Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[the jambo-rocker]

Absolutely. The rise of Ukip proves that but the debate has to include factual/definite solutions to current discontent, otherwise is doesn't get very far.

People don't like a gamble, a leap of faith or whatever when question marks remain over financial security. Some can call it "fear" if they want but its a very understandable apprehension to have. Salmond wants people to vote with their heart but with so much on the line they'll still vote with their head.

The sheer hypocrisy of that quote is harrowing.

Which figures do you dispute exactly?

Are you saying that Scotland DOESN'T have a population that is ageing faster than the rest of the UK as a whole? That was the crux of this story. It has subsequently been backed up by all the available evidence including just over a week ago by the IFS report which fully backed up what I have been saying for a few years now.

Find the figures you are disputing and get back to me, unless you have simply picked up a ball and are running with it even though you have no idea what you are saying or doing.

Ah hell naw, you did not just bring the IFS report into this. I know we don't agree on many things on politics but surely you are not that naive to believe that the IFS report is actually a credible report are you?

1. They used the lowest possible projection for the future of Oil possible for fifty straight years. $98 a barrel for the next fifty years you say? Because I do hate to burst the OBR bubble when I say that the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a well-respected multilateral financial organisation, takes data from the 28 most developed economies in the world in order to make projections and its predicting an oil price of $190 per barrel in 2020.

So wait, this report is based on how things are if Scotland stays the same for the next fifty years? I'm sure the price of oil was $98 a barrel fifty years ago as well by that breath-taking logic.

2. Now that we've warmed up, how about dissolving this population nonsense once and for all?

The IFS report also claims “official population projections suggest that the average age of the Scottish population will increase more rapidly than for the UK as a whole, putting greater upward pressure on many areas of public spending”.

But wait, this report is giving the picture that the official UK Government population forecasts are based on the continuation of London Centric policy decisions that continue to strip wealth and young talent from Scotland and the North of England.

Yeah, it will continue to age, but only if Scotland votes NO, as this is another area where the report’s conclusion fails to live up to any presumption of objectivity. Basically, you've just given the approval to an out of context report, that we will continue be in an aging population if Scotland votes NO FFS

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/ifs-is-out-of-touch-with-the-reality-of-an-independent-scotland/

The IFS fails to acknowledge that a central economic rationale for Scottish independence is to bring back the economic levers from London by which we can grow our economy, not least by stopping the drain of talented young people to London, and make our economy more attractive to skilled younger workers (especially from the rest of the UK) who will settle in Scotland and have families.

We can grow our working age population more rapidly and defuse the population age time-bomb, including the associated pensions funding challenge faced by Scotland and most other Western countries. Indeed, these type of challenges are exactly why we need independence now.

In the meantime, despite these challenges, Scotland’s total welfare bill is proportionately less than the UK’s. To isolate benefits or pensions is to miss the broader picture of the welfare safety net. Indeed the IFS report does highlight the fact that Scotland is currently in a stronger economic position than the UK as a whole.

Voting for a No future on September 18th 2014 on the other hand, especially with the prospect of a UK in/out referendum on European Union membership, could see the increasingly xenophobic UKiP agenda pull Scotland out of Europe. This will slow the whole UK economy and, in particular, immigration to the extent we not only have an older population but a massive skills gap as well. Both of which are bad news for business and sustainable economic recovery.

You're better than this Reynard.

Edited December 2, 2013 by the jambo-rocker

[xbl]

As an additional point, if the IFS matches reynard's figures (which I believe they don't), then it is also using out of date figures.

[Baxter Parp]

You're better than this Reynard.

Oh no, he's not.

[Mr Rational]

Courier has a poll out I think for all you pollsters.

I'm still ignoring.

[ayrmad]

The sheer hypocrisy of that quote is harrowing.

Ah hell naw, you did not just bring the IFS report into this. I know we don't agree on many things on politics but surely you are not that stupid to believe that the IFS report is actually a credible report are you?

1. They used the lowest possible projection for the future of Oil possible for fifty straight years. $98 a barrel for the next fifty years you say? Because I do hate to burst the OBR bubble when I say that the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a well-respected multilateral financial organisation, takes data from the 28 most developed economies in the world in order to make projections and its predicting an oil price of $190 per barrel in 2020.

So wait, this report is based on how things are if Scotland stays the same for the next fifty years? I'm sure the price of oil was $98 a barrel fifty years ago as well by that breath-taking logic.

2. Now that we've warmed up, how about dissolving this population nonsense once and for all?

The IFS report also claims “official population projections suggest that the average age of the Scottish population will increase more rapidly than for the UK as a whole, putting greater upward pressure on many areas of public spending”.

But wait, this report is giving the picture that the official UK Government population forecasts are based on the continuation of London Centric policy decisions that continue to strip wealth and young talent from Scotland and the North of England.

Yeah, it will continue to age, but only if Scotland votes NO, as this is another area where the report’s conclusion fails to live up to any presumption of objectivity. Basically, you've just given the approval to an out of context report, that we will continue be in an aging population if Scotland votes NO FFS

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/ifs-is-out-of-touch-with-the-reality-of-an-independent-scotland/

The IFS fails to acknowledge that a central economic rationale for Scottish independence is to bring back the economic levers from London by which we can grow our economy, not least by stopping the drain of talented young people to London, and make our economy more attractive to skilled younger workers (especially from the rest of the UK) who will settle in Scotland and have families.

We can grow our working age population more rapidly and defuse the population age time-bomb, including the associated pensions funding challenge faced by Scotland and most other Western countries. Indeed, these type of challenges are exactly why we need independence now.

In the meantime, despite these challenges, Scotland’s total welfare bill is proportionately less than the UK’s. To isolate benefits or pensions is to miss the broader picture of the welfare safety net. Indeed the IFS report does highlight the fact that Scotland is currently in a stronger economic position than the UK as a whole.

Voting for a No future on September 18th 2014 on the other hand, especially with the prospect of a UK in/out referendum on European Union membership, could see the increasingly xenophobic UKiP agenda pull Scotland out of Europe. This will slow the whole UK economy and, in particular, immigration to the extent we not only have an older population but a massive skills gap as well. Both of which are bad news for business and sustainable economic recovery.

You're better than this Reynard.

Indeed,

0.5% more people over 65 already and yet we're fiscally prudent enough to spend less on welfare.

98$ a barrel, oh shit, we'll just explore this side of the country and make sure we increase production then, if the OECD are correct 190$ a barrel by 2020, KERCHING.

[kiddy]

The fatal flaw in the IFS report is that they assume an Independent Scotland will follow the same failed, & failing, economic policies that the Westminster Govt has been following for decades.

By the way, did the IFS also cover how Westminster will look in the future, with its 92% share of the £1.3Tn national debt & how it's going to deal with it?

[xbl]

Let's not forget though that the IFS also said that an independent could have a lower overall tax burden.

[I'm Brian]

Vote in this poll. (Hope it works!)

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/poll/02-12-2013/should-scotland-be-an-independant-country

Interesting set of results with the single question asked

ETA Bugger someone beat me to it on another thread

Edited December 2, 2013 by I'm Brian

[xbl]

Vote in this poll. (Hope it works!)

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/poll/02-12-2013/should-scotland-be-an-independant-country

Interesting set of results with the single question asked

Why vote in the poll? I don't use moneysavingexpert.com. Why try and skew results, when its very interesting to see them in their naturial state, in a site that theoretically should not be biased towards independence.

Leave the poll alone unless you use the site!

[I'm Brian]

Why vote in the poll? I don't use moneysavingexpert.com. Why try and skew results, when its very interesting to see them in their naturial state, in a site that theoretically should not be biased towards independence.

Leave the poll alone unless you use the site!

Really not trying to skew anything. Why would you suggest I am?

[xbl]

Really not trying to skew anything. Why would you suggest I am?

Why implore that we all vote in the poll then? Its not just you who does this, but it completely obliterates the value of such results.

[I'm Brian]

Why implore that we all vote in the poll then? Its not just you who does this, but it completely obliterates the value of such results.

So you are implying that everyone on here is a yes voter? I haven't implored I have suggested. It's a poll that asks a question. Surely the more people vote the more it validates the result

Edited December 2, 2013 by I'm Brian

[ayrmad]

So you are implying that everyone on here is a yes voter? I haven't implored I have suggested. It's a poll that asks a question. Surely the more people vote the more it validates the result

Probably not if we're urging a site with 80+ YES voters.

[I'm Brian]

Probably not if we're urging a site with 80+ YES voters.

Many No voters haven't voted for reasons that are well documented on this board. I really don't believe that 80+ per cent of people that use this board are yes voters. I don't think any of us do.

[sparky88]

Why implore that we all vote in the poll then? Its not just you who does this, but it completely obliterates the value of such results.

Many No voters haven't voted for reasons that are well documented on this board. I really don't believe that 80+ per cent of people that use this board are yes voters. I don't think any of us do.

Theres no value in any of these polls

[forza ton]

I find that within well-educated circles the yes campaign are clear winners and by some margin. This is backed up by what we see on here and what's on the wife's Facebook ...

[wingsoverperthshire]

I find that within well-educated circles the yes campaign are clear winners and by some margin. This is backed up by what we see on here and what's on the wife's Facebook ...

The Yes Camp are behind and private polling suggests this. It also suggest that Daily Mail/ Yougov polls are rigged.

[H_B]

I find that within well-educated circles the yes campaign are clear winners and by some margin. This is backed up by what we see on here and what's on the wife's Facebook ...

Certainly when i think 'well educated' what first comes to mind is Pie and Bovril. Closely followed by your wife s Facebook page.

[LinkinFighter]

Such anger

[Swampy]

I find that within well-educated circles the yes campaign are clear winners and by some margin. This is backed up by what we see on here and what's on the wife's Facebook ...

Low-information voters will side with No. That's why it's absolutely key to get the facts out to those who need them.