xbl

Specifically, you made some claims about elderly populations, and the percentage of people of pension age. I stated that your claims were wrong. You screamed for evidence. I produced a 2012 British ONS report showing my figures. You claimed your figures were much more up to date than that. But refused to tell us. You then started "leaking" extracts from a report, which was based on out of date 2010 figures, but you refused to confirm if these were the figures you were using. So simply, what is the source of the figures to back up the claim you made? And if they are older than the 2012 projections (which you claimed weren't even a projection!), will you admit that you got it wrong?

Just wait till 2 months to go when he announces that he is stepping down after the yes vote. That will add a bit of spice...

Meanwhile, since you're keen to talk numbers, how about those pension figures?

I suspect you are wrong.

All the crash has established is that Jim Murphy is probably unkillable by any conventional means. Any idea that this might change things is sadly mistaken. Every time it comes down to actual issues, the Unionists have nothing to say. They HAVE to stick with what they have now. Its not just about the movement from No to Yes though, its about the movement of hard No to soft no, and then to undecided, before finally going Yes. That is where it is coming from. Very, very few people are going the route of Yes > Undecided > No. Its a one way path. People who were undecided are switching to Yes, people who were soft No are becoming undecided, and a few of the hard No (the ignorant No lot) are softening up. Its a one way journey, and people are making it at different speeds. So I'm more than happy with progress so far, its more or less exactly as I expected.

How many of them are an informed No though, how many are lazy No, and how many are apathetic No? There has to be a lot of nuance in it. Incidentally, if the referendum was held tomorrow, then I think it would be a lot more like the panelbase polling. A small win for the Unionists, but not much in it. Remember, so many of the No camp aren't going to bother to vote. I predict a turnout in the mid 60s.

Hark at thepundit asking questions when his sole contribution to this thread is to dodge, dive, duck, and deflect. But because I'm better than you, to answer your question, we did have polling showing over 40%, so target achieved.

Based on what exactly? Why would this happen just because of a helicopter crash? And remember, many people do not even bother to begin to engage with the issues until a couple months to go. Most referendums see a big last minute swing because of this. So that is one factor, and also, as I've been saying for about five years now, that No vote is soft. Many "No voters" are not voters at all, because they won't bother on the day. I remember saying last year that I figured that both sides had a 30% core vote that would vote no matter what, and then the 40% were either undecided or soft No. Well since then, I would say that over the last year, the core Yes has increased slightly, whereas the No vote is more or less unchanged. Its the soft no that is starting to melt away. As even HB said once, there is no positive case for the Union. When people engage with the issues, they tend to vote yes.

I linked this on another thread, but its worth a read: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/11/scottish-independence-is-a-little-more-likely-today-than-it-was-yesterday/ We're moving on nicely, and the best barometers are our Unionists on here. They gave up engaging in any discussion months ago (believe it or not, once upon a time, Reynard, Ad Lib, and HB would actually make serious points with some give and take), and have nothing left but sirens of fear. Notice they way they have to pretend that so much stuff simply never happened. They can see the way the wind has been blowing for months now, and they are scared.

Meanwhile, how about those pension figures? When you have proved that you are capable of engaging with a point and admitting when you get something wrong, then we might take you seriously.

Meanwhile, how about those pension figures? Impressive lying from the worst political pundit on here.

Yeah. Right. Even you don't believe that. I'm surprised you haven't switched yet and claimed that you have always supported yes.

Not a chance will it be that far apart. Even ifvthe referendum was tomorrow, it would be much closer than that. Why so negative?

Meanwhile, how about those pension figures? Once you've done that, then we can think about bothering with your wannabe punditry.

I agree with most of this post, except that I think my annoyance overwhelmed my enjoyment. I would love to see this! One of my disappointments from last nights was the lack of any of that stuff.

Until this series, I was watching out of duty. The last series has been outstanding in my view though. Almost makes up for the 2 and a half series of mostly dross before that.

On another note, I remember being in the minority on here by saying I preferred tennant to smith. Well we saw them together last night. Any converts?

As I said last night, the lines tuey gave John hurt were good, and he delivered them exceptionally, but I wanted to see more about what made him like he was. He was a warrior who fought in the war, what else did he do that was so bad that he had already besmirched the name by then? I thought it was a tragic waste of john hurt. I also think the tone felt wrong. Even when they were preparing to blow a planet up, it still felt like a bit of fun banter, because there didn't seem be enough emotional punch. Plus yes, the plot was stupid. Tried to be too clever imo. I absolutely hate their chosen resolution. Maybe it will improve on a second viewing, but after thinking about it, I have no desire to waste my time watching it again.

Nope, had a night to sleep on it. Still angry. Agree with a lot of what random guy said.

I'm not going to say any more, maybe best I leave it to the people who enjoyed it...but it left me so angry!

Genuine opinion here. It just wasn't what I expected at all. Maybe it was my fault for being too excited about it? What do you mean "hipster"?

Oh-kay, so I'm out of sync with the general mood here? I thought it was a waste of John Hurt, I didn't like the resolution, the whole "last of the timelords" thing has been undone, and that "Doctor they never talked about" turned out to be no big deal after all. Furthermore, how on earth did they manage to kill every single Dalek just with crossfire? Did none of the Daleks have somewhere else to be at that time? The more I think about it, the more disappointed and angry I am about how they wasted it. ETA, clearly though, its worked for everyone else so far!

And now I'm disappointed. Not what I expected.

This isn't the time and place to go into detail about it, but long standing Dr. Who thread followers will know that in recent years, I've had a lot of criticisms of the way Moffat has run the show, and the story arcs and style. Its been interesting in recent months to hear these criticisms from so many other people, just as I thought they had got it sorted out and made Dr. Who the best I think its ever been (the Doctors Wife, Asylum of the Daleks, and all of series 7 part two). However, Moffat is by far the consistently best one shot episode writer that Dr. Who have, and I'm so glad he has this episode and not Russel T Davies. I've watched the mini episodes (Paul McGann ), and I'm desperately trying to keep my expectations low so that I don't end up disappointed. Not really working though.

I'm excited. I'm trying not to be, but I'm excited.