Scottish independence

[GaryMcEwan]

I don't know why everyone is getting their knickers in a twist. We all know its going to be a resounding 'No.' I do think that Alex Salmond's position as FM and/or leader of the SNP will be heavily compromised if in fact the country does vote to stay together...

On the other side of coin though, lets say Scotland does vote 'Yes', what will happen to the SNP then? As in theory their ultimate goal will have been achieved as they have wanted independence for decades.

[scottishtv]

Published Sun 17th Aug, undertaken 12th-15th Aug:
Panelbase - Yes 42%, No 46%, Don't know 12%. Sample: 1,026.
Excluding Don't knows - Yes 48%, No 52%.
Commissioned by Yes Scotland campaign for Sunday Herald. More info.

Published Sun 17th Aug, undertaken tbc:
ICM - Yes 38%, No 47%, Don't know 14%. Sample 1,005.
Excluding Don't knows - Yes 45%, No 55%.
Commissioned by Scotland on Sunday. More info.

The ICM one also apparently takes into account voters declared propensity to vote.

[scottishtv]

Published Mon 18th Aug, undertaken 12th-15th Aug:
YouGov - Yes 38%, No 51%, Don't know 9%, Not voting 2%. Sample: 1,085.
Excluding Don't knows and Not voting - Yes 43%, No 57%.
Commissioned by The Times. More info.

Last two YouGov polls compared:

[Pete]

Quite a change for four days apart.

What's the margin of error on these?

[scottishtv]

What's the margin of error on these?

Good point. Can't find it anywhere... just got bogged down in pages about crossbreaks and samples within samples when I tried to look. Even John Curtice just offers theories rather than talk about error margins.

A slightly different perspective published today by Ladbrokes which appears to be quite candid about how they come up with their odds. I also started following Mike Smithson of Political Betting blog recently. He appears to view ICM as some sort of gold standard for polls of this nature, citing the fact they got the AV outcome correct down to a fraction of a percent despite a low turnout. Hmm.

[barcode]

Odds for YES has been cut in half since June. Mind you there not not great to begin with, with No vote getting pennies back.

[barcode]

Has anyone seen the Green paper for Scottish Independence?
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/wp-con ... cument.pdf


Also has anyone else seen the little Blue book?
http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.c ... dition.pdf

[scottishtv]

I think any Scottish Greens publication falls into the TL;DR category no matter how short.

Thait said, I couldn't help but look, and note they point out that a consitutional convention should be set up to write Scotland's constitution in the event of a Yes vote. Maybe they should tell their 'Yes Scotland' campaign partner Mr Salmond - last week he was already personally writing bits of it about the NHS without even a single vote being cast...

As for 'Wee Blue Book' author Rev Stuart, the official Yes campaign have disowned that guy (mainly over comments he made about Liverpool fans at Hillsborough - which he refuses to apologise for).

Anyway, in other news it appears that the Scottish Daily Mail's hatred of Scottish Nationalism trumps their hatred of the BBC, so they showed some slight affection to the corporation today:

[barcode]

As for 'Wee Blue Book' author Rev Stuart, the official Yes campaign have disowned that guy (mainly over comments he made about Liverpool fans at Hillsborough - which he refuses to apologise for).

Alot of the yes Shops are pushing this book, as the one to read....

[scottishtv]

Seems odd that they wouldn't push their own literature. Anyway, this is from an article by Paul Hutcheon from the pro-indy Sunday Herald earlier this year:

Like Guido Fawkes and the US-based Drudge report, Wings is an internet phenomenon: on top of 4.5 million page views, 250,000 unique users visit the site every month. Campbell works around 14 hours a day on the site and is the poster boy for a certain type of online independence campaigner.

And yet, Yes Scotland - the official campaign group for independence -won't touch Wings with a barge pole. Yes recently ordered a local group to stop distributing leaflets that endorsed the website.

A senior Yes figure told the Sunday Herald that the reason for this distance can be summed up in one word: Hillsborough.

In September 2012, an independent panel confirmed that policing failures, not Liverpool fans, were to blame for a crush that led to the deaths of 96 people.

But on the day after the panel issued its findings, Campbell wrote a piece that pointed the finger squarely at Liverpool fans: "The police's mendacious attempts to blame the fans for being drunk, late or ticketless were red herrings. The reality is much simpler, and required no lying - the fans were to blame because they, alone, were the ones who pushed and thereby caused the crush."

Campbell now says of the article: "Some people are upset at some of my personal views. I struggle to see what conceivable relevance they [his views] are. I stand absolutely by the stuff that I've written about Hillsborough."

But the panel said a lack of police control was to blame, not Liverpool fans.

"The inquiry has a very specific definition of blame. Listen, this isn't something that I particularly want to get into here. As I say, it's nothing to do with Scottish politics."

It's the reason people in Yes won't deal with him: "The bottom line is I don't particularly care if people don't want to be associated with us."

Does he regret publishing it? "No. As far as I am concerned, it is true." However, it would be wrong to say that Yes Scotland has had absolutely no contact with Campbell.

Asked whether he had ever spoken to Yes chief executive Blair Jenkins, Campbell said: "I have spoken to Blair on a number of occasions."

When was the last time? "I'm not particularly sure I want to reveal that."

Full article (a private browsing window will usually get you past the 'register to view' splash box)

[barcode]

its on the "AYE RIGHT" leaflet.

its the very first website on the top of the list, above.

* Newsnetscotland
* Bellacaledonia
* Yes Scotland.net...