[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Well clearly they're going to jump one way or the other (or maybe just not vote, in which case the majority of those who've expressed a preference are in favour of the union), and it seems plausible that a significant number will turn out to be in favour of the union, so I'm not quite sure what's wrong with that statement.

Only 3 pages to go, can't stop now. Does anybody on this thread actually think they're going to change the mind of anybody else on it, or that it will have any significance in the vote?

aracer - Member
Only 3 pages to go, can't stop now. Does anybody on this thread actually think they're going to change the mind of anybody else on it, or that it will have any significance in the vote?

*I do understand that my circles will be biased towards yes but it's still the sense I get, why I think the polls are skewed, time will tell on that obviously.

I am still saying BS for a claim that you met hundreds and not one was in favour wherever you do your sample except for a No campaign rally.

That wasn't my claim.
Your level of comprehension is challenging your level of literacy.

sbob - Member

The majority, that is the largest group of the sample (look it up, it's a perfectly valid definition)

No, a simple majority is not the same as a majority, you're confusing the two. Not that it actually matters at all, since what you actually said was: "An electorate that is in favour of the union?"

So definitions of the word majority don't come into it, the polls show that the electorate is not, currently, in favour of the union. Course they are also not in favour of independence either. That's what undecided means, it's not a binary question.

I think no matter what side you're on, having only 48% of the population in favour of the union should be eye-opening and worrying. It is not a sign of a healthy system.

....I think the polls are skewed, time will tell on that obviously.

If the polls are "skewed" then it will cost the polling companies dearly. No one wants to commission opinion polls and hand over large amounts of money to companies which provide false results. Their entire business depends on a reputation for accuracy. Without that they are finished.

Although I can see that you believe just how wrong they are by your comment that you convinced everyone you needed to "ages ago". You obviously believe that's it's been in the bag for a very long time.

No one can doubt your faith that's for sure, despite the fact that it defies accepted wisdom.

TBH if the polls don't favour the Yes vote, I'd be surprised- much easier to say Yes in a meaningless poll than at a polling booth, I think the majority of last-minute switches will be to No, though at the moment the majority of switches are away from No to Undecided. Just kind of the nature of polls.

[quote=Northwind ]So definitions of the word majority don't come into it, the polls show that the electorate is not, currently, in favour of the union. Course they are also not in favour of independence either.

Like

I think no matter what side you're on, having only 48% of the population in favour of the union should be eye-opening and worrying. It is not a sign of a healthy system.

I should have thought that those on one side would find having only 39% of the population in favour of independence far more worrying - though I guess those people are in a minority 😉

Probably a reasonable analysis on the polls - as it's harder to imagine people not wanting to admit they're voting Yes - though I'd certainly not want to bet my house on it.

If the polls are "skewed" then it will cost the polling companies dearly. No one wants to commission opinion polls and hand over large amounts of money to companies which provide false results. Their entire business depends on a reputation for accuracy. Without that they are finished.

Although I can see that you believe just how wrong they are by your comment that you convinced everyone you needed to "ages ago". You obviously believe that's it's been in the bag for a very long time.

No one can doubt your faith that's for sure, despite the fact that it defies accepted wisdom.

I don't believe its in the bag either just that its much closer than suggested and that my circles aren't where the debate will be won.

TBH if the polls don't favour the Yes vote, I'd be surprised- much easier to say Yes in a meaningless poll than at a polling booth

If that's true then I would expect the polling companies to be aware of it and to tailor their questions in such a way as not to give the Yes vote a false advantage in their poll. As I say, their entire business depends on a reputation for accuracy.

Maybe you missed out the bit where I deliberately and carefully explained that I live in England and so the Scots that I meet tend to do business or work here.
It shouldn't take too much imagination to work out that these people are more likely to appreciate the benefits of union.

http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scots-expats-vote-yes-independence-3413495

64% of Scottish ex-pats polled in favour of independence.

[quote=seosamh77 ]I am happy to go with whatever democracy ultimately says, until next time!

Ah, so if they vote Yes they'll get another chance to make the right choice in a few years time?

ernie - I don't think it's an issue which can be adjusted out by careful choice of question. Remember who won the '92 election according to the polls?

[quote=bencooper > http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scots-expats-vote-yes-independence-3413495
64% of Scottish ex-pats polled in favour of independence.

Ah - an online poll 😆

aracer - Member
Ah, so if they vote Yes they'll get another chance to make the right choice in a few years time?

aracer - Member

I should have thought that those on one side would find having only 39% of the population in favour of independence far more worrying

Course they'll find it worrying, but it's a different thing. Fear of change is always a huge demotivator, you can see that every day, even when the change is 100% for the better. And this is some change, with lots of reasonable doubts, and huge forces of inertia. The fact is, No is the easier sell. And frankly should probably be selling better than it is.

But even a No vote isn't a vote for the status quo- it's a vote for union, not necessarily the union as it stands, it brings with it everyone who thinks the UK needs to be better but wants to fix it rather than leave it.

So what proportion are we left with that are really happy with the status quo? What proportion would be a good result? Not 51%.

This isn't just a scottish thing of course, the indy referendum just brings it into the spotlight.

So would 51% in favour of independence be a good result?

I'm just not sure why in a vote for independence, which presumably wouldn't have been called if there was thought to be no chance of winning it's so shocking that there isn't an overwhelming majority against it. Or is it the fact the referendum was called which is shocking?

ernie - I don't think it's an issue which can be adjusted out by careful choice of question. Remember who won the '92 election according to the polls?

You can choose how you ask a question, it can be so that it is a yes or no answer or it can be 'do you agree or disagree' with a statement, for example. Polling companies have fair amount of expertise on these matters.

And yes, I do recall '92 election campaign which is famous because the opinion polls got it uncharacteristically wrong. People were shocked because it was rare for opinion polls to be so wrong. I'm sure that in the 20 years since then the polling companies have done everything to ensure no repeat of that. And in fact ever since then they have been proved to have been really quite accurate.

@Aracer- Course not- Yes would be happy with it, any hole's a goal. But a squeaky win isn't confidence inspiring. Though I would say that 51% for Yes is effectively a stronger result than 51% for No, since it is is the harder argument to win, it's still not a great result.

(unless of course you're a Westminster government, where 36.1% of votes cast or, what was it, 24% of eligible votes, is considered a mandate to do whatever you want 😉 )

So I would say, 49% for Yes would be a creditable near miss, though obviously a crushing disappointment. 51% for No would still be an incredibly worrying near miss, despite being a victory. What do you reckon?

That wasn't my claim.
Your level of comprehension is challenging your level of literacy.

People we are now debating the efficacies of polls....we really need to get out more

FWIW the polls say no will win and I see little reason to not believe this but there is enough slack for a change/swing to occur but I dont think it is likely.

Either way it will be a narrow win for one side and wont put the issue permanently to bed if/when they lose/gain independence.

True - though the problem is that No need to win every time. Yes only need to win once.

Aracer - yes, I don't think it's been polled properly. However, why do Yes always do so much better on online polls? Is it because online polls are self-selecting people who actually care?

However, why do Yes always do so much better on online polls? Is it because online polls are self-selecting people who actually care?

No, it's because there are a lot of mentalists in the yes camp who will vote more than once. 😆

However, why do Yes always do so much better on online polls?

Well in case of the ex-pat vote which suggests 64% backing Yes, which clearly completely at odds with opinion polls in Scotland, I would have thought there are a couple of reasons.

Firstly they are less likely to live with the consequences of a separate Scotland compared to those actually living in Scotland, and secondly their opinion on the matter is likely to be motivated for much more emotional reasons rather than practical ones.

The Yes camp appears to rely heavily on an emotional appeal rather than one based on practical considerations which they claim should be deferred for another time.

64% of expats are for indy and you never met one sbob? 😆 Oh right,it is metalists voting twice?

The inequality gap is alive and well.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10764060/Aberdeen-tops-table-for-disposable-income.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10764060/Aberdeen-tops-table-for-disposable-income.html[/url]
Higher level of multibillionaires in Aberdeen than London. Greater sales of Chelsea tractors also. Perhaps Aberdonians could fund the food banks, and prevent disabled people in the PM's constituancy from starving to death!

a higher rate of multibillionaires per head than London

Which isn't exactly surprising since London has the highest level of economic inequality and poverty in the whole of the UK.

So making a comparison with the worse example of inequality in the UK probably isn't that useful.

I am not trying to draw an inequality comparison between Aberdeen and London. Just a point of fact if you believe the paper is correct. I have said previously on here that London does have extremes of wealth and poverty.

I have also said that Scotland becoming independent does nothing to help some of the UK's poorest, many of whom live in London, and yes voters pretending they care becomes a bit tiresome.

The main reason for the post is to highlight that wealth inequality will not magically disappear in an iScotland.

I am not trying to draw an inequality comparison between Aberdeen and London.

No my post wasn't aimed at you - I took the quote from the article, not your post.

I was just pointing out that the article doesn't make a useful point. London has a great deal of people living in it, a relatively small number are multibillionaires. I would expect most areas of the UK to have a higher rate of multibillionaires per head than London. So saying that Aberdeen does doesn't count for much imho.

Thinking about it, Aberdeenshire sees more snowfall than London, so the higher rate of Range Rover purchases is also justifiable. Nevermind, maybe next time.

we'll be looking at a very large minority who've essentially rejected the status quo

...but don't actually want full independence. Not even yS want it (the BOD is not even a manifesto let alone a well argued case for full independence) and the wishes of the majority's are pretty obvious. Voting yes does not give the majority the outcome they wish. Why else would yS be proposing what they are proposing (more devolved power).

But don't fear, politicians live in the world of tactics not strategy and focus groups not principles. The underwhelming sentiment is clear. Any politician half his salt will bend over backwards to deliver it. They crave power above all else. After NO, they will devolve more power to the regions. It's a vote winner pure and simple.

[quote=bencooper ]Aracer - yes, I don't think it's been polled properly. However, why do Yes always do so much better on online polls? Is it because online polls are self-selecting people who actually care?

In the case of this particular one, it's self selecting ex-pats who are interested enough to read a Scottish newspaper online AND submit a poll. I don't think it's a big surprise that they're the sort of people who like the idea of independence for all its theoretical advantages when the practicalities don't affect them. I wouldn't expect them to be a particularly typical selection. In a more general sense, I imagine that Yes voters are probably more likely to feel stronger.

In any case, online polls are in general worth about as much as they cost to run.

. After NO, they will devolve more power to the regions. It's a vote winner pure and simple.

duckman - Member

64% of expats are for indy and you never met one sbob?

Nope, so I trust that poll as far as I could throw Alex Salmond.
See aracer's reply for details, but I have never seen one of my customers reading a Scottish paper, we tend to read British newspapers around here. 🙂

gordimhor - Member

That's what the tories said in 79 and 4 successive tory govts failed to deliver
The only way to get more powers for Scotland is to vote Yes

Aren't you already in place to be granted more powers in the following years, even if you remain in the union?
Correct me if I'm wrong...

Like they did last time after the 1978 vote THM? No chance,Scotland will be squeezed,end of. The better together campaign hasn't exactly endeared the ruling Tory party to Scotland,so they have nothing at all to lose.You may have not noticed,but they wrote us off when that nice lady was in charge. Giving Scotland more devolved power will start to erode the fear of the unknown that has been BT's greatest tool.

I'm sure David Cameron would be most pleased if he could see the opinions of those on here who appear to believe that the Tories will win the next general election and presumably all following general elections.

Or is this part of project fear ?

You are wrong sbob in that the powers to be devolved to Scotland in 2016 were decided by Westminster long before the referendum vote . I therefore discounted them as the agreement was in place long ago. Further when even the House of lords can reclaim powers from holyrood without so much as a "by your leave" devolved administrations will never be secure.
[url=http:// http://www.scottishenergynews.com/lords-axe-holyroods-power-over-scottish-renewables/ ][/url]
I don't believe that the unionists or the Westminster establishment (whether it's red blue or yellow) have changed since 79 so if people want more powers for Scotland they should vote Yes

gordimhor - Member

You are wrong sbob in that the powers to be devolved to Scotland in 2016

No, that was exactly what I was talking about.

so they have nothing at all to lose.

Whereas under independence they obviously have so much more to lose?????

You may have not noticed,

True, I spent my life with eyes shut and ears closed. So much easier....

Maybe you are having trouble making sense of thms post 🙂 which refers to promises to devolve powers after a no vote as opposed to agreeing to devolve certain powers before any vote which is the case with those powers which are to be devolved in 2016

I'm confused. If more powers are devolved in 2016, then that will be after a no vote. Surely that means that is Scotland votes no the result will be that more powers will be devolved? Are we arguing semantics here?

A few more powers are being devolved, in an agreement made a couple of years ago - nowhere near Devo Max.

...but don't actually want full independence. Not even yS want it (the BOD is not even a manifesto let alone a well argued case for full independence) and the wishes of the majority's are pretty obvious. Voting yes does not give the majority the outcome they wish. Why else would yS be proposing what they are proposing (more devolved power).

I've had several goes at parsing that. I think you're making the favourite argument of unionists, that "Yes doesn't want enough independence because you want a currency union / EU membership / treaties / to breathe the same air as everyone else".

Which is rubbish. We want independence. Every independent country has treaties, unions and obligations - the important, vital fact is that an independent country can decide those for itself.

Any powers granted by Westminster can be taken back at any time.

Which is rubbish. We want independence. Every independent country has treaties, unions and obligations - the important, vital fact is that an independent country can decide those for itself.

Isn't control over fiscal policy one of the main things Scotland doesn't have now which it wants to gain through independence? And how would it have that in a currency union with a much bigger economy?

You can dismiss it as rubbish if you like but that's just burying your head in the sand.

We want independence.

Not according to the polls.

Every independent country has treaties, unions and obligations - the important, vital fact is that an independent country can decide those for itself.

So Scotland can choose to be an independent country within the UK ? If Scotland votes No in September you will in fact recognise Scotland's independence ? Because it will have 'decided for itself'. In other words Scotland is independent right now. So what exactly are we arguing about ?

This is probably the most rational post I've seen from a Yes supporter:

I think as we approach the 100th page everyone should just agree to disagree, or atleast agree that there are benefits of independence and there are benefits of union. Ultimately the choice is down to personal instinct.

teamhurtmore - Member
True, I spent my life with eyes shut and ears closed. So much easier....

Ernie,I think the Tories will win the next election,such is the car crash that is the current Labour party,but that is for another thread.