Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[redm]

Business that have spoken out recently have given a very strong indication that independence will be bad for their business. Be that oil extraction or ability to provide groceries at prices they are doing now.

 

The banks moving their HQs is just brass plaquery for now but may be physical movement in the future.

 

What you are ignoring is that the business that have come out in favour of a No vote have been subjected to boycotts by senior Yes members.

 

The partners in my firm all think it is a terrible idea - both for the business and them personally. They have taken the view to remain silent because for fear of reprisals. I had a client in this morning who was told yesterday in Glasgow that there was an open 'this is an awful idea' letter being passed around the local businesses - but people are too scared to sign it.

 

What a brave new world we are entering.

 

 

Please give details, not wishy washy sweeping claims. Specific organisations, specific claims.

If you wouldn't mind, of course.

 

Half of the stuff you wrote there are your own thoughts, not any reflection at all of the real actual intentions as per the statements made by organisations in recent days/weeks.

[BoJack Horseman]

It's not that something MIGHT happen. Something WILL happen, you are voting for CHANGE.

 

The issue is that nobody on the Yes side, from Salmond down, is able to articulate what the changes would be, when they would be implemented and how they would impact on our lives.

 

I guess you missed the sarcasm in my post. Of course there will be change. That's my point. YES voters know this, yet NO voters are bleating on like it's brand new news. We don't expect everything to stay the same, so for companies to come and say "oh btw, we we'll have to change a few things to work within the confines of a new country" is completely moot.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

If being in a union is so great how come the world isn't full of little four-country unions just like ours?

 

Would Canada and the US be better together? Or France and Belgium? Or Argentina and Chile? And if it wouldn't happen, why wouldn't it happen?

Edited September 12, 2014 by Eldar Hadzimehmedovic

[Thunderstruck]

Oh, despite my head to toe Yes'ing as described above I should've said that none of this applies at work.

I'll wear my badge or whatever but not if I'm going to meetings or we have visitors in, things like that.

 

I work in renewables though so stands to reason most of us are yes voters, although not all. One or two wee exceptions. One lawyer, one bean counter...unsurprisingly.

 

If you are in Renewables, are you entirely confident that an independent Scotland (or, to be more precise, the Scottish energy consumer) could sustain the level of support that currently exists for the industry in Scotland?

 

[Gabriel]

 

 

Business that have spoken out recently have given a very strong indication that independence will be bad for their business. Be that oil extraction or ability to provide groceries at prices they are doing now.

 

The banks moving their HQs is just brass plaquery for now but may be physical movement in the future.

 

What you are ignoring is that the business that have come out in favour of a No vote have been subjected to boycotts by senior Yes members.

 

The partners in my firm all think it is a terrible idea - both for the business and them personally. They have taken the view to remain silent because for fear of reprisals. I had a client in this morning who was told yesterday in Glasgow that there was an open 'this is an awful idea' letter being passed around the local businesses - but people are too scared to sign it.

 

What a brave new world we are entering.

 

Surely you mean 'some' businesses that have spoken out recently. Some have said that there would be little significant change.

Were I running a business in Scotland, I would be wise enough to keep silent given that any speech might alienate 50% of my customers; the CR Smith approach in reverse, so to speak.

[doctor jambo]

It's not that something MIGHT happen. Something WILL happen, you are voting for CHANGE.

 

The issue is that nobody on the Yes side, from Salmond down, is able to articulate what the changes would be, when they would be implemented and how they would impact on our lives.

 

It is utterly unpredicatable and utterly irrelevant too

THis should not be about policy, right,left, business, Tory, SNP, child care etc- all of those change through time dependant on governament

 

This is do you want to be a small nation in the EU with the clout of similar nations of 5 million people ( ie not of any importance at all) and leave the G7/G8 UN security counsel and all the top tables of the world

 

Or do you want to be actually a pretty big hitter as part of the UK ( and no matter the derision poured on the UK it IS still a global big player.

 

Are scottish interests in Europe better looked after by the UK?

I would say yes

 

In addition I quite like Scotland in the UK- we act as a moral buffer against our southern cousins and moderate the worst of their excesses.

I like being a Scot as part of the United Kingdom

[djf]

I don't know why you are so appalled by the idea of boycotting Mag. Surely as a free-marketista it's like your bread and butter.

[DETTY29]

It is utterly unpredicatable and utterly irrelevant too

THis should not be about policy, right,left, business, Tory, SNP, child care etc- all of those change through time dependant on governament

 

This is do you want to be a small nation in the EU with the clout of similar nations of 5 million people ( ie not of any importance at all) and leave the G7/G8 UN security counsel and all the top tables of the world

 

Or do you want to be actually a pretty big hitter as part of the UK ( and no matter the derision poured on the UK it IS still a global big player.

 

Are scottish interests in Europe better looked after by the UK?

I would say yes

 

In addition I quite like Scotland in the UK- we act as a moral buffer against our southern cousins and moderate the worst of their excesses.

I like being a Scot as part of the United Kingdom

Personally I'd love the UK to leave the UN Security Council straight away.

 

And many prosperous countries in the world aren't members of the G8.

Edited September 12, 2014 by DETTY29

[deesidejambo]

If you are in Renewables, are you entirely confident that an independent Scotland (or, to be more precise, the Scottish energy consumer) could sustain the level of support that currently exists for the industry in Scotland?

 

Absolutely no chance. The renewables industry is at the moment massively underwritten by UK Gov't and levies placed on energy providers. I hav ealready posted the example of the Peterhead Carbon Capture project, funded by UK. Scotland will be nowhere near that level of support. In case of Yes vote, that Gov't support will cease and the Project will stop in its tracks.

[Gabriel]

 

 

 

It is utterly unpredicatable and utterly irrelevant too

THis should not be about policy, right,left, business, Tory, SNP, child care etc- all of those change through time dependant on governament

 

This is do you want to be a small nation in the EU with the clout of similar nations of 5 million people ( ie not of any importance at all) and leave the G7/G8 UN security counsel and all the top tables of the world

 

Or do you want to be actually a pretty big hitter as part of the UK ( and no matter the derision poured on the UK it IS still a global big player.

 

Are scottish interests in Europe better looked after by the UK?

I would say yes

 

In addition I quite like Scotland in the UK- we act as a moral buffer against our southern cousins and moderate the worst of their excesses.

I like being a Scot as part of the United Kingdom

 

Some valid points, especially perhaps as a buffer, but in what way do you consider the UK to be 'a pretty big hitter' globally?

[redm]

If you are in Renewables, are you entirely confident that an independent Scotland (or, to be more precise, the Scottish energy consumer) could sustain the level of support that currently exists for the industry in Scotland?

 

Ah, there's a question. Westminster don't even know if the current model of subsidy (ROCs to CfD) is going to work properly so it's a long stretch asking how it would work in an independent Scotland. There's also the question of shared renewables targets etc. We're in that together for the next few years regardless of what happens to the status of Scotland.

 

Thereafter? It becomes a question of balance, like everything else. You must subsidise new technologies otherwise they won't develop to maturity, a process which, in turn, brings down prices through various means. Mostly techological and supply chain development.

 

Can the customer sustain a renewables charge? That pricing structure depends on an awful lot of things to begin with but if the industry needs it and it's worth doing, then it'll most likely happen if there's political and public support. Which there is, currently. In most cases anyway. Not always.

 

Plus, it's kind of in UK's interests that we fulfil our capabilities in this regard. They need to buy top up leccy from somewhere.

[TheMaganator]

If you are in Renewables, are you entirely confident that an independent Scotland (or, to be more precise, the Scottish energy consumer) could sustain the level of support that currently exists for the industry in Scotland?

It receives massive UK subsidies, does it not?

[redm]

Absolutely no chance. The renewables industry is at the moment massively underwritten by UK Gov't and levies placed on energy providers. I hav ealready posted the example of the Peterhead Carbon Capture project, funded by UK. Scotland will be nowhere near that level of support. In case of Yes vote, that Gov't support will cease and the Project will stop in its tracks.

 

Like I said a few days ago, we'll have to wait and see if the money for that project ever actually materialises.

I wouldn't too excited until it does - they've been here a good few times before and the cash wasn't forthcoming.

 

Vast number of people in the industry see it as nothing more than a(nother) cynical and ultimately empty bribe.

[redm]

It receives massive UK subsidies, does it not?

 

All energy production is subsidised. We've done this before TM.

Anyway, companies and claims. Are you going to share this info you mentioned?

[deesidejambo]

Some valid points, especially perhaps as a buffer, but in what way do you consider the UK to be 'a pretty big hitter' globally?

 

Permanent Member of UN Security Council, with right of veto.

Member of G7 - with influence over global financial and many other issues.

 

Folks may not like these bodies but it is an indication of UK global influence,.

[BoJack Horseman]

 

It is utterly unpredicatable and utterly irrelevant too

THis should not be about policy, right,left, business, Tory, SNP, child care etc- all of those change through time dependant on governament

 

This is do you want to be a small nation in the EU with the clout of similar nations of 5 million people ( ie not of any importance at all) and leave the G7/G8 UN security counsel and all the top tables of the world

 

Or do you want to be actually a pretty big hitter as part of the UK ( and no matter the derision poured on the UK it IS still a global big player.

 

Are scottish interests in Europe better looked after by the UK?

I would say yes

 

In addition I quite like Scotland in the UK- we act as a moral buffer against our southern cousins and moderate the worst of their excesses.

I like being a Scot as part of the United Kingdom

I'd rather stand on our own two feet than pretend we're hard because our pal is hard. Scotland barely has clout in the UK, never mind in the EU.

[deesidejambo]

Like I said a few days ago, we'll have to wait and see if the money for that project ever actually materialises.

I wouldn't too excited until it does - they've been here a good few times before and the cash wasn't forthcoming.

 

Vast number of people in the industry see it as nothing more than a(nother) cynical and ultimately empty bribe.

 

I work in the industry, and the Project is actively going ahead with significant pre-investment. Your statement that a vast number of people see it as an empty bribe is not shared by those working on the Project. Agreed it is at early stage but th eproejct is proceeding whether you agree or not. But on the day after a Yes vote funding wil cease.

[hughesie27]

 

 

It is utterly unpredicatable and utterly irrelevant too

THis should not be about policy, right,left, business, Tory, SNP, child care etc- all of those change through time dependant on governament

 

This is do you want to be a small nation in the EU with the clout of similar nations of 5 million people ( ie not of any importance at all) and leave the G7/G8 UN security counsel and all the top tables of the world

 

Or do you want to be actually a pretty big hitter as part of the UK ( and no matter the derision poured on the UK it IS still a global big player.

 

Are scottish interests in Europe better looked after by the UK?

I would say yes

 

In addition I quite like Scotland in the UK- we act as a moral buffer against our southern cousins and moderate the worst of their excesses.

I like being a Scot as part of the United Kingdom

 

I'm well up for walking away from those tables.

[djf]

According to C4 BT are labelling their final weeks campaigning as 'shock and awe'.

 

No way that can backfire on them.

[ToadKiller Dog]

According to C4 BT are labelling their final weeks campaigning as 'shock and awe'.

 

No way that can backfire on them.

 

Seriously haha , who runs their campaign team Donald Rumsfeid and Dick Cheney ?

Edited September 12, 2014 by ToadKiller Dog

[Ulysses]

 

In other words YouGov is not a reliable pollster.

 

YouGov is a member of the BPC, using reliable and accepted survey methodologies, and its previous polls have accurately predicted election results. Therefore, YouGov is a reliable pollster.

 

The polls are showing a statistical dead heat. Any pollster or person reasonably versed in statistics knows that is the case and why it's the case.

[My Left Nut]

Regardless if you are a yes or a no, the fact that 97% of the eligible population has registered to vote can only be a good thing. Lets hope whatever the outcome we see this amount voting in future elections.

[redm]

I work in the industry, and the Project is actively going ahead with significant pre-investment. Your statement that a vast number of people see it as an empty bribe is not shared by those working on the Project. Agreed it is at early stage but th eproejct is proceeding whether you agree or not. But on the day after a Yes vote funding wil cease.

 

Yes, FEED is going ahead at present. FID is the issue, that's where the real money comes in. If you work in the industry, you know that.

Funnily enough FID isn't scheduled until after the next general election in late 2015.

[Forrest]

 

 

Which would confirm my view that this is as much about class as it is any sense of nationalism.

 

Maybe I should have started an Actuaries for Yes group to help dispel myths life that!

[deesidejambo]

Yes, FEED is going ahead at present. FID is the issue, that's where the real money comes in. If you work in the industry, you know that.

Funnily enough FID isn't scheduled until after the next general election in late 2015.

 

Correct FEED is ongoing, i.e. money is being spent. Its correct that the big lump will be on FID next year. In the case of YES the FEED funding will cease and the Project will stop altogether.

[Thunderstruck]

Regardless if you are a yes or a no, the fact that 97% of the eligible population has registered to vote can only be a good thing. Lets hope whatever the outcome we see this amount voting in future elections.

 

But what % was it last week?

 

The variable is not levels of registration but turnout.

[Nookie Bear]

That's the thing. No campaign endlessly mutter on and on about some 'land of milk and honey' utopia that I don't think any Yes voter has ever mentioned. Not to me anyway. Most speak of the work that needs to be done. The fact nobody weeps about it all seems to be interpreted by No camp as naivety or lack of anticipation.

 

All these companies are doing is exactly what would be expected - reacting to shareholder, customer and staff concerns. Reassuring them that they're ready for any eventuality and they have contingency plans in place. If you have responsibility for money, the owners of that money like to know you're on the ball. I'd love to hear what these details are that TM mentions because as far as I'm aware there are none available - if I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected.

 

Just this week Salmond said that an Independent Scotland will be more prosperous and fairer.

[My Left Nut]

But what % was it last week?

 

The variable is not levels of registration but turnout.

 

Not sure what it was last week. Let's hope that the turnout is in the 90% bracket.

 

I think this referendum has engaged many people in politics that maybe previously were not interested, that again IMO is a good thing.

[redm]

Correct FEED is ongoing, i.e. money is being spent. Its correct that the big lump will be on FID next year. In the case of YES the FEED funding will cease and the Project will stop altogether.

 

The Yorkshire project was the frontrunner for the money anyway until just a few months ago, wouldn't it be strange if they ended up receiving it after all and this was all just a ruse? Imagine that...?

 

Anyway, as for withdrawing FEED study funding - I'm fairly certain fellow investors (and close pals) Shell and SSE might have something to say about the value of the project being compromised in this way. In fact, you'd be forgiven if you assumed that this is exactly the sort of thing we all have legal counsel for. I don't know about the corporate governance of the project but it's safe to assume they'll probably have that stuff covered.

[redm]

Just this week Salmond said that an Independent Scotland will be more prosperous and fairer.

 

There's a big difference between saying things will be better and describing it as a utopia.

[deesidejambo]

YouGov is a member of the BPC, using reliable and accepted survey methodologies, and its previous polls have accurately predicted election results. Therefore, YouGov is a reliable pollster.

 

The polls are showing a statistical dead heat. Any pollster or person reasonably versed in statistics knows that is the case and why it's the case.

 

There are many statisticians who would dispute the reliability of a polster that requires individuals to pro-actively register, that has full knowledge that a significant demographic group (old people) won't be represented, and with the ability to choose, based on who sponsors the poll, (i.e. Murdoch), who to poll.

 

As for the statistical dead heat - I am very versed in statistics and the correct statistical analysis of averaging a number of polls is exactly the opposite of what you think.

 

If you take a poll, and if its say 51-49 No +/- 3 and you take another poll, and its 51-49 Yes +/- 3, then that is a statistical dead-heat. One poll negates the other. If you were to statistically add together the individual poll results the outcome would be 50-50.

 

If you take another two polls, and one is 51-49 No and the other is 51-49 No, then both are predicting No within statistical variance. That is not a statistical dead-heat, it is the opposite - both polls confirm each other. If you were to add these polls together statistically the outcome would still be 51-49.

 

In the case of the Independence polls it is the latter. The polls are all pointing in the same direction except one (sponsored by Murdoch) and as such they all reconfim each others result.

 

The fact that they all say its close does not infer a statistical dead-heat of the outcome.

 

Anyway the real poll is on Thursday. Interesting the bookies odds though - clearly they don't listen to polls as I hear Yes is now 5-1.

[deesidejambo]

The Yorkshire project was the frontrunner for the money anyway until just a few months ago, wouldn't it be strange if they ended up receiving it after all and this was all just a ruse? Imagine that...?

 

Anyway, as for withdrawing FEED study funding - I'm fairly certain fellow investors (and close pals) Shell and SSE might have something to say about the value of the project being compromised in this way. In fact, you'd be forgiven if you assumed that this is exactly the sort of thing we all have legal counsel for. I don't know about the corporate governance of the project but it's safe to assume they'll probably have that stuff covered.

 

Shell may well be quite happy to can this Project. The only reason Shell are proceeding is that UK Gov't is funding it and it allows Shell to develop proprietery technology for free, which they can then use elsewhere in the world. The project itself makes no noticeable financial profit for Shell, hence they wont proceed without Gov't funding. I hope Alex has put that in his sums.

[TheMaganator]

"Scottish independence: FORMER SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars has claimed there will be a ?day of reckoning? for major Scottish employers such as Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Life after a Yes vote."

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/day-of-reckoning-post-yes-vote-says-jim-sillars-1-3539754

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

There are many statisticians who would dispute the reliability of a polster that requires individuals to pro-actively register, that has full knowledge that a significant demographic group (old people) won't be represented, and with the ability to choose, based on who sponsors the poll, (i.e. Murdoch), who to poll.

 

As for the statistical dead heat - I am very versed in statistics and the correct statistical analysis of averaging a number of polls is exactly the opposite of what you think.

 

If you take a poll, and if its say 51-49 No +/- 3 and you take another poll, and its 51-49 Yes +/- 3, then that is a statistical dead-heat. One poll negates the other. If you were to statistically add together the individual poll results the outcome would be 50-50.

 

If you take another two polls, and one is 51-49 No and the other is 51-49 No, then both are predicting No within statistical variance. That is not a statistical dead-heat, it is the opposite - both polls confirm each other. If you were to add these polls together statistically the outcome would still be 51-49.

 

In the case of the Independence polls it is the latter. The polls are all pointing in the same direction except one (sponsored by Murdoch) and as such they all reconfim each others result.

 

The fact that they all say its close does not infer a statistical dead-heat of the outcome.

 

Anyway the real poll is on Thursday. Interesting the bookies odds though - clearly they don't listen to polls as I hear Yes is now 5-1.

You are assuming the samples are completely independent of each other and are following the same methodology. The latter is definitely not the case.

[Jessjambo]

[modedit]

 

[Nookie Bear]

"Scottish independence: FORMER SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars has claimed there will be a ?day of reckoning? for major Scottish employers such as Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Life after a Yes vote."

http://m.scotsman.co...llars-1-3539754

 

 

Saw Sillars shouting from a back of a van on the news: some stuff about "nae more Tories" and such like.

 

Glad to see that Independence is being fought for all the right reasons...

[Don Draper]

Paul Mason on The Renton Test: http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/scottish-indyref-renton-test/2325

[deesidejambo]

You are assuming the samples are completely independent of each other and are following the same methodology. The latter is definitely not the case.

 

Correct - I am assuming that but it was to make a point about what constitutes a statistical "dead-heat", something that was claimed by another poster.

 

Averaging out seven polls, even if they have different bases, all of which but one point the same outcome (No), cannot be called a dead-heat. You can infer that the outcome of each of the ones that point to No can be incorrect, but statistically they all but one point to the same outcome, a No vote. The statistical variance of +/-3 is also not certain. It is calcualted by applying statistical analyses of sample size v's expected voting population.

 

For example - if the polls said 70-30 +/-20 that could be assumed to be a dead-heat, using the same logic. Hopefully that demonstrates the point.

[ToadKiller Dog]

"Scottish independence: FORMER SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars has claimed there will be a ?day of reckoning? for major Scottish employers such as Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Life after a Yes vote."

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/day-of-reckoning-post-yes-vote-says-jim-sillars-1-3539754

 

 

Scotsman over playing things , a politician from the left argues for nationalisation and says it may be possible that scots will look to readdress their positions towards companies that have been perceived to take a political stand .

 

Silliars I am sure as will others will argue for a nationalisation of the oil industry his right in a democratic nation . I doubt he will get. It .

 

The likes of Boris Johnson when back as a mp , other south east MPs the House of Lords etc can and likely will veto Brown Devo lite plans without a care or a **** of Scottish opinion after the 18 th.

 

That will be Westminster democracy

[The People's Chimp]

If being in a union is so great how come the world isn't full of little four-country unions just like ours?

 

Would Canada and the US be better together? Or France and Belgium? Or Argentina and Chile? And if it wouldn't happen, why wouldn't it happen?

 

That's some strawman!

 

Of course the actual comparisons should be Quebec/Canada, or Texas/USA or Basque Country and France and Spain.

[Ulysses]

 

There are many statisticians who would dispute the reliability of a polster that requires individuals to pro-actively register,

 

I wasn't aware that statisticians were disputing the reliability of YouGov, but thanks for letting me know. You didn't mention who they are, but I'm sure you will.

 

I presume that if YouGov is unreliable, then its many polls showing a No lead must also be as unreliable as its one poll showing a No lead. Either the company is reliable or it isn't - you don't get to choose based on whether or not you like the latest poll from the company.

As for the statistical dead heat - I am very versed in statistics and the correct statistical analysis of averaging a number of polls is exactly the opposite of what you think.

 

The fact that you think the correct statistical analysis is to average the separate polls shows that in fact you aren't versed in statistics - and displays quite a poor awareness of probability.

 

The ICM poll just adds to the list - it's too close to call.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

 

 

YouGov is a member of the BPC, using reliable and accepted survey methodologies, and its previous polls have accurately predicted election results. Therefore, YouGov is a reliable pollster.

 

The polls are showing a statistical dead heat. Any pollster or person reasonably versed in statistics knows that is the case and why it's the case.

 

Do you think there was a possibility that the polling companies realised that their tried and tested methodologies did not work with the dynamics of this electorate and perhaps changed their methodology? Is it possible that this was a contributing factor in the wild swing in recent polls? It's it possible that the polls produced before last Saturday were wildly inaccurate?

[Forrest]

I hear Yes is now 5-1.

 

Glorious

[BoJack Horseman]

That's some strawman!

 

Of course the actual comparisons should be Quebec/Canada, or Texas/USA or Basque Country and France and Spain.

 

Or, like, all of the states.

[deesidejambo]

I wasn't aware that statisticians were disputing the reliability of YouGov, but thanks for letting me know. You didn't mention who they are, but I'm sure you will.

 

I presume that if YouGov is unreliable, then its many polls showing a No lead must also be as unreliable as its one poll showing a No lead. Either the company is reliable or it isn't - you don't get to choose based on whether or not you like the latest poll from the company.

 

 

The fact that you think the correct statistical analysis is to average the separate polls shows that in fact you aren't versed in statistics - and displays quite a poor awareness of probability.

 

The ICM poll just adds to the list - it's too close to call.

 

Absolutley correct - YouGov is unreliable, regardless of its polls outcome, for the explicit reasons I stated.

 

If you, as you do, think a pollster that can choose which specific part of the population it polls, and takes money form sponsors to conduct certain polls, and has as its contributors those who have to proactively volunteer to them in the first place, is reliable, then good for you.

 

Anyway I'll go for 55-45 on the day.

[The People's Chimp]

Or, like, all of the states.

 

Like totally man.

 

[BoJack Horseman]

Can someone explain a bit more about the polls to me? Who are they asking? It's obviously not the same group of people. Are the on the streets? Online? If it's online how can they verify if they even have the right to vote. Same for on the streets for that matter. How can they extrapolate for the whole country when there's not a precedent for this kind of thing?

[deesidejambo]

I wasn't aware that statisticians were disputing the reliability of YouGov, but thanks for letting me know. You didn't mention who they are, but I'm sure you will.

 

I presume that if YouGov is unreliable, then its many polls showing a No lead must also be as unreliable as its one poll showing a No lead. Either the company is reliable or it isn't - you don't get to choose based on whether or not you like the latest poll from the company.

 

 

The fact that you think the correct statistical analysis is to average the separate polls shows that in fact you aren't versed in statistics - and displays quite a poor awareness of probability.

 

The ICM poll just adds to the list - it's too close to call.

 

Sorry missed your second point. I don't say that the correct method is to average them by simple averaging, but it is a method that can be legitimately used to increase the liklihood of the outcome having being correctly predicted. Its sometimes called a "poll of polls". To be more specific, if all the eight polls were conducted on the same basis (which they clearly are not), The correct way is to do statistical averaging using raw input data from each poll, which would account for sample sizes. That is easily done by statistical algorithm. It would at the same time reduce the statistical vatiance, but likely only to +/-2 i.s.o. 3

 

You on the other hand - see seven polls saying No, and one saying Yes, and claim that is a statistical dead-heat. It isn't. Each poll supports each other - if four said Yes and four said No then you are closer a mathematically correct dead-heat. But its 7-1 or whatever, and if you were able to do a statistical averaging (i.e. assuming same bases), the outcome would be No, unless the YouGov pol that said yes would happen to have more individual responses than all the rest put together, which it doesn't.

 

Anyway - I'm going 55-45 as I believe the undecideds will be more tending towards No, so all the polls will be wrong.

[deesidejambo]

Can someone explain a bit more about the polls to me? Who are they asking? It's obviously not the same group of people. Are the on the streets? Online? If it's online how can they verify if they even have the right to vote. Same for on the streets for that matter. How can they extrapolate for the whole country when there's not a precedent for this kind of thing?

 

YouGov is online and is a money-making poll company. You can register for it online and it will take your demographics like age, income, voting history etc.

 

Then it invites you to participate in various polls at its choice. It chooses who to poll. It conducts poll sfor money, and sponsors have the opportunity to influence who it want spoled.

 

so - if it wants - it can poll (without each individual being aware) anyone in, for example, Pilton. It will be no surprise that the outcome would be different to that if it polled Morningside. Lilewise it has age demographic data - it could poll only those over 60, and under 16, or any combinations thereof.

 

YouGov recognises this and adjust results based on weighting factors etc to try and come up with a defendable outcome.

 

At the end of the day though - it relies on people pro-actively applying to become respondents, hence opening it up to the risk that its demographics get hijacked by campaign groups, of both sides.

 

On-street polling is more random (which is what is required) but suffers from geographical constraints. For example if they poll East Glasgow they will get a different result than West Aberdeen. Again they adjust for these.

 

So both the above rely on adjustments to be made for various factors.

 

Telephone polling is the closest the pollsters can get to independent random sampling. Even that has risk related to who answers phones at what time etc, but at least they are able to show random sampling of numbers from the phone books.

 

The key to statistical analysis is to demonstrate random sampling of a population. YouGov definately is not random.

[doctor jambo]

Or, like, all of the states.

 

You mean the United States of America?

Surely an example of Devo Max?

I thought you were pro- Yes?