Alex Salmond: A second Scottish referendum is inevitible

Elixir · 7 Oct 2015 at 18:28

lovelyhead said:
You'll find I was. The wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

already has the results broken down into YES, NO and Undecided.

Any other excuses or will you just accept you are wrong?

The article you linked to and the majority of the polls you're using to argue your case have removed 'Undecideds' and reweighted the Yes and No percentages accordingly. That's why they add up to 100%. This is what has resulted in the Yes/No proportions of 48:52 from this year which you're clinging to.

Using the same methodology on the pre-referendum polls from last year (removing undecideds and re-weighting so they add up to 100%) results in the same 48:52 ratio. Therefore according to polls, support hasn't changed.

I can't spell this out any more clearly.

lovelyhead · 7 Oct 2015 at 18:40

Elixir said:
The article you linked to and the majority of the polls you're using to argue your case have removed 'Undecideds' and reweighted the Yes and No percentages accordingly. That's why they add up to 100%. This is what has resulted in the Yes/No proportions of 48:52 from this year which you're clinging to.

Using the same methodology on the pre-referendum polls from last year (removing undecideds and re-weighting so they add up to 100%) results in the same 48:52 ratio. Therefore according to polls, support hasn't changed.

I can't spell this out any more clearly.

So are you telling me you have sat down and re-weighted the last 20 referendum polls to remove the undecideds in order to arrive at your 48:52 figure?

Dis86 · 7 Oct 2015 at 18:41

lovelyhead said:
So are you telling me you have sat down and re-weighted the last 20 referendum polls to remove the undecideds in order to arrive at your 48:52 figure?

It's not very hard to do. Particularly with something like excel

Elixir · 7 Oct 2015 at 19:25

lovelyhead said:
So are you telling me you have sat down and re-weighted the last 20 referendum polls to remove the undecideds in order to arrive at your 48:52 figure?

I linked to it in an earlier post, you probably ignored it because it was too complicated.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aMAa5RNVK-w9Y1knniO-Vz_9kVKsJwFv3vKdKudIXVg

What I did was added up the % that voted either Yes or No, then found out what % of that number were Yes and No, hence giving the weighted percentages of Yes or No after removing undecideds.

Step by step example:
43% Yes, 48% No, 9% undecided

91% voted, 9% undecided

Of those that voted, (43/91)*100 % were Yes = 47.25%
Of those that voted, (48/91)*100 % were No = 52.75%

BuffetSlayer · 7 Oct 2015 at 19:29

lovelyhead said:
Nothing is ever good enough for you unionists is it. I provide 18 (!) independent polls and you are still making excuses as to why they aren't right!

You call me pathetic and a zealot yet you deny the evidence even when it is served up to you on a silver platter!

You guys have issues!

I have neither called you pathetic or zealous. Why not link to the original source of those polls? It may help your case, unless of course you are just fishing for hits on an anti-union blog page?

Your evidence is not conclusive (nor is mine, I never said it was) and that was the whole point of trying to show you why reliance on polls to support your argument is dubious. Lies damn lies and statistics.

lovelyhead said:
Are you saying the data is inaccurate?

On the one hand you wanted to remove the ambiguity of people on the fence and didn't want their numbers to dirty the figures, yet you keep quoting figures that appear to include them? I am saying link to the source so I can make my own mind up on the figures and how the blog you keep linking to is using them. I am prepared to accept I am wrong if the raw data supports the figures quoted on the blog page.

lovelyhead said:
You are hilarious. Your original point was that there has been a consistent drop for the YES side in the polls since the start of the year. Your argument was not that the polls don't show consistent growth.

Yes I said polls show consistent slow decline in yes voters and I found 6 polls to show that.

The point about progressive increases in yes voters was for you to go and find me polls that show a consistent rise in yes voters throughout 2015 like I had found you figures to show a consistent fall. This is important because the barrage of polls you have so far posted show the yes vote to be up and down and does not indicate a consistent rise month on month like you are alluding to. Whereas the polls I posted do show a consistent fall, the ones you posted show support is inconsistent and actually that overall the yes vote seems at a bit of an impasse. Can you see what I am getting at?

lovelyhead said:
The polls I have posted (18!) show that at worst the polls are the same now as they were at the start of the year.

Exactly! IE, as above - not growing as you suggest! Also the polls I have posted have bought your assertions of growth into question by showing yes support has declined since the start of the year. Are you saying that the yougov polls I linked to are wrong? (by the way, how many of your independent polls are also from yougov?).

lovelyhead said:
You are in total denial. It's not even as if what I am claiming is in any way controversial. Even John Curtis (Elixr posted one of his articles trying to disprove my point) agrees with me:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34277133

I am not in denial, nor am I getting worked up over it like you seem to be. To be honest I don't really care but I am happy to point out double standards and mis-representation where I see it and try and bring a bit of objectivity into the discussion.

lovelyhead said:
Again, waffle waffle waffle. You were claiming that polling for YES was on the decline and that was what I was disproving. Stop trying to change the subject.

No you were trying to disprove my polls with your polls and that is fair enough, but which one of us is right? My point was I could find polls to support my supposition that yes voters have been in steady but slow decline since the start of the year. You challenged me to put my money where my mouth is and I did so by finding 6 polls (I could probably find more but really cannot be bothered). But you were not happy with my links.

Why is it you are happy to denigrate the polls I found yet expect me to accept the ones you found as gospel (particularly when you don't link to the raw data only a biased blog page)? What, because there are more of them? Can you not see that double standard?

I am also not changing the subject.

But I see once again you have still not responded to the finer points of my other posts as I have asked you to do several times now and instead have turned to casual dismissal of my more recent posts in an attempt to discredit me (I believe you called it waffle).

That is your choice, but if you insist on refusing to comment on points I have made a couple of pages back and then accuse me of trying to change the subject I am afraid I have not the time or inclination to continue discussion with you.

lovelyhead · 7 Oct 2015 at 19:57

Elixir said:
I linked to it in an earlier post, you probably ignored it because it was too complicated.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aMAa5RNVK-w9Y1knniO-Vz_9kVKsJwFv3vKdKudIXVg

What I did was added up the % that voted either Yes or No, then found out what % of that number were Yes and No, hence giving the weighted percentages of Yes or No after removing undecideds.

Step by step example:
43% Yes, 48% No, 9% undecided

91% voted, 9% undecided

Of those that voted, (43/91)*100 % were Yes = 47.25%
Of those that voted, (48/91)*100 % were No = 52.75%

So are you saying that John Curtice is wrong?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34277133

Elixir · 7 Oct 2015 at 20:28

lovelyhead said:
So are you saying that John Curtice is wrong?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34277133

I'm saying that the polls were inaccurate 12 months ago in favour of Yes*, and they are inaccurate now in favour of Yes*.

*After removing undecideds, which I think we have now established we've got to do if we're comparing results. So don't come back with your "but the polls said 45% Yes and the referendum was 45% Yes, all the undecideds just decided to vote No but this time they will all vote Yes!"

ThePirateHulk · 8 Oct 2015 at 01:52

grumpysculler said:
The only reason that it hasn't laid the matter to rest is because the SNP administration (and their supporters, perjurers and all) are incapable of adhering to a binding agreement that they signed.

Alex Salmond's victory speech had a section in it about how he and Dave had agreed to uphold the Edinburgh Agreement. It seems that the Yes side believe that the Edinburgh Agreement only applies if the right answer was given. And democracy (EU-style?) consists of asking the question again and again until the populace gives the right answer.

We were asked. We answered. End of story.

If the SNP would shut up about independence, get on with running Scotland properly and do what they promised they would then there wouldn't be nearly so much support for indy now because we could be getting on with our lives instead.

estebanrey said:
So if another referendum was held and this time it was 55% YES and 45% NO, you would support a third referendum?

Something tells me if the boot were on the other foot you'd be saying "The Scottish People have spoken" and be talking down any chance of another vote.

Also, funny that when a YES vote was marginally ahead in the polls a month or so before the referendum Salmond never said anything about a close vote not counting and needing another. He only says it because the narrow victory wasn't his.

Bear said:
See the Tartan Tories have part privatised Scottish water, how very left wing of them http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...inisters-award-anglian-water-contract-private

Bear said:
The link is the Guardian and left wing paper and it also covered the postponement and also stated Scottish water is publicly owned, it also stated it would potentially save the tax payer money, although thats the reason any government gives to sell off contracts to private firms isnt it?

Perhaps you need to wind your wee neck in

Perhaps you shouldn't post misleading information. The SG have in NO WAY WHAT SO EVER privatised SW.

xs2man · 8 Oct 2015 at 02:07

You are correct. They haven't privatised it.

They are awarding the contract to a private company though, because it is more cost effective. The upshot of which is bound to be job losses though. And possibly the folding of Scottish water? No? Which would leave only private companies to bid in the future.

ThePirateHulk · 8 Oct 2015 at 03:55

xs2man said:
You are correct. They haven't privatised it.

They are awarding the contract to a private company though, because it is more cost effective. The upshot of which is bound to be job losses though. And possibly the folding of Scottish water? No? Which would leave only private companies to bid in the future.

No because Scottish Water still supply the entire domestic market in Scotland along with all of the private sector markets in Scotland.

Scottish Water still actually supply the water to public sector markets. The only part that has changed is the metering is now carried out by Anglia (whose wholesale supplier in Scotland is SW).

Do people in this forum actually read???

ThePirateHulk · 8 Oct 2015 at 04:00

ubersonic said:
So basically you see it this way:

Positive towards the UK = unionist drivel
Not really biased either way = anti-SNP
Positive towards the SNP = unbiased
The words of Alex Salmond = maybe sometimes pro-SNP but mostly unbiased

lol.

To be honest I don't see many newspapers that could legitimately be labelled as unbiased.

Bear · 8 Oct 2015 at 06:57

ThePirateHulk said:
No because Scottish Water still supply the entire domestic market in Scotland along with all of the private sector markets in Scotland.

Scottish Water still actually supply the water to public sector markets. The only part that has changed is the metering is now carried out by Anglia (whose wholesale supplier in Scotland is SW).

Do people in this forum actually read???

You obviously didn't because everything you stated in response to my original post was already stated in the article in the Guardian.

The difference is that if it was the Tories selling private contracts, it would be called privatising via the back door by the SNP

platypus · 8 Oct 2015 at 08:53

Bear said:
The difference is that if it was the Tories selling private contracts, it would be called privatising via the back door by the SNP

You're quite right, it's how you spin it that matters.

And the SNP spin machine is an incredible beast.

V F · 8 Oct 2015 at 15:19

So Scots have funny money. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...because_he_wanted_to_pay_with_Scottish_money/

Bluecube · 8 Oct 2015 at 15:38

According to that article, English notes are only legal tender in England and Wales. That I didn't know!

n111ck · 8 Oct 2015 at 15:42

Racist english scumbags (although I won't accept scottish 'money' either).

Werewolf · 8 Oct 2015 at 16:34

Bluecube said:
According to that article, English notes are only legal tender in England and Wales. That I didn't know!

Yup.

Also it tends to be the further away from the Scottish/English border the less likely a retailer is to see Scottish notes, and from memory there are at least 3 different Scottish "issuers", so it's not just the need to know what a Scottish fiver looks/feels like, it's the need to know at least 3 different (and massively varying in colour) fivers.

Then there is the fact that IIRC of the three issuing banks in Scotland, one has a massive issue with fake note, and one only issues a small percentage of the Scottish notes.
So you've got an increased fraud risk with some Scottish notes, and some are relatively unusual even in Scotland.

So it's not really surprising that us Unionist scum may not accept a note that is not technically legal tender in the UK, and that we may only see once in a blue moon (for much the same reason a lot of retailers will flat out refuse a £50 and have been wary of some £20's that were known to have a forgery problem).

platypus · 8 Oct 2015 at 16:48

V F said:
So Scots have funny money. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...because_he_wanted_to_pay_with_Scottish_money/

What a complete non-story, perpetuated by an idiot who doesn't know what he's arguing against.

grumpysculler · 8 Oct 2015 at 17:16

Bluecube said:
According to that article, English notes are only legal tender in England and Wales. That I didn't know!

Legal tender has a very narrow meaning in law and it has nothing to do with what is acceptable in shops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling#The_question_of_legal_tender

A number of shops don't accept Bank Of England £50 notes. OMG WTF IT'S LEGAL TENDER

Simple fact is that retailers take the hit if they accept dodgy notes. If they aren't familiar with Scottish currency then they aren't nearly so well placed to recognise the notes and decide whether to accept them. Or even know what protection measures are in place.

Last time I worked in a shop, we were briefed on what to look for in £10 and £20 notes (this was in England). We did not accept £50 notes. You add another three issuers and it isn't so easy any more.

It sucks. We live with it. It has nothing to do with discrimination against Scots.

Bluecube · 8 Oct 2015 at 17:21

What about the £100 note? I was astonished to find out recently that there's no English equivalent. I reckon a few eyes would pop if I brandished that about on Oxford Street...

I agree that it's not actual discrimination against Scots but it's damn irritating all the same when some twerp asks for payment in "real money"...