thorbotnic

You're conflating absolute numbers of voters with percentages of voters in your 'polls routinely showed 55% No' argument. You can't work backwards from the eventual total number of people who voted (which is obviously a known figure) and say that 'as 55% of people indicated they would vote no in [June, July, August etc] this correlates to x million No votes at that time' , as there was no connection between the 55% figure and the approx. 2 million figure when those polls were commissioned. The total number of No voters only exists as a factor once the vote has taken place, and from that number we can extrapolate that (based on the firm figures which we now have for how many people voted in total) 91% had made up their minds to vote no more than one month before referendum day. What's important is how the people who actually voted made their decisions, not the percentage of people (the percentage of an unknown and unknowable hypothetical total figure) who expressed an intention previously.

It's not saying that. It's asking people who voted no to say when they decided to vote no. 91% claim that it was at least a month before the vote. I don't see any sleight of hand there.

That argument could be made, but it's self-evidently disingenuous: whether they needed to make The Vow or not, the 3 amigos did, and therefore they should deliver on it. Simple as that. I'm not holding my breath though. The reason I find the data interesting is that it counters the (understandable) feeling that 'if only the unionists hadn't done xyz in the final week/fortnight Yes would've won'. From the Ashcroft data, which indeed might be wrong, Yes had effectively lost the vote a month before it happened.

Malvinas? Give over.

You're right, we don't 'know'... Ashcroft doesn't claim to know - he just asks people when they made their minds up, and tabulates the results. I can accept the results may be inaccurate - AFAIK, though, there hasn't been any other research done on this question. Don't ignore data just because it contradicts your gut feelings or impressions...

Very tight. But not quite there for Yes, even so.

I'm just reporting what the poll said - that the events of the last couple of weeks didn't actually affect the outcome. They may have affected the margin of victory / defeat, though - perhaps that's why Westminster panicked.

According to Ashcroft, this isn't correct. 91% of No voters had made up their minds at least one month before the vote - they alone would have carried the day for No. Polls nearly always over-state the popularity of the 'progressive' option, and understate the popularity of the 'conservative' option - the 'shy Tory' syndrome. This is why I stated that for Yes to win they'd have needed a minimum 5% lead going into polling day. edit: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Lord-Ashcroft-Polls-Referendum-day-poll-summary-1409191.pdf

Or shale gas tax from 'the desolate North'...

Is there anything left? The army?

iainmac1, on 01 Oct 2014 - 10:54 AM, said: No chance of UK leaving the EU, in my opinion. Referendums on big constitutional issues usually result in a vote for the status quo.

If anyone's not respecting the result of this one, it's people who want to call a second referendum a mere 3 years down the line. FTR, I don't think that the UK govt will deliver all that they promised (whatever that actually was) and that that will form a good argument for a second vote on indy. I think you'll need to wait at least until the 2020 - 2024 Scottish Parliament session, though - and more than that if the SNP forms a majority government following the 2016 elections. While there's nothing that the UK could do to stop a Scottish state being formed without an agreement, it would obviously be able to refuse to share assets or block EU membership.

All of the big doubts (currency etc) will merely be amplified if the UK govt hasn't agreed to respect the result of the referendum.

The referendum would be lost by a bigger margin than the last one if that was the plan. Are the Scottish people who were too afraid to choose independence with the Edinburgh agreement in place going to go for UDI? And only 3 years after the last vote?

Would anything convince you?

I can't see Westminster agreeing to another referendum only 3 years after the last one!

Also, if you think the SNP were hard done by, the Greens got 1 MP per 285k votes - and UKIP none at all for nearly 1 million. The party which wins biggest out of FPTP... the DUP. 8 MPs at 21000 votes each.

Well that clearly isn't how FPTP works, then - as your point demonstrates.

It took 81k SNP votes to elect one MP and over 400k Tory votes to do the same. It's a stupid electoral system but why can't you bring yourself to admit the Tories get shafted more than anyone else by it in Scotland? Some democrat...

That's not what happened in Malta.

Quebec has a number of 'independent' newspapers, similar to the situation in Scotland - most of them back the federalists (unionists) as they are backed by big business interests. Radio-canada, the francophone arm of the CBC, is widely seen to be pro-federalist too. It's pretty similar overall tbh. Quebec has 75 out of 338 seats in the federal Parliament - which is indeed more, proportionally, than Scotland has at Westminster - but Quebec's population is proportionally more of Canada's, too.

If the stated method of achieving independence changes from the very clear (a yes/no referendum) to the somewhat vague (a majority of Holyrood and / or Westminster seats and / or a majority of votes being cast for parties which have stated this (along with a number of other policies) in their manifestos) it creates an atmosphere of political uncertainty. After their first referendum defeat, the PQ concentrated on being an effective government and making sure that the federal government delivered its promises made pre-referendum (which it didn't - brought most starkly into light by the goings on around the Meech Lake Accord). This was a very effective strategy, giving delivering the chance of a second referendum, which was crucially viewed as 'legitimate' by the Quebec people, just 15 years later. However, since the failure of the second referendum, the PQ have drifted towards the 'somewhat vague' option, refusing to state if and when a PQ government would call another referendum, and stating that it wouldn't be strictly necessary in any case. They've been out of power for almost all of the past decade, and were absolutely trounced in elections earlier this year. The policy is seen as mendacious.

I think it would probably be better for the SNP to not win the next election - if they do so, they won't be able to call a new indy ref (practically speaking, as I doubt Westminster will agree to its validity so soon after the last one) and it will make it less likely (simply on the fact that parties in government tend to stagnate and lose momentum / popularity over time) that they'll win in 2020, when calling a new referendum would be more palatable. Winning in 2016 could be a poisoned chalice, like the tories winning in 1992 was for them, or the PQ winning in Quebec in 1998.

Ah, yes - the Neverendum option. Hasn't done any favours for the PQ in Quebec - the voters hate the divisiveness and lack of clarity.

How democratic, though? Currently Labour get far more than 50% of Scottish Westminster seats on less than 50% of the vote; the SNP didn't receive a majority of votes in the last Holyrood election, but still got a majority of seats. Representative politics in all but the purest proportional systems tends to turn pluralities into majorities, in order to make government more effective - but a referendum is different. That's why they're used, for clarity of position on an important constitutional point.