Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[H_B]

A 3 option referendum would have been a nightmare for Cameron. An absolute nightmare. It would be difficult indeed to avoid the SNP setting the "middle ground", and what do you do when that wins?

[AUFC90]

Depends what you call a win doesn't it?

He's made a catastrophic blunder here. When No wins handsomely, all momentum built up is lost. There will be no way to spin it other than the Scottish people have comprehensively rejected Independence. We don't want it.

Where is there for the SNP to go after that?

What blunder has he made ? None.of them.wanted a 2nd question. Salmond made out he was trying for it to appease a large amount of people in favour of devo max. We tried but the big bag tories never let us.

So what blunder has he made again ?

[H_B]

What blunder has he made ?

He's ended up with an unwinnable referendum the SNP are getting absolutely brutalised in.

Cameron is still laughing at him.

[AUFC90]

He's ended up with an unwinnable referendum the SNP are getting absolutely brutalised in.

Cameron is still laughing at him.

What blunder has he made ?

And in the result of a no.vote it will be because of Camerons amazing politics ?

[H_B]

What blunder has he made ?

And in the result of a no.vote it will be because of Camerons amazing politics ?

If it's a No vote it will be because Scottish people aren't interested in Independence.

[AUFC90]

If it's a No vote it will be because Scottish people aren't interested in Independence.

No shit Sherlock.

What blunder has Salmond made ?

And what influence will amazing Dave have on a no vote ? Remember nobody up here likes him.

[H_B]

No shit Sherlock.

What blunder has Salmond made ?

And what influence will amazing Dave have on a no vote ? Remember nobody up here likes him.

Are you going for the 2014 Baxter Parp award for stupidity?

[banterman86]

No shit Sherlock.

What blunder has Salmond made ?

And what influence will amazing Dave have on a no vote ? Remember nobody up here likes him.

H_B has posted on this hunners of times - The Edinburgh Agreement (in his view) was a blunder for Salmond and a win for Cameron becuase he doens;t think Yes can win a single question referendum on independence, which was effectively the only concesssion Cameron didn't give.

[AUFC90]

H_B has posted on this hunners of times - The Edinburgh Agreement (in his view) was a blunder for Salmond and a win for Cameron becuase he doens;t think Yes can win a single question referendum on independence, which was effectively the only concesssion Cameron didn't give.

Doesn't make any sense though. Neither side wanted a 2nd question.

[banterman86]

Doesn't make any sense though. Neither side wanted a 2nd question.

There is a theory that a 2nd question on further devolution - which we understand is the most popular option for the Scottish people - would have been a face saving measure for the SNP, instead of the potential issue of independence being off the table for a generation.

It also works itself into the "gradualist" school of thought within the indy movement, where further devoltuion happens until it really is indepdence or nothing.

[AUFC90]

There is a theory that a 2nd question on further devolution - which we understand is the most popular option for the Scottish people - would have been a face saving measure for the SNP, instead of the potential issue of independence being off the table for a generation.

It also works itself into the "gradualist" school of thought within the indy movement, where further devoltuion happens until it really is indepdence or nothing.

Nothing really to lose though. Some form of change will have to happen after a no vote or it wont take a generation for support for indy to.increase to numbers that cannot be ignored. Core 30% pro indy voters will always be there and once the devo lovers realise that they have been shafted we will be back here again with another referendum.looming.

[the jambo-rocker]

H_B has posted on this hunners of times - The Edinburgh Agreement (in his view) was a blunder for Salmond and a win for Cameron becuase he doens;t think Yes can win a single question referendum on independence, which was effectively the only concesssion Cameron didn't give.

In fairness, I'm not sure that Devo-Max really could achieve much other than maintaining momentum should it all go to shit. The ideals behind it have been nothing other than vague promises so far, not to mention asymetrically governed states seems to cause more trouble than it's worth, see Basque Country, Catalonia, and Aosta Valley for reference.

[Davi3j]

There is a theory that a 2nd question on further devolution - which we understand is the most popular option for the Scottish people - would have been a face saving measure for the SNP, instead of the potential issue of independence being off the table for a generation.

It also works itself into the "gradualist" school of thought within the indy movement, where further devoltuion happens until it really is indepdence or nothing.

thats where we are just now though..not one unionist party have said they will devolve anything else to Holyrood if they get into power...all thats been offered is more red tape, more "responsibility" without any more powers

edit for typos

Edited January 6, 2014 by vip3r

[banterman86]

Nothing really to lose though. Some form of change will have to happen after a no vote or it wont take a generation for support for indy to.increase to numbers that cannot be ignored. Core 30% pro indy voters will always be there and once the devo lovers realise that they have been shafted we will be back here again with another referendum.looming.

Further devolution is happening after a No vote because the 2012 Scotland act won;t be fully implemented until 2016. I;d expect further proposal from the Unionist parties to be for after this date 9which would ahve to be the case any considering getting the bill through both parliaments)

I'd like to see a poll asking people what further things they would want devolved.

In fairness, I'm not sure that Devo-Max really could achieve much other than maintaining momentum should it all go to shit. .

can you expand on this a bit?

[banterman86]

thats where er ase just now though..not one unionist party have said they will devolve anything else to Holyrood if they get into power...all thats been offered is more red tape, more "responsibility" without any more powers

What i meant by that is the gradualist idea of further devolution until scotland is at a point where **another** Scotland Act just isn't feasible.

I think the Lib Dems have published a report on their proposals, with Labour and the Tories likely to do so later in the year.

[the jambo-rocker]

can you expand on this a bit?

I put this post out a while back. I'm not saying I don't buy into the small perks of devo max if they do it properly, but I do feel it will cause a lot more problems than arguably made out to be.

On this proposed Devo-Max, which I assume will be some kind of version of asymmetical federalism arguably, would not be any more fitter for purpose than what people buy into. I actually used to think this was not such a bad compromise, but I'd recommend a read on the issues of such a similar format in Basque county and Asota Valley.

They are net beneficiaries through specific fiscal arrangements however it's preferential treatment is a compensation (bribe even) for the lack of fiscal autonomy to prevent seccesion. It is clearly shown however, that it creates economic inefficiency.

http://speri.dept.sh...centralised.pdf

"Asymmetric federalism creates quite some economic inefficiency. Federalism à la carte

also complicates further steps in negotiations as it petrifies positions of net winners and

losers of a reform (Tanzi, 1995). Beneficiaries stick to living from economic rents.

Asymmetric devolution exacerbates the problems of stability and equity of fiscal

federalism. An increasingly complex web of overlapping responsibilities and exceptions to

tax schemes complicates control on fiscal imbalances and observance of the homogeneity

of economic conditions."

Quite simply put, even if it does follow through with it's promise of delivering it, which surely you agree they have been very vague on, then it will arguably cause more problems than it will solve. Uncertainty and all that, but it's not my fault they've been so fucking vague on the matter.

[renton]

Further devolution is happening after a No vote because the 2012 Scotland act won;t be fully implemented until 2016. I;d expect further proposal from the Unionist parties to be for after this date 9which would ahve to be the case any considering getting the bill through both parliaments)

I'd like to see a poll asking people what further things they would want devolved.

can you expand on this a bit?

Wings over Scotland (I know, I know) commisioned panelbase to do a poll on just that, think it ended up with Scots wanting full control of immigration, welfare, the tax system, the oil.... think the big headline power that Scots didn't seem to want devolved was defence.

If your interested go here: http://wingsoverscotland.com/bullet-points/

The link to the panelbase data is in the first line.

Edited January 6, 2014 by renton

[Dipped Flake]

No, it was TNS-BMRB.

I have the figures here, Yes were at 27%, a full 14 points behind.

and in this last poll YES is at 30% so support is growing

[renton]

Wings over Scotland (I know, I know) commisioned panelbase to do a poll on just that, think it ended up with Scots wanting full control of immigration, welfare, the tax system, the oil.... think the big headline power that Scots didn't seem to want devolved was defence.

If your interested go here: http://wingsoverscotland.com/bullet-points/

The link to the panelbase data is in the first line.

There is also this YouGov poll from September '13 (for those who don't like Panelbase polls):

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/yo2tn77guq/YouGov_Times_FINAL_16-Sep-2013.pdf

Again showing that people want the Scottish government to control everything from tax, to welfare to drugs policy.

When you add this alongside Curtice's social attitudes studies, it seems to show that Scots seem to be more adverse to the word Indpeendence than they are to the idea of independence, given that they seem to want pretty much every government function undertaken by Holyrood.

[banterman86]

I put this post out a while back. I'm not saying I don't buy into the small perks of devo max if they do it properly, but I do feel it will cause a lot more problems than arguably made out to be.

Gotcha. i agreee with most of that actually - ipve tried to not use the term "devo max" because of these problems.

Wings over Scotland (I know, I know) commisioned panelbase to do a poll on just that, think it ended up with Scots wanting full control of immigration, welfare, the tax system, the oil.... think the big headline power that Scots didn't seem to want devolved was defence.

If your interested go here: http://wingsoverscotland.com/bullet-points/

The link to the panelbase data is in the first line.

There is also this YouGov poll from September '13 (for those who don't like Panelbase polls):

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/yo2tn77guq/YouGov_Times_FINAL_16-Sep-2013.pdf

Again showing that people want the Scottish government to control everything from tax, to welfare to drugs policy.

When you add this alongside Curtice's social attitudes studies, it seems to show that Scots seem to be more adverse to the word Indpeendence than they are to the idea of independence, given that they seem to want pretty much every government function undertaken by Holyrood.

interesting stuff, cheers.