Independence - how would you vote?

[wingsoverperthshire]

No.

Well done to the UK Gov for saving Grangemouth. Credit to Salmond for scrambling £9m together, though. I'm sure it really scraped the surface so hat off to him for that.

So an enormous turn around from your previous comments. Comments repeated by Alistair Carmichael.

I will deduct your credibility by 20% as a result.

Move on.

[~~~]

I wonder if the media will pick up on Lamont lies earlier on this morning during her interview

[lichtgilphead]

I wasn't talking about YouGov's most recent poll. You said that none of the polls have suggested that 60-65% is likely to happen. YouGov polls have conducted polls that would place a No vote above 60%. Indeed as far as I can see, the previous YouGov polls would place it between 65 and 67%.

Yes, and using your flawed methodology, each of these results would be based upon a turnout of over 97%. I pointed out this huge flaw in my previous post, but you seem to have ignored it.

But yes. Perhaps 97% of the electorate will vote, and No will win by a 60/40 margin (or even by more!)

Would you like a small wager on that - firstly on the turnout then double or quits on the result margin?

[wingsoverperthshire]

*sigh*

You're completely ignoring the specifics of my request. Show me evidence that Salmond will or is likely to cause a statistically significant positive swing in favour of the Yes campaign, rather than to a political party. Referendums are completely different from elections, so please note, no evidence from elections will be admissible unless you can demonstrate, with further evidence, why a referendum won't be statistically or contextually different.

The thing about Cleggmania is it died on its arse within a fortnight of that debate. TV debates provide no perceptible effect on voting intention in any circumstances in the UK. The point is, unless you can both prove that a) the Salmond effect is relevant to the referendum and b) that any debate would take place like 48 hours before polling day, there is no reason to believe that a TV face-off with Darling will do anything significant to the polls. The only reason Clegg's polls shifted so sharply was a) a lack of exposure prior to that relative to the other parties and b) the gimmickry of being the none of the above candidate. AND EVEN THEN the whole hysteria whipped up by the TV debate died within days.

The point is, you have no way of knowing that a) the overwhelming majority of the electorate will even watch the Salmond debate (the viewing figures of Sturgeon's stand-off with Moore were probably barely into 5 figures I'd guess) and even then, the kind of people who will watch a debate are going to be, largely, those who have already made up their mind. The Abertay Hosie event at best shows that among an engaged, young audience in Dundee, when faced with the debating prowess of George fucking Robertson, will gravitate strongly towards the alternative. It is not a piece of evidence that supports the view that a) the public will engage with a TV debate b) that they'll watch it and c) that those who do watch it won't have already made their minds up and d) that among those whose opinions it does change it will be anything like as volatile as the views of people in a General Election.

The polls are within the margin of error virtually wherever you look of not having moved in a year. Across polling companies whether they predict a 4% or a 15% swing is needed. Of course the polls will move closer to the time, but there is approximately ZERO good reason to a) assume that only a 4% swing is needed from now AND b) that any tail-end swing will be enough. All you have is mood music. Not evidence.

I will reply and then read you post. In the style everyone has become accustomed (this isn't bragging rights, by the way).

You are asking me to talka bout a hypothetical situation, as we've never has a independence vote. Good debaters transcend subjects, and salmond is on home turf on a subject that's delivering returns.

You talked about numbers and then shot yourself in the foot. The reason why the polls are static (I agree with you) is the lack of engagement. Prime time debate on TV will deliver both engagement from audiences at home and returns at the polls. No amount of "specifics" will change this.

Now time to read, your long winded hairball.

[thepundit]

So an enormous turn around from your previous comments, Comments repeated by Alistair Carmichael.

I will deduct your credibility by 20% as a result.

Move on.

A turn around?

Its no different to the opinion I gave previously in that the UK Gov saved Grangemouth. Salmonds £9m is nothing. In the end it was a great advert for the No vote. Ironic that it involved the plant but there you go.

[wirez]

Salmond issuing an almighty smackdown to those who are suggesting Grangemouth was only saved because of UK investment

http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/salmond-today-25oct13.mp3

What a total boss our First Minister is.

[wingsoverperthshire]

A turn around?

Its no different to the opinion I gave previously in that the UK Gov saved Grangemouth. Salmonds £9m is nothing. In the end it was a great advert for the No vote. Ironic that it involved the plant but there you go.

..and you were encouraged to make the point why it was a good advert for the No vote. I will once again ask you to make this point.

[Ad Lib]

You are asking me to talka bout a hypothetical situation, as we've never has a independence vote. Good debaters transcend subjects, and salmond is on home turf on a subject that's delivering returns.

Opinion, not evidence.

The reason why the polls are static (I agree with you) is the lack of engagement. Prime time debate on TV will deliver both engagement from audiences at home and returns at the polls. No amount of "specifics" will change this.

Now time to read, your long winded hairball.

A TV debate will not deliver significant engagement that is not already covered by other forms of media engagement.

[thepundit]

..and you were encouraged to make the point why it was a good advert for the No vote. I will once again ask you to make this point.

So is that an admission that my comment was in fact not a turn around from what I said previously?

I will now deduct your credibility by 20%

[thepundit]

They don't even know what currency they'll end up with.

[Jamaldo]

They don't even know what currency they'll end up with.

Again, what's this "They" pish? Do you not consider yourself Scottish?

[wingsoverperthshire]

Opinion, not evidence.

A TV debate will not deliver significant engagement that is not already covered by other forms of media engagement.

Incorrect: use data from previous debates on Indy and relevant speakers.

Given that poll shifting on a UK basis has been delivered best through live debate; something that can't be created in media print or skewed news. You point is invalid.

[DeeGas]

and there are about 15-20 SDL bangers that care one jot about this.

Take your racism and lack of tolerance for 'foreigners' and leave us be.

Scotland is different.

If you want a sensible chat we can have one,but please matey,this phoney and bogus moral high ground you like to take makes you look naïve and desperate.

People are now laughing at this stupid pointing of finger by over eager pc people,much like you appear to be.

[thepundit]

Again, what's this "They" pish? Do you not consider yourself Scottish?

Born in England, moved up here in 92.

[wingsoverperthshire]

So is that an admission that my comment was in fact not a turn around from what I said previously?

I will now deduct your credibility by 20%

Your point was that an Indy Scotland couldn't have survived the problems at Grangemouth. You have been asked time and time again to make the point, something you were completely unable to do. Thus, rendering you position untenable. This isn't Rangers Media son, where everyone to a man is thick as pig shit.

[Ad Lib]

Incorrect: use data from previous debates on Indy and relevant speakers.

Using a single debate of a statistically insignificant and unrepresentative sample in a non-comparable debate at a University, taking a poll rating from the participating audience rather than the passive audience (those watching it not physically live in the hall with a non-comparable match-up. Wholly irrelevant and not supporting evidence.

Given that poll shifting on a UK basis has been delivered best through live debate; something that can't be created in media print or skewed news. You point is invalid.

This is the thing though. You still haven't proved this and even if you did it wouldn't be relevant. This is an election on a Scottish basis (Cleggmania didn't really even happen here). There was no discernible link between the Scottish Parliament debates and the result (the polls were not accelerated or slowed or changed in their direction of travel by Salmond's debates with Gray, Tavish and Goldie). There is plenty evidence to suggest that the eventual result in the UK election saw the TV bounce COMPLETELY negated by media print and news and other factors. Cleggmania rose and fell before a single vote was cast. Where is your evidence that the Yes campaign and EckTV will eliminate polling bust but not polling boom?

[Mr Bairn]

Why do they reject independence?

Who are you talking about?

[Mr Bairn]

Incorrect: use data from previous debates on Indy and relevant speakers.

Given that poll shifting on a UK basis has been delivered best through live debate; something that can't be created in media print or skewed news. You point is invalid.

The difference is this referendum is far more important than simply picking your MP for the next half-decade. This is a referendum to actually create a new country. People are going to be a lot more hesitant about simply swaying their vote.

[Davi3j]

They don't even know what currency they'll end up with.

wrong

it will be sterling, >>>linky

As the economists note, it would actually be impossible for Scotland to be forced to join the Euro on independence (see paragraph 7.37).

In order to recommend a monetary union, the expert group also examined the other choices open to an independent Scotland, for example, using the pound, without entering a formal monetary union. They concluded that Scotland could continue to use sterling in this way if the UK said it was not willing to enter a formal monetary arrangement.

The expert group also examined the idea of creating a new Scottish currency. The Scottish Government has rejected this proposal, preferring to continue using sterling when we become independent.

next question

[xbl]

Using a single debate of a statistically insignificant and unrepresentative sample in a non-comparable debate at a University, taking a poll rating from the participating audience rather than the passive audience (those watching it not physically live in the hall with a non-comparable match-up. Wholly irrelevant and not supporting evidence.

This is the thing though. You still haven't proved this and even if you did it wouldn't be relevant. This is an election on a Scottish basis (Cleggmania didn't really even happen here). There was no discernible link between the Scottish Parliament debates and the result (the polls were not accelerated or slowed or changed in their direction of travel by Salmond's debates with Gray, Tavish and Goldie). There is plenty evidence to suggest that the eventual result in the UK election saw the TV bounce COMPLETELY negated by media print and news and other factors. Cleggmania rose and fell before a single vote was cast. Where is your evidence that the Yes campaign and EckTV will eliminate polling bust but not polling boom?

Ah, so this is going to be the law squad deflection issue?