Clyde1998

Merry Christmas everyone.

Terrible news, especially so close to Christmas. Four people have been discharged from hospital, while six remain.

Great Britain shouldn't include any of the islands of England, Scotland and Wales - as Great Britain itself is an island. Only when used in a political sense should the English, Scottish and Welsh islands be included. (At least, that's how I understand it)

The large(ish) UKIP voting intention is only due to media (probably) so when the Scottish election comes around UKIP would probably get hardly any media coverage and people would be less likely to vote for them.

Regional: LAB - 28 seats CON - 12 seats GRN - 7 seats UKIP - 5 seats LIB - 3 seats SSP - 1 seat Total: SNP - 69 seats (N/C on 2011) LAB - 28 seats (-9) CON - 15 seats (N/C) GRN - 7 seats (+5) UKIP - 5 seats (+5) LIB - 4 seats (-1) SSP - 1 seat (+1) IND - 0 seats (-1) Pro-Independence - 77 (+5)

Holyrood Voting Intentions (Constituency): SNP - 50.8% LAB - 24.6% CON - 15.1% LIB - 4.8% Others - 4.7% That would give the SNP an overall majority - with 69 constituencies. Labour would be wiped out and the Conservatives on three and Lib Dems on one. Holyrood Voting Intentions (Regional List): SNP - 39.8% LAB - 23.8% CON - 13.7% GRN - 9.0% UKIP - 7.1% LIB - 5.5% I need to work out the regional list results.

I'm surprised that their vote share is so low.

Westminster Voting Intention SNP - 48% LAB - 24% CON - 16% LIB - 5% UKIP - 4% GRN - 1% Others - 1% Swing - 1% from Labour to SNP on last poll. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-daily-record-poll-shows-4851425

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/179812/Scottish-independence-referendum-report.pdf I few interesting things I've picked up: 3.77 For those people who reported having had enough information on the Yes and No campaigns to be able to cast their vote, the main source of their information came from TV (56%), internet (52%) and leaflets (34%). Perhaps unsurprisingly, those aged 55 and over were more likely to report that the TV was their main source of information while those in the age bands 16-34 and 35-43 reported the internet as their main source of information. 4.27-28 While reported turnout from our 16-17 year old respondents was 75%, 97% of those who voted said they would vote again in the future and the remaining 3% answered ‘don’t know’. Of all our respondents, 60% said they would support a measure that allowed everyone to vote from the age of 16, with 43% strongly supporting the idea. Support was higher amongst ‘Yes’ voters (85%) than ‘No’ voters (40%) and 75% of 16 and 17 year olds also supported the measure. 4.29-31 Reflecting previous public opinion research, the most common reasons given for voting related to a sense of ’civic responsibility’ (55%) but with lower levels from past post-election surveys. The results show a considerable increment of people who voted to ‘express their views’ (49%) and those people who wanted to ‘help create a change’ (31%) or ‘to keep the status quo’ (14%). Again reflecting other post-election surveys, 38% of all non-voters said circumstances prevented them from doing so (‘lack of time’ ‘I was busy on the day’) while a higher number of non-voters than in the past said they did not vote because of ‘administration issues’ (28%) such as ‘I was not registered’. 4.65-66 Notwithstanding the above, 34% of respondents to our survey thought that fraud took place at the referendum, more than in any previous postelection survey. 12% said they thought it took place ‘a lot’ and 22% ‘a little’. Asked why they thought so, the main response was ‘I heard or saw stories in the media’. 36% gave this answer compared with 19% who gave this response after the European Parliamentary elections in May 2014 and 27% who responded in this way after the Council elections in May 2012. 14% thought fraud took place because voters did not have to provide identification in order to vote. Respondents who identified themselves as ‘Yes’ voters (42%) were considerably more likely to think fraud took place compared with No voters (21%). 4.68-9 Just under a third of our survey respondents (32%) reported knowing hardly anything about fraud relating to elections and voting, with 16% saying that they knew nothing at all about the subject. This is a similar proportion to levels in May 2014 and 2011. While 73% of respondents said that they thought voting in general was safe from fraud and abuse, this figure is lower than the 78% figure from our survey in May 2014, 82% in May 2012 and 83% in May 2011. People generally think that voting in polling stations is safer from fraud and abuse (81%) than postal voting (59%). Although 82% of postal voters thought postal voting was safe. 6.93-96 Significant media coverage was given to allegations that postal voting agents had “sampled” votes at postal vote opening sessions around the country in the days before polling day. The suggestion was that the agents, who were nominated by the registered campaign groups and permitted to attend the sessions to ensure the process was conducted appropriately, had been able to see the outcome for which votes had been cast. A significant number of people reported this matter to the Electoral Commission and/or the police at the time of the media/social media coverage of the issue. The Commission is unaware of any such allegation having been made by any person who was present at a postal vote opening session and, in fact, this issue came to light as a result of comments made during media coverage, by individuals affiliated to campaign groups. Schedule 7, Paragraph 7 of SIRA makes it an offence for a person attending a postal ballot opening session to attempt to ascertain the referendum outcome for which any vote is given in any particular ballot paper, or to communicate any such information which they have obtained during the session. At the referendum, as at all electoral events in the UK, it is a legal requirement for those attending a postal vote opening session to be provided with a copy of the requirements of secrecy in relation to the ballot. This matter is still under investigation by the police at time of writing and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to comment further.

It's gone online in the last few hours, but the Guardian could be slow...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/16/scottish-independence-queen-intervene-yes-vote-fears Not surprised to be honest...

Yes - the 6th (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html)

She was answering different questions the day before though - http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta5- although she wasn't a suspect at that time. Giving information again would help with the consistency of her side of the story and would help make the authorities believe that she wasn't involved.

"Kate McCann's arguida statement: 07 September 2007 Of British nationality, the arguida cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate. The arguida's legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present. She now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist her are explained to her, and she is subject to TIR ["termo de identidade e residência", the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence]. She is informed of the facts that befall her, and said that she does not wish to make a statement. When asked, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when she entered the apartment, what she saw and what she did, where she searched, what she handled, she did not reply. If she looked inside the couple's bedroom’s wardrobe, she said she would not reply. When shown two photographs of her bedroom's wardrobe, and requested to describe its contents, she did not reply. When asked for the reason why the curtain behind the sofa under the side window, whose photograph was shown to her, is ruffled, she did not reply. She did not reply to the question if someone passed behind that sofa. When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply. When asked why she said right away that Madeleine was abducted, she did not reply. Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, even because the supposed abductor might still be inside the apartment, she did not reply. Why she did not ask the twins right away what had happened to their sister, or why she did not asked them later on, she did not reply. When questioned about having raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly she said, which words she used, she did not reply. When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply. When asked whether she had a mobile phone with her at that moment, she did not reply. When asked why she went to alert her friends instead of shouting from the balcony, she did not reply. When asked who contacted the authorities, she did not reply. When asked who participated in the searches, she did not reply. When asked if anyone outside of the group learned bout Madeleine’s disappearance during the following moments, she did not reply. When asked if any neighbour had offered to help after the alarm about the disappearance, she did not reply. When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, she did not reply. When asked if Jane mentioned to her that she’d seen a man with a child, that night, she did not reply. When asked how the authorities were contacted and which police force was alerted, she did not reply. When asked, during the searches and already with the police present, in what locations Madeleine was searched for, how and in what manner, she did not reply. When asked why the twins did not wake up during that search, or when they were taken to the upper floor, she did not reply. When asked whom she phoned after the facts, she did not reply. When asked if she phoned “Sky News”, she did not reply. When asked about the danger of phoning the media, alerting them about the abduction, which could have an effect on the abductor, she did not reply. Questioned if they requested the presence of a priest, she did not reply. When asked about the manner in which Madeleine’s face was divulged, if through photographs or other media, she did not reply. When asked if it is true that during the search she remained sat on her bed inside her bedroom without moving, she did not reply. When asked about her behaviour that night, she did not reply. And questioned about whether or not she was able to sleep, she did not reply. When asked if before the trip to Portugal she made a comment about a bad presentiment or presages, she did not reply. When asked about Madeleine’s behaviour, she did not reply. When asked if she suffered of any illness or took some medication, she did not reply. When asked about Madeleine’s relationship with her siblings, friends and school mates, she did not reply. When asked about her professional life, and at how many and which hospitals she had worked, she did not reply. Being a doctor, and questioned about her speciality, she did not reply. When asked about whether she worked shifts, at the emergency room or in other services, she did not reply. If she worked every day, she did not reply. When asked if at a given moment she quit working and why, she did not reply. When asked if it is true that her twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, that they are restless and that it upsets her, she did not reply. When asked whether or not it is true that sometimes she felt desperate over her children’s behaviour and that it upset her very much, she did not reply. When asked whether or not it is true that in England she considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative, she did not reply. When asked if at home (in England) she gave her children medication and what kind of medication, she did not reply. During this session, several dog inspection movies of forensic character were shown to her, where the dogs can be seen marking human cadaver odour and human blood traces, and only of human type, and the comments of the expert that headed the diligence can be heard. After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already. Also marked, now by the human blood detection dog behind the aforementioned sofa, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already. With cadaver odour being signalled in the vehicle that they rented approximately one month after the disappearance, license plate 59-DA-27, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already. When confronted with the result of the collection of Madeleine’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British lab, behind the sofa and in the vehicle’s boot, situations that were explained above, she said that she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already. When asked if she had any responsibility or intervention in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, she did not reply. When asked if she is aware of the fact that by not replying to the questions asked, she places the investigation, which seeks to find out what happened to her daughter, at risk, she replied yes, if that is what the investigation thinks. When questioned if she wants to add anything, she replied negatively. The illustrious defence lawyer is offered the opportunity to comment, he says he has nothing to argue or to request. At around 2.30 p.m., this questioning is finished. She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter." It wasn't just one or two questions either that she wasn't answering...

Westminster Voting Intention: SNP - 47% (+4% on 27-30 Oct YouGov poll) LAB - 27% (N/C) CON - 16% (+1%) LIB - 3% (-1%) GRN - 3% (-1%) UKIP - 3% (-3%) Other - 1% (N/C) Holyrood FPTP Voting Intention: SNP - 50% (+5% on 27-30 Oct YouGov poll) LAB - 28% (N/C) CON - 14% (+2%) LIB - 3% (-2%) UKIP - 3% (-1%) GRN - 2% (-3%) Other - 0% (N/C) Holyrood Regional Voting Intention: SNP - 42% (+4% on 27-30 Oct YouGov poll) LAB - 26% (+1%) CON - 14% (+2%) GRN - 7% (-3%) UKIP - 4% (-2%) SSP - 3% (N/C) LIB - 3% (-1%) Other - 2% (+1%) Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes - 48% (-1% on 27-30 Oct YouGov poll) No - 45% (N/C) DK - 6% (N/C) Thinking about the proposals from the Smith Commission to devolve extra powers to the Scottish Parliament, do you think these... Do not go far enough, and do not devolve enough extra powers to the Scottish Parliament - 51% (87% of yes voters; 21% of no voters) Get the balance about right - 23% (3%, 42%) Go too far, and devolve too many extra powers to the Scottish Parliament - 14% (3%; 23%) Don't Know - 12% (7%; 13%) Which Parliament do you have more confidence in to make the right decisions for you and your family? Scottish Parliament - 55% Neither of them - 21% Westminster Parliament - 17% Don't Know - 6% Regardless of whether you agree with their politics, which of the following party leaders do you think is currently doing the best job in their role? Sturgeon - 42% Cameron - 19% Farage - 10% Miliband - 8% Clegg - 1% Don't Know - 18% And which of the following party leaders would you most trust to make the right decisions for you and your family? Sturgeon - 43% Cameron - 17% Miliband - 13% Farage - 3% Clegg - 2% Don't Know - 22% Which of the following do you think would make the best leader for the Scottish Labour party? Jim Murphy - 29% (53% of current Labour supporters) Neil Findlay - 13% (13%) Sarah Boyack - 6% (3%) Don't Know - 52% (32%) Former First Minister Alex Salmond has said he will stand for election to the Westminster Parliament at the 2015 general election. Do you think this is a good or bad idea? Good idea - 50% Bad idea - 36% Don't Know - 14% Data tables: http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/19n7gw3lt9/Sun_Results_Scotland_December_2014.pdf

The SNP aim to make Scottish history, while Labour aim to make Scotland history.

Well - they did in the sense that they shouldn't be leaving a four(?) year old girl alone in an unlocked apartment. Surely that's child negligence - not giving a child, that young, supervision.

@patrickharvie: I'd like to offer my congratulations to Jim Murphy, and my commiserations to the Scottish Labour Party.

I remember that the YouGov poll that showed Yes at 51% had a question in it asking people how they would vote if it was a three option referendum. Imagine that, instead of the proposed two-option referendum on independence there was a three-option referendum, offering people the choice of full Scottish independence, increased devolution to the Scottish Parliament or maintaining the Scottish Parliament's existing powers. How would you then vote? Scottish Independence - 42% (45% without don't knows) Increased devolution - 36% (40%) Maintain existing powers - 14% (15%) Don't Know/Wouldn't Vote - 7% Of those who said they would vote yes: Indy - 88% Devo - 12% Status Quo - 0% Of those who said they would vote no: Indy - 1% Devo - 65% Status Quo - 34% Of those 65% on no voters - a fair few would've moved to support the idea of independence. We only need ~14% of those who wanted increased devo to move to yes - for the independence movement to be ahead of extra devo and status quo put together. (Based on this poll). It may have already happened...

It would expose them for what they are and it could bring the country down.

"Saor Alba" by the looks of it.

35% of people who live in Inverclyde fall into the DE sector. The point being that a higher proportion of people in the DE sector in a council area made a yes vote much more likely in that area, contrary to what the article claims.

Point 5 - "Yes won majority support in the C2 skilled working class, but lost the DE semi and unskilled working class." Top 10 DE% by council area: Inverclyde - 35.1% (5th highest Yes%) North Ayrshire - 34.8% (6th) West Dunbartonshire - 34.4% (2nd) Glasgow - 34.0% (3rd) North Lanarkshire - 33.1% (4th) East Ayrshire - 32.8% (7th) Clackmannanshire - 32.4% (12th) Dundee City - 32.4% (1st) Dumfries & Galloway - 31.9% (30th) Renfrewshire - 29.8% (8th) With the exception of Dumfries & Galloway, Yes won the high DE areas. In fact, all of the top eight yes areas were in the top ten. There's a 66.5% tolerance between Yes% and DE%. For C2: Orkney - 33.3% (32nd highest Yes%) Shetland - 33.0% (29th) Eilean Siar - 31.8% (10th) Aberdeenshire - 29.9% (24th) Dumfries & Galloway - 29.6% (30th) Moray - 28.6% (18th) Highland - 28.0% (9th) Angus - 27.1% (16th) East Ayrshire - 27.0% (7th) Argyll & Bute - 26.2% (20th) There's no pattern for C2% - only a 29.0% tolerance here. The bottom four were Dundee (1st), Glasgow (3rd), East Renfrewshire (28th) and Edinburgh (25th). Yes won the high DE areas and no-one really won the high C2 areas.

I think it'll be like what's happening in Catalonia - the more people wanting independence, the less likely there is to be a referendum. The British Government would just block it...