ThePortForum.com

I will be staying up to watch the results come in, and I have prepared myself an appropriate tasting, comprising of six bottlings from the Scotch Malt Whisky Society's outturn:


If you are also going to be in front of your TV that night, please join me and tell me what you're drinking.

Impressive lineup.

I will be up and watching in my hotel room in London. I will pop down to my local off-license to pick up an appropriate bottle to see me through the night.

DRT wrote:Impressive lineup.

I will be up and watching in my hotel room in London. I will pop down to my local off-license to pick up an appropriate bottle to see me through the night.

Excellent. We'll both be really useful come Friday. Hopefully we won't also be in a really foul mood.

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:Impressive lineup.

I will be up and watching in my hotel room in London. I will pop down to my local off-license to pick up an appropriate bottle to see me through the night.

Excellent. We'll both be really useful come Friday. Hopefully we won't also be in a really foul mood.

It's a safe bet. At least 60% "no". I have it on good authority from Rab McGabe.

That's quite a selection. I picked up another bottle of the Balvenie Caribbean cask today, since Sainsbury's have it reduced at the moment, so I'll either be celebrating the decision to stay, or toasting all the best for their decision to go forward independently.

djewesbury wrote:

Is the X to indicate a choice, or a negative choice?

If it is a No, I do hope that post-event surveys show that some voted No because of the vehemence of the Yeses, in particular their harassment of those who disagree.

The X is primarily a ballot paper mark but it is also, happily, an inverted saltire (albeit one in grey and white). You may know by now which way I lean on this issue (clue: Ian Paisley used to like this word) but how you choose to read the symbology of this placemat is a matter for you as reader to decide.

I also happen to think that Gordon Brown wrote an excellent piece in yesterday's Grauniad explaining why the UK is the best vehicle that citizens have if they want to be able to direct, or influence, the extra-territorial forces shaping our society today.

jdaw1 wrote:I do hope that post-event surveys show that some voted No because of the vehemence of the Yeses, in particular their harassment of those who disagree.

Indeed. I was in Edinburgh last weekend and was told by a number of people that many of those intending to vote No are keeping silent (or lying) to avoid the venom of those who are of a different view. That is the reason for my confidence in at least a 60/40 victory to No.

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:I do hope that post-event surveys show that some voted No because of the vehemence of the Yeses, in particular their harassment of those who disagree.

Indeed. I was in Edinburgh last weekend and was told by a number of people that many of those intending to vote No are keeping silent (or lying) to avoid the venom of those who are of a different view. That is the reason for my confidence in at least a 60/40 victory to No.

Yes, something about this reminds me of the 2008 US election. Everyone said that it would be too close to call or a McCain victory. Only one analyst, Nate Silver, called it correctly, by looking at the biases of all the polls and studying what all the data from them actually told him. I don't think it'll quite be 60:40 this week but I don't believe either that it's going to be as close as the media continually say it will be. Where is the proper analysis of all this woefully inadequate polling data?
I am delighted to hear that McGabe has today said that he will not call for endless repeated referendums if he loses. (NB: referendums. Not referenda. It's an English word.)

DRT wrote: I was in Edinburgh last weekend and was told by a number of people that many of those intending to vote No are keeping silent (or lying) to avoid the venom of those who are of a different view. That is the reason for my confidence in at least a 60/40 victory to No.

I can certainly believe that many "no" voters are keeping their heads down, primarily because the issue seems to be being treated as if it is a "vote yes if you're proud to be Scottish" by many, perhaps deliberately/divisively, rather than about the independence itself. However, I can see the "proud Scottish yes" vote winning the day (rather than a "yes to independence"), so I am less confident in the result.

djewesbury wrote:Where is the proper analysis of all this woefully inadequate polling data?

There are some who have diligently analysed the available data and reached a well informed conclusion...
That is quite a margin in a two horse race. They are seldom wrong.

Crikey!

DRT wrote:That is quite a margin in a two horse race. They are seldom wrong.

If they are, do we have to bail them out at tax-payers expense, or is that just for other types of gamblers? I admit I'm surprised by the margin there.

DRT wrote:That is quite a margin in a two horse race.

Innumerate rubbish.

Odds of 1/4 and 3/1 imply probabilities of 80% and 25% (the total exceeding 100% by the bookies’ profit). So divide by 1.05 to get implied probabilities of 76% and 24%.

Let’s assume that the Yes and No votes are normally distributed, with a standard deviation of ±5% (this σ having been guessed by me). So if the expected outcome were 53.6% : 46.4%, with that uncertainty, the probability of a Yes would indeed be about 76%. But 53.6% : 46.4% is quite a small margin.

= 50 + 5 * NORMSINV( 1 / (1+(1+1/4)/(1+3)) )

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:please define standardly distributed.

Normally distributed. It’s not, of course, very little is, but the approximation isn’t going to mislead.

If you want to attack, attack the ±5%.

I certainly don't want to attack you on a calculation. I was simply observing that when bookmakers create such a gulf in odds in a two horse race there is very little probability that the outsider will win and the favourite, in such circumstances, very often wins with ease.

jdaw1 wrote:Some posts moved to Lies, Damned Lies and Meaningless Drivel by jdaw1.

Thank you.

PhilW wrote:

DRT wrote: I was in Edinburgh last weekend and was told by a number of people that many of those intending to vote No are keeping silent (or lying) to avoid the venom of those who are of a different view. That is the reason for my confidence in at least a 60/40 victory to No.

I can certainly believe that many "no" voters are keeping their heads down, primarily because the issue seems to be being treated as if it is a "vote yes if you're proud to be Scottish" by many, perhaps deliberately/divisively, rather than about the independence itself. However, I can see the "proud Scottish yes" vote winning the day (rather than a "yes to independence"), so I am less confident in the result.

The same issue as the 92 election where people were a little shamefaced about saying to pollsters that they were voting Tory, but they did.

Not being much into spirits I am at a loss what to drink. There are the Scottish port shippers, or at least of Scottish origin.

Scottish port importers were many and varied but the bottles are fairly rare now. Shippers gives you obvious choices though; even Taylor and Croft could be said to have Scottish links via various different Robertsons.

djewesbury wrote:Scottish port importers were many and varied but the bottles are fairly rare now. Shippers gives you obvious choices though; even Taylor and Croft could be said to have Scottish links via various different Robertsons.

Anything currently made by the Symingtons would do.

Sandeman's (I hope the apostrophe is correct in this case) has Scottish roots as well. So you could even have a Sherry (or stick to port).

And does anyone know when the result will be declared? Not sure where exit polls fit into this one either, if there are we could still all get an early night.

LGTrotter wrote:And does anyone know when the result will be declared? Not sure where exit polls fit into this one either, if there are we could still all get an early night.

The count will begin as with a general election, almost immediately, but depending on the maths there could be no result until 7 am. And I'd be very wary of exit polls.

I suspect we will know in roughly the same timescales as a general election. The Highlands and Islands could drag into Friday but there is no one there so that doesn't matter.

AW77 wrote:Sandeman's (I hope the apostrophe is correct in this case) has Scottish roots as well. So you could even have a Sherry (or stick to port).

There was a lovely set of programmes on BBC radio 4 about the Scottish links with wine, there was a very fine gent with a distinctly Mediterranean accent waxing lyrical on his connection with Scotland, port featured very prominently, Billy McKay was the presenters name (I think).

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:And does anyone know when the result will be declared? Not sure where exit polls fit into this one either, if there are we could still all get an early night.

The count will begin as with a general election, almost immediately, but depending on the maths there could be no result until 7 am. And I'd be very wary of exit polls.

I do not know if this is accurate but it seems plausible.

But we can enjoy a few hours of speculation before falling asleep and missing the first announcement at 3am.

LGTrotter wrote:

AW77 wrote:Sandeman's (I hope the apostrophe is correct in this case) has Scottish roots as well. So you could even have a Sherry (or stick to port).

There was a lovely set of programmes on BBC radio 4 about the Scottish links with wine, there was a very fine gent with a distinctly Mediterranean accent waxing lyrical on his connection with Scotland, port featured very prominently, Billy McKay was the presenters name (I think).

Can't find any reference to a Billy McKay who is not a lower leagues footballer in Scotland. Tell us more please.

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:There was a lovely set of programmes on BBC radio 4 about the Scottish links with wine, there was a very fine gent with a distinctly Mediterranean accent waxing lyrical on his connection with Scotland, port featured very prominently, Billy McKay was the presenters name (I think).

Can't find any reference to a Billy McKay who is not a lower leagues footballer in Scotland. Tell us more please.

Perhaps Billy Kay?

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:There was a lovely set of programmes on BBC radio 4 about the Scottish links with wine, there was a very fine gent with a distinctly Mediterranean accent waxing lyrical on his connection with Scotland, port featured very prominently, Billy McKay was the presenters name (I think).

Can't find any reference to a Billy McKay who is not a lower leagues footballer in Scotland. Tell us more please.

Perhaps Billy Kay?

Excellent. Thanks Phil. I've heard of 'Knee Deep in Claret', in fact a bottle of Ch Beaumont labelled to celebrate its publication was in an auction catalogue I was reading lately.

PhilW wrote:Perhaps Billy Kay?

The very chap. Thank you Phil, I was lost amongst footballers too. They did a whole hour on port and the various Scottish families that nurtured the trade. But I have wandered from topic, again. I think it will have to be a Croft port. It may not be very Scottish but it sounds like it should be. Not being endowed with the gift of placemats I shall just have to write the word 'Croft' on a piece of paper and draw a circle round my glass. I shall of course also add the correct two digits. I'm not sure what I've got; 77 definitely, and the 94 (much too young). I think a couple of 70s and maybe a 66. The 77 will have to do.

I think this; http://www.billykay.co.uk/Audio/MP3s/Co ... donian.m3u may be the very programme. I drove Emma mad for a while by breaking into 'the silver tassie' which is the introductory song. Thanks again Phil for finding the site.

Cool! I'll listen to this as soon as I get out of here (work).

As a non-voting Englishman I am already fed up with being constantly bombarded with rhetoric from both sides. My plea to those voting north of the border is, "Just get on with it".

I can't imagine what it is like for those in Scotland where the media noise must be several times worse than it is here.

I will fall asleep with my radio on and my earphones in. From time to time a particularly excited voice will, no doubt, partially wake me and I will absorb some of the news. Then I will drift back to sleep to the melifluous tones of James Naughtie until the next shouting occurs.

And when I wake up at 6am it will all be over and I can go back to reading about the latest Islamic insurgency in a part of the world that I have not heard of before. Whether Scotland has become independent or has remained part of the Union I will make a cup of tea, get dressed for work and head to the office.


And the discussion of polls and their accuracy is one which appeals to me. In 1992 I was polled three times before the election and on exit. Each time I lied about who I would / had voted for. I had become irritated by the polls appearing to attempt to influence how I thought so I decided to do my little bit to manipulate the polls - and I lied. And I felt extremely smug when the pollsters looked stupid after the election votes were counted. It seems that they had never considered the fact that they might be wrong other than through natural statistical variation, assuming that people only ever told the truth and behaved like data in a statistical distribution. Long live Patrick McGoohan.

djewesbury wrote:Cool! I'll listen to this as soon as I get out of here (work).

Robbed! Having got back in from the salt mines it would seem that all I'm getting is the introductory music.

Owen
Are you definitely drinking the Croft 77?

djewesbury wrote:Owen
Are you definitely drinking the Croft 77?

Yes, if this will help in some master plan you have in mind. I probably will even if it doesn't.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Owen
Are you definitely drinking the Croft 77?

Yes, if this will help in some master plan you have in mind. I probably will even if it doesn't.

No master plan, I just thought this would come in handy to avoid confusion. There is a page for the cork. There is a decanter label. And obviously there are pages for Emma as well since you will be sharing. You can download the full PDF by right-clicking / option-clicking on the thumbnails.

EDIT: Oh and there are place-names as well. In case you each forget who you are. Sort of an ice-breaker.

You can bet on the "no" on Betfair 1.27@1.28. That implies a 78% chance of rejection. Amazing how different the story is vs what the polls are showing.

I'm with Alex-I stated out ambivalent and am now thoroughly bored about this whole matter. It's only deemed to be a'matter' because the polls suggest so whereas the bookies have got it right. As a Welshman I'm often irked about the amount of media coverage afforded the Irish and the Scots but that's probably because my affinities lie more with the Cornish and Bretons

Thank you Daniel for the placemats etc. They look lovely.

LGTrotter wrote:Thank you Daniel for the placemats etc. They look lovely.

My pleasure. Don't forget to use the place names. You need to set them at a point in the evening when you still remember who you are.

The Telegraph business section yesterday had an amusing comment. Words to the effect that Alex Sammonds definition of bullying seemed very similar to most peoples definition of holding an alternate view to Alex Sammond.

Explain to me why any business would want to stay domiciled in Scotland when it is seemingly threatened for suggesting it may re domicile. Surely a better approach from a democratic country would be to suggest an intent to create an environment conducive to doing business. Alex Sammond seems to like wielding a stick not dangling a carrot as far as I can see!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

A thought: if by some miracle there is a "Yes" result will the people of Scotland still be "British"? I think yes, in the same way that they will still be "European".

DRT wrote:A thought: if by some miracle there is a "Yes" result will the people of Scotland still be "British"? I think yes, in the same way that they will still be "European".

You answered your own question. Britain is, before anything else, the name of the island where Scotland is situated.

djewesbury wrote:You answered your own question. Britain is, before anything else, the name of the island where Scotland is situated.

Well, the British Isles, much to the dismay of a certain euro-zone neighbour, contain more than that.

jdaw1 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:You answered your own question. Britain is, before anything else, the name of the island where Scotland is situated.

Well, the British Isles, much to the dismay of a certain euro-zone neighbour, contain more than that.

Debatable. The term is not universally accepted.

My understanding was that Britain and The British Isles are not the same thing as Julian alludes to I think. Britain being the island containing England, Wales and Scotland. The British Isles including Britain, all of Ireland, the Shetlands, Hebrides etc etc.

flash_uk wrote:My understanding was that Britain and The British Isles are not the same thing as Julian alludes to I think. Britain being the island containing England, Wales and Scotland. The British Isles including Britain, all of Ireland, the Shetlands, Hebrides etc etc.

Yep. Exactly. I think that doesn't contradict what JDAW said. But the term 'British Isles' is not much liked by many in Ireland (as you must know), and not only those of a strongly republican persuasion!

What Daniel described strikes at the root of the problem. I am quite certain that the great unwashed element in the Yes camp will believe that being an in independent Scot means not having to be British.