exile

When Yes advances in polls, the polls 'tighten' or 'narrow' When It's the other way around it's a Yes 'slide'!

Kirsty trying to attack Soutar on Newsnight For the first time I've heard an interviewer put it to a business person the "what's in it for you" question

Newsnight's main story is about the labour train to Scotland... more important than aa speech by the first minister...

It was low

At least people knew Pravda was conning them

Finally heard what Cameron actually said when he came to Scotland. He said this was a referendum, not a general election, so it meant you weren't voting for a party, and you wouldn;t get another chance. Or something. Just in case you didn't know what a referendum was.

Gordon Brown comes north - blanket coverage of his speech and message The three wise men come north - blanket coverage - of 3 speeches and their message Salmond makes a speech - but the main emphasis in the first 10+ minutes of the news, is the economics stories, that just happen to be the ace (supposedly) of the No campaign. They gave as much airtime to their journalist, than the first minister The Treasury leaks, or Cameron asking businesses to come out for no, barely merits a mention Nick Robinson then interprets the whole thing - in terms of the fears - all over again BBC neutral??

Could be the influence of punters down south, who have woken up to the debate, and putting money on no (According to Evening Standard, more money down is being bet on it down south)

Aren't there Scottish building societies...

These are very similar arguments and bombardments thrown at us all year - from threats to leave and threats to not use the pound - miraculously, the opinion polls did not go down, but up. If this were a 2 week campaign, based on mainstream media, all this would be a shock, but it's not... we've had it before... it's a test of resilience though Regardless of the Scottish dimension (!) this is partly an issue of democracy - are we to give up and be governed by bankers?

Thanks for the answers. So it's not new, it's less than Devo Max and it could mean less money for Scotland.

Three amigos in Scotland allows the news channels to give three No speeches to the one Yes one.

Presumably Brenda got Dave to Balmoral and told him to get his posterior in gear.

I read today that Devo Max meant everything except defence and foreign affairs devolved. If so, that means the current 'more powers' fall short by some way. Also, read in some newspaper column, that the current offer would mean less money flowing north.

Presumably Brenda got Dave to Balmoral and told him to get his posterior in gear.

Just saw on Newsnight a chappie from LSE say calmly that everything would be fine, life would go on. In a globalised world, it doesn't matter where the plaque on the door is. The jobs would largely remain. This echoes what I heard someone say recently, who knows about financial sector. Although a no voter, he reckoned that BT side was all scaremongering. That the big banks were all but in name already mostly owned and more or less headquartered down south anyway, and the Edinburgh jobs just cheap back office jobs anyway, which could stay. In the short term the currency would stabilise, before it would be worth firms actually bothering to relocate. Any firms intnent on relocating probably looking to do that anyway, and use threat of independence as an excuse.

We have been bombarded all year. It didn't work then. Nothing has changed.

What's the significance of the boundary of the red area?

'More powers' are being reported as if they are already the 'Devo Max' that 'the majority of Scots want' - and that the rUK will be happy to give them away. I've also heard it said that these powers fall short of this 'Devo Max'. Can someone explain in a sentence or two how the current offer of 'more powers' differs from 'Devo Max'? At what point would those powers be put to the vote in Westminster? If they are real powers, why would the rUK would be happy to let them go? I know this has been discussed before on here but haven't seen arguments out there this week - both sides seem to be simply assuming that the powers are self-evidently adequate and deliverable, or self-evidently inadequate and undeliverable. A lot of people will just be 'waking up' to this issue.

Just saw in the paper today. apparently London has 300, 000 Scots, and so is the third biggest "Scottish city" Pity there wasn't more of a hub venue for TV games....?

Great to sense the self belief and Gordon Strachan not afraid to say he thought we could have won. Difference from last manager like night and day.

Telegraph reporting that MPs urging Queen to intervene in the debate http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11083204/Scottish-independence-The-Queen-is-urged-to-intervene.html But for Salmond to mention the queen 'risks controversy' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11083874/Alex-Salmond-implies-Queen-backs-Scottish-independence.html

You mean, you missed the coup? Gordon Brown has made a speech in Loanhead announcing it as the new capital of the UK, and is hailed as the saviour of Britain. The three Westminster party leaders are coming to Scotland to pay homage. BBC news and current affairs have moved to Calton Hill. Saltires are being flown all over Britain, as 'tartan panic' sets in and rUK capitulates to Scottish rule.

Carney said currency union 'incompatible with sovereignty' This doesn't say it wouldn't happen

Someone on TV saying they might vote no if we get more powers. Sandwiched between endless BBC reporting on more powers.