Scottish Independence discussion area

eeepaulo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Did the man himself even say 'Just because one is born in a barn does not make one a horse'?

an horse

A Dub in Glasgo

Henry Sidney wrote: »

No he didn't, he never said it

Hang on, I heard him say that

kingchess

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Did the man himself even say 'Just because one is born in a barn does not make one a horse'?

iirc it was words to that effect and taken out of context,and remember he came from the same social class as say Wofe Tone and no one calls him a British hero.

Henry Sidney

kingchess wrote: »

iirc it was words to that effect and taken out of context,and remember he came from the same social class as say Wofe Tone and no one calls him a British hero.

Nope, it was Daniel o'connell said it about him in 1843 but is widely, and incorrectly, attributed to Wellesley himself.

A Dub in Glasgo

eeepaulo wrote: »

an horse

Unless the teachings of English in schools has changed over the last 30 years, an should only be used when the h is silent

Iwasfrozen

An is used before a vowel folks

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Unless the teachings of English in schools has changed over the last 30 years, an should only be used when the h is silent

In some parts of southern England it is silent, he rode an 'orse in the 2:30 at Newmarket!:p

Henry Sidney

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

An is used before a vowel folks

Not always. "An honourable man" "an honest mistake" aptly enough...

Henry Sidney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In some parts of southern England it is silent, he rode an 'orse in the 2:30 at Newmarket!:p

And in many parts of Ireland, Scotland and Wales too. That's laziness though.

Iwasfrozen

Henry Sidney wrote: »

Not always. "An honourable man" "an honest mistake" aptly enough...

That's because the h in honorable is silent. So the first pronounced letter is a vowel.

Same with an hour.

wp_rathead

Henry Sidney

Henry Sidney wrote: »

Not always. "An 'onourable man" "an 'onest mistake" aptly enough...

fyp

A Dub in Glasgo

Talk about tangents

eeepaulo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Unless the teachings of English in schools has changed over the last 30 years, an should only be used when the h is silent

But wellington was around in the 18th and 19th centuries so h's were silent.

Look i dont care, i was not trying to corretc your grammar, that was a funny line, it just looked better with an

eire4

wprathead wrote: »

That is brilliant. Loved the bit where after saying Scotland picked the unicorn as its national animal he said America you could have had a wookiee in a top hat

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Talk about tangents

In fairness everyone has already made up their mind. No one's going to change it so we might aswell talk about grammar.

A Dub in Glasgo

eeepaulo wrote: »

But wellington was around in the 18th and 19th centuries so h's were silent.

makes sense then

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In fairness everyone has already made up their mind. No one's going to change it so we might aswell talk about grammar.

The vast majority of the contributors to this thread are just spectators, most have picked a side, but some of us really don't care which way it goes.

It makes no difference to me either way, but having seen all the recent opinion polls (all except one show NO ahead) all of which have a large "undecided" percentage making it difficult to call with any certainty.

No is the most likely outcome, by a small margin.

The_Captain

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But you see it's the evil colonial British establishment who are oppressing the Scottish people.

Because apparently David Cameron has direct influence over the BBC, J.K. Rowling, Bob Geldof, most of the major newspapers (ha he wishes) and God only knows what else...

Bob Geldof was asked to attend and speak at a campaign for Lets Stay Together along with other celebrities. His words have been all over the news, which is a decision made by editors and those in control of media organisations.
I don't think David Cameron is controlling anything, I don't think there's some crazy NWO/Illuminati thing going on, rather it seems a collection of powerful capitalists are loosely banding together to protect their own business interests or promote their own agenda.

The_Captain

The_Captain wrote: »

rather it seems a collection of powerful capitalists are loosely banding together to protect their own business interests or promote their own agenda.

YES

Piliger

The_Captain wrote: »

Bob Geldof was asked to attend and speak at a campaign for Lets Stay Together along with other celebrities. His words have been all over the news, which is a decision made by editors and those in control of media organisations.
I don't think David Cameron is controlling anything, I don't think there's some crazy NWO/Illuminati thing going on, rather it seems a collection of powerful capitalists are loosely banding together to protect their own business interests or promote their own agenda.

May be. And that is their right. More power to them. It's up to ordinary people not to be so stupid as to be taken in by it.

UnitedIrishman

The fact that all the English party leaders are banding together for a 'No' vote should be reason enough for the Scottish people to vote 'Yes'. They're not doing it out of sentimentality.

Fratton Fred

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

The fact that all the English party leaders are banding together for a 'No' vote should be reason enough for the Scottish people to vote 'Yes'. They're not doing it out of sentimentality.

They are partly.

First Up

Deleted User wrote: »

YES

An independent Scotland would be as much a bastion of capitalism as it is now. The SNP were not nicknamed the Tartan Tories for nothing.
Some people seem to be confusing the independence movement with some sort of social revolution. One more example of the ill-informed and half baked thinking of many Yessers.

Piliger

First Up wrote: »

An independent Scotland would be as much a bastion of capitalism as it is now. The SNP were not nicknamed the Tartan Tories for nothing.
Some people seem to be confusing the independence movement with some sort of social revolution. One more example of the ill-informed and half baked thinking of many Yessers.

And even more Noers.

My name is URL

First Up wrote: »

An independent Scotland would be as much a bastion of capitalism as it is now. The SNP were not nicknamed the Tartan Tories for nothing.
Some people seem to be confusing the independence movement with some sort of social revolution. One more example of the ill-informed and half baked thinking of many Yessers.

And you seem to be confusing socialism with liberalism. As ill-informed and ignorant No voters are wont to do :pac:

Fratton Fred

First Up wrote: »

An independent Scotland would be as much a bastion of capitalism as it is now. The SNP were not nicknamed the Tartan Tories for nothing.
Some people seem to be confusing the independence movement with some sort of social revolution. One more example of the ill-informed and half baked thinking of many Yessers.

What was it, £256m cut in nhs funding in their last budget?

First Up

First Up wrote: »

An independent Scotland would be as much a bastion of capitalism as it is now. The SNP were not nicknamed the Tartan Tories for nothing.
Some people seem to be confusing the independence movement with some sort of social revolution. One more example of the ill-informed and half baked thinking of many Yessers.

Piliger wrote: »

And even more Noers.

Seriously, just how many voters actually use their heads and evaluate all the facts before deciding?

Answers on a postcard :pac:

A Dub in Glasgo

First Up wrote: »

An independent Scotland would be as much a bastion of capitalism as it is now. The SNP were not nicknamed the Tartan Tories for nothing.

You obviously have not been keeping up to date, the only ill-informed thinking is above

Satriale

Egginacup

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You obviously have not been keeping up to date, the only ill-informed thinking is above

All that they have left is either scare tactics or smear.

What makes me laugh is that once it turned out that this wasn't a pipe dream then all off a sudden banks and their vassals from Westminster started to voice their concerns and start making threats, pleas, flalsehoods and a plethora of other propagandist assertions in privately (read: business controlled) paper.

Where were these people to "diss" this idea when it was floated years ago?

I don't remember as PM ranting about passports and foreign embassies and squawking about border controls between England and Scotland 2 years ago.

And now the smears come. Already we are reading about intimidation. Already we see the Telegraph front some dross about Salmond intimidating someone (from 2013!!!).

RogerThis

Wow, it getting really close now.

From all the polls and the media it neck and neck.

Paddy Power wrote:

Against Independence (Fail) 2/9
For Independence (Pass) 3/1

Does anyone know why the bookies are so much on the no side? Do they know something that we don't?

RogerThis

RogerThis wrote: »

Wow, it getting really close now.

From all the polls and the media it neck and neck.



Does anyone know why the bookies are so much on the no side? Do they know something that we don't?

It's not neck and neck, most polls show a clear margin for a NO vote, but the size of the undecided prevents the outcome from being a foregone conclusion.

They're banking on a NO result, that's all.

Iwasfrozen

RogerThis wrote: »

Does anyone know why the bookies are so much on the no side? Do they know something that we don't?

Because people are betting proportionately high on a yes vote so the bookies have to lower the odds of a no vote to hedge their risk.

Egginacup

If a panicked Cameron is urging people to vote no then one knows the opposite is the way to go.

Fear of change, however, is an easy emotion to exploit.

Like banks or industry would run from an independent Scotland, haha.

Americans, Russians, even English are on the boardroom table tonight to see what deals they can make should the Scots tell Downing Street to FOAD.

RogerThis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because people are betting proportionately high on a yes vote so the bookies have to lower the odds of a no vote to hedge their risk.

That's not the way betting works, it the opposite. If more money is going on a horse the the odd go down.

eeepaulo

Copied from http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/3165/why-do-odds-offered-by-the-bookmakers-tend-to-change-rapidly-during-the-last-few


Odds start at what the bookmakers believe is an accurate representation of the outcomes. These odds then drift or come in depending on what the punters are backing. For example, a team might be 10/1 to win when betting opens. If millions are bet on that then the odds will shorten. It's not unheard of for odds to change massively in the time leading up to an event.

I think that unlike a horse race, where the form wouldn't change in week before, they do have access to changing information everyday in the lead up so will have some input to change the odds, but mainly they will just be shortening the odds based on where the money is going, not on information.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The SNP may be in Government in Scotland but most of the print media and TV (Scotland & UK wide) are against Independence. The vast majority of the political parties in Scotland and across the UK are against Independence. Most large corporations & bankers who have made an announcement have come out against Independence. Most of the International politicians and Bureaucrats who have made an announcement are against Independence.

By any reckoning that is most of the 'establishment'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Further to the above, George Monibot writes a good article of what the Yes side are up against

How the media shafted the people of Scotland

Iwasfrozen

RogerThis wrote: »

That's not the way betting works, it the opposite. If more money is going on a horse the the odd go down.

If something is close to 50/50 as this is and people are disproportionately betting on one side then the odds of that side must by lengthened (or the other sides odds made shorter) in order to hedge the bookies bets.

RogerThis

eeepaulo wrote: »

Copied from http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/3165/why-do-odds-offered-by-the-bookmakers-tend-to-change-rapidly-during-the-last-few


Odds start at what the bookmakers believe is an accurate representation of the outcomes. These odds then drift or come in depending on what the punters are backing. For example, a team might be 10/1 to win when betting opens. If millions are bet on that then the odds will shorten. It's not unheard of for odds to change massively in the time leading up to an event.

I think that unlike a horse race, where the form wouldn't change in week before, they do have access to changing information everyday in the lead up so will have some input to change the odds, but mainly they will just be shortening the odds based on where the money is going, not on information.

Good article on the Scottish Independents betting:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f82b0e00-3daa-11e4-8797-00144feabdc0.html

Happyman42

Simon Schama taking the proverbial biscuit on Newsnight. Talking about how he hated 'warrior Nationalism' while waxing lyrical about the Empire. At least 'warrior Nationalists' will stop eventually, which is more than can be said for Britain's centuries of 'warrior Imperialists;.
I wish somebody would for once take on this kind of ****e talk.

RogerThis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If something is close to 50/50 as this is and people are disproportionately betting on one side then the odds of that side must by lengthened (or the other sides odds made shorter) in order to hedge the bookies bets.

No, it's not. If more money is going on one side, you don't give more favourable odds to that side.

Piliger

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Further to the above, George Monibot writes a good article of what the Yes side are up against

I agree. It has been a revisiting of the colonial behemoth against its captive natives. Every arm of the Empire brought to bear.

Iwasfrozen

RogerThis wrote: »

No, it's not. If more money is going on one side, you don't give more favourable odds to that side.

You do unless you have reason to believe the probability of the side people are betting on has gone up.

eeepaulo

RogerThis wrote: »

Good article on the Scottish Independents betting:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f82b0e00-3daa-11e4-8797-00144feabdc0.html

Quote from the ft article

William Hill’s Mr Sharpe was similarly dubious about the tight polls. “If the polls putting Yes in front are to be believed, people should be banging our door down and helping themselves,” he said. But even with the more favourable odds, “we’re not seeing the sort of money that would reflect that”.

I dont live in the uk, so im not being influenced by the concerted 'no' campaign that monbiot is talking about. I have no doubt it is happening, im just a bit removed.

Perhaps the people putting down the 'no' money are being influenced.

dlouth15

There may be an element of people voting according to how they outcome to be. On the yes side you have mainly Scottish people in Scotland. On the no side you have the "No" voters in Scotland, but also a large number of English voters who want to retain the union. This, in addition to the fact that the the resurgence of Yes in the opinion polls has been comparatively recent, could account for the reported 85% of bets on the "No" side despite the poor price. Bookies will then want to attract punters to the yes side as a hedging strategy.

Personally I think it is much closer to 50:50 with perhaps a very slight lead to the No side. Although the outcome can't be predicted I think the 3:1 odds on a Yes represents a good price.

Fratton Fred

Piliger wrote: »

I agree. It has been a revisiting of the colonial behemoth against its captive natives. Every arm of the Empire brought to bear.

Your posts on this subject are becoming steadily more and more bizarre.

When you awoke from your cryogenic chamber this morning, did you note that it is actually 2014 and not 1814?

porsche959

First Up wrote: »

An independent Scotland would be as much a bastion of capitalism as it is now. The SNP were not nicknamed the Tartan Tories for nothing.

As someone that is pro-free market and also sympathetic to Scottish independence, I very much hope you are right.

It is a seldom acknowledged truth that many Scots Tories are voting Yes.

RogerThis

dlouth15 wrote: »

There may be an element of people voting according to how they outcome to be. On the yes side you have mainly Scottish people in Scotland. On the no side you have the "No" voters in Scotland, but also a large number of English voters who want to retain the union. This, in addition to the fact that the the resurgence of Yes in the opinion polls has been comparatively recent, could account for the reported 85% of bets on the "No" side despite the poor price. Bookies will then want to attract punters to the yes side as a hedging strategy.

Personally I think it is much closer to 50:50 with perhaps a very slight lead to the No side. Although the outcome can't be predicted I think the 3:1 odds on a Yes represents a good price.

Personally, my Irish nationalism is coming out, and do hope that the Yes vote comes to pass. The polls and the media are saying it too close to call. But at odds it just seems strange to me.

FT wrote:

Ladbrokes have seen a 70-30 per cent split in favour of Yes in Scotland

Maybe the Yes voters are more likely to put on a bet.

statesaver

Three polls out at the same time saying N0 52% - Yes 48% Scottish Daily Mail and 2 others that escape me now.

Even after all the scare stories of the last week it's a statistical tie, that's great news for the Yes side. I thought be would be a greater gap.