renton

Not much use to their grandkids if they're broke.

2200 hours, zulu time. 10 pm basically.

To be fair, a lot of them will worry about their private pensions I'd think, and while yes does make a strong case for those remaining intact, oldies don't have the luxury of time to get over it, if there are setbacks. Take me for example, I'm demographically the prototype No voter: Both me and my fiance work in reaosnably well paid jobs, have a mortgage but no kids. I'm voting yes for a whole host of reasons but accepting of the fact that I personally may take a kicking financially in the short term - thing is, barring accidents or my superb diet, I've got time on my side. Old folk don't.

Yeah, hoping it stays in the same ball park. have heard only the sketchiest of rumours about it.

Looking at data tables for Ipsos: IN terms of age groups, yes tanking No up to 55+ age bracket. In terms of employment status: +6 full time working, +3 part time working, +11 not working and -17 retired. In terms of working sector +2 in private sector and +14 in public sector. In terms of nat id Scot/more scot than brit/equal/more brit than scot/ brit it goes:+70/+28/-43/-51/-78. Ipsos also confirms that lower income households more likely to vote yes and that while Yes has a 1 point lead in urban areas it gets slaughtered in rural areas by a good 14 points. Folk renting, either private or council much more likely to vote yes than home owners, though one thing that did surprise me is that folk with children in their households are more likely to vote yes than those without.

Someone mentioned that it was 49/51 - but then it might have been confused with Ipsos

Not yet it's not. four runners at 48/52, but you've got Ipsos at 49/51, TNS at 50/50 and YG rumoured at 49/51 (this may turn out to be bullshit) but those are literal dead heats - you are talking about single digit numbers of people rocking it from a yes lead to a No lead, at which point the uncertainty breaks the model.

Ipsos Mori now 49/51. Fucking hell, if youGov does as rumoured then we wil lfinish the campaign with youGov, TNS and Ipsos-Mori as the most yes friendly pollsters

Depeends, let's say they pull out the exact same number of undecideds, it's still only 150 folk and utterly unreliable. Hell, if it's 49/51 with about a 2% error, it's pretty much in line with everyone else.

Like all sub samples those numbers come with a huge health warning, and can't be seen as remotely applicable to the wider populace: we are talking about 50 people here.

Not so sure, I think each of the pollsters comes with their own eccentricities and while I don't think it's a conspiricy that they've all converged to 48 for yes, as noted earlier, Yes could me a smidgeon higher in ICM at least. It's remarkable that 48 is what they've all come out to, but that still leaves an error on where it actually is (interestingly both ICM and TNS showed slightly higher Yes than the new norm in phone/face to face polling)

How much of that was a real drift to No, and how much was just shit polling over estimating yes at the time though? Don't suppose it matters, it's the same result in the end.....

Looks like their attempt to reduce false recall in 2011 recalled vote failed. Apparently 75% of their repsondents voted in the EU election. Actual turnout was about 35%. Only 2% of repsondents were inelligible to vote in 2011. Suggests they may not be picking up on newly registered voters. The convergence of the pollsters is remarkable. YouGov still to come, what's the betting it's showing 48/52 as well.

Panelbase settling on 48/52 No.

Interesting post from Scot goes Pop: ICM hasn't weighted by country of birth, which is actually a strong indicator of voting preference (unsurprisingly) with other UK born being one of the largest breaks to no avaialble to the pollsters. They've got 16% in their poll as opposed to the 8% there actually is, which if you recalcuate does narrow the gap slightly from 48/52 to 49/51. Using the turnout filter (some pollsters use this, others don't) then you get to 50/50. Having said that he's predicting a lead for no in the YG poll later today.

Further up what? Where's your evidence, these threats and assualts would have made the local press, right?

This is getting bloody circular. I can only assume you start from a place where Scotland contributes nothing and that we are dependent upon the goodwill of everyone else. There are a number of points on which the rUK assuming successor status as the clearly would want to do, leaves them exposed financially, unless Scotland was willing to play ball - for example, liabilities. Time tables for Trident removal would be another (something the Americans would be looking at carefully as well). Ultimately, Scotland would give up somethings, like majority control of it's own monetary policies, but the rUK would potentially be digging a huge hole for itself, should it wish to play hardball over a CU.

He doesn't, he merely trusts in them being able to make rational decisions that will benefit them in the long term.

You think little ol' Scotland is going ot trigger another recession? And it won't be 5 years to get into the EU, regardless of what one Spanish minister said. The currency question is resolved, it'll be Sterling, either with or without the CU. How the rUK would choose on that issue would be the matter of negotiations.

Well, it'll be better for exports, and market adjustments happen all the time. They'll get over it - you talk about long term and then get nervous about what is the epitome of short term phenomena. Westminster's long term plan, such as it is, is to concentrate as much wealth into a self serving and self perpetuating set of elites in business, politics and the corporate media, to muddle along through a terrifyingly weak democracy, blaming everyone else and making as money as possible. It's a shite state of affairs, and a No vote on Friday is a vote to basically admit you are happy for this to continue in perpetuity.

The fantastic assumption here, not borne out by the last 30 years of actual governance, is that Westminster isn't a risky and badly mapped out clusterfuck. Indeed, one of the chief reasons I'm voting yes is precisely because future governance from London is risky and poorly mapped out.

Yeah, there is a lot going on here, we all assume a massive turnout but a smaller than expected turnout could conceivably bring in differential voting and who is going to beneift from that? depends who stays home. That undersampled part of the population, which way will they jump? Or are the pollster picking up enough of them to render the exercise moot?

No, does it show?

One thing, Opinium weight by 2010 recalled vote, Survation and ICM by 2011. both YG and PB have weird splits in their SNP weighting (the former by 2010-2011 Nat-Nats and Lab-nats, the latter introduced the recent EU elections as a corrective function). It's probably just a convergence of the stars, Opinium finding more Labour Yes than the others on the night, Survation's notoriously fickle 16-24 sample staying relatively stable, but for all of them to converge nicely to within a 3 point range, from 48 to 50% Got to admit, that's impressive.

What the f**k are you talking about? The surveys aren't conducted by folk 'dressed as red coats' because no human conducts the surveys. All three are online pollsters and the information is collected electronically, and the panels are volunteers for that reason, rath than being randomly stopped in the street as you would by, for example, TNS.