Scottish Independence

[Burma]

You mean the tory government?

No other party liable to form a government is offering anything of the sort on Europe.

What do you think are the chancesof the tories managing to form a majority government in 2015 and why do you think they will?

Im pretty certain that the Tories will be in power after the next GE. Either as a majority or in coalition again as the majority partner.

The offer of an EU referendum will be a big draw for the affluent voting electorate of the SE.

[AUFC90]

^^Rattled as the polls close in.

They should be rattled. 1 in 5 voters in Scotland are disabled. The uk government have been treating them like 2nd class citizens.

It will be a lot closer than Reynard wants it to be that's for sure.

[wingsoverperthshire]

They should be rattled. 1 in 5 voters in Scotland are disabled. The uk government have been treating them like 2nd class citizens.

It will be a lot closer than Reynard wants it to be that's for sure.

You gov reckon 40-60

Ipsos-mori reckon 40-60

Panelbase reckon 46-54

It will be close there is absolutely no doubt about this. Hence why bookies are not taking large bets on a Yes victory. Anywhere.

[Ad Lib]

The Claim of Right has nothing whatsoever to do with EU membership. What quantum leap are you attempting here?

And once again I ask you to define "UK constitutional law"

The body of laws and legal doctrines which underpin the system of the distribution of power between different branches of the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and also the relationship between the said state and the individuals and groups which reside within its territory.

UK Constitutional Law includes, inter alia, pre-Union laws of a constitutional character including the Bill of Rights, Claim of Right, Act of Settlement, Act of Supremacy, the Treaty of Union, the Devolution Statutes, the Human Rights Act, Freedom of Information legislation, all statutes pertinent to electoral law, the European Communities Act, the laws concerning the creation of the UK Supreme Court, judicial precedents relating to the application of all of the above and common law grounds of administrative review of government decision-making, the Church of Scotland Act (and related provisions), the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Welsh Church Act, the Irish Church Act, the Good Friday Agreement as referred to in the NI devolution statute and a number of constitutional conventions such as the Royal Prerogative.

[Reynard]

They should be rattled. 1 in 5 voters in Scotland are disabled. The uk government have been treating them like 2nd class citizens.

It will be a lot closer than Reynard wants it to be that's for sure.

It will be inevitably closer as there is no way a dont know can register a dont know vote. They will fall to either side and yes will still lose.

There isnt a single no supporter that thinks otherwise. Having said that, while the yes vote will rise a bit, so will the no vote.

[H_B]

Hence why bookies are not taking large bets on a Yes victory. Anywhere.

Bookies aren't taking large bets on a Yes win for Liabilities reasons. They can't lay if off elsewhere.

This is basic stuff.

[Ad Lib]

Wrong wrong wrong. The Claim of Right was when the People of Scotland (an oversimplified term when placed in the context of the day) claimed the right to remove the crown from the King. Ascension to the throne was by assent of the people not a divine right. The Right being claimed was the right of sovereignty.

sigh. this is basic stuff

Where is your evidence for this? The Claim of Right Act (remember, it was an Act of the Parliament of Scotland) is a Parliamentary Act passed by the Parliament of Scotland. It makes no reference to "the people of Scotland" let alone does it assert any kind of popular sovereignty. It claimed PARLIAMENT'S right to remove the King in certain conditions, and nothing you assert can change that. Read the actual Act.

Or bury your head in the sand reading and quoting from blogs which think that ss5 and 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 are in any way relevant to the case of Axa General Insurance v Lord Advocate.

[Ad Lib]

Im pretty certain that the Tories will be in power after the next GE. Either as a majority or in coalition again as the majority partner.

The offer of an EU referendum will be a big draw for the affluent voting electorate of the SE.

This just isn't justified by current polling. The Tories need 40% nationally for a majority because of the collapse in the Lib Dem vote. Labour can win a majority without even winning the popular vote, and comfortably too. Unless the Tories manage to be *more popular* in 2015 than they were in 2010 by a considerable margin, they will have no hope in hell even of being the largest party.

[wingsoverperthshire]

This just isn't justified by current polling. The Tories need 40% nationally for a majority because of the collapse in the Lib Dem vote. Labour can win a majority without even winning the popular vote, and comfortably too. Unless the Tories manage to be *more popular* in 2015 than they were in 2010 by a considerable margin, they will have no hope in hell even of being the largest party.

Pleasing.

[wingsoverperthshire]

Bookies aren't taking large bets on a Yes win for Liabilities reasons. They can't lay if off elsewhere.

This is basic stuff.

Well I'm not a trader and only an occasional punter.

Why won't they accept a £250 bets on a 9/2 shot. Surely and "loss" would be offset by the 5 and 6 figure No bets? Plus bookies should expect be prepared to take a bet at terms they've set.

I believe they are simply worried, the 16/1 on over 54% was stopped within hours of the book opening.

[H_B]

Why won't they accept a £250 bets on a 9/2 shot.

Which bookie has refused this bet?

Ladbrokes have taken 6 figure sums on a No vote. People, presumably pros, are buying money a year in advance at 1/7 or 1/6. Works out better than a low interest account, and the risk is extremely low. It wouldn't be for me, but I can see why they are doing it.

I find it hard to believe they wouldn't accomodate a bet of £250 to be honest. Several thousand maybe not.

[H_B]

About 70 percent of bets taken on the vote have gone on a “No” outcome with 30 percent on a “Yes,” Donohue at Ladbrokes said. At William Hill, 45 percent of wagers are for “Yes” with the remainder on a “No” result, Adams said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/scots-independence-odds-longest-ever-after-80-000-ladbrokes-bet.html

[wingsoverperthshire]

Which bookie has refused this bet?

Ladbrokes have taken 6 figure sums on a No vote. People, presumably pros, are buying money a year in advance at 1/7 or 1/6. Works out better than a low interest account, and the risk is extremely low. It wouldn't be for me, but I can see why they are doing it.

I find it hard to believe they wouldn't accomodate a bet of £250 to be honest. Several thousand maybe not.

Ladbrokes and William hill. Ladbrokes said £100 was their max on "novelty bets". William hill wasn't prepared to take £250 or even talk about it. This was in the last week.

[ayrmad]

Which bookie has refused this bet?

Ladbrokes have taken 6 figure sums on a No vote. People, presumably pros, are buying money a year in advance at 1/7 or 1/6. Works out better than a low interest account, and the risk is extremely low. It wouldn't be for me, but I can see why they are doing it.

I find it hard to believe they wouldn't accomodate a bet of £250 to be honest. Several thousand maybe not.

I think people placing bets at 1/7 and 1/6 are off their rocker, I just can't see how anyone can work out the probabilities of a NO vote to be greater than 85.7% or 87.5%.

[H_B]

I think people placing bets at 1/7 and 1/6 are off their rocker, I just can't see how anyone can work out the probabilities of a NO vote to be greater than 85.7% or 87.5%.

I think it's much higher than that. It's just a question of whether you mind having that sum of money tied up for a year.

I think the odds for No will get better than 1/7 nearer the time so I'm not convinced it is a smart move from that point of view to bet £200,000 at 1/7.

I'd give Yes about a 50/1 chance of success.

[AUFC90]

I think it's much higher than that. It's just a question of whether you mind having that sum of money tied up for a year.

I think the odds for No will get better than 1/7 nearer the time so I'm not convinced it is a smart move from that point of view to bet £200,000 at 1/7.

I'd give Yes about a 50/1 chance of success.

I'll put a tenner on 50/1 no problem.

[Burma]

Where is your evidence for this? The Claim of Right Act (remember, it was an Act of the Parliament of Scotland) is a Parliamentary Act passed by the Parliament of Scotland. It makes no reference to "the people of Scotland" let alone does it assert any kind of popular sovereignty. It claimed PARLIAMENT'S right to remove the King in certain conditions, and nothing you assert can change that. Read the actual Act.

.

A very poor interpretation. It singularly fails to take into account who and what Parliament is. Ill help you out - in the case of the claim of right Parliament is the people.

[ayrmad]

I think it's much higher than that. It's just a question of whether you mind having that sum of money tied up for a year.

I think the odds for No will get better than 1/7 nearer the time so I'm not convinced it is a smart move from that point of view to bet £200,000 at 1/7.

I'd give Yes about a 50/1 chance of success.

That's just your opinion though, I think those investing 6 figures will be biting their nails by August next year.

[H_B]

That's just your opinion though, I think those investing 6 figures will be biting their nails by August next year.

Bookmaking is all about opinion. that's why some firms are happy to go best price about say a football team as they want to "get" them, or deliberately go worst price in the market as they don't want people to bet them with their company.

I don't see any way Yes can win the referendum. I think the scale of the defeat is all that is to be determined.

I don't think this makes me an Ace pundit. It's like predicting Rafa Nadal will beat Dan Evans on clay.

[Ad Lib]

A very poor interpretation. It singularly fails to take into account who and what Parliament is. Ill help you out - in the case of the claim of right Parliament is the people.

Parliament is not the people. Parliament is Parliament. It is a legislature which passes laws applicable throughout the land with greater prospective authority than any other source of law.

The Parliament of Scotland in 1689 was no more "the people" than the Parliament of England in 1689 was "the people". Both had elements of a) territorial representation of Burghs and Counties b) representation of the nobility and c) representation of ecclesiastical office-bearers.