Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Will you vote for independence?

Scottish independence?

  • Yes please

    Votes: 99 56.6%

  • No thanks

    Votes: 57 32.6%

  • Dont know yet

    Votes: 17 9.7%
  • Total voters
    175
Hadn't actually read the article to find that I'm parroting Salmond:eek: But he is right without a firm proposal it is a phoney war. Granted he hasn't done his case any favours by making it look like the whole thing so far has been done on the back of a beer mat. But that at best makes it a low water mark that should not allow for complacency.

The four or so tv debates we have had so far, picking over bare bones can only have switched people off. Public probably now won't look at the issue til next June
 
More on the panelbase poll:

(Deep in the Panelbase data and the footnote to the SNP's press release, it emerges that when all 1043 responses are included, the one point advantage for "yes" is reversed. Including all those who say they're not likely to vote, there is a 42% "no" vote and a 41% "yes" vote.)
Click to expand...
 
That one seems to do the same as the panelbase one but in the opposite direction - softening up by prior questions that are intended to make the respondent feel as if they are not clued up enough to vote for such momentous change and suggesting that moves away from the status quo would mean tax rises ad debt then banging in the question at the end.
 
If it's a nice day, I might make a day of it and go through the Cairngorms and come bnack via the A96.
 
Pat Kane in the Guardian:

Scotland's campaign for independence must be Gandhian in its ambition

Last Sunday's poll in a Scottish broadsheet confirmed what most of the psephology has been saying over the last 12 months. The majority still favour a no vote, by about 60-40 – but those undecided are numerous enough to make the referendum winnable for the pro-independence movement (or alternately, to provide a crushing victory for the no camp).

The SNP leader can happily make a speech about the "five unions" that he would like to see an independent Scotland retain – sterling as a currency, Nato and EU membership, the monarchy under the Commonwealth, and the "social union" (the last interpreting "Britishness" as meaning "Scandinavian/Nordic", the undeniable mutual experience of nations on a shared land mass). Only the "political" union, in Salmond's view, needs radically changing.
Click to expand...


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...sh-independence-amazing-referendum?CMP=twt_gu
 
Slew of one-year to go polls

First up there is a Scottish YouGov poll in the Times, with topline referendum figures of YES 32%, NO 52%. YouGov also asked people to think how they would vote if they were convinced that the Conservatives would win the UK general election in 2015, which narrowed the NO lead a little, but not a lot – YES 36%, NO 51%.
Click to expand...

Secondly there is a poll by Progressive Scottish Opinion in the Daily Mail. They aren’t British Polling Council members, but did do regular polling before the last Scottish elections – their topline referendum figures are YES 27%, NO 59%, Don’t know 14%.
Click to expand...

Thirdly the Guardian have a British poll on Scottish independence. Across Britain as a whole 32% of people think Scotland should be an independent country, 52% should not
Click to expand...

Fourthly there is a TNS-BMRB poll in the Herald, which asked about the economic effect of independence. 45% thought the Scottish economy would perform worse outside the UK, 23% thought it would improve, 15% thought it would be much the same. As far as I can tell TNS-BMRB did not ask the referendum question itself.
Click to expand...

The yes campaign should be seriously worried - on these figures even if they convert every single don't know they are still going to lose.
 
...and one more to add to the above:

Ipsos MORI for STV News

Yes: 31%
No: 59%
DK: 10%

and of those who are certain to vote:
Yes: 33%
No: 67%.
 
Interesting. What I learned from that is that the 3 Unionist parties are agreed that a No vote is a vote for change (rather than no change), but that there is no consensus on what that change will be.

I had assumed that No would mean that the Scotland Act ("Calman") would come into being. But even the Tories are saying that isn't the full story, maybe there would be further change.

Are we supposed to go to the polls and vote No on that basis?
 
danny la rouge said:
Interesting. What I learned from that is that the 3 Unionist parties are agreed that a No vote is a vote for change (rather than no change), but that there is no consensus on what that change will be.
Click to expand...

I'm just back. Did they show my comment on that? I was the guy in the white shirt who looked at the boom mic. :) They basically ignored my comment.

It was an excellent experience. I didn't get to ask my question, alas. The questions were all pre-selected, so the presenter had the opportunity to bone up. I don't know if the guests did. Most of the audience interventions were ad hoc; some were almost certainly not. A guy behind me was a Better Together guy and seemed to be deliberately picked out. I was most impressed with most of the guests' command of the subjects. I didn't make notes but will be rewatching the debate later on BBC iPlayer.

The floor manager, Evan, didn't like the Tory and the SNP guests getting so much applause individually when they were introduced, so the start was re-done with the audience applauding the guests collectively after they'd all been introduced.

The whole audience was very good-natured, and I'll try to go to more.
 
Quartz said:
I'm just back. Did they show my comment on that? I was the guy in the white shirt who looked at the boom mic. :) They basically ignored my comment.
Click to expand...
I just knew that was you. Yes, they did show it. And the Unionists did ignore it.

It's no minor point, either. I've talked to a lot of people about the referendum, and almost nobody realises that a No vote will not mean no change. In fact, many are disinclined to believe me when I tell them. Better Together really needs to address this. The level of awareness about Calman and the Scotland Act 2012 is extremely low.

Remember it is Westminster that will change the settlement if Yes is unsuccessful. So it is up to the Unionists to spell out exactly what a No vote will mean. Will it merely mean Scotland Act 2012 being put into action? (No, if the Tories are to be believed. Annabel Goldie said there may be further changes). What about federalism as the Tories' Westminster partners, the Lib Dems, propose? Or Devo Plus or another variety as mentioned last night. What is it that a No vote will actually deliver?

Goldie said whatever the outcome of the referendum, the constitutional settlement should be put to bed. However it is obvious from this that in the likely event of a No vote, the constitution will be far from settled, as Unionists can't agree what is on offer.
 
Unscientific survey alert.

During the course of the morning and over lunch, I asked some people about what voting No meant. They are friends, colleagues and relations of mine. The sample size is extremely small. However, I reproduce the results for your delectation.

I spoke to 11 people (5 men, 6 women, all of voting age).

Their voting intentions are as follows:

Yes - 4

Undecided - 2

No – 5

When asked "what does voting 'No' result in?" All 11 said "No change". ('No change' was the most used phrase, but others included 'things stay as they are' and 'nothing changes').

6 of them were unconvinced when I told them this was incorrect. (Both of the Undecideds, 3 of the Nos and 1 Yes).

I asked them to suppose that No did not not mean no change. Would that knowledge affect their voting?

One of the Undecideds said it would make her vote No.

One of the Yes voters said it might make them consider voting No, but they’d need more information.

Oddly, two of the No voters said it would make them consider voting Yes. The reason they both gave was “the uncertainty”. (I doubt that this last effect would be reproduced nationally, but you never know. They are husband and wife, if that makes any difference).

The remaining 7 said it would not affect the way they voted. However, all 11 said the details of these changes should be made available before the polls.


I have no idea how representative that all is, but it does show that there are 11 people who didn't know that "A No vote does not mean no change".
 
Last edited:
I'm going to edit the above post (741). I had written: "I asked them to suppose it was correct. Would that knowledge affect their voting?" This is ambiguous when taken with the previous paragraph.
 
So Salmond has said he'll re-nationalise Royal Mail if we get independence. Think that might swing a few undecideds?
 
danny la rouge said:
Quartz , are you applying for this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24162215# Audience plea for TV debate programme.

I don't know your occupation, but they are looking for "people working in, or who have an interest in, Scotland's arts and entertainment industry".

That would include you, weepiper, since you are a recorded artist.
Click to expand...

I can't make that but I've stuck it on my facebook as there's lots of people I know who might want to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

farmerbarleymow
  • Poll
Which urban posters will be entitled to Scots citizenship?
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
3K
existentialist
existentialist
danny la rouge
MSPs vote to allow tail docking of dogs
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Poi E
P
weepiper
Radical Independence Conference
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
neonwilderness
Fort William
Replies
11
Views
1K
Sasaferrato
Sasaferrato
danny la rouge
Pro-independence daily paper the National to launch in Scotland
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
Back
Top Bottom