit about exit polls, & I didn't suggest that the government pay for them.. although in Ireland, the government did have its own exit polls at the 2012 EU fiscal pact referendum..

In yesterday's Scottish Sunday Herald there was an article on an American writer and political activist called Naomi Wolf, who has received hundreds of reports of Scottish referendum ballot papers being issued without identifying numbers.

[q]Naomi Wolf is now compiling a list of testimonies from those who believe the back of their ballot paper was missing an official identifying number.

A internet petition has also been set up which states "We Demand A Full Scale Investigation Into The Blank Backed Ballots Given To Many Voters In The Scottish Referendum On 18th September 2014."

Last night a spokesman for the Electoral Commission said they had received complaints about the 'blank' ballot papers but could not confirm how many.

The result of the referendum can be challenged by a judicial review, providing it is brought within six weeks of the announcement of the result of the vote.[/q]

sorry I can't provide a link, I don't have enough posts.

btw, the change.org petition demanding a re-run of the Scottish referendum, "counted by impartial international parties", has now reached 93,000 signatures.. (mostly) Scottish citizens.

Godge

donegaLroad wrote: »

@Godge, I know a bit about exit polls, & I didn't suggest that the government pay for them.. although in Ireland, the government did have its own exit polls at the 2012 EU fiscal pact referendum..

In yesterday's Scottish Sunday Herald there was an article on an American writer and political activist called Naomi Wolf, who has received hundreds of reports of Scottish referendum ballot papers being issued without identifying numbers.

[q]Naomi Wolf is now compiling a list of testimonies from those who believe the back of their ballot paper was missing an official identifying number.

A internet petition has also been set up which states "We Demand A Full Scale Investigation Into The Blank Backed Ballots Given To Many Voters In The Scottish Referendum On 18th September 2014."

Last night a spokesman for the Electoral Commission said they had received complaints about the 'blank' ballot papers but could not confirm how many.

The result of the referendum can be challenged by a judicial review, providing it is brought within six weeks of the announcement of the result of the vote.[/q]

sorry I can't provide a link, I don't have enough posts.

btw, the change.org petition demanding a re-run of the Scottish referendum, "counted by impartial international parties", has now reached 93,000 signatures.. (mostly) Scottish citizens.

I will have a look at what you say about electoral fraud but I am 100% sure that there is no link between possible electoral fraud and the absence of an exit poll. If you go down that road, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

'Fraid not - you claimed a 'steady decline'. It certainly wasn't a steady decline, and the overall story of the No. Vote was it's unchanged nature over the entirety of the campaign. So I'm still disputing your claim, and you should feel no need to thank me, unless it's for clarifying why you're mistaken.

Semantics...the decline, steady or otherwise prompted an intervention the nature of which was to point out the dangers involved in leaving the Union.

As is the validity of that claim. Again - if the thesis is that voters were scared into voting No, why did the Yes vote increase to a greater degree, and why was the No vote so stable for more than a year?

The Yes vote increased because those voters saw the intervention for the BS it was. They also believed that the nature of it was to 'scare'. Enough people said it at the time why are you trying to deny that is how it was perceived?

o didn't start at 46%. If you take the No poll for a year before the vote (18-09-2013), it stood at 52% compared to Yes at 32%. So that would be a gain of 3% vs 13%. I know which side made the more impressive gains.

On that graph which represents a poll of polls the figures speak for themselves. (Like the debate on a united Ireland) I am not really interested in 'polls' until the actual debate begins. Pro-indendence parties won 55% of the vote in the last election in Scotland but I would never use that to say that a majority where in favour of Independence because it was more complex than that. The only polls of any value to me would be the ones after the publishing of the Scottish Government's White Paper.

Cameron would do well to learn that lesson.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Yes vote increased because those voters saw the intervention for the BS it was. They also believed that the nature of it was to 'scare'. Enough people said it at the time why are you trying to deny that is how it was perceived?
.

So the "Yes" vote increased after the intervention because people saw through the bull****.

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.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

But the "No" vote was already declining before the intervention.

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.

But the "No" vote went up after the intervention.

Can you get your story straight? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

So the "Yes" vote increased after the intervention because people saw through the bull****.







But the "No" vote was already declining before the intervention.



But the "No" vote went up after the intervention.

Can you get your story straight? It doesn't make any sense at all.

?
That is my point.
The Yes vote increased because some people saw through the BS scare tactics.
The No vote increased because some didn't, they took it as the 'truth'.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

?
That is my point.
The Yes vote increased because some people saw through the BS scare tactics.
The No vote increased because some didn't, they took it as the 'truth'.

Bizarre to say the least.

The normal process of "don't knows" either making up their mind or not bothering to vote is now being construed as a reaction to scare tactics!!!!

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Bizarre to say the least.

The normal process of "don't knows" either making up their mind or not bothering to vote is now being construed as a reaction to scare tactics!!!!

What is 'bizarre' about it?
Enough people at the heart of the campaign said it.
The intervention of RBS was so ab'normal' that it prompted calls for an inquiry. RBS is a bank which is 80% owned by the British government, funnily enough.
Big business didn't offer any opinion on Scottish independence until the polls narrowed.
Your denial of of these things is curious.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Semantics...the decline, steady or otherwise prompted an intervention the nature of which was to point out the dangers involved in leaving the Union. .

It isn't a question of semantics. It's a question of accurate representation of the data. There wasn't a steady decline of the No vote. There was however a steady increase of the Yes vote. That's what prompted the late interventions.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Yes vote increased because those voters saw the intervention for the BS it was. They also believed that the nature of it was to 'scare'. Enough people said it at the time why are you trying to deny that is how it was perceived?.

The Yes vote was increasing long before the interventions, and it's also perfectly normal for undecided to leave their decision until late in the day - regardless of any interventions. All we can say for sure is that more undecided were won over to the Yes side than the No.

Happyman42 wrote: »

On that graph which represents a poll of polls the figures speak for themselves. (Like the debate on a united Ireland) I am not really interested in 'polls' until the actual debate begins.

The debate is long-standing, but the campaign started two years ago, and the debate was well in play a year before the vote. So - who made the massive strides in their support over that campaign, and who essentially stayed where they were at the start?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is 'bizarre' about it?
Enough people at the heart of the campaign said it.

Which must make it true?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The intervention of RBS was so ab'normal' that it prompted calls for an inquiry.

And who was it called for that inquiry?

Happyman42 wrote: »

RBS is a bank which is 80% owned by the British government, funnily enough.

Why is that funny? Are you suggesting that it's a mouthpiece for the govt? Is the same true of AIB then?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Big business didn't offer any opinion on Scottish independence until the polls narrowed.

And when they did, those businesses made their case - just like anyone else had the right to do. What's clear is that their case wasn't persuasive - as the Yes vote increased.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is 'bizarre' about it?
Enough people at the heart of the campaign said it.
The intervention of RBS was so ab'normal' that it prompted calls for an inquiry. RBS is a bank which is 80% owned by the British government, funnily enough.
Big business didn't offer any opinion on Scottish independence until the polls narrowed.
Your denial of of these things is curious.

In every referendum campaign the "don't knows" in the polls disappear when the votes are counted so both the "Yes" and "No" votes increase. Painting the increase as being down to something else as you have tried to do is bizarre.

I can see why you did as it was the only way of explaining your contradictory posts from earlier.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It isn't a question of semantics. It's a question of accurate representation of the data. There wasn't a steady decline of the No vote. There was however a steady increase of the Yes vote. That's what prompted the late interventions.

Your definition of steady and mine clearly differ. You are indulging in semantics, which isn't unusual behaviour for you on the forum, I will withdraw it, and stick to 'a decline'.

The Yes vote was increasing long before the interventions, and it's also perfectly normal for undecided to leave their decision until late in the day - regardless of any interventions. All we can say for sure is that more undecided were won over to the Yes side than the No.

I am not sure what point you are making here.

The debate is long-standing, but the campaign started two years ago, and the debate was well in play a year before the vote. So - who made the massive strides in their support over that campaign, and who essentially stayed where they were at the start?

Which has nothing to do with my point at all. My point has to do with what happened when the polls narrowed. A sudden panicked intervention from Government, Banks and big business and misreporting of those interventions by certain elements in the media.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Your definition of steady and mine clearly differ. You are indulging in semantics, which isn't unusual behaviour for you on the forum, I will withdraw it, and stick to 'a decline'.

Delighted your withdrawal of the claim, even if you feel the need to throw in in an old ad-hominem while you're at it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am not sure what point you are making here.

It's kind of hard to attribute the steady increased yes vote, before, after, and during, the late interventions, to the interventions - the actual steady increase across the entire campaign, was on the yes side. There's no evidence for a 'pivotal moment', or effectiveness/influence of scaremongering/pro-No interventions.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with my point at all. My point has to do with what happened when the polls narrowed. A sudden panicked intervention from Government, Banks and big business .

No-one that I've seen has disputed this. My point is that the danger of the increased yes vote (which prompted the late interventions) was a long term one - not any decrease of the no vote.

Happyman42 wrote: »

and misreporting of those interventions by certain elements in the media.

Say what now?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Delighted you're withdrawing the claim, even if you feel the need to throw in in an old ad-hominem, while you're at it.

I am withdrawing the word 'steady', (as you clearly have a different meaning for it) I am not withdrawing the claim, that there was a decline in No support which prompted an intervention.

It's kind of hard to attribute the steady increased yes vote, before, after, and during, the late interventions, to the interventions - the actual steady increase across the entire campaign, was on the yes side. There's no evidence for a 'pivotal moment', or effectiveness/influence of scaremongering/pro-No interventions.

I believe there was a 'pivotal moment' and that was when the polls narrowed which they clearly did.
All five trackers on this page show the graphs converging.

http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker

No-one that I've seen has disputed this. My point is that the danger of the increased yes vote (which prompted the late interventions) was a long term one - not any decrease of the no vote.

See above, there was a decrease in the No vote.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

In every referendum campaign the "don't knows" in the polls disappear when the votes are counted so both the "Yes" and "No" votes increase. Painting the increase as being down to something else as you have tried to do is bizarre.

I can see why you did as it was the only way of explaining your contradictory posts from earlier.

The bizarre thing here is your inability to understand the point. There was nothing contradictory in what I said.
Both sets of voters where 'convinced' by the campaign. What is this 'something else' you are claiming I 'painted' it as?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

The bizarre thing here is your inability to understand the point. There was nothing contradictory in what I said.
Both sets of voters where 'convinced' by the campaign. What is this 'something else' you are claiming I 'painted' it as?

Your points are completely contradictory as I have set out already.

Godge wrote: »

So the "Yes" vote increased after the intervention because people saw through the bull****.

But the "No" vote was already declining before the intervention.

But the "No" vote went up after the intervention.

Can you get your story straight? It doesn't make any sense at all.

You are not consistent in your posts.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Your points are completely contradictory as I have set out already.





You are not consistent in your posts.

Please make a point that shows inconsistency.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is now dawning on quite a few no voters that they are about to be shafted

Jelle1880

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is now dawning on quite a few no voters that they are about to be shafted

According to who ?

A Dub in Glasgo

Mr Brown

Jelle1880

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Mr Brown

Really ?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/gordon-brown-scotland-yes-no-unite-common-future

A Dub in Glasgo

That is 11 days old, he was on Scottish news yesterday evening pleading with the Scottish people to sign his petition to have the Westminster Government keep the vow.

Here is a more recent Guardian article

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/30/gordon-brown-david-cameron-scotland-trap

You need to remember that Brown is only an opposition MP and has zero authority to guarantee extra powers even if he sold himself to the Scottish people as having that authority in the run up to the referendum

Happyman42

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is 11 days old, he was on Scottish news yesterday evening pleading with the Scottish people to sign his petition to have the Westminster Government keep the vow.

Here is a more recent Guardian article

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/30/gordon-brown-david-cameron-scotland-trap

You need to remember that Brown is only an opposition MP and has zero authority to guarantee extra powers even if he sold himself to the Scottish people as having that authority in the run up to the referendum

Why is anybody surprised that they will row back on the vows. It was always undeliverable. History should have taught the Scots a lesson...it didn't.

alastair

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is 11 days old, he was on Scottish news yesterday evening pleading with the Scottish people to sign his petition to have the Westminster Government keep the vow.

Here is a more recent Guardian article

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/30/gordon-brown-david-cameron-scotland-trap

You need to remember that Brown is only an opposition MP and has zero authority to guarantee extra powers even if he sold himself to the Scottish people as having that authority in the run up to the referendum

Just to be clear.

Your concern now is the spectre of devolving all Scottish income taxation powers to Holyrood?

The cunning machinations of the Tories eh? Shafting those No voters by forcing them into greater devolution than they expected.

Godge

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is 11 days old, he was on Scottish news yesterday evening pleading with the Scottish people to sign his petition to have the Westminster Government keep the vow.

Here is a more recent Guardian article

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/30/gordon-brown-david-cameron-scotland-trap

You need to remember that Brown is only an opposition MP and has zero authority to guarantee extra powers even if he sold himself to the Scottish people as having that authority in the run up to the referendum

Labour now want less devolution than the Tories because they fear permanent loss of power in Westminister. Interesting.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Godge wrote: »

Labour now want less devolution than the Tories because they fear permanent loss of power in Westminister. Interesting.

You really do have to wonder what Labour were thinking aligning themselves with the Better Together campaign and allowing themselves to be used as puppets by Cameron and his party.

Obviously a Yes vote would have severely damaged Labour's chances of ever getting back into Westminster but the No result seems to have done them just as much harm. Plenty of Yes voters were Labour voters in GEs but they're not at all happy with them now. I'd imagine even a lot of No voters who were Labour will be redirecting their votes. The Tories have come out of this whole thing no worse for wear, Scotland can't punish them as they never vote for them anyway . I don't know was it all part of Cameron's devious plan or if it's just turned out happily for him but he really has pulled a blinder on this one.

Sand

Why does Scottish votes for domestic matters, English votes for domestic matters have to be a Tory win and a Labour lose?

Are Labour so convinced that they cannot secure a majority in England by the merits of their policies and arguments? Short term political interests should not stand in the way of fair governance. If the Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish will all have their own devolved government without English votes influencing it, equally, England is entitled to its own devolved government without Northern Irish, Welsh or Scottish votes influencing that. That is only fair and just. Where the UK has a unified interest ( foreign affairs, defence, overall economic policies etc) then of course all votes should be counted.

The alternative is to feed a corrosive English attitude that they are constantly paying the bills for the rights of everyone else, which is bad for everyone concerned. Look at the rise of UKIP which - from a welcome distance - is a frankly amazing bit of Little Englander fantasy about turning the clock back to the summer of 1940.