Bookies carry out polls too – the fact that the books are not closed should tell you there is a degree of uncertainty out there.

Book makers don’t issue odds to be an accurate prediction of the election result, they issue them to even up the spread of bets on their books. Their aim is to make the payout, which ever way the election turns out, to be less than their total income. This is how they make profits. If they have a lot of Labour win payouts, they’ll make the conservative win odds look good to attract punters, so evening their odds.

From your later post:

“– but 5 years down the line the Scottish people have a much stronger Parliament of their own …”

Not so, nothing has changed in five years.

“The loud voices for an English Parliament will grow louder and louder.”

From my perspective, I can only say what the lawyers so often say. “That, is a matter for them.”

“I believe in the Union but this has been forced on us by Blair in the first instance.”

John Curtice is of the opinion that one of Margaret Thatcher’s only three enduring achievements is that she persuaded the Scots of the merits of devolution.

We like it. It works. Why then should we not have it?

The complaints of Yariv and others above do not apply in Scotland. An easy solution for him, is to buy a house in Scotland now. If he is here on the day, the SNP plan to offer him citizenship.

OldNat has it right. 10 SNP at most. The most significant outcome in the results (possibly more significant even than who is PM for the next two years)is hinted at in his last comment.

A 5% swing from demoralised out of office Labour fighting among themselves in an early second election is the ideal scenario for flipping the FTPT jackpot to give the SNP a majority of the Scottish seats and 15 more than their proportionate share next time round.

The consequences of that are far reaching.

If I’m wrong, and the SNP get more than 10 seats then the swing would be more achievable, even easy in the circumstances.