Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[Blaven]

To suggest the gamble is just with a yes vote is ludicrous.

I think you need to widen your perspective somewhat. The UK is 1.5 trillion in debt. Where do you think Westminster is going to find this money?

There is risk on both sides of the argument.

Also you cant prove something without testing, otherwise its called a theory. There is only one way to prove or disprove. TESTING.

[thepundit]

Also you cant prove something without testing, otherwise its called a theory. There is only one way to prove or disprove. TESTING.

Agreed.

"Not with my money, though", is what the doubters say.

Your comment, and please don't take this the wrong way, is typical of what people say when they have nothing to lose anyway. Its easy to gamble when 100% of zero is still zero.

That's why the No vote is so heavily backed by people with a few quid. Mortgages, pensions, savings, businesses etc. People don't just roll the dice when it can heavily effect those sort of things.

[doulikefish]

That's why the No vote is so heavily backed by people with a few quid. Mortgages, pensions, savings, businesses etc. People don't just roll the dice when it can heavily effect those sort of things.

Wrong

[Baxter Parp]

Agreed.

"Not with my money, though", is what the doubters say.

Your comment, and please don't take this the wrong way, is typical of what people say when they have nothing to lose anyway. Its easy to gamble when 100% of zero is still zero.

That's why the No vote is so heavily backed by people with a few quid. Mortgages, pensions, savings, businesses etc. People don't just roll the dice when it can heavily effect those sort of things.

Another reason to vote yes, good point well made.

[Confidemus]

Agreed.

"Not with my money, though", is what the doubters say.

Your comment, and please don't take this the wrong way, is typical of what people say when they have nothing to lose anyway. Its easy to gamble when 100% of zero is still zero.

That's why the No vote is so heavily backed by people with a few quid. Mortgages, pensions, savings, businesses etc. People don't just roll the dice when it can heavily effect those sort of things.

I have a mortgage.

I'm voting Yes.

Try again.

[thepundit]

I have a mortgage.

I'm voting Yes.

I have one as well.

The statistics don't lie, though. Those with something to lose are far more likely to vote No. Can't argue with that.

[Confidemus]

I have one as well.

The statistics don't lie, though. Those with something to lose are far more likely to vote No. Can't argue with that.

Yes you can. I have a mortgage and a full time job and a famliy with two young kids.

I'm voting Yes.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

"Those with something to lose" favouring a certain political outcome is not in any way an indicator of it being correct.

Edited May 22, 2014 by SodjesSixteenIncher

[LinkinFighter]

The pundit

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

The pundit

[thepundit]

Hey, I never said I was "considerably richer" than anyone, lol.

[HardyBamboo]

Agreed.

"Not with my money, though", is what the doubters say.

Your comment, and please don't take this the wrong way, is typical of what people say when they have nothing to lose anyway. Its easy to gamble when 100% of zero is still zero.

That's why the No vote is so heavily backed by people with a few quid. Mortgages, pensions, savings, businesses etc. People don't just roll the dice when it can heavily effect those sort of things.

I have all of these things, my opinion is that there is a greater risk to them from voting no than yes.

[Blaven]

Agreed.

"Not with my money, though", is what the doubters say.

Your comment, and please don't take this the wrong way, is typical of what people say when they have nothing to lose anyway. Its easy to gamble when 100% of zero is still zero.

That's why the No vote is so heavily backed by people with a few quid. Mortgages, pensions, savings, businesses etc. People don't just roll the dice when it can heavily effect those sort of things.

Dont know where to begin with this. Is having a job, a mortgage, a wife that likes to spend and two kids under five not enough to loose?

What is it that YOU are definitely going to loose anyway?

Why is it typical of people who only have nothing to loose.

If you are only concerned that its people with nothing to loose who are voting YES, then why worry about the outcome?

[Thumper]

I'm a landlord and I'm getting married shortly before the vote.

Time after time it's been shown that the biggest demographic gap between yes and no is the obvious one: yes voters are far more politically engaged and aware of the issues at hand. This is not coincidentally why the most common argument given for a no vote is "I haven't got enough information": because the people in question are low-information voters who obtain all of their data from the six o'clock news and the tabloids, both of which are owned in near exclusivity by a unionist elite.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Thumper

[thepundit]

I have all of these things, my opinion is that there is a greater risk to them from voting no than yes.

Why is that?

[ecto]

It's died down purely because they have had to slow down on the scaremongering before they lose too many votes.

The No campaign are sitting in a room like the YouTube clip of Downfall. Alistair Darling shouting "you all said this scaremongering would make them vote No!!!!!!!"

Reality is they don't know what tactics to use with only a couple of weeks before the official campaign period starts.

Not this garbage again, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Thumper]

Why is that?

Presumably because housing prices, jobs and generic economic health and social welfare for those outside the M25 are nothing more than curious side-effects for the UK's present and future leadership, much as they were when Thatcher's experiments led to the demise of another generation of Scottish communities.

[Lex]

I have one as well.

The statistics don't lie, though. Those with something to lose are far more likely to vote No. Can't argue with that.

This is true. There was as a poll released a while back that convincingly showed yes voters were more likely to come from less affluent areas of the country, whereas no voters were more likely to come from the more affluent areas.

[HardyBamboo]

Why is that?

Because the evidence that I have seen, & believe me I have done a lot of reading on the subject, strongly suggests that Scotland will be more successful economically as an independent country.

[thepundit]

Presumably because housing prices, jobs and generic economic health and social welfare for those outside the M25 are nothing more than curious side-effects for the UK's present and future leadership, much as they were when Thatcher's experiments led to the demise of another generation of Scottish communities.

The Scottish people have nobody to blame but the Scottish National Party for Thatcher. Kind of ironic, isn't it? Or is it hypocritical? Ach, never mind.

This is true. There was as a poll released a while back that convincingly showed yes voters were more likely to come from less affluent areas of the country, whereas no voters were more likely to come from the more affluent areas.

Yeah, I remember that. It's a fairly logical reason that those with more to lose are less likely to take a risk. I don't know why anyone would argue against that. It's obvious!, but it doesn't fit in with the Yes agenda so argue against it they will! lol.

Because the evidence that I have seen, & believe me I have done a lot of reading on the subject, strongly suggests that Scotland will be more successful economically as an independent country.

Could you explain how you've come to that conclusion?..