Scottish independence: Yes camp hails 'momentum'

[Chicog]

Meanwhile, back at the bookies.....

Betfair is so confident of a "No" vote in Thursday's Scottish independence referendum that it is already paying out to those who have staked money on it.

The online bookmaker says it is paying out a "six-figure sum".

Despite polls ahead of the vote continuing to be close, betting markets have been overwhelmingly in favour of the Better Together camp winning on Thursday.

Betfair said this morning that gambling patterns indicate a 79pc likelihood of a "No" vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/11098848/Betfair-pays-out-early-on-Scottish-independence-No-vote.html

[rajyindee]

Meanwhile, back at the bookies.....

Neil Kinnock is eagerly awaiting the count in the 1992 election.

[jpinx]

I fail to see any way that a bookie can pay out prior to a result -- it's a total anachronism.

I'll bet you that someone is twisting their tails

[Chicog]

I fail to see any way that a bookie can pay out prior to a result -- it's a total anachronism.

I'll bet you that someone is twisting their tails

They can pay out when they like.

In fact, under the gaming act, they don't even need to do that, if you win they can just give you back our stake and send you on your way.

[smokie36]

I fail to see any way that a bookie can pay out prior to a result -- it's a total anachronism.

I'll bet you that someone is twisting their tails

Why else would they do it when the polling is so close?

[inutil]

Now i dont hide my love for Gordon Brown. I liked that clip before i even watched it, so confident was i that I would. I wasnt disappointed... with some of it

Remember im a yes voter, but im also a pinko leftist dyed in the wool west coast of scotland labour supporter. Independence is my second choice by quite some way. My first choice is devo max. It might even be devo super max whatever that is. Basically my first choice is the one that gives the Scottish parliament as much control of its budget as it can cope with whilst keeping the union in place. I also agree that England, Wales and Ireland should have similar controls. Basically disperse as much power from westminster as possible thanks. Let the regions hold the federal government in check.

But what i want to talk about is Browns speech and why it wont turn votes. It could have if it had stopped about 5 minutes in. Up to then it was a phenomenal speech that ticked every box a labour supporter wanted to hear. There was play to the Welfare state, to the ties of British socialism and to the union out of which these things came. Now this is honey to the ears of a lefty labour supporter like myself. It was stirring, accurate and spoke of a common shared cause that would continue to lead and bring change for all of our benefits. And as ive remarked, this isnt the solitary burden of Scotland. The attack on the risks was also great. It wasnt wishy washy. It was direct, clear and very forceful. I think the one on the raised prices in the supermarkets had me grimacing a bit mind you. Supermarkets set prices on their market and what their competitors are doing. Market forces seem always forgotten about when people want to make silly points.

But then he started hitting the 'talking points' and it just seemed beneath him to be honest. He looked FURIOUS and could barely contain the contempt he has for the SNP throughout, but the latter half of the speech had me checking off the past weeks 'themes' of the better together campaign. There was also VERY little on the greater powers for scotland after a no vote. I was disappointed he didnt explicate his vision and what hes been (by all accounts) pushing very hard for.

All in all, if its an appeal directed at the base of the better together movement, sure, it was excellent. But aimed at the labour voters who MIGHT (in his own words) be wavering, it wont have been enough. Theres some meat in it. but much of it feels a little empty. Pity, because the guardian feed of it had brown achieving the formerly impossible and rousing even the English media to applaud him. If i was his teacher, id give him a 7 or an 8 out of 10 on it. Lots of recycled lines and talking points. A strong and original start, but tapered off toward the end into soundbites and hollowness.

Edited September 17, 2014 by inutil

[jpinx]

I fail to see any way that a bookie can pay out prior to a result -- it's a total anachronism.

I'll bet you that someone is twisting their tails

They can pay out when they like.

In fact, under the gaming act, they don't even need to do that, if you win they can just give you back our stake and send you on your way.

Really?? My ignorance of betting is 100%

[Jingthing]

On the U.S. comedy/news show "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" (who is English) Oliver said that the phrase NO THANKS (a slogan for the No campaign) is a rude and abrupt way of declining something in Britspeak. Is that really true?

[transam]

On the U.S. comedy/news show "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" (who is English) Oliver said that the phrase NO THANKS (a slogan for the No campaign) is a rude and abrupt way of declining something in Britspeak. Is that really true?

No.............But English folk say "No thank you"........The quoted is USA stuff......

[inutil]

Well, like everything else it depends on tone. But the tone of the woman in the adverts he used, it basically means F***OFF!

[Jingthing]

On the U.S. comedy/news show "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" (who is English) Oliver said that the phrase NO THANKS (a slogan for the No campaign) is a rude and abrupt way of declining something in Britspeak. Is that really true?

No.............But English folk say "No thank you"........The quoted is USA stuff......

The campaign slogan is NO THANKS.

It is not No Thank You.

[transam]

On the U.S. comedy/news show "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" (who is English) Oliver said that the phrase NO THANKS (a slogan for the No campaign) is a rude and abrupt way of declining something in Britspeak. Is that really true?

No.............But English folk say "No thank you"........The quoted is USA stuff......

The campaign slogan is NO THANKS.

It is not No Thank You.

Not good English..Might be good Scottish though............

[mommysboy]

No thanks is an expression used often and is neutral in nature, and as previously stated it depends on the tone, so it could be a rude put down said with irony, or alternatively a polite decline

[transam]

No thanks is an expression used often and is neutral in nature, and as previously stated it depends on the tone, so it could be a rude put down said with irony, or alternatively a polite decline

Thats "No Fanks"..............

[brewsterbudgen]

Now i dont hide my love for Gordon Brown. I liked that clip before i even watched it, so confident was i that I would. I wasnt disappointed... with some of it

Remember im a yes voter, but im also a pinko leftist dyed in the wool west coast of scotland labour supporter. Independence is my second choice by quite some way. My first choice is devo max. It might even be devo super max whatever that is. Basically my first choice is the one that gives the Scottish parliament as much control of its budget as it can cope with whilst keeping the union in place. I also agree that England, Wales and Ireland should have similar controls. Basically disperse as much power from westminster as possible thanks. Let the regions hold the federal government in check.

But what i want to talk about is Browns speech and why it wont turn votes. It could have if it had stopped about 5 minutes in. Up to then it was a phenomenal speech that ticked every box a labour supporter wanted to hear. There was play to the Welfare state, to the ties of British socialism and to the union out of which these things came. Now this is honey to the ears of a lefty labour supporter like myself. It was stirring, accurate and spoke of a common shared cause that would continue to lead and bring change for all of our benefits. And as ive remarked, this isnt the solitary burden of Scotland. The attack on the risks was also great. It wasnt wishy washy. It was direct, clear and very forceful. I think the one on the raised prices in the supermarkets had me grimacing a bit mind you. Supermarkets set prices on their market and what their competitors are doing. Market forces seem always forgotten about when people want to make silly points.

But then he started hitting the 'talking points' and it just seemed beneath him to be honest. He looked FURIOUS and could barely contain the contempt he has for the SNP throughout, but the latter half of the speech had me checking off the past weeks 'themes' of the better together campaign. There was also VERY little on the greater powers for scotland after a no vote. I was disappointed he didnt explicate his vision and what hes been (by all accounts) pushing very hard for.

All in all, if its an appeal directed at the base of the better together movement, sure, it was excellent. But aimed at the labour voters who MIGHT (in his own words) be wavering, it wont have been enough. Theres some meat in it. but much of it feels a little empty. Pity, because the guardian feed of it had brown achieving the formerly impossible and rousing even the English media to applaud him. If i was his teacher, id give him a 7 or an 8 out of 10 on it. Lots of recycled lines and talking points. A strong and original start, but tapered off toward the end into soundbites and hollowness.

An interesting analysis. I think it will have more impact on waverers (Labour or otherwise) than you think. Either way, I predict a wider 'no' victory than expected.

[mommysboy]

The Scots are a surprising bunch, and particularly up for it when it comes to thwarting England, so that is what stops me from thinking it will be a no vote. But yes or no is to some extent unimportant.

Yes will not in effect guarantee independence on their terms or indeed independence at all. As it stands their stance is outrageous and impracticable and above all not 'do-able' in a very real sense, and has attracted near global condemnation from the powers that matter. UK has the power to deny ratification if it feels there is a serious threat of a financial nature. Markets are volatile and their could be a run on UK PLC similar to a run on banks.

Like wise, if no prevails, then if I was one of 49% of the population who wanted independence I would be somewhat dis-satisfied. It wouldn't end matters at all.

I see a deal that will be brokered by a third party and that will more than likely be indepence but within a UK framework similar to Devo Max. The truth is that Scotland can open a chink in UK recovery, which opens similar in EU, which jeopardises USA, etc, etc. the whole thing could get quite nasty really.

[nontabury]

This powerful speech should swing it for 'no'

As people who have been reading this thread and similar ones will have noted, I have no respect

For this man, especially when he called that lady a "bigot". Yet I have to admit that was not just a strong speech, but one of the all time great speeches by any British politician. Why or why din't the "NO" campaign use him to get their message across rather than the uninspiring Alistair Darling. Thankfully they did not, and so the day after tomorrow Scotland will be in uncharted waters, with a captain not even knowing where he is headed. Good luck to all who will be sailing on this nationalistic titanic.

[inutil]

An interesting analysis. I think it will have more impact on waverers (Labour or otherwise) than you think. Either way, I predict a wider 'no' victory than expected.

If i can add to it, what strikes me most about it is that it comes off more like Holyrood stump speech. It really felt more like an attack on the SNP than an attack on independence if that makes sense. He TORE INTO the SNP policies. I know in many ways that thats all we;ve got, but my feeling was he maybe spent a bit over long campaigning against the SNP that he could have spent outlining the benefits of the union. It felt like the first shot of the next election. Clearly hes going to be the SLPs new leader, and honestly they need him badly. Theyve been atrocious.

[inutil]

Double post, But I might as well come out and say a yes vote looks less likely by the minute. They needed a very strong week following the momentum they gained over the weekend (afetr the midweek arrest of the previous week), But really theyve taken a hammering. Salmond, ironically the man who has DOMINATED coverage for the last month or so and whom the media would LOVE nothing more than to pin the entire Yes campaign on, has all but been reduced to reactive politics and near invisibility this past week (well, in the sense of SETTING the policy agenda in the newspaper feeds). Hes had to bat away accusation after accusation and struggled to take advantage of that jubilant mood over the weekend.

Every poll this week (aside one crazy one putting yes 8 points up), has shown a solid 2-6 point lead for No. And time is pretty much running out for something dramatic to happen. Perhaps theyre saving something for the night time. Better together put on a show and taking up the column inches, the yes campaign are running about the streets doing the grassroots thing, but the needed to be a bit more bold.

Ah wells, im chuffed to bits regardless. The conversation begins on Friday. Scotland will wholeheartedly lend its support to greater powers for the regions and the coloni... i mean er Welsh, Scottish and Norther Irish. Labour have found a cause they might be able to rally the old guard around for once and might actually stir them enough to even bother leaving the house to vote next year. Throw on the SAVE THE NHS and this might actually be a good old fashioned ideological ding dong.

Edited September 17, 2014 by inutil

[nontabury]

The Scots are a surprising bunch, and particularly up for it when it comes to thwarting England, so that is what stops me from thinking it will be a no vote. But yes or no is to some extent unimportant.

Yes will not in effect guarantee independence on their terms or indeed independence at all. As it stands their stance is outrageous and impracticable and above all not 'do-able' in a very real sense, and has attracted near global condemnation from the powers that matter. UK has the power to deny ratification if it feels there is a serious threat of a financial nature. Markets are volatile and their could be a run on UK PLC similar to a run on banks.

Like wise, if no prevails, then if I was one of 49% of the population who wanted independence I would be somewhat dis-satisfied. It wouldn't end matters at all.

I see a deal that will be brokered by a third party and that will more than likely be indepence but within a UK framework similar to Devo Max. The truth is that Scotland can open a chink in UK recovery, which opens similar in EU, which jeopardises USA, etc, etc. the whole thing could get quite nasty really.

Re Devo Max there is now some public disquiet regarding the proposal by the leaders of the three main Westminster parties to spend an EXTRA £1,400 re head of UK"s tax money on the Scottish people, this is in addition to the subsidies they already receive. According to the papers

Some of the Westminster M.P's will understandably try to block any attempts to get this proposal through the Commons. What I want to know is, on whose mandate did these three clowns agree to this idea.

[mommysboy]

An interesting analysis. I think it will have more impact on waverers (Labour or otherwise) than you think. Either way, I predict a wider 'no' victory than expected.

If i can add to it, what strikes me most about it is that it comes off more like Holyrood stump speech. It really felt more like an attack on the SNP than an attack on independence if that makes sense. He TORE INTO the SNP policies. I know in many ways that thats all we;ve got, but my feeling was he maybe spent a bit over long campaigning against the SNP that he could have spent outlining the benefits of the union. It felt like the first shot of the next election. Clearly hes going to be the SLPs new leader, and honestly they need him badly. Theyve been atrocious.

The SNP have grabbed the public imagination about the glorious oil rich nirvana. Of course we all know it is a crock of shXXe, but Scots seem to have a blind spot here. Compared to this anything laid out by the Better Together campaign will look insipid even if it is good.

Hence the only option is to attack what is after all a pack of lies. It doesn't surprise me he is angry, whatever else he may or may not be, he is at least a conviction politician. And no it should not surprise anyone that he hates SNP, outside of Scotland a great many do.

[inutil]

Panic obviously

Im kinda torn. Part of me believes that without this interjection momentum was just about to take off for the YES campaign. Theyd just crossed the single most important threshold for the first time: plausibility, and i think without such an offer on the table the option of Independence versus Status quo would have led to an exodus from the labour support. They want change. No doubt about it. But they dont necessarily want Salmond. But this is their one shot, so perhaps it was time to join the winning side.

The devo max option will have at least made them stop and think.

The other part of me however believes that it was just wild panic and the interjection didnt even need to happen. You see, the YES campaign had just crossed the single most important threshold for the first time: plausibility, and i think that this would have led to plenty of people saying to themselves "hang on, this isnt a fun party any more. This shit might actually happen!

The terrifying prospect that Scotland would actually vote for something out of pure spite and sticking it to England and Westminster might seem a laugh when the polls are running at 40% chance for change, but at 51% maybe its getting a bit 'real'.

So no idea. Ill leave it to the historians to decide. What i can say though is that both will have factored in the momentary halting of the YES campaign momentum for the No campaign to actually catch their breath and recover.

[mommysboy]

Panic obviously

Im kinda torn. Part of me believes that without this interjection momentum was just about to take off for the YES campaign. Theyd just crossed the single most important threshold for the first time: plausibility, and i think without such an offer on the table the option of Independence versus Status quo would have led to an exodus from the labour support. They want change. No doubt about it. But they dont necessarily want Salmond. But this is their one shot, so perhaps it was time to join the winning side.

The devo max option will have at least made them stop and think.

The other part of me however believes that it was just wild panic and the interjection didnt even need to happen. You see, the YES campaign had just crossed the single most important threshold for the first time: plausibility, and i think that this would have led to plenty of people saying to themselves "hang on, this isnt a fun party any more. This shit might actually happen!

The terrifying prospect that Scotland would actually vote for something out of pure spite and sticking it to England and Westminster might seem a laugh when the polls are running at 40% chance for change, but at 51% maybe its getting a bit 'real'.

So no idea. Ill leave it to the historians to decide. What i can say though is that both will have factored in the momentary halting of the YES campaign momentum for the No campaign to actually catch their breath and recover.

I think the reversal in the polls took everybody by surprise. I'm still at a loss as to explain what happened. It's also a mystery to me why the markets have factored in an 80% chance of a no vote and are much more relaxed this week. I wonder what polls the bigwigs have access too? Has someone been counting the advance voting!

But don't get to uptight, I should imagine the most mortified man in UK is Salmond, he must be contemplating the fall out from a yes vote, ie, how is he possibly going to deliver any of what he has promised.

[Chao Lao Beach]

Big Day for the western world, the UK will become a nothng if disolved.

I love asking a Scotsman, what part of ewngland he is from !!!!

[transam]

Big Day for the western world, the UK will become a nothng if disolved.

I love asking a Scotsman, what part of ewngland he is from !!!!

Why..........?

[inutil]

I think Salmond will be alright. The only thing worrying him is the prospect of Gordon Brown as the new leader of the Scottish Labour Party. He might even retire before the 2016 election. Either way he came thhhiiiiiiiiissssss close to delivering something no one would have thought he could deliver even a month ago. He reignited a political conversation in scotland and restored a certain degree of pride in its people to have such a positive debate. He will come out of this smelling of roses either way. Casualties will be the scottish labour party, and the lib dems. The pro union tories might have now seen at least a bit of momentum as the natural voice and protectors of the union.

Brown will stop the rot in labour though should he return. If he doesnt, then theyre screwed for a generation until they find someone of his caliber either in scotland or westminster. Mistrust in the scottish labour party right now is about as high as its ever been. When my aploitical mum is tearing up her card NOW even after the debacle of new labour and the rise and rise of the SNP, then theyve clearly screwed up. Tommy Sheridan has also come out of this kinda well

[mommysboy]

This powerful speech should swing it for 'no'

Thanks for that. A great speech.

[mommysboy]

Big Day for the western world, the UK will become a nothng if disolved.

I love asking a Scotsman, what part of ewngland he is from !!!!

Why..........?

Be careful you know.... despite our bickering we Brits still like each other, for now anyway.

[transam]

This powerful speech should swing it for 'no'

Thanks for that. A great speech.

Yep, a good speech from a guy that has "been there".......He talked what this English guy (me) has been saying all along here. So I am not crazy, really is just common sense, the SNP has NO answers.

[MAJIC]

I fail to see any way that a bookie can pay out prior to a result -- it's a total anachronism.

I'll bet you that someone is twisting their tails

Why else would they do it when the polling is so close?

Maybe they know something? like the Polls have been massaged eh?