Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[Lex]

Surly it's pretty obvious. People who are already doing well won't want the change 'Why bother. I'm doing fine already. Things might be worse' where as those who aren't will as the current system isn't working for them 'What have I got to loose. Things might be better'.

I don't think it's simple as that. I'd think employment and intelligence would also be big factors in the huge differential.

I would imagine a good chunk if not most of the people who live in our nations most deprived areas are unemployed, therefore employment issues won't have as big an effect on them.

I would imagine a good chunk if not most of the people who live in our nations most affluent areas are employed. These people will be effected by employment issues.

For example, I wonder how many of Standard Life's 5000 Scottish employees will be voting yes? Less than 1% I would expect. Members of trade unions such as GMB and the Scottish steelworkers union have been advised to vote no by their union. I could go on.

There's far more unanswered questions for the Scottish worker than there is for the Scottish unemployed person. This would go someway to explaining the massive disparity in my opinion, along with the point you raised.

[renton]

You got your tiny wee jump after the big and much heralded white paper came out, now it's gone after the better together campaign fought back. Support for yes is (unsurprisingly) falling given all the uncertainty regarding the currency and the EU. You're not only failing to make any head way, you're actually losing ground. As some yes voters have said in this thread, 60%-40% is a realistic prediction for September, although 70-30 wouldn't surprise me. Yes is getting humped, and it's absolutely fantastic to watch

I agree that the reaction of the yes campaigners and supporters to differing polls stinks of hypocrisy, good point. It's as if they can't face up to the reality of their impending defeat?

An STV journo asked wee Eck a good question last night. Words to the effect of ' Are you thinking about managing defeat now? ' Wee Ecks face was a picture for a second, he just looked a bit sad, and it's clear that's exactly what he's thinking about, and who can blame him. He then snapped back into delusion mode and went for the ' we will win blah blah ' diatribe. Poor guy, wonder if he will retire after the defeat? He certainly should, he's clearly struggling badly.

You say i'm trolling, then link to the exact same poll i linked too.

Are you trolling too?

Look out, facebook boy is back

One interesting part of the poll i and Ivo linked too was the disparity between deprived areas and affluent areas:

It's something i had noticed when talking to people about the debate, but had never seen in a poll. The more affluent they are, the more likely they are to be behind the union, the less affluent, the more likely they are to be separatists. In the nations most affluent areas support for yes is astoundingly low, only 20%. Anyone have any idea why?

Not really, actually.

Edited March 4, 2014 by renton

[renton]

I don't think it's simple as that. I'd think employment and intelligence would also be big factors in the huge differential.

I would imagine a good chunk if not most of the people who live in our nations most deprived areas are unemployed, therefore employment issues won't have as big an effect on them.

I would imagine a good chunk if not most of the people who live in our nations most affluent areas are employed. These people will be effected by employment issues.

For example, I wonder how many of Standard Life's 5000 Scottish employees will be voting yes? Less than 1% I would expect. Members of trade unions such as GMB and the Scottish steelworkers union have been advised to vote no by their union. I could go on.

There's far more unanswered questions for the Scottish worker than there is for the Scottish unemployed person. This would go someway to explaining the massive disparity in my opinion, along with the point you raised.

What the hell does it mean by 'least deprived' are we talking top two percentile here? How about the middle class, lower middle class? Taking the top and bottom is no surprise, those most shat on are happy to try their lot, those who have made the most out of the system will not be inspired to change the game - what about the great mass in the middle though?

[Lex]

What the hell does it mean by 'least deprived' are we talking top two percentile here? How about the middle class, lower middle class? Taking the top and bottom is no surprise, those most shat on are happy to try their lot, those who have made the most out of the system will not be inspired to change the game - what about the great mass in the middle though?

I think the rest of the poll covers the great mass in the middle. You know, the 57% - 32% figure.

I was just surprised at the massive disparity between the affluent and non affluent areas.

[Enigma]

I was just surprised at the massive disparity between the affluent and non affluent areas.

Really? Why? It doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[renton]

I think the rest of the poll covers the great mass in the middle. You know, the 57% - 32% figure.

I was just surprised at the massive disparity between the affluent and non affluent areas.

No, those two figures are likely sub samples of the original data set, so it remains to be seen how the other percentiles between the bottom and top pan out.

There are clear dmeographic splits in this referendum, if you are young, male and working class to middle class - that covers the most likely to vote Yes, you can work your way back to find the likely No voters, generally the most affluent groups, women by a factor of two to one. I don't think that those two figures show anything extraordinary.

[Lex]

No, those two figures are likely sub samples of the original data set, so it remains to be seen how the other percentiles between the bottom and top pan out.

There are clear dmeographic splits in this referendum, if you are young, male and working class to middle class - that covers the most likely to vote Yes, you can work your way back to find the likely No voters, generally the most affluent groups, women by a factor of two to one. I don't think that those two figures show anything extraordinary.

Well surely you can work it out if you do the maths and subtract those results from the whole poll?

I do agree that working to middle class males between 21 and 45 are the most likely to vote yes, and that's most of the posters on this forum, hence the skewed debate you get on here.

This demographic is the most likely of any to take a risk and this i think is the reason they're so willing to take a jump into the dark room of independence. Thankfully most the populace isn't so reckless, hence the continuing dominance of the no vote.

[renton]

Well surely you can work it out if you do the maths and subtract those results from the whole poll?

I do agree that working to middle class males between 21 and 45 are the most likely to vote yes, and that's most of the posters on this forum, hence the skewed debate you get on here.

This demographic is the most likely of any to take a risk and this i think is the reason they're so willing to take a jump into the dark room of independence. Thankfully most the populace isn't so reckless, hence the continuing dominance of the no vote.

Well, until Ipsos release their full data sets, no. As for the continuing dominance of No, it's shed a quarte rof that lead in the last 6 months, it needs to accelerate that trend by a factor of two in order to be ahead in the polls on polling day. Ipsos-Mori will never eveng et that close, it's adherence to 2010 Westminster polling, the stealth pre-amble and even the landline phone data collection method all skews their data. They ar enow the statistical outlier when everyone else has converged.

[renton]

http://networkedblogs.com/Uq6eV

quite anecdotal in places, but an interestin discussion nonetheless.

[ecto]

Latest Odds from Ladbrokes Yes 11/2 No 1/6

[Burma]

I remeber hearing the smae social media stuff around tehe Time to GW Bush's electtion.

Self selecting groups are rarely reflective of the populace.

I'm not sure that comparing social media access in 2014 with that encountered in 2001 will provide any kind if meaningful analysis as to it's impact today. Back when Bush was rigging his election victory large percentages of the US and the UK populations did not have home internet access, and most who did were using expensive dial-up. Many people still did not have mobile phones in 2001 and certainly nothing which enabled internet access. No myspace, facebook, twitter, or reddit. Yes there were forums and chatrooms but nothing like the enormous ease with which people are able to disseminate ideas and comment that they can today. Even my 80 yr old grandmother uses social media from her mobile phone in order to debate the pro's and con's of various political debates.

[Confidemus]

All this chat from Lex, who I realise is mostly on the troll, is most interesting. He, like many No voters, is voting because of how it will affect him.

The heaving mass in the middle, like me, and MANY, MANY Yes voters, are looking at the bigger picture.

If I was to vote for purely selfish, personal reasons, I too may vote No. But I'm not. I'm thinking of what's best for my kids. And their kids. And the country as whole. And my conscience, given all the pros and cons, can only allow me to vote Yes.

I find it pretty disheartening how selfish your average No voter is.

[ecto]

All this chat from Lex, who I realise is mostly on the troll, is most interesting. He, like many No voters, is voting because of how it will affect him.

The heaving mass in the middle, like me, and MANY, MANY Yes voters, are looking at the bigger picture.

If I was to vote for purely selfish, personal reasons, I too may vote No. But I'm not. I'm thinking of what's best for my kids. And their kids. And the country as whole. And my conscience, given all the pros and cons, can only allow me to vote Yes.

I find it pretty disheartening how selfish your average No voter is.

I am a no-voter and I consider myself looking at the "big picture"

[Confidemus]

I am a no-voter and I consider myself looking at the "big picture"

So can you tell me how you consider Scotland as a country to be better, looking at the bigger picture, as it is now, rather than an independent country?

[Deputy Keeper]

All this chat from Lex, who I realise is mostly on the troll, is most interesting. He, like many No voters, is voting because of how it will affect him.

The heaving mass in the middle, like me, and MANY, MANY Yes voters, are looking at the bigger picture.

If I was to vote for purely selfish, personal reasons, I too may vote No. But I'm not. I'm thinking of what's best for my kids. And their kids. And the country as whole. And my conscience, given all the pros and cons, can only allow me to vote Yes.

I find it pretty disheartening how selfish your average No voter is.

Wow! Sanctimonious or what? I'm thinking too of what's best for my children and generations to come. Having considered all of the pros and cons, I believe we should stay as a strong part of the United Kingdom. If you think otherwise then fine, but to describe 'your average No voter' as selfish is nonsense.

[Mr Bairn]

So can you tell me how you consider Scotland as a country to be better, looking at the bigger picture, as it is now, rather than an independent country?

Surely if you were looking at the bigger picture you would also be considering the thousands of Yorkshiremen "condemned" to a lifetime of Tory rule. Or does your little speech of camaraderie only apply North of Annandale services?

[joozy]

All this chat from Lex, who I realise is mostly on the troll, is most interesting. He, like many No voters, is voting because of how it will affect him.

The heaving mass in the middle, like me, and MANY, MANY Yes voters, are looking at the bigger picture.

If I was to vote for purely selfish, personal reasons, I too may vote No. But I'm not. I'm thinking of what's best for my kids. And their kids. And the country as whole. And my conscience, given all the pros and cons, can only allow me to vote Yes.

I find it pretty disheartening how selfish your average No voter is.

More lol-tastic stuff. Yet more cult-like chatter, anyone who doesn't subscribe to the kool-aid party line is somehow just a bit less moral.

[git-intae-thum]

More lol-tastic stuff. Yet more cult-like chatter, anyone who doesn't subscribe to the kool-aid party line is somehow just a bit less moral.

And ofcourse everyone considering a yes vote has been brainwashed into a cult and drinks kool aid. Cos dae are daft. Eh!

Good one.

Convincing argument, well put.

Top debating skills from a dependent.

Might convince me to vote no now.

[Grim O'Grady]

If this was a football game, most of the play would have been in midfield so far, ok the odd slip-up & near own goal here & there.

The real action will be in the last 10 minutes = July/August with September being the time added on, when we will have a next goal wins & let's not hope it's an own goal from either side?

A good clean game, my arse!

Mon the Yessers. Next year we could be playing in Europe (oh christ).

Grimbo

[Lex]

Latest Odds from Ladbrokes Yes 11/2 No 1/6

Not surprised at that.

All this chat from Lex, who I realise is mostly on the troll, is most interesting. He, like many No voters, is voting because of how it will affect him.

The heaving mass in the middle, like me, and MANY, MANY Yes voters, are looking at the bigger picture.

If I was to vote for purely selfish, personal reasons, I too may vote No. But I'm not. I'm thinking of what's best for my kids. And their kids. And the country as whole. And my conscience, given all the pros and cons, can only allow me to vote Yes.

I find it pretty disheartening how selfish your average No voter is.

Even by your standards Confi, that's a load of sanctimonious self righteous nonsense, and i'm not surprised other posters have called you up on it. I am voting on what i believe is the best for Scotland and the people of this nation (which includes me) right now. How on earth do you know what the world is going to be like in 20 years? Or 40 years? The world has changed exponentially in the last 20 years, and Moores law states that the world will change even more between 2014 and 2034 than it did between 1994 and 2014.

For you to comment as if you're some kind of future seeing demigod who knows what is going to be best for his grandkids in 40 years is beyond arrogant. No one knows what's going to be the best for anyone that far in the future.

We waited 18 years between 79 and 97 for a referendum on the devolved parliament, if there's appetite for independence in 20 years there will be another referendum. If your kids generation wants independence they will have it regardless of how you vote in a few months. Maybe it will be the best thing for us in 20 years, maybe i will vote yes in 20 years. Who knows? Nobody.

We do know whats best for us now though and - as i'm glad you have admitted - it's probably best for you right now if we remain part of the union. I'm not surprised by this, i'm assuming you're a working man and you pay your taxes. You're right in believing it would be best for you if we voted no. Don't you think you should act on that as opposed to some nostradamus-esque prediction on what might be best for the next generation? Don't you trust the next generation to be intelligent enough to make their own decision on independence in their own time?

Personally i have faith in self determination, the people of this nation and democracy. If independence is the best thing for us in 20 years it will happen. It's - as you admit - not the best thing for us now though, so it shouldn't and won't happen.