Weird range that Lori giving a 3% variance on one side and a 7% one on the other. I'd say a range of 40-55% for Yes are all very plausible. My best guess is about 45% for Yes as I suspect any still undecided will vote No and it's possible that there are "Shy No" voters.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I understand there are polling stations that closed early for the simple reason there a full 100% of the electorate had already voted.
Congratulations America
From experience I can only agree. Party models are usually good and only have bad results when new players appear (e.g. AfD in Germany). But surveys on referendums are much harder. Even though we have 4 national votes with 1 to 3 referendums each a year, the surveys can get easily of more than 5%, which has been shown the last time in the Minarets proposal which was supposed be rejected by a good margin.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Hope is the denial of reality
Rumour going around Twitter especially but not true because its against the law to close early anyway. Though it has since been reported on the BBC that some polling stations did get 100% turnout. Not sure if that's true or not, but overall turnout certainly seems to be getting to record levels.
Early results are going to No and it appears all over bar the counting.
Aw, thanks for posting that.
I haven't followed this much, but recent news has focused on a monetary and currency aspect --- whether the British pound is "protection" from global financial meltdowns, or if countries have better control if they have their own currency. That's fairly complex and complicated.
It seems to me the UK needs Scotland more than Scotland needs the UK, but since they've been treated like the "red-headed stepchild" for so long...it's no wonder they might want their independence.
Even if the votes don't lead to Scottish independence.....the political atmosphere for the United Kingdom will be changed, and Scotland will have more consideration and power than its had in the past.
As usual, you're wrong. Losing 10% of their population is far less damaging to Britain than having to start from scratch would be for Scotland. And I don't get where you get the BS about Scotland being mistreated (not in the last century anyway).
Hope is the denial of reality
Why do you always make things about me being wrong?Pretty sure Scots are weighing all the pros and cons, including 16 and 17 year olds, and are voting accordingly. BTW, I'm not the one who said Scotland was being mistreated....that came from Scots *who disagreed with British policy*.
Well, it looks like the referendum failed by 9-10%.
Hope is the denial of reality
It'll be interesting to see if the UK swings more to the left, to accommodate its left-leaning Scots.
Hopefully it doesn't. Turning the UK into a federation seems more appropriate. In the end it wasn't a tight decition but 45% is a large enough number to at least consider some changes to the current system.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/up...g-markets.html
Considering there are already Scottish and North Irish parliaments with extensive powers, they're already there.
Are you serious?Has New York turns to the right to accommodate the right-leaning southerners? Do you know a single person who changed their political ideology in response to a political opponent asking for extra stuff?
Hope is the denial of reality
Are you serious?Are you really a political scientist?
You do know that Scotts already had their vote on national (UK) elections? Their votes are already taken into account.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
But hey weren't considered Parliamentary equals.
What?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Scotts didn't have the parliamentary power they thought was deserved.
That kind of thing can only go so long before activists push for a new model. Leaving a union is usually a last resort. That Scotland got so so close to succession means the UK has some work to do...
And I'd be really irked by the Queen taking vacations at Balmoral Castle.
Last edited by GGT; 09-19-2014 at 08:26 AM.
What do you mean by parliamentary power? The power of Scottish PMs in London or the power of the Scottish parliament?
True, it seems Scotland is not happy with a centralist government. Now tell me, how would a swing to the left solve that problem? Lefties (at least over here) tend to be more centralist than the right wing.That kind of thing can only go so long before activists push for a new model. Leaving a union is usually a last resort. That Scotland got so so close to succession means the UK has some work to do...
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Pretty sure GGT is just using long words and hopes that some of them make sense.
Hope is the denial of reality
You have the advantage of being a native speaker. When I don't understand GGT I have always some doubt that it could by my English reading comprehension. Even though, the more post I read, the more I come to the conclusion, that it isn't me and that the problem isn't on my side of the Atlantic ocean.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Russia says the vote failed to meet international standards.
Ha! Beat Kat to it.
Last edited by Wraith; 09-19-2014 at 04:40 PM.
It's ironic that Salmond resigned where Cameron is the one who actually lost; the man who gambled that he'd win the referendum by keeping the devolution alternative off the ballots in the beginning, then made a full U-turn only weeks before the vote. And by doing that effectively turned the NO on the ballot into a vote for devolution.
Congratulations America
Cameron will win if the devolution means solving the West Lothian question.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeah I think Hazir you've missed the local complexities. Cameron has snookered his opponents and its Milliband who has been left scrambling to find any excuse now to avoid English Votes for English Laws (EVEL).
Had devolution been on the ballot then it would have had to have been agreed in advance what that meant and Labour will never willingly agree to EVEL, plus it would have been a defeat for the status quo and a stepping-stone victory for the SNP. By keeping it off the ballot he's turned the vote into a defeat for the SNP and forced his English opponents onto the backfoot on finally resolving the WLQ.
All rather adroit. In tennis terms its now Advantage Cameron.
PS Its worth remembering that in the UK Cameron relies on the Lib-Dems to form a majority while in England he has a landslide overall majority already but can't use that to pass English-only legislation due to the imbalanced WLQ Labour left behind (and he can't fix that due to not having a UK majority). If devomax can fix the WLQ then great.
That assumes that the majority that Cameron doesn't have, delivers on the WLQ that actually keeps them in the majority position.
Just saying that what Cameron wants isn't necessarily what Cameron gets. And he could easily loose his job trying to get it.
Congratulations America
There's a vote in less than a year and based on current polls he's losing it anyway, but its still close enough to be winnable with a swing. Time for a roll of the dice and this has put him in the best possible position and put Milliband in an awkard position.
Its difficult to propose a change to fix the WLQ (despite it being patently the right thing to do) without seeming partisan and prioritising constitutional tinkering over the economy and more mundane priorities. However by tying it in (logically) to the notion of devolution where it belongs it lays a major bear trap for Labour who are forced onto the back foot. Do they agree to EVEL which fixes the major constitutional imbalance they created for partisan reasons, or do they reject it and risk annoying the English electors months before a general election?
This has brought the matter naturally to the front of politics and brought it to the attention of people who are not normally too bothered about such details. The notion of English Votes for English Laws appeals to the English electorates sense of fairness. Milliband will have to fudge very carefully to manage not to give it away while not annoying the English voters.
PS its worth noting that while Cameron may not be too highly rated in yours (or many others) eyes he's now become the first Tory PM in over a decade, seen off two Labour leaders (one very popular), a Lib Dem leader and the very popular SNP leader. Not too bad on a partisan level.
On a completely different note can I say how proud I am of my country that we resolved this matter peacefully and democratically. You see separatist movements across the globe in countries like Spain, Italy, Turkey, Russia, China etc who currently would never countenance such a democratic mandate. Meaning that the will of the people is either ignored no matter how strong it gets or oppressed and it can turn to violence.
We've had a full and free debate and the people have spoken. Much more democratic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote