Good morning, despite my post Burns night hangover!
I think that ALP is mosty right. It is not that our economic masters influence how voters vote, it is that their influence is exerted on the politicians elected. These politicians are so constrained by the rules of economics that the change of govt makes little difference.
So an Independent Scotland in a currency union would have its economic policy decided by London. Or Frankfurt if in a Euro-currency union. Independence would be a chimera.
I have my money on a Yes vote, and that would have a very interesting effect on the 2015 election.
AveryLP [9.56am] Politics today is all about economic outcomes. If the markets aren't behind you failure is inevitable.
If that's true, why do we bother with all the expense of politicians and elections? Couldn't a committee of technocrats do just as well - or better since the markets wouldn't have to allow for political interference?
Shock horror a Scottish person lives in Bath. Where do all the NO campaign contributors live, we do Dacre and the owners of the DM live and are any of them likely to be eligible to vote pray tell.
A saddening poll from ICM. But with the worryingly brilliant Salmond in charge anything is possible. I do hope the Scots stay - but if I were Scots would probably be in the Yes camp - Scotland is a very viable nation state with a incredibly diverse economy.
ICM may be the gold standard but we all know that it, like all pollsters, can produce outliers. The Con-Lab even poll last year being a obvious recent example.
If the ICM poll remains uncorroborated by other pollsters there will be no establishment panic on the Scottish Referendum.
If we do see a series of polls indicating the gap closing to parity, then reactions will escalate. The first real panic will come from the markets and those global corporates with a heavy exposure to Scotland. Inbound investment decisions will be deferred, exchange rates and bond yields will become volatile and capital flight from Scottish banking institutions will start.
At present the Scottish economy is recovering well with excellent recent employment figures (for the Edinburgh area in particular). A safe "no" expectation with sufficient "yes" support to ensure further devolution remains on the agenda is the only way to ensure this recovery builds.
Politics today is all about economic outcomes. If the markets aren't behind you failure is inevitable.
Avery they have been spouting that for years, inward investment is still rising, for sure it will get dirty though.
It will get dirty if expectations for the outcome of the referendum change.
Still that would make the run-up to the referendum vote much more fun.
Not so sure Westminster intervention would be of the jolly type.
Mr. Easterross, minor point really, but is Scotch viewed with the same sort of annoyance/contempt as the term 'provinces' when used by cretins like Cable to refer to non-Home Counties/London England?
That bloody annoys me. I don't live in bloody Gallia Narbonensis.
MD referring to us as "Scotch" is considered deeply insulting and as inappropriate as the 18th century reference to everywhere north of Durham and Carlisle as "North Britain".
Interesting point from Edin_Rokz ont'last thread. When "clever puntahs" said that Levenson would be imposed into English Law by January did they ever specify which year that would be...?
Hmmm - the first part of the Herdson Prophecy comes a little closer....
I too have said for a while that Scottish independence is a distinct possibility. But I have also said that the case for independence has been poorly thought out. And Salmond's poor effort this week in handling questions about the Ryder Cup jolly could yet be the fly in the ointment. There is not much point in asking the voters to go with your Braveheart New World if it has the appearance of a shiny new country but with the same old troughing politicians just looking out for themselves and their cronies.
But good luck to the Scots. If it does happen, then we could be looking at a horribly uncertain period of rUK government, perhaps with a Prime Minister Miliband robbed of a chunk of his MP's part way through his term, probably when Labour's inevitable economic meltdown mean that his party's polling has gone through the mid-term floor. Not a time to lose a confidence motion and have to go to the country....
In what way did he not handle the questions, the government is hardly likely to publish the expenses of 17 government employees just because Labour cannot estimate the cost of accommodation and meals for a number of days.
Mr. Easterross, minor point really, but is Scotch viewed with the same sort of annoyance/contempt as the term 'provinces' when used by cretins like Cable to refer to non-Home Counties/London England?
That bloody annoys me. I don't live in bloody Gallia Narbonensis.
MD referring to us as "Scotch" is considered deeply insulting and as inappropriate as the 18th century reference to everywhere north of Durham and Carlisle as "North Britain".
James Boswell always faithfully recorded Dr. Johnson as referring to North Britons as Scotch, Easterross.
What I think is not being fully picked up by the polling is the class differences on the referendum. Among professional people that I know and meet discussion of the referendum is fairly desultory. I know 2 people who are going to vote yes. It is way over 90% against.
But there are clearly other groups in society that are almost as strongly in favour. As a Unionist I hope that differential turnout will favour no but I do think it will be close.
Yawn, endangered species says my chums are all for the union , these peasants are a real nuisance and will soon be asking for the vote. Dear Dear have a look in the mirror, it is dolts like you that are making sure it will be YES.
Feeling grumpy again this morning Malcolm? Cheer up, it is a good poll for you.
What I think is not being fully picked up by the polling is the class differences on the referendum. Among professional people that I know and meet discussion of the referendum is fairly desultory. I know 2 people who are going to vote yes. It is way over 90% against.
But there are clearly other groups in society that are almost as strongly in favour. As a Unionist I hope that differential turnout will favour no but I do think it will be close.
Yawn, endangered species says my chums are all for the union , these peasants are a real nuisance and will soon be asking for the vote. Dear Dear have a look in the mirror, it is dolts like you that are making sure it will be YES.
And here was I thinking you were an aristocrat brought low by a drink, malcolm.
I'm most disappointed.
Avery , I do partake of a refreshment now and again but am never laid low by it. A gentleman should know when he has had enough. I had to practice for many years to understand this but am fairly expert at it nowadays.
Fear not Unionists. Those of you who haven't had to change your knickers can untwist your current pair. Bettertogether have unleashed their game changer:
The one thing which is clear when watching current affairs in Scotland, the media is almost exclusively an organ of the Scottish Labour Party. From their expensive Kelvindale flats (Scotland's equivalent to the Islington set) and through the prism of their rioja glasses in their favourite Byres Road hostelries they hanker for the glory days of the 1970s when they held considerable influence over their family members who had gone into the bear pit which is the Scottish Labour Party's corridors of power. Those were the days when all Glasgow's Labour councillors lived in wards served by Tory councillors.
We don't care much either way. It will make England more Tory, and I suppose that's probably a good thing, going by the latest tax nonsense from miliband. Apart from that - *big shrug*
And yet your first posts on here have been about Scottish Independence and its effect on UK politics. A strange psychological conundrum...
What I think is not being fully picked up by the polling is the class differences on the referendum. Among professional people that I know and meet discussion of the referendum is fairly desultory. I know 2 people who are going to vote yes. It is way over 90% against.
But there are clearly other groups in society that are almost as strongly in favour. As a Unionist I hope that differential turnout will favour no but I do think it will be close.
Yawn, endangered species says my chums are all for the union , these peasants are a real nuisance and will soon be asking for the vote. Dear Dear have a look in the mirror, it is dolts like you that are making sure it will be YES.
Feeling grumpy again this morning Malcolm? Cheer up, it is a good poll for you.
Morning David, I am a happy chap this morning, weather excluded. You Tory boys need to up your game quick. You will need serious changes to get to the top table after September. Start will be a few MSP's with intelligence , serious clear out of the 3rd raters in place just now, and given only a redundant Mundell from Westminster available then the job will be more difficult than cleaning the Aegean stables. One hopes that some clever people are looking at it but suspect it is unlikely given those orders will not have been phoned in from London.
Fear not Unionists. Those of you who haven't had to change your knickers can untwist your current pair. Bettertogether have unleashed their game changer:
Mr. Pork, none of the major parties are impressive, but some are worse than others.
Yeah well, Cammie gave a Cast Iron Pledge for a Lisbon Referendum and we all know how that turned out. I expect his backbenchers will not be perturbed in the slightest in the run up to the EU elections. Not with that terribly clever wheeze of an EU Referendum Bill that will put all their minds at ease so they know they can trust Cammie yet again.
Don't tell Porkers! Cammie's pledge was based on the Labour legislation not yet being in force. By the time he entered No 10 Brown had pushed it through so there could not be a referendum on potential legislation which was no longer potential but in force.
So, I just imagined the 1975 EEC Referendum? I "dreamt" it was after the European Communties Act 1972 had passed. (Clue in the title).
Why do Cameroons *insist* on treating Eurosceptics as idiots.
What I think is not being fully picked up by the polling is the class differences on the referendum. Among professional people that I know and meet discussion of the referendum is fairly desultory. I know 2 people who are going to vote yes. It is way over 90% against.
But there are clearly other groups in society that are almost as strongly in favour. As a Unionist I hope that differential turnout will favour no but I do think it will be close.
Yawn, endangered species says my chums are all for the union , these peasants are a real nuisance and will soon be asking for the vote. Dear Dear have a look in the mirror, it is dolts like you that are making sure it will be YES.
Feeling grumpy again this morning Malcolm? Cheer up, it is a good poll for you.
Morning David, I am a happy chap this morning, weather excluded. You Tory boys need to up your game quick. You will need serious changes to get to the top table after September. Start will be a few MSP's with intelligence , serious clear out of the 3rd raters in place just now, and given only a redundant Mundell from Westminster available then the job will be more difficult than cleaning the Aegean stables. One hopes that some clever people are looking at it but suspect it is unlikely given those orders will not have been phoned in from London.
It will be interesting to see if Richard Keen can lift the Scottish tory game. He has easily been the best Dean in my time at the bar and does not tolerate fools at all.
The one thing which is clear when watching current affairs in Scotland, the media is almost exclusively an organ of the Scottish Labour Party. From their expensive Kelvindale flats (Scotland's equivalent to the Islington set) and through the prism of their rioja glasses in their favourite Byres Road hostelries they hanker for the glory days of the 1970s when they held considerable influence over their family members who had gone into the bear pit which is the Scottish Labour Party's corridors of power. Those were the days when all Glasgow's Labour councillors lived in wards served by Tory councillors.
Next you'll be telling us Kirsty Wark used to go on holiday with previous SLAB First Minister Jack McConnell and was close friends with Donald Dewar.
Shock horror a Scottish person lives in Bath. Where do all the NO campaign contributors live, we do Dacre and the owners of the DM live and are any of them likely to be eligible to vote pray tell.
Amusingly Dacre has a 15,000 acre estate outside Ullapool so perhaps he will have a vote. Even funnier, up to the end of 2012 he'd had over 300,000 Euros in subsidies from the EU for it. The EU gravytrain isn't just for Europhiles, as UKIP MEPs will testify.
What I think is not being fully picked up by the polling is the class differences on the referendum. Among professional people that I know and meet discussion of the referendum is fairly desultory. I know 2 people who are going to vote yes. It is way over 90% against.
But there are clearly other groups in society that are almost as strongly in favour. As a Unionist I hope that differential turnout will favour no but I do think it will be close.
Yawn, endangered species says my chums are all for the union , these peasants are a real nuisance and will soon be asking for the vote. Dear Dear have a look in the mirror, it is dolts like you that are making sure it will be YES.
Feeling grumpy again this morning Malcolm? Cheer up, it is a good poll for you.
Morning David, I am a happy chap this morning, weather excluded. You Tory boys need to up your game quick. You will need serious changes to get to the top table after September. Start will be a few MSP's with intelligence , serious clear out of the 3rd raters in place just now, and given only a redundant Mundell from Westminster available then the job will be more difficult than cleaning the Aegean stables. One hopes that some clever people are looking at it but suspect it is unlikely given those orders will not have been phoned in from London.
It will be interesting to see if Richard Keen can lift the Scottish tory game. He has easily been the best Dean in my time at the bar and does not tolerate fools at all.
Yet to see any improvement. They need to get away from being London puppets. Davidson is absolutely dire , Alex has it easy given all 3 opposition party leaders are absolute turnips who could not come up with an original thought between them.
Presumably if YES wins it also transforms the outcome for the 2015 election as England and Wales will be voting the government that will give them the best settlement from Scotland.
Nice to see the 50p tax rate still up there bothering the PB Hodges. Just like the Energy Freeze, it will resonate with the vast majority of voters and be in the political headlines for months. Now we just need the Tory Party to formulate a rushed government policy on the hoof and not tell the Lib Dems and we can have de ja vu.
Meanwhile on planet earth the polling crossover goalposts get picked back up and taken for another wander.
When Labour announce a policy that the PB Hodges do not like it is economically illiterate and pure political populism.
When the Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon announces a policy just hours before a Labour speech that six days earlier he denounced as "self defeating".....he is a political master strategist.
Mr. Pork, none of the major parties are impressive, but some are worse than others.
Yeah well, Cammie gave a Cast Iron Pledge for a Lisbon Referendum and we all know how that turned out. I expect his backbenchers will not be perturbed in the slightest in the run up to the EU elections. Not with that terribly clever wheeze of an EU Referendum Bill that will put all their minds at ease so they know they can trust Cammie yet again.
Don't tell Porkers! Cammie's pledge was based on the Labour legislation not yet being in force. By the time he entered No 10 Brown had pushed it through so there could not be a referendum on potential legislation which was no longer potential but in force.
So, I just imagined the 1975 EEC Referendum? I "dreamt" it was after the European Communties Act 1972 had passed. (Clue in the title).
Why do Cameroons *insist* on treating Eurosceptics as idiots.
Perhaps because *some* of them are idiots. For instance, anyone comparing the two cases; the 1975 referendum was on membership of the EEC; the other on the Lisbon Treaty, *not* EU membership. The latter ship sailed after a certain Gordon Brown skulked in through the rear door to sign it.
For instance: the Irish vote on the Lisbon treaty was nothing to do with leaving the EU, just on the treaty itself. That seems to be what Cameron was offering before Brown's cowardice.
Shock horror a Scottish person lives in Bath. Where do all the NO campaign contributors live, we do Dacre and the owners of the DM live and are any of them likely to be eligible to vote pray tell.
Amusingly Dacre has a 15,000 acre estate outside Ullapool so perhaps he will have a vote.
One he spent a small fortune trying to make paparazzi proof. I wonder why?
Interesting that we start to see the gap closing following the improvements in the economy. I wonder if there are two points in play here.
First that as the economy improves Scots might feel more confident that their country can be successful economically after independence. Certainly if people are slightly less worried about where the money ios coming from they will have more time to consider - probably in a favourable light - other issues that might not have been so important to them in the past.
Secondly I wonder if there is the thought in the back of their minds that an improving economy - particularly one that seems to be improving so rapidly - makes a Tory majority at the next GE more likely. It was always said that the as the chances of a Tory government improved so did the support for an independent Scotland and I wonder if we are starting to see that in play now.
Still, it is only one poll but if it is reflected in other polls going forward then the improving economic outlook for the UK and potentially a greater chance of a Tory government should (I believe) give Unionists cause for concern.
Mr. Pork, none of the major parties are impressive, but some are worse than others.
Yeah well, Cammie gave a Cast Iron Pledge for a Lisbon Referendum and we all know how that turned out. I expect his backbenchers will not be perturbed in the slightest in the run up to the EU elections. Not with that terribly clever wheeze of an EU Referendum Bill that will put all their minds at ease so they know they can trust Cammie yet again.
Don't tell Porkers! Cammie's pledge was based on the Labour legislation not yet being in force. By the time he entered No 10 Brown had pushed it through so there could not be a referendum on potential legislation which was no longer potential but in force.
So, I just imagined the 1975 EEC Referendum? I "dreamt" it was after the European Communties Act 1972 had passed. (Clue in the title).
Why do Cameroons *insist* on treating Eurosceptics as idiots.
Perhaps because *some* of them are idiots. For instance, anyone comparing the two cases; the 1975 referendum was on membership of the EEC; the other on the Lisbon Treaty, *not* EU membership. The latter ship sailed after a certain Gordon Brown skulked in through the rear door to sign it.
For instance: the Irish vote on the Lisbon treaty was nothing to do with leaving the EU, just on the treaty itself. That seems to be what Cameron was offering before Brown's cowardice.
Only arch-idiots would compare the two.
And there's my thinking that the European Communities Act 1972 was the incorporation of the Treaty of Rome into British law.
Another international treaty would be just the same.
Also, has anybody figured out why Cameroons are so abusive towards people they supposedly are seeking to persuade, whenever they a make well-founded point?
Interesting that we start to see the gap closing following the improvements in the economy. I wonder if there are two points in play here.
First that as the economy improves Scots might feel more confident that their country can be successful economically after independence. Certainly if people are slightly less worried about where the money ios coming from they will have more time to consider - probably in a favourable light - other issues that might not have been so important to them in the past.
Secondly I wonder if there is the thought in the back of their minds that an improving economy - particularly one that seems to be improving so rapidly - makes a Tory majority at the next GE more likely. It was always said that the as the chances of a Tory government improved so did the support for an independent Scotland and I wonder if we are starting to see that in play now.
Still, it is only one poll but if it is reflected in other polls going forward then the improving economic outlook for the UK and potentially a greater chance of a Tory government should (I believe) give Unionists cause for concern.
Mr. Pork, none of the major parties are impressive, but some are worse than others.
Yeah well, Cammie gave a Cast Iron Pledge for a Lisbon Referendum and we all know how that turned out. I expect his backbenchers will not be perturbed in the slightest in the run up to the EU elections. Not with that terribly clever wheeze of an EU Referendum Bill that will put all their minds at ease so they know they can trust Cammie yet again.
Don't tell Porkers! Cammie's pledge was based on the Labour legislation not yet being in force. By the time he entered No 10 Brown had pushed it through so there could not be a referendum on potential legislation which was no longer potential but in force.
So, I just imagined the 1975 EEC Referendum? I "dreamt" it was after the European Communties Act 1972 had passed. (Clue in the title).
Why do Cameroons *insist* on treating Eurosceptics as idiots.
Perhaps because *some* of them are idiots. For instance, anyone comparing the two cases; the 1975 referendum was on membership of the EEC; the other on the Lisbon Treaty, *not* EU membership. The latter ship sailed after a certain Gordon Brown skulked in through the rear door to sign it.
For instance: the Irish vote on the Lisbon treaty was nothing to do with leaving the EU, just on the treaty itself. That seems to be what Cameron was offering before Brown's cowardice.
Only arch-idiots would compare the two.
Only arch-idiot Cameroons would believe that Cameron was not in a position to offer a vote and then use that as the basis for his negotiations with the EU going forward. Imagine how much stronger a position he would be in now if he already had a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty under his belt.
No one has suggested that a post ratification no vote on Lisbon would have meant we immediately stopped adhering to its clauses. But Cameron could have made it clear it would be used to pressurize the EU in just the sort of negotiations he is now planning on having - but now from a position of no power what so ever.
A Lisbon referendum with the Tories campaigning against would also have utterly undermined UKIP and would probably see Cameron in a far better position than he is now. That is without the strong possibility that if he had not reneged on the promise before the election he may well have had a small working majority now.
I love the way (quite rightly) that Mike waged himself a few hundred quid early today before posting news of the poll on the site!
"Don't knows" may give a view when pressed, but will they vote? Experience suggests that those who don't know enough about what they think don't care enough to vote.
Even so, long-term, Scotland's place in the UK (or not) will depend upon whether they feel, in any sense, "British" or not. All independence campaigns ultimately come down to self-identity and with what/whom you feel emotional and cultural affinity.
I feel that 'Better Together' is missing the point. This issue will never go away unless a majority of Scots feel affinity with their fellow Britons and the rest of the UK. There is an emotional argument to be made on the strength of our common bonds, culture and destiny as united Britons - but I worry no-one is making it.
Even if Scotland should vote YES in 2014, one couldn't just debar Scottish constituencies of seats in 2015. Negotiations could still fail to lead to independence - say, if early Scottish elections and a Unionist government taking over negotiations. It may be a Tory dream but NO is in my opinion clearly a better result for Cameron, as outside the world of anti-Labour political nerds, he will be more readily blamed for losing Scotland than some Scottish Labour Party people unknown to 99% of England.
They do indeed and I still think that is the most likely outcome.
But continuing good news on the economy has a strong chance of eroding that Labour lead and, as I don't for a second consider Scots to be stupid, they can see that as the economy improves there is greater chance of the Tories turning things around.
All I am saying is that that may be a driver for improved Nationalist support and if it is then the Unionist should be worried.
It was always said that the as the chances of a Tory government improved so did the support for an independent Scotland and I wonder if we are starting to see that in play now.
That's a good point. No wonder Labour want to keep the economy in tatters.
Unless you are a Scot who does have a British identity it's hard to see why you would vote No to independence. It's a chance to start again. I feel British, work with people from all parts of the UK and culturally, socially and in almost every other "ly" I can think of see no real difference between us, and as someone on the centre left I instinctively recoil at the idea of seeking to create differences that do not really exist based on a line on a map, but if I were up in Scotland I suspect that I would feel somewhat differently. Seen from there, there is a chance to get rid of the dominant place the SE of England has economically and politically in the UK, and to create something new. Why wouldn't you take it, even if it does leave you slightly worse off in the short term?
And there's my thinking that the European Communities Act 1972 was the incorporation of the Treaty of Rome into British law.
Another international treaty would be just the same.
Also, has anybody figured out why Cameroons are so abusive towards people they supposedly are seeking to persuade, whenever they a make well-founded point?
The difference is quite simple (in my view):
(1) in 1975 a vote against membership would have resulted in us leaving the EEC. Clean and simple
(2) Pre-Lisbon a vote against would have resulted in a renegotiation of the treaty and (presumably) a re-vote as has happened on several occasions in the past (in other countries)
(3) Post-Lisbon, a vote against would have required us to repudiate a signed treaty. Now clearly this is possible as a sovereign country (albeit not without political cost). However, the status quo ante no longer existed : there was no pre-Lisbon EU for us to go back to. So effectively it would be a vote against membership on the terms - but probably would not have given Cameron a sufficient mandate to actively leave the EU. The result: limbo, confusion and probably market and political turmoil.
Perhaps you can explain what you think the consequences of a vote against Lisbon after the Treaty had been signed would/should have been?
The swing is entirely confined to those voters aged less than 44. Amongst those 25-44 support for independence (once the Don’t Knows are excluded) is up by six points from 43% to 49%. Amongst those aged 16-24 it has jumped from 24% to 57%. In contrast, the figures for those aged 45 and over are almost exactly the same as last time. Here we should note that the younger the voter the more difficult they are to get to participate in a poll (even when, as in this case, the poll is conducted online). In this instance ICM were only able to interview half as many 16-24 year olds as they wanted to. Although this deficit has been overcome by upweighting every 16-24 year old in the poll so that they count as two persons rather than one, it means the poll’s estimate of how this group will behave is based on a particularly small sample and thus can be very volatile – as appears to be true in this instance.
Mr. Pork, none of the major parties are impressive, but some are worse than others.
Yeah well, Cammie gave a Cast Iron Pledge for a Lisbon Referendum and we all know how that turned out. I expect his backbenchers will not be perturbed in the slightest in the run up to the EU elections. Not with that terribly clever wheeze of an EU Referendum Bill that will put all their minds at ease so they know they can trust Cammie yet again.
Don't tell Porkers! Cammie's pledge was based on the Labour legislation not yet being in force. By the time he entered No 10 Brown had pushed it through so there could not be a referendum on potential legislation which was no longer potential but in force.
So, I just imagined the 1975 EEC Referendum? I "dreamt" it was after the European Communties Act 1972 had passed. (Clue in the title).
Why do Cameroons *insist* on treating Eurosceptics as idiots.
Perhaps because *some* of them are idiots. For instance, anyone comparing the two cases; the 1975 referendum was on membership of the EEC; the other on the Lisbon Treaty, *not* EU membership. The latter ship sailed after a certain Gordon Brown skulked in through the rear door to sign it.
For instance: the Irish vote on the Lisbon treaty was nothing to do with leaving the EU, just on the treaty itself. That seems to be what Cameron was offering before Brown's cowardice.
Only arch-idiots would compare the two.
Only arch-idiot Cameroons would believe that Cameron was not in a position to offer a vote and then use that as the basis for his negotiations with the EU going forward. Imagine how much stronger a position he would be in now if he already had a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty under his belt.
No one has suggested that a post ratification no vote on Lisbon would have meant we immediately stopped adhering to its clauses. But Cameron could have made it clear it would be used to pressurize the EU in just the sort of negotiations he is now planning on having - but now from a position of no power what so ever.
A Lisbon referendum with the Tories campaigning against would also have utterly undermined UKIP and would probably see Cameron in a far better position than he is now. That is without the strong possibility that if he had not reneged on the promise before the election he may well have had a small working majority now.
The man is incompetent.
If the people had voted against Lisbon, there is no way that Cameron could have continued to abide by the treaty. Can you imagine how strong UKIP would be right now if he had tried?
Mr. Pork, none of the major parties are impressive, but some are worse than others.
Yeah well, Cammie gave a Cast Iron Pledge for a Lisbon Referendum and we all know how that turned out. I expect his backbenchers will not be perturbed in the slightest in the run up to the EU elections. Not with that terribly clever wheeze of an EU Referendum Bill that will put all their minds at ease so they know they can trust Cammie yet again.
Don't tell Porkers! Cammie's pledge was based on the Labour legislation not yet being in force. By the time he entered No 10 Brown had pushed it through so there could not be a referendum on potential legislation which was no longer potential but in force.
So, I just imagined the 1975 EEC Referendum? I "dreamt" it was after the European Communties Act 1972 had passed. (Clue in the title).
Why do Cameroons *insist* on treating Eurosceptics as idiots.
Perhaps because *some* of them are idiots. For instance, anyone comparing the two cases; the 1975 referendum was on membership of the EEC; the other on the Lisbon Treaty, *not* EU membership. The latter ship sailed after a certain Gordon Brown skulked in through the rear door to sign it.
For instance: the Irish vote on the Lisbon treaty was nothing to do with leaving the EU, just on the treaty itself. That seems to be what Cameron was offering before Brown's cowardice.
Only arch-idiots would compare the two.
And there's my thinking that the European Communities Act 1972 was the incorporation of the Treaty of Rome into British law.
Another international treaty would be just the same.
Also, has anybody figured out why Cameroons are so abusive towards people they supposedly are seeking to persuade, whenever they a make well-founded point?
Let's put it in another way. A family is a member of a club. Some members want to leave, so they have a vote. That is the equivalent of the 1975 vote, and is similar to the Scottish Independence referendum.
A few years later the club wants to bring in some controversial rules. The family wants a vote on the new rules (as the Irish family down the road had), but the family's patriarch signs the new rules into force. Having a vote after that is pointless and irrelevant: the new rules are in force.
As for your last point: you said: "Why do Cameroons *insist* on treating Eurosceptics as idiots.". Well, I'm just answering your question. And I'm not even a Cameroon.
I think that a post Yes vote rUK poll would change noticeably, so we cannot extrapolate too easily.
Quite how this would break, and to which party would be an interesting thread.
I think that the English attitude to the Indyref is largely one of distancing rather than indifference. I am mildly pro Union myself, but If Scotland votes for independence will lose no sleep over it. When it comes to the division of assets and liabilities it may well be that parties with a hardline approach on behalf of the rUK position that will benefit the most. I am not clear which party would be most capable of this.
They do indeed and I still think that is the most likely outcome.
But continuing good news on the economy has a strong chance of eroding that Labour lead and, as I don't for a second consider Scots to be stupid, they can see that as the economy improves there is greater chance of the Tories turning things around.
All I am saying is that that may be a driver for improved Nationalist support and if it is then the Unionist should be worried.
On another note, a magnificent achievement by England to throw that game away. Poor old James Tredwell, he looked like he was going to be sick when he walked out there.
If changing EU treaties require the agreement from all EU members, then trying to negotiate changes in terms is laughable - those other countries will demand something in return.
Equally laughable is the attempt to persuade UKIP supporters to switch to the Tories after:
1. Reneging on the promise of a Lisbon referendum already. 2. Not going to win a majority to carry out that promise (sound familiar?) 3. Proving in the AV referendum it is virtually impossible to win a referendum when the incumbent government is against it.
As for incompetence, has Cameron ever run anything?
Apart from the Conservative Party into the ground, that is.
Interesting feature of YouGov is that there's a big jump in net confidence in the economy (+8 net) and a smaller one for Cameron (+3), but neither has had a visible effect on voting intention. What I think is happening is that Tory voters are becoming more positively satisfied (rather than just feeling they're crap but at least they're not Labour), but the coalition of 2010 Lab and 2010 ex-LDs remains unmoved.
Rennard viewed fairly criticially, again more so anong older voters, but Clegg's handling gets the thumbs down as well. Also an amusing set of questions asking if voters find various models sexy - the bemused panel of politics nerds respond "Who?" in large numbers.
You need to follow my engineering materials analogy for poll movements: there is a limited amount of elasticity as load (news) is applied, and then the movements become plastic when enough load is exerted. If not enough load is exerted, the movements mostly springs back.
It's not as simple as one bit of news 'causing' a shift: we're human, and we see patterns everywhere and love cause and effect (even when we get it wrong). It's easy to say 'this bit of news caused this movement', and you hear people shout this even when the polling occurred before the news. Or to look at a piece of news and say 'this hasn't caused a movement'.
If my theory is right, what is needed is a series of positive news stories bang-bang-bang-bang at the right intervals - the public find it hard to ignore one story, but a series of consecutive stories creates a mood and can alter behaviour. Then when the 'snap' from elastic to plastic does occur, we psephologists tend to blame the last bang only, not the cumulative effect.
If the delay between the news is too long, the plastic hinge never develops.
Naturally, the other sides also try to get this sort of effect, so you have competing materials, perhaps in a bi-metal. But that's stretching the analogy too far ...
As I said before, we need a Young's Modulues for polling. ;-)
But creep under load might be an alternative analogy. It's easier to vote no than yes if one doesn't think too much about it and has to give an answer on the spot. But if one does think, then the problems with no become apparent (it's not going to give the status quo, despite the impression the No campaign like to give) and one gets more used to the pros and cons of voting Yes and more familiar with it and so more likely to vote yes than before. This will give a ratchet effect as time goes on - and right now people don't have to make up their minds just yet either.
I'd still like to see other polls confirm this first though!
Only arch-idiot Cameroons would believe that Cameron was not in a position to offer a vote and then use that as the basis for his negotiations with the EU going forward. Imagine how much stronger a position he would be in now if he already had a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty under his belt.
No one has suggested that a post ratification no vote on Lisbon would have meant we immediately stopped adhering to its clauses. But Cameron could have made it clear it would be used to pressurize the EU in just the sort of negotiations he is now planning on having - but now from a position of no power what so ever.
A Lisbon referendum with the Tories campaigning against would also have utterly undermined UKIP and would probably see Cameron in a far better position than he is now. That is without the strong possibility that if he had not reneged on the promise before the election he may well have had a small working majority now.
The man is incompetent.
The AV referendum cost at least £80 million; the Irish referendum cost 22 million Euros for under five million people.
You would have had us spent £80 million or more on a moot point? Now that would have been incompetence, and would have handed a massive stick for the opposition to beat Cameron with.
In addition, a 'yes' vote was quite possible. If that had happened, the cause of getting out of Europe would have died for at least a decade.
You are letting your desire for a referendum to get in the way of common sense.
Only arch-idiot Cameroons would believe that Cameron was not in a position to offer a vote and then use that as the basis for his negotiations with the EU going forward. Imagine how much stronger a position he would be in now if he already had a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty under his belt.
No one has suggested that a post ratification no vote on Lisbon would have meant we immediately stopped adhering to its clauses. But Cameron could have made it clear it would be used to pressurize the EU in just the sort of negotiations he is now planning on having - but now from a position of no power what so ever.
A Lisbon referendum with the Tories campaigning against would also have utterly undermined UKIP and would probably see Cameron in a far better position than he is now. That is without the strong possibility that if he had not reneged on the promise before the election he may well have had a small working majority now.
The man is incompetent.
Richard, on a narrow point:
Cameron's undertaking to his EU partners not to use Brexit as a threat during negotiations is an indication that the negotiations are getting serious not that he has conceded bargaining power.
Anyone familiar with international negotiations, particularly of a diplomatic nature, will know that you will never get counterparties to open up voluntarily if you hold a gun to their heads.
Such talks nearly always begin with 'talks about talks' which define the terms and conditions for negotiations. 'No preconditions' or 'a blank sheet of paper' is the cliche pften used to describe the pre-agreeement.
Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't a gun. Just that it is kept locked in a cupboard and not acknowledged as being present during the talks.
Er. Hasn't Cameron been running the coalition govt for more than three years?
While he will not go down in history as the centuries greatest PM, neither will he go down as the worst. Indeed of the three PMs of this century I would say he is in pole position.
If changing EU treaties require the agreement from all EU members, then trying to negotiate changes in terms is laughable - those other countries will demand something in return.
Equally laughable is the attempt to persuade UKIP supporters to switch to the Tories after:
1. Reneging on the promise of a Lisbon referendum already. 2. Not going to win a majority to carry out that promise (sound familiar?) 3. Proving in the AV referendum it is virtually impossible to win a referendum when the incumbent government is against it.
As for incompetence, has Cameron ever run anything?
Apart from the Conservative Party into the ground, that is.
On topic: I think scepticism on this poll is called for. If the effect is entirely due to a small sample of youngsters, scaled up because they couldn't find many bothered enough to give an opinion, the change may not be statistically significant.
They do indeed and I still think that is the most likely outcome.
But continuing good news on the economy has a strong chance of eroding that Labour lead and, as I don't for a second consider Scots to be stupid, they can see that as the economy improves there is greater chance of the Tories turning things around.
All I am saying is that that may be a driver for improved Nationalist support and if it is then the Unionist should be worried.
As well as that: 1. EWNI leaving the EU would become both more likely (due to both pro-EU voters among those who secede, and increased sense of regional isolation among those who don't) and more awkward (two long-term land frontiers for the first time since the Irish Confederate Wars, and independence movements in the rest of the EU threatening the stability of the other negotiator, even if only through economic speculation about rSpain, rBelgium etc). 2. The Unionists, as they used to be uniquely known before the referendum, would feel even more of a siege mentality than usual when their two nearest neighbours become foreign powers.
I think that a post Yes vote rUK poll would change noticeably, so we cannot extrapolate too easily.
Quite how this would break, and to which party would be an interesting thread.
I think that the English attitude to the Indyref is largely one of distancing rather than indifference. I am mildly pro Union myself, but If Scotland votes for independence will lose no sleep over it. When it comes to the division of assets and liabilities it may well be that parties with a hardline approach on behalf of the rUK position that will benefit the most. I am not clear which party would be most capable of this.
I think we are talking at cross purposes Fox. I agree entirely that we cannot know what a rUK would look like politically. I am only talking about the current improving economy and its effects on the chances of a Tory majority in 2015 and what effect that has on Scottish perceptions of the value or otherwise of independence.
Personally I am a strongly pro Scottish Independence Englishman as a result of my dislike for centralized government in almost any form. I do like the idea of a successful independent neighbour with whom I suspect relations would be far better than they are currently.
I am not sure what effect if any it would have on me working up here in Scotland (and yes annoyingly I am in the office in Aberdeen on a Sunday morning :-( ) but life is full of uncertainties and I don't really see it is going to make that much difference.
I think Mr Fox is quite right; post "Yes" English (and Welsh) politics will be soon be very different from what we see today. Apart from anything else, Labour will have to think carefully about how it's going to get back into Government. Re-alignment of the Centre?
Even if Scotland should vote YES in 2014, one couldn't just debar Scottish constituencies of seats in 2015. Negotiations could still fail to lead to independence - say, if early Scottish elections and a Unionist government taking over negotiations. It may be a Tory dream but NO is in my opinion clearly a better result for Cameron, as outside the world of anti-Labour political nerds, he will be more readily blamed for losing Scotland than some Scottish Labour Party people unknown to 99% of England.
On Cowdenbeath, the Labour argument wat that the SNP lost because they were too focused on the constitution. But that argument assumes that the Scots can tell the difference between a by election and a constitutional referendum - and therefore has the corollary that they will vote differently in the referendum, as indeed the SNP's polling at Cowdenbeath indicated.
Alastair Darling is the front man for Labour against indy. I couldn't possibly judge, livng where I do, but posters from south of the border will be able to advise if Mr Darling is already unknown to all but 1% of the English voting public ...
You need to follow my engineering materials analogy for poll movements: there is a limited amount of elasticity as load (news) is applied, and then the movements become plastic when enough load is exerted. If not enough load is exerted, the movements mostly springs back.
It's not as simple as one bit of news 'causing' a shift: we're human, and we see patterns everywhere and love cause and effect (even when we get it wrong). It's easy to say 'this bit of news caused this movement', and you hear people shout this even when the polling occurred before the news. Or to look at a piece of news and say 'this hasn't caused a movement'.
If my theory is right, what is needed is a series of positive news stories bang-bang-bang-bang at the right intervals - the public find it hard to ignore one story, but a series of consecutive stories creates a mood and can alter behaviour. Then when the 'snap' from elastic to plastic does occur, we psephologists tend to blame the last bang only, not the cumulative effect.
If the delay between the news is too long, the plastic hinge never develops.
Naturally, the other sides also try to get this sort of effect, so you have competing materials, perhaps in a bi-metal. But that's stretching the analogy too far ...
As I said before, we need a Young's Modulues for polling. ;-)
But creep under load might be an alternative analogy. It's easier to vote no than yes if one doesn't think too much about it and has to give an answer on the spot. But if one does think, then the problems with no become apparent (it's not going to give the status quo, despite the impression the No campaign like to give) and one gets more used to the pros and cons of voting Yes and more familiar with it and so more likely to vote yes than before. This will give a ratchet effect as time goes on - and right now people don't have to make up their minds just yet either.
I'd still like to see other polls confirm this first though!
I had been wondering how to get creep into my argument. If I get time I want to do some analysis to see if my suspicions hold true - but that's a lot of work.
But I wasn't actually referring to the Scottish referendum vote, but the UK VI.
Unless you are a Scot who does have a British identity it's hard to see why you would vote No to independence. It's a chance to start again. I feel British, work with people from all parts of the UK and culturally, socially and in almost every other "ly" I can think of see no real difference between us, and as someone on the centre left I instinctively recoil at the idea of seeking to create differences that do not really exist based on a line on a map, but if I were up in Scotland I suspect that I would feel somewhat differently. Seen from there, there is a chance to get rid of the dominant place the SE of England has economically and politically in the UK, and to create something new. Why wouldn't you take it, even if it does leave you slightly worse off in the short term?
Based on that argument, the North-East of England would grab the opportunity of independence with open arms. And yet it decisively voted down even a region assembly. England does seem to have a fairly tight identity all-over, although perhaps a little weaker in Cornwall and Yorkshire and the more bolshy Londoners.
The truth is that none of us really have a good "feel" for what Scots think, aside from the enthusiastic nationalists on here, because we don't live in Scotland and aren't Scottish.
I did live in Scotland for 6 years in the 1990s, so my perspective is hopelessly out of date. Even then, though, I saw much through Scottish eyes: Scottish Sun newspaper, BBC Scotland, Scottish news, Scottish education spending, Scottish pounds etc - so there was a very different view. However, as you say, cultural, socially, linguistically (even) it didn't feel very different.
It's also a bit of a myth that they are all hugely left-wing too.
On topic: I think scepticism on this poll is called for. If the effect is entirely due to a small sample of youngsters, scaled up because they couldn't find many bothered enough to give an opinion, the change may not be statistically significant.
Quite. As Mr Kelly, late of this parish, wisely observed if there is another poll showing a similar narrowing, then we are living in more interesting times, if not, it was a blip, to be expected in any polling from time to time......
The one thing which is clear when watching current affairs in Scotland, the media is almost exclusively an organ of the Scottish Labour Party. From their expensive Kelvindale flats (Scotland's equivalent to the Islington set) and through the prism of their rioja glasses in their favourite Byres Road hostelries they hanker for the glory days of the 1970s when they held considerable influence over their family members who had gone into the bear pit which is the Scottish Labour Party's corridors of power. Those were the days when all Glasgow's Labour councillors lived in wards served by Tory councillors.
Next you'll be telling us Kirsty Wark used to go on holiday with previous SLAB First Minister Jack McConnell and was close friends with Donald Dewar.
Yes, I once heard Wark heap ridicule on some SNP election broadcast at the end of Newsnight when she clearly thought the mikes had been switched off. All right, the broadcast was excruciating - blokes in kilts flaunting their enormous manhoods (or wee manhoods in the case of the 'Labour' representative) - but it was nevertheless an appalling dereliction of objective journalistic duty for which Wark should have been roundly rebuked!
If the people had voted against Lisbon, there is no way that Cameron could have continued to abide by the treaty. Can you imagine how strong UKIP would be right now if he had tried?
There is every way he could continue. He could simply refer to international law - even I as a staunch Eurosceptic know the consequences of being bound by international law.
If he had had any nouse at all he could have made clear that he was using the vote as a means of setting out the UK position with regard to the direction of travel of the EU and as the basis for just the sorts of renegotiation he is now suggesting - which also happen to be just the sorts of renegotiations that lots of Cameroons were telling us would be impossible back around the time of the last election. Indeed that was the basis for their whole argument against a Lisbon referendum.
Of course no that their divine leader has decreed that such renegotiation is possible and that it will miraculously happen in a mere 18 months or so after the next election, all the Cameroons are on here declaring what a wonderful idea it is.
It is no wonder the Eurosceptics regard you with bemusement and scorn.
Nice to see the 50p tax rate still up there bothering the PB Hodges. Just like the Energy Freeze, it will resonate with the vast majority of voters and be in the political headlines for months. Now we just need the Tory Party to formulate a rushed government policy on the hoof and not tell the Lib Dems and we can have de ja vu.
Meanwhile on planet earth the polling crossover goalposts get picked back up and taken for another wander.
When Labour announce a policy that the PB Hodges do not like it is economically illiterate and pure political populism.
When the Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon announces a policy just hours before a Labour speech that six days earlier he denounced as "self defeating".....he is a political master strategist.
Welcome to the world of the PB Hodges.
How is raising the tax rate to 50% economically literate! please explain before you skulk off.
Mr. G, it baffles me as to why Scotland would wish to leave sterling and go to the euro. However, if Scotland votes for independence that's a matter for the Scots. But a proposed currency union with the UK is another matter. I fail to see why either you or we should want it.
Depending how negotiations happen, it could occur in return for fiscal constraints and as a bargaining chip on certain matters. Disentangling a 300 year old union would require more than just a couple of years (Faslane and the carriers spring to mind).
The carriers will be pretty much finished by then. Faslane is just a base, which will probably get as much employment or more if sed as a normal naval base (most jobs associated with Trident are inevitably in US, Berkshire, Cumbria, etc., and the crews from all over the UK) and the Trident system is obsolescent so the missile storage facilities will soon be worthless as a bargaining chip, surely? And we discussed the Type 26 ships, if that is what you have in mind, on PB yesterday or the day before - with the perhaps counterintuitive conclusion that EWNI have a lot to lose if they cancel the Glasgow build of the hulls, given the added costs of moving the hull construction and the probable resulting cancellation of the Scottish orders of the EWNI-built equipment for their own Type 26s. Remember that the hulls are only a fraction of the value of the order. But as @JosiasJessop said, politics can get in the way ...
I think that a post Yes vote rUK poll would change noticeably, so we cannot extrapolate too easily.
Quite how this would break, and to which party would be an interesting thread.
I think that the English attitude to the Indyref is largely one of distancing rather than indifference. I am mildly pro Union myself, but If Scotland votes for independence will lose no sleep over it. When it comes to the division of assets and liabilities it may well be that parties with a hardline approach on behalf of the rUK position that will benefit the most. I am not clear which party would be most capable of this.
I think we are talking at cross purposes Fox. I agree entirely that we cannot know what a rUK would look like politically. I am only talking about the current improving economy and its effects on the chances of a Tory majority in 2015 and what effect that has on Scottish perceptions of the value or otherwise of independence.
Personally I am a strongly pro Scottish Independence Englishman as a result of my dislike for centralized government in almost any form. I do like the idea of a successful independent neighbour with whom I suspect relations would be far better than they are currently.
I am not sure what effect if any it would have on me working up here in Scotland (and yes annoyingly I am in the office in Aberdeen on a Sunday morning :-( ) but life is full of uncertainties and I don't really see it is going to make that much difference.
I'm not sure it has any effect on a Conservative majority unless the Scottish voters are disenfranchised come the General Election. I've been assured here by several different well known posters that that won't happen.
The SLAB seats would more likely switch to SNP.
What it does increase I think is the chance of the following:
A Conservative Minority (Scottish members not taking seats), No Overall majority, Labour Minority, Labour-SNP coailition, Conservative-SNP coalition, Conservative-Lib Dem coalition.
I've taken £20 at 4-1 with Betway anyway as its a decent price with this new information.
I think Mr Fox is quite right; post "Yes" English (and Welsh) politics will be soon be very different from what we see today. Apart from anything else, Labour will have to think carefully about how it's going to get back into Government. Re-alignment of the Centre?
I agree. I have always thought that the idea of a permanent Tory majority in a post Independence UK was simplistic and false. There is a chance that the first post- Independence GE might be more favourable to the Tories as it would take time for a re-alignment to happen and for both the parties and the electorate to come to terms with the new political world but I don't see that lasting more than one GE before things drift back towards a more balanced scenario.
On topic: I think scepticism on this poll is called for.
Excellent. If the most obsequious Cameroonian spinners weren't trying to rubbish it then PB might cease to be the comically out of touch place where Osbrowne's omnishambles was hailed as a triumph by the PB tories.
@foxinsox - "I think that the English attitude to the Indyref is largely one of distancing rather than indifference."
I fundamentally disagree with that. I think that for a lot of English people, should there actually be a Yes vote, it might turn out to be a pretty big deal. Many will see it as a rejection and will be furious. I may be wrong, but when I read comments from Mail and Torygraph readers to the effect that "I wish they'd just get on with it" or "we are better off without them" there is an element of then protesting too much. For the Conservative and Unionist Party to have lost the UK will be profoundly shocking; likewise, on the left in England the loss of Scotland will mean the loss of a reliable source of support and personnel. All of us will see the country we have grown up with changed irreversibly and fundamentally; with over 300 years of narrative consigned irredeemably to history. The rUK's standing internationally will also be fundamentally affected.
Should there be a Yes, I would expect there to be substantial anger down south and a tabloid-led campaign for a very hard line to be taken in separation negotiations. The word "betrayal" will crop up routinely and lots of blame will be thrown around: from right to left; and back again. It will not be pleasant. And it will dominate our politics for a decade at least.
In the end, I would also expect our political system to alter fundamentally too. The Tories may benefit short-term - though I am not convinced - but over the slightly longer term we will see a completely new constitutional settlement; largely because every party except the Tories will want one. This may be based around much greater devolution of power to regions, as well as a change to the voting system. I'd also expect us to leave the EU.
Mr. Easterross, minor point really, but is Scotch viewed with the same sort of annoyance/contempt as the term 'provinces' when used by cretins like Cable to refer to non-Home Counties/London England?
That bloody annoys me. I don't live in bloody Gallia Narbonensis.
I use the term provinces/provincial in a British historical/economic sence routinelhy to contrast with London - metropolis versus province. That is quite unpejorative. But if it is offensive to some then that is worth knowing and bearing in mind.
I'm not sure it has any effect on a Conservative majority unless the Scottish voters are disenfranchised come the General Election. I've been assured here by several different well known posters that that won't happen.
The SLAB seats would more likely switch to SNP.
What it does increase I think is the chance of the following:
A Conservative Minority (Scottish members not taking seats), No Overall majority, Labour Minority, Labour-SNP coailition, Conservative-SNP coalition, Conservative-Lib Dem coalition.
I've taken £20 at 4-1 with Betway anyway as its a decent price with this new information.
Still missing my point Pulpstar. I am not talking about the effect the vote has on Tory party fortunes but the exact reverse, the effect an improved Tory party position has on the Independence vote.
If the people had voted against Lisbon, there is no way that Cameron could have continued to abide by the treaty. Can you imagine how strong UKIP would be right now if he had tried?
There is every way he could continue. He could simply refer to international law - even I as a staunch Eurosceptic know the consequences of being bound by international law.
If he had had any nouse at all he could have made clear that he was using the vote as a means of setting out the UK position with regard to the direction of travel of the EU and as the basis for just the sorts of renegotiation he is now suggesting - which also happen to be just the sorts of renegotiations that lots of Cameroons were telling us would be impossible back around the time of the last election. Indeed that was the basis for their whole argument against a Lisbon referendum.
Of course no that their divine leader has decreed that such renegotiation is possible and that it will miraculously happen in a mere 18 months or so after the next election, all the Cameroons are on here declaring what a wonderful idea it is.
It is no wonder the Eurosceptics regard you with bemusement and scorn.
That is bonkers. All you are saying is that you want something different (an In/Out referendum, or an opinion poll) from what he promised (a referendum before ratifying Lisbon). Of course he could have held such a referendum, subject to his LibDem partners agreeing (highly unlikely, of course); instead what he is doing is the much more sensible option, given that Lisbon unfortunately is a historical fact, of offering a referendum after renegotiation. Utterly bizarrely, the Europhobes such as yourself who have been asking for such a referendum now don't want it, ostensibly on the eccentric grounds that you expect to be proved right on renegotiation not achieving much. That really is insane: if it doesn't achieve much, you'll still get the InOut referendum you claim to want, with the added bonus of being able to point to the fact that the EU has shown itself unreformable despite Cameron's best efforts, so what on earth is there to bitch about?
If the people had voted against Lisbon, there is no way that Cameron could have continued to abide by the treaty. Can you imagine how strong UKIP would be right now if he had tried?
There is every way he could continue. He could simply refer to international law - even I as a staunch Eurosceptic know the consequences of being bound by international law.
If he had had any nouse at all he could have made clear that he was using the vote as a means of setting out the UK position with regard to the direction of travel of the EU and as the basis for just the sorts of renegotiation he is now suggesting - which also happen to be just the sorts of renegotiations that lots of Cameroons were telling us would be impossible back around the time of the last election. Indeed that was the basis for their whole argument against a Lisbon referendum.
Of course no that their divine leader has decreed that such renegotiation is possible and that it will miraculously happen in a mere 18 months or so after the next election, all the Cameroons are on here declaring what a wonderful idea it is.
It is no wonder the Eurosceptics regard you with bemusement and scorn.
You would have thrown away well over £80 million on a referendum on something that would have no effect, as the treaty had already been signed.
The Lisbon referendum - if 'no' had won, which is a rather big assumption - would have given the UK no extra negotiating power. As we saw with Ireland, their 'no' vote hardly changed anything *before* the treaty came into force. And you are saying that a 'no' vote after signing would?
In addition, if 'yes' had won, which is easily possible, then your cause would have been set back for a decade or more, and cost the country dearly.
The time for a referendum on Lisbon was *before* it got signed. And Brown, in his infinite wisdom, decided not to give the public a say. Boo hiss.
I'm not happy with our relationship with Europe. I'd quite like a say - and I honestly don't know which way I'd vote, it would depend on the question. But a vote on Lisbon after it had been signed by Brown would have been both costly and pointless.
Will England, Wales and NI be better off without Scotland?
Whilst the benefit of a large proportion of North Sea oil and gas would be lost, would E,W and NI no longer be dragged down by Scotland's resentful attitude towards being in the UK?
Certainly a majority of people in England would not mourn Scotland leaving. The balance of power at Westminster would swing away from Labour and towards the Conservatives. This could mean a permanent shift to capitalism and free markets in the UK.
Since the Act of Union was signed between England and Scotland, shouldn't England get to vote in the referendum as well?
Cameron's undertaking to his EU partners not to use Brexit as a threat during negotiations is an indication that the negotiations are getting serious not that he has conceded bargaining power.
Anyone familiar with international negotiations, particularly of a diplomatic nature, will know that you will never get counterparties to open up voluntarily if you hold a gun to their heads.
Such talks nearly always begin with 'talks about talks' which define the terms and conditions for negotiations. 'No preconditions' or 'a blank sheet of paper' is the cliche pften used to describe the pre-agreeement.
Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't a gun. Just that it is kept locked in a cupboard and not acknowledged as being present during the talks.
There is no gun. Cameron has made it abundantly clear in explicit terms that he will never support UK withdrawal from the EU.
He has no bargaining position at all. Which is why he will get nothing from the EU either before or after 2017.
On topic: I think scepticism on this poll is called for.
Excellent. If the most obsequious Cameroonian spinners weren't trying to rubbish it then PB might cease to be the comically out of touch place where Osbrowne's omnishambles was hailed as a triumph by the PB tories.
On topic: I think scepticism on this pork is called for.
Nope, totally wrong. The Trident missiles and warheads are due to remain in service for decades yet. It is the submarines that carry them that need to be replaced.
Mr. G, it baffles me as to why Scotland would wish to leave sterling and go to the euro. However, if Scotland votes for independence that's a matter for the Scots. But a proposed currency union with the UK is another matter. I fail to see why either you or we should want it.
Depending how negotiations happen, it could occur in return for fiscal constraints and as a bargaining chip on certain matters. Disentangling a 300 year old union would require more than just a couple of years (Faslane and the carriers spring to mind).
The carriers will be pretty much finished by then. Faslane is just a base, which will probably get as much employment or more if sed as a normal naval base (most jobs associated with Trident are inevitably in US, Berkshire, Cumbria, etc., and the crews from all over the UK) and the Trident system is obsolescent so the missile storage facilities will soon be worthless as a bargaining chip, surely? And we discussed the Type 26 ships, if that is what you have in mind, on PB yesterday or the day before - with the perhaps counterintuitive conclusion that EWNI have a lot to lose if they cancel the Glasgow build of the hulls, given the added costs of moving the hull construction and the probable resulting cancellation of the Scottish orders of the EWNI-built equipment for their own Type 26s. Remember that the hulls are only a fraction of the value of the order. But as @JosiasJessop said, politics can get in the way ...
Why does Faslane make any sense as a naval base, aside for its use as a submarine base where boomers can dive deep and early, to avoid Soviet tracking? For surface ships, you'd be better using an area that is less remote and there is more potential for employment. Move the base to somewhere else on the Clyde, for instance Greenock, where it would make more sense.
Much more of an issue in my mind is the future of the relatively-little known Coulport. ;-)
That is bonkers. All you are saying is that you want something different (an In/Out referendum, or an opinion poll) from what he promised (a referendum before ratifying Lisbon).
What is 'bonkers' is continually repeating something that isn't true and easily disproved. Cameron did promise a referendum even after ratification.
Conservatives could hold Lisbon Treaty referendum after ratification
A Conservative government could hold a referendum on the European Union's Lisbon Treaty even if it has already been ratified, William Hague has said.
The Shadow Foreign Secretary made the pledge as David Cameron promised to fight next year's European Parliament elections on a referendum pledge.
Unless you are a Scot who does have a British identity it's hard to see why you would vote No to independence. It's a chance to start again. I feel British, work with people from all parts of the UK and culturally, socially and in almost every other "ly" I can think of see no real difference between us, and as someone on the centre left I instinctively recoil at the idea of seeking to create differences that do not really exist based on a line on a map, but if I were up in Scotland I suspect that I would feel somewhat differently. Seen from there, there is a chance to get rid of the dominant place the SE of England has economically and politically in the UK, and to create something new. Why wouldn't you take it, even if it does leave you slightly worse off in the short term?
Based on that argument, the North-East of England would grab the opportunity of independence with open arms. And yet it decisively voted down even a region assembly. England does seem to have a fairly tight identity all-over, although perhaps a little weaker in Cornwall and Yorkshire and the more bolshy Londoners.
The truth is that none of us really have a good "feel" for what Scots think, aside from the enthusiastic nationalists on here, because we don't live in Scotland and aren't Scottish.
I did live in Scotland for 6 years in the 1990s, so my perspective is hopelessly out of date. Even then, though, I saw much through Scottish eyes: Scottish Sun newspaper, BBC Scotland, Scottish news, Scottish education spending, Scottish pounds etc - so there was a very different view. However, as you say, cultural, socially, linguistically (even) it didn't feel very different.
It's also a bit of a myth that they are all hugely left-wing too.
The fact is that the Scots are pretty much like the English, who are pretty much like the Welsh. But nationalism is all about playing on small differences and it is effective - the SNP are particularly good at it, largely because they are clearly a nationalist party before they are a centre left one. And they do have a compelling story to tell on, for example, how the Tories and Labour wasted the North Sea oil bonanza.
I suspect that should Scotland go - and who would bet against it now? _ we will see a much greater level of regional identity emerging in England. I can certainly envisage much greater support for a high level of devolved rule in territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country and in London too.
It's very hard to believe that following a Scottish Yes, we will not see a fundamental reorganisation of the rUK's political system. It will do us all a power of good should it happen.
Nice to see the 50p tax rate still up there bothering the PB Hodges. Just like the Energy Freeze, it will resonate with the vast majority of voters and be in the political headlines for months. Now we just need the Tory Party to formulate a rushed government policy on the hoof and not tell the Lib Dems and we can have de ja vu.
Meanwhile on planet earth the polling crossover goalposts get picked back up and taken for another wander.
When Labour announce a policy that the PB Hodges do not like it is economically illiterate and pure political populism.
When the Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon announces a policy just hours before a Labour speech that six days earlier he denounced as "self defeating".....he is a political master strategist.
Welcome to the world of the PB Hodges.
I see that a former Labour City minister has now joined the PB Hodges:
'Former Labour City minister Lord Myners has denounced Ed Balls' plan to restore the 50p top rate of income tax, calling it a return to "the politics of envy". Lord Myners told the Sunday Telegraph: “The economic logic behind his Ed Balls’ thinking would not get him a pass at GCSE economics.'
On topic: I think scepticism on this poll is called for. If the effect is entirely due to a small sample of youngsters, scaled up because they couldn't find many bothered enough to give an opinion, the change may not be statistically significant.
As Bill McLaren would have said - " they'll be dancing in the streets of Bath tonight..."
Cameron's undertaking to his EU partners not to use Brexit as a threat during negotiations is an indication that the negotiations are getting serious not that he has conceded bargaining power.
Anyone familiar with international negotiations, particularly of a diplomatic nature, will know that you will never get counterparties to open up voluntarily if you hold a gun to their heads.
Such talks nearly always begin with 'talks about talks' which define the terms and conditions for negotiations. 'No preconditions' or 'a blank sheet of paper' is the cliche pften used to describe the pre-agreeement.
Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't a gun. Just that it is kept locked in a cupboard and not acknowledged as being present during the talks.
There is no gun. Cameron has made it abundantly clear in explicit terms that he will never support UK withdrawal from the EU.
He has no bargaining position at all. Which is why he will get nothing from the EU either before or after 2017.
Of course there is a gun.
Germans can read UK polls as well as Britons.
And it is not just in the UK: it is in their back yard too.
It is not Cameron's position on the EU which is the gun but the threat that UK public opinion and voting patterns will move from being an irrelevant irritant to a decisive driver of policy.
@foxinsox - "I think that the English attitude to the Indyref is largely one of distancing rather than indifference."
I fundamentally disagree with that. I think that for a lot of English people, should there actually be a Yes vote, it might turn out to be a pretty big deal. Many will see it as a rejection and will be furious. I may be wrong, but when I read comments from Mail and Torygraph readers to the effect that "I wish they'd just get on with it" or "we are better off without them" there is an element of then protesting too much. For the Conservative and Unionist Party to have lost the UK will be profoundly shocking; likewise, on the left in England the loss of Scotland will mean the loss of a reliable source of support and personnel. All of us will see the country we have grown up with changed irreversibly and fundamentally; with over 300 years of narrative consigned irredeemably to history. The rUK's standing internationally will also be fundamentally affected.
Should there be a Yes, I would expect there to be substantial anger down south and a tabloid-led campaign for a very hard line to be taken in separation negotiations. The word "betrayal" will crop up routinely and lots of blame will be thrown around: from right to left; and back again. It will not be pleasant. And it will dominate our politics for a decade at least.
In the end, I would also expect our political system to alter fundamentally too. The Tories may benefit short-term - though I am not convinced - but over the slightly longer term we will see a completely new constitutional settlement; largely because every party except the Tories will want one. This may be based around much greater devolution of power to regions, as well as a change to the voting system. I'd also expect us to leave the EU.
I'm afraid to say that a large number,probably a majority, of the English view independence from Scottish politicians as a delicious prospect.
That is bonkers. All you are saying is that you want something different (an In/Out referendum, or an opinion poll) from what he promised (a referendum before ratifying Lisbon). Of course he could have held such a referendum, subject to his LibDem partners agreeing (highly unlikely, of course); instead what he is doing is the much more sensible option, given that Lisbon unfortunately is a historical fact, of offering a referendum after renegotiation. Utterly bizarrely, the Europhobes such as yourself who have been asking for such a referendum now don't want it, ostensibly on the eccentric grounds that you expect to be proved right on renegotiation not achieving much. That really is insane: if it doesn't achieve much, you'll still get the InOut referendum you claim to want, with the added bonus of being able to point to the fact that the EU has shown itself unreformable despite Cameron's best efforts, so what on earth is there to bitch about?
What I want is for the UK to leave the EU and will go with whatever method is most likely top achieve that eventuality. That is not Cameron's referendum. He will not achieve any real concessions from the EU but will return claiming victory. When it comes to the EU he is thoroughly dishonest with the British people about both what he wants and what is possible. As such the first objective of any Eurosceptic who wants out of the EU should be to get rid of Cameron.
I know your fanatical support for Cameron won't let you see this but he has become the problem not the answer.
But since you seem to think his renegotiation ploy is genuine do tell me exactly how you think he is going to be able to win any meaningful and binding change from the EU before 2017? I would love to hear how you think he will persuade the other 27 members unanimously to support repatriation of powers and get it all passed and ratified by a treaty before 2017?
From that Daily Mail article - "And Sir Stuart Rose, the former Marks & Spencer chairman and current head of Ocado, added: ‘This is a very bad idea – it will put in jeopardy all the good work that has been done to put the economy back on track.
‘It will send out worrying messages to the wrong people, and will risk confidence and investment. My biggest single worry is why, when we have come all this way, would you want to risk that with a move like this?"
Meanwhile the Mail does some heroic digging in the internals to demonstrate why what appears to be a popular move - the 50p tax rate - is a bad idea for Labour......
Cameron's undertaking to his EU partners not to use Brexit as a threat during negotiations is an indication that the negotiations are getting serious not that he has conceded bargaining power.
Anyone familiar with international negotiations, particularly of a diplomatic nature, will know that you will never get counterparties to open up voluntarily if you hold a gun to their heads.
Such talks nearly always begin with 'talks about talks' which define the terms and conditions for negotiations. 'No preconditions' or 'a blank sheet of paper' is the cliche pften used to describe the pre-agreeement.
Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't a gun. Just that it is kept locked in a cupboard and not acknowledged as being present during the talks.
There is no gun. Cameron has made it abundantly clear in explicit terms that he will never support UK withdrawal from the EU.
He has no bargaining position at all. Which is why he will get nothing from the EU either before or after 2017.
Of course there is a gun.
Germans can read UK polls as well as Britons.
And it is not just in the UK: it is in their back yard too.
It is not Cameron's position on the EU which is the gun but the threat that UK public opinion and voting patterns will move from being an irrelevant irritant to a decisive driver of policy.
Nope because the rest of the EU already know that they don't have to concede any meaningful repatriation of powers and Cameron will still go back claiming a great victory.
It is no wonder the Eurosceptics regard you with bemusement and scorn.
I don't know where you get the "you" from. I'm certainly a Eurosceptic - in the proper sense of the word.
Membership of the EU has many advantages. It also has significant costs. The direction of travel will, most likely, increase the cost without significantly increasing the advantages. It makes sense to try and renegotiate that and, if you can't reach an acceptable outcome then leave the club. (I really don't know which way I would vote if we had an in-out referendum today, assuming no meaningful concessions)
But a post-date referendum on Lisbon would have been dismissed as Cameron playing to the gallery, would have diminished his credibility as a serious PM and wouldn't, in my view, have strengthened his negotiating position.
Sometimes it's far better to "keep the principal out of the room": the threat that the British population may vote against the outcome may well be much more impactful than, say, a 55/45 vote against Lisbon (made up numbers).
I think the current English attitude to the Indyref is mostly one of not wanting to interfere in a neighbours internal argument. I too would expect it to change dramatically after a Yes vote.
@foxinsox - "I think that the English attitude to the Indyref is largely one of distancing rather than indifference."
I fundamentally disagree with that. I think that for a lot of English people, should there actually be a Yes vote, it might turn out to be a pretty big deal. Many will see it as a rejection and will be furious. I may be wrong, but when I read comments from Mail and Torygraph readers to the effect that "I wish they'd just get on with it" or "we are better off without them" there is an element of then protesting too much. For the Conservative and Unionist Party to have lost the UK will be profoundly shocking; likewise, on the left in England the loss of Scotland will mean the loss of a reliable source of support and personnel. All of us will see the country we have grown up with changed irreversibly and fundamentally; with over 300 years of narrative consigned irredeemably to history. The rUK's standing internationally will also be fundamentally affected.
Should there be a Yes, I would expect there to be substantial anger down south and a tabloid-led campaign for a very hard line to be taken in separation negotiations. The word "betrayal" will crop up routinely and lots of blame will be thrown around: from right to left; and back again. It will not be pleasant. And it will dominate our politics for a decade at least.
In the end, I would also expect our political system to alter fundamentally too. The Tories may benefit short-term - though I am not convinced - but over the slightly longer term we will see a completely new constitutional settlement; largely because every party except the Tories will want one. This may be based around much greater devolution of power to regions, as well as a change to the voting system. I'd also expect us to leave the EU.
I'm not sure it has any effect on a Conservative majority unless the Scottish voters are disenfranchised come the General Election. I've been assured here by several different well known posters that that won't happen.
The SLAB seats would more likely switch to SNP.
What it does increase I think is the chance of the following:
A Conservative Minority (Scottish members not taking seats), No Overall majority, Labour Minority, Labour-SNP coailition, Conservative-SNP coalition, Conservative-Lib Dem coalition.
I've taken £20 at 4-1 with Betway anyway as its a decent price with this new information.
Still missing my point Pulpstar. I am not talking about the effect the vote has on Tory party fortunes but the exact reverse, the effect an improved Tory party position has on the Independence vote.
Yes sorry I misread your post Mr Tyndall - though there is not much evidence of an improving Conservative position, certainly nowhere near enough for a majority.
Perhaps the Scots now see the Lib Dems as Tories too - they certainly don't vote for them much at all now. So they'd view a continuation of the coalition as a bad thing ? That scenario I'd agree is entirely plausible though the midpoint of my view is Labour Minority still.
If the GE parliament 2015 was to be made up of 591 seats, that wouldn't be great for my bets - so it is a smidgen of a worry (Betting on Conservatives in seats, Labour/NOM for the overall)
At any rate the 4-1 available from Betway and Stan James (Barred from there personally) is longer than Betfair so represents value I think...
What is 'bonkers' is continually repeating something that isn't true and easily disproved. Cameron did promise a referendum even after ratification.
Have you actually read the article you posted? Since when did "We haven't made the decision" become a promise?
So now you are even disagreeing with a direct quote from William Hague? Careful old chap. CCHQ might come and check your loyalty chip isn't malfunctioning.
On a website named politicalbetting.com though we should look at ALL the betting implications a Yes vote would have, as well as the de facto and de jure situations in Westminster and Holyrood !
Since the Act of Union was signed between England and Scotland, shouldn't England get to vote in the referendum as well?
No.
If E&W wanted they would be perfectly at liberty to have a separate vote to dissolve the Union. But they don't get to vote in the Scots' referendum.
(DevoMax is a different topic, because that is a change in the terms of a partnership rather than one of the partners deciding to exit the arrangement)
@foxinsox - "I think that the English attitude to the Indyref is largely one of distancing rather than indifference."
I fundamentally disagree with that. I think that for a lot of English people, should there actually be a Yes vote, it might turn out to be a pretty big deal. Many will see it as a rejection and will be furious. I may be wrong, but when I read comments from Mail and Torygraph readers to the effect that "I wish they'd just get on with it" or "we are better off without them" there is an element of then protesting too much. For the Conservative and Unionist Party to have lost the UK will be profoundly shocking; likewise, on the left in England the loss of Scotland will mean the loss of a reliable source of support and personnel. All of us will see the country we have grown up with changed irreversibly and fundamentally; with over 300 years of narrative consigned irredeemably to history. The rUK's standing internationally will also be fundamentally affected.
Should there be a Yes, I would expect there to be substantial anger down south and a tabloid-led campaign for a very hard line to be taken in separation negotiations. The word "betrayal" will crop up routinely and lots of blame will be thrown around: from right to left; and back again. It will not be pleasant. And it will dominate our politics for a decade at least.
In the end, I would also expect our political system to alter fundamentally too. The Tories may benefit short-term - though I am not convinced - but over the slightly longer term we will see a completely new constitutional settlement; largely because every party except the Tories will want one. This may be based around much greater devolution of power to regions, as well as a change to the voting system. I'd also expect us to leave the EU.
I'm afraid to say that a large number,probably a majority, of the English view independence from Scottish politicians as a delicious prospect.
We'll see if that is the case should it actually happen.
That is bonkers. All you are saying is that you want something different (an In/Out referendum, or an opinion poll) from what he promised (a referendum before ratifying Lisbon). Of course he could have held such a referendum, subject to his LibDem partners agreeing (highly unlikely, of course); instead what he is doing is the much more sensible option, given that Lisbon unfortunately is a historical fact, of offering a referendum after renegotiation. Utterly bizarrely, the Europhobes such as yourself who have been asking for such a referendum now don't want it, ostensibly on the eccentric grounds that you expect to be proved right on renegotiation not achieving much. That really is insane: if it doesn't achieve much, you'll still get the InOut referendum you claim to want, with the added bonus of being able to point to the fact that the EU has shown itself unreformable despite Cameron's best efforts, so what on earth is there to bitch about?
What I want is for the UK to leave the EU and will go with whatever method is most likely top achieve that eventuality. That is not Cameron's referendum. He will not achieve any real concessions from the EU but will return claiming victory. When it comes to the EU he is thoroughly dishonest with the British people about both what he wants and what is possible. As such the first objective of any Eurosceptic who wants out of the EU should be to get rid of Cameron.
I know your fanatical support for Cameron won't let you see this but he has become the problem not the answer.
But since you seem to think his renegotiation ploy is genuine do tell me exactly how you think he is going to be able to win any meaningful and binding change from the EU before 2017? I would love to hear how you think he will persuade the other 27 members unanimously to support repatriation of powers and get it all passed and ratified by a treaty before 2017?
But your alternative - a post-treaty referendum on Lisbon - was unobtainable.
First, as I've mentioned, there was the cost.
Then there's the selling point. How would the 'no' campaign (against the treaty) have sold it? "We know the treaty is signed and we cannot alter it, but perhaps if we vote yes, other countries might listen to our concerns a bit more, even if they did not for Ireland."
It would be impossible to sell to the public. And when 'yes' won, the Europhiles would have won for another decade. A referendum should have a well-defined, simple-to-sell message on either side, similar to the Scottish Independence one, or a future EU in-or-out one. A post-Lisbon referendum on Lisbon would have been unsaleable and farcical.
So how would you have sold a post-treaty Lisbon referendum to the public and justified the vast cost?
I can certainly envisage much greater support for a high level of devolved rule in territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country and in London too.
Which "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country"? Most of the regions have a (generalising) rural/urban split between the Tories and Labour. If you are talking about carving out powers for the conurbations, then why did they all vote against the chance to have local Mayors?
Cameron's undertaking to his EU partners not to use Brexit as a threat during negotiations is an indication that the negotiations are getting serious not that he has conceded bargaining power.
Anyone familiar with international negotiations, particularly of a diplomatic nature, will know that you will never get counterparties to open up voluntarily if you hold a gun to their heads.
Such talks nearly always begin with 'talks about talks' which define the terms and conditions for negotiations. 'No preconditions' or 'a blank sheet of paper' is the cliche pften used to describe the pre-agreeement.
Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't a gun. Just that it is kept locked in a cupboard and not acknowledged as being present during the talks.
There is no gun. Cameron has made it abundantly clear in explicit terms that he will never support UK withdrawal from the EU.
He has no bargaining position at all. Which is why he will get nothing from the EU either before or after 2017.
Of course there is a gun.
Germans can read UK polls as well as Britons.
And it is not just in the UK: it is in their back yard too.
It is not Cameron's position on the EU which is the gun but the threat that UK public opinion and voting patterns will move from being an irrelevant irritant to a decisive driver of policy.
Nope because the rest of the EU already know that they don't have to concede any meaningful repatriation of powers and Cameron will still go back claiming a great victory.
Your pre-judgement leads you to inevitable cynicism.
Another view is that the leaders of the main EU countries will recognise that survival after the Euro crisis should lead to a reappraisal of popular support for the union and a fundamental review of its structures and competencies.
No renegotiation outcome short of dissolution of the EU will satisfy those committed to Brexit, but compromise solutions which go some way towards addressing popular concerns are likely to meet with majority support.
At least Cameron is committed to a referendum and is prepared to risk the defeat of his strategy.
Since the Act of Union was signed between England and Scotland, shouldn't England get to vote in the referendum as well?
No.
If E&W wanted they would be perfectly at liberty to have a separate vote to dissolve the Union. But they don't get to vote in the Scots' referendum.
(DevoMax is a different topic, because that is a change in the terms of a partnership rather than one of the partners deciding to exit the arrangement)
Even if Scotland vote's to stay in the union,this isn't over.
What if labour get in power in 2015 with Scottish MP's voting powers on only England matters,the call for a English parliament/assembly will get louder,it might go as far as give England a independence vote.
Comments
I think that ALP is mosty right. It is not that our economic masters influence how voters vote, it is that their influence is exerted on the politicians elected. These politicians are so constrained by the rules of economics that the change of govt makes little difference.
So an Independent Scotland in a currency union would have its economic policy decided by London. Or Frankfurt if in a Euro-currency union. Independence would be a chimera.
I have my money on a Yes vote, and that would have a very interesting effect on the 2015 election.
Interesting point from Edin_Rokz ont'last thread. When "clever puntahs" said that Levenson would be imposed into English Law by January did they ever specify which year that would be...?
:tumbleweed:
And Boswell never objected.
http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/this-burns-night-join-our-secret-celebrity
One hopes that some clever people are looking at it but suspect it is unlikely given those orders will not have been phoned in from London.
Why do Cameroons *insist* on treating Eurosceptics as idiots.
If YES does win do you think Cameron will let Ollie Letwin do the settlement negotiations with Salmond, LOL?
Bad news for Labour?
Meanwhile on planet earth the polling crossover goalposts get picked back up and taken for another wander.
When Labour announce a policy that the PB Hodges do not like it is economically illiterate and pure political populism.
When the Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon announces a policy just hours before a Labour speech that six days earlier he denounced as "self defeating".....he is a political master strategist.
Welcome to the world of the PB Hodges.
For instance: the Irish vote on the Lisbon treaty was nothing to do with leaving the EU, just on the treaty itself. That seems to be what Cameron was offering before Brown's cowardice.
Only arch-idiots would compare the two.
First that as the economy improves Scots might feel more confident that their country can be successful economically after independence. Certainly if people are slightly less worried about where the money ios coming from they will have more time to consider - probably in a favourable light - other issues that might not have been so important to them in the past.
Secondly I wonder if there is the thought in the back of their minds that an improving economy - particularly one that seems to be improving so rapidly - makes a Tory majority at the next GE more likely. It was always said that the as the chances of a Tory government improved so did the support for an independent Scotland and I wonder if we are starting to see that in play now.
Still, it is only one poll but if it is reflected in other polls going forward then the improving economic outlook for the UK and potentially a greater chance of a Tory government should (I believe) give Unionists cause for concern.
Please define a Scotch Egg: Is it soaked in Cognac and JD barrels for ten-years? How do the bread-crumbs remain so cryspy...?
Another international treaty would be just the same.
Also, has anybody figured out why Cameroons are so abusive towards people they supposedly are seeking to persuade, whenever they a make well-founded point?
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
No one has suggested that a post ratification no vote on Lisbon would have meant we immediately stopped adhering to its clauses. But Cameron could have made it clear it would be used to pressurize the EU in just the sort of negotiations he is now planning on having - but now from a position of no power what so ever.
A Lisbon referendum with the Tories campaigning against would also have utterly undermined UKIP and would probably see Cameron in a far better position than he is now. That is without the strong possibility that if he had not reneged on the promise before the election he may well have had a small working majority now.
The man is incompetent.
"Don't knows" may give a view when pressed, but will they vote? Experience suggests that those who don't know enough about what they think don't care enough to vote.
Even so, long-term, Scotland's place in the UK (or not) will depend upon whether they feel, in any sense, "British" or not. All independence campaigns ultimately come down to self-identity and with what/whom you feel emotional and cultural affinity.
I feel that 'Better Together' is missing the point. This issue will never go away unless a majority of Scots feel affinity with their fellow Britons and the rest of the UK. There is an emotional argument to be made on the strength of our common bonds, culture and destiny as united Britons - but I worry no-one is making it.
Even if Scotland should vote YES in 2014, one couldn't just debar Scottish constituencies of seats in 2015. Negotiations could still fail to lead to independence - say, if early Scottish elections and a Unionist government taking over negotiations. It may be a Tory dream but NO is in my opinion clearly a better result for Cameron, as outside the world of anti-Labour political nerds, he will be more readily blamed for losing Scotland than some Scottish Labour Party people unknown to 99% of England.
But continuing good news on the economy has a strong chance of eroding that Labour lead and, as I don't for a second consider Scots to be stupid, they can see that as the economy improves there is greater chance of the Tories turning things around.
All I am saying is that that may be a driver for improved Nationalist support and if it is then the Unionist should be worried.
That's a good point. No wonder Labour want to keep the economy in tatters.
(1) in 1975 a vote against membership would have resulted in us leaving the EEC. Clean and simple
(2) Pre-Lisbon a vote against would have resulted in a renegotiation of the treaty and (presumably) a re-vote as has happened on several occasions in the past (in other countries)
(3) Post-Lisbon, a vote against would have required us to repudiate a signed treaty. Now clearly this is possible as a sovereign country (albeit not without political cost). However, the status quo ante no longer existed : there was no pre-Lisbon EU for us to go back to. So effectively it would be a vote against membership on the terms - but probably would not have given Cameron a sufficient mandate to actively leave the EU. The result: limbo, confusion and probably market and political turmoil.
Perhaps you can explain what you think the consequences of a vote against Lisbon after the Treaty had been signed would/should have been?
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/01/icm-poll-shows-biggest-swing-yet/
A few years later the club wants to bring in some controversial rules. The family wants a vote on the new rules (as the Irish family down the road had), but the family's patriarch signs the new rules into force. Having a vote after that is pointless and irrelevant: the new rules are in force.
As for your last point: you said: "Why do Cameroons *insist* on treating Eurosceptics as idiots.". Well, I'm just answering your question. And I'm not even a Cameroon.
Quite how this would break, and to which party would be an interesting thread.
I think that the English attitude to the Indyref is largely one of distancing rather than indifference. I am mildly pro Union myself, but If Scotland votes for independence will lose no sleep over it. When it comes to the division of assets and liabilities it may well be that parties with a hardline approach on behalf of the rUK position that will benefit the most. I am not clear which party would be most capable of this.
Equally laughable is the attempt to persuade UKIP supporters to switch to the Tories after:
1. Reneging on the promise of a Lisbon referendum already.
2. Not going to win a majority to carry out that promise (sound familiar?)
3. Proving in the AV referendum it is virtually impossible to win a referendum when the incumbent government is against it.
As for incompetence, has Cameron ever run anything?
Apart from the Conservative Party into the ground, that is.
I'd still like to see other polls confirm this first though!
You would have had us spent £80 million or more on a moot point? Now that would have been incompetence, and would have handed a massive stick for the opposition to beat Cameron with.
In addition, a 'yes' vote was quite possible. If that had happened, the cause of getting out of Europe would have died for at least a decade.
You are letting your desire for a referendum to get in the way of common sense.
Only arch-idiot Cameroons would believe that Cameron was not in a position to offer a vote and then use that as the basis for his negotiations with the EU going forward. Imagine how much stronger a position he would be in now if he already had a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty under his belt.
No one has suggested that a post ratification no vote on Lisbon would have meant we immediately stopped adhering to its clauses. But Cameron could have made it clear it would be used to pressurize the EU in just the sort of negotiations he is now planning on having - but now from a position of no power what so ever.
A Lisbon referendum with the Tories campaigning against would also have utterly undermined UKIP and would probably see Cameron in a far better position than he is now. That is without the strong possibility that if he had not reneged on the promise before the election he may well have had a small working majority now.
The man is incompetent.
Richard, on a narrow point:
Cameron's undertaking to his EU partners not to use Brexit as a threat during negotiations is an indication that the negotiations are getting serious not that he has conceded bargaining power.
Anyone familiar with international negotiations, particularly of a diplomatic nature, will know that you will never get counterparties to open up voluntarily if you hold a gun to their heads.
Such talks nearly always begin with 'talks about talks' which define the terms and conditions for negotiations. 'No preconditions' or 'a blank sheet of paper' is the cliche pften used to describe the pre-agreeement.
Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't a gun. Just that it is kept locked in a cupboard and not acknowledged as being present during the talks.
While he will not go down in history as the centuries greatest PM, neither will he go down as the worst. Indeed of the three PMs of this century I would say he is in pole position.
1. EWNI leaving the EU would become both more likely (due to both pro-EU voters among those who secede, and increased sense of regional isolation among those who don't) and more awkward (two long-term land frontiers for the first time since the Irish Confederate Wars, and independence movements in the rest of the EU threatening the stability of the other negotiator, even if only through economic speculation about rSpain, rBelgium etc).
2. The Unionists, as they used to be uniquely known before the referendum, would feel even more of a siege mentality than usual when their two nearest neighbours become foreign powers.
Personally I am a strongly pro Scottish Independence Englishman as a result of my dislike for centralized government in almost any form. I do like the idea of a successful independent neighbour with whom I suspect relations would be far better than they are currently.
I am not sure what effect if any it would have on me working up here in Scotland (and yes annoyingly I am in the office in Aberdeen on a Sunday morning :-( ) but life is full of uncertainties and I don't really see it is going to make that much difference.
Re-alignment of the Centre?
Alastair Darling is the front man for Labour against indy. I couldn't possibly judge, livng where I do, but posters from south of the border will be able to advise if Mr Darling is already unknown to all but 1% of the English voting public ...
But I wasn't actually referring to the Scottish referendum vote, but the UK VI.
The truth is that none of us really have a good "feel" for what Scots think, aside from the enthusiastic nationalists on here, because we don't live in Scotland and aren't Scottish.
I did live in Scotland for 6 years in the 1990s, so my perspective is hopelessly out of date. Even then, though, I saw much through Scottish eyes: Scottish Sun newspaper, BBC Scotland, Scottish news, Scottish education spending, Scottish pounds etc - so there was a very different view. However, as you say, cultural, socially, linguistically (even) it didn't feel very different.
It's also a bit of a myth that they are all hugely left-wing too.
If he had had any nouse at all he could have made clear that he was using the vote as a means of setting out the UK position with regard to the direction of travel of the EU and as the basis for just the sorts of renegotiation he is now suggesting - which also happen to be just the sorts of renegotiations that lots of Cameroons were telling us would be impossible back around the time of the last election. Indeed that was the basis for their whole argument against a Lisbon referendum.
Of course no that their divine leader has decreed that such renegotiation is possible and that it will miraculously happen in a mere 18 months or so after the next election, all the Cameroons are on here declaring what a wonderful idea it is.
It is no wonder the Eurosceptics regard you with bemusement and scorn.
The SLAB seats would more likely switch to SNP.
What it does increase I think is the chance of the following:
A Conservative Minority (Scottish members not taking seats), No Overall majority, Labour Minority, Labour-SNP coailition, Conservative-SNP coalition, Conservative-Lib Dem coalition.
I've taken £20 at 4-1 with Betway anyway as its a decent price with this new information.
I fundamentally disagree with that. I think that for a lot of English people, should there actually be a Yes vote, it might turn out to be a pretty big deal. Many will see it as a rejection and will be furious. I may be wrong, but when I read comments from Mail and Torygraph readers to the effect that "I wish they'd just get on with it" or "we are better off without them" there is an element of then protesting too much. For the Conservative and Unionist Party to have lost the UK will be profoundly shocking; likewise, on the left in England the loss of Scotland will mean the loss of a reliable source of support and personnel. All of us will see the country we have grown up with changed irreversibly and fundamentally; with over 300 years of narrative consigned irredeemably to history. The rUK's standing internationally will also be fundamentally affected.
Should there be a Yes, I would expect there to be substantial anger down south and a tabloid-led campaign for a very hard line to be taken in separation negotiations. The word "betrayal" will crop up routinely and lots of blame will be thrown around: from right to left; and back again. It will not be pleasant. And it will dominate our politics for a decade at least.
In the end, I would also expect our political system to alter fundamentally too. The Tories may benefit short-term - though I am not convinced - but over the slightly longer term we will see a completely new constitutional settlement; largely because every party except the Tories will want one. This may be based around much greater devolution of power to regions, as well as a change to the voting system. I'd also expect us to leave the EU.
The Lisbon referendum - if 'no' had won, which is a rather big assumption - would have given the UK no extra negotiating power. As we saw with Ireland, their 'no' vote hardly changed anything *before* the treaty came into force. And you are saying that a 'no' vote after signing would?
In addition, if 'yes' had won, which is easily possible, then your cause would have been set back for a decade or more, and cost the country dearly.
The time for a referendum on Lisbon was *before* it got signed. And Brown, in his infinite wisdom, decided not to give the public a say. Boo hiss.
I'm not happy with our relationship with Europe. I'd quite like a say - and I honestly don't know which way I'd vote, it would depend on the question. But a vote on Lisbon after it had been signed by Brown would have been both costly and pointless.
Whilst the benefit of a large proportion of North Sea oil and gas would be lost, would E,W and NI no longer be dragged down by Scotland's resentful attitude towards being in the UK?
Certainly a majority of people in England would not mourn Scotland leaving. The balance of power at Westminster would swing away from Labour and towards the Conservatives. This could mean a permanent shift to capitalism and free markets in the UK.
Since the Act of Union was signed between England and Scotland, shouldn't England get to vote in the referendum as well?
He has no bargaining position at all. Which is why he will get nothing from the EU either before or after 2017.
Nope, totally wrong. The Trident missiles and warheads are due to remain in service for decades yet. It is the submarines that carry them that need to be replaced.
Much more of an issue in my mind is the future of the relatively-little known Coulport. ;-)
Cameron did promise a referendum even after ratification. Find another CCHQ spin line because that one just doesn't cut it.
I suspect that should Scotland go - and who would bet against it now? _ we will see a much greater level of regional identity emerging in England. I can certainly envisage much greater support for a high level of devolved rule in territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country and in London too.
It's very hard to believe that following a Scottish Yes, we will not see a fundamental reorganisation of the rUK's political system. It will do us all a power of good should it happen.
'Former Labour City minister Lord Myners has denounced Ed Balls' plan to restore the 50p top rate of income tax, calling it a return to "the politics of envy". Lord Myners told the Sunday Telegraph: “The economic logic behind his Ed Balls’ thinking would not get him a pass at GCSE economics.'
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-01-26/labours-city-guru-lord-myners-ed-balls-50p-tax-rate-plan-the-politics-of-envy/
#wingsoversomerset
Germans can read UK polls as well as Britons.
And it is not just in the UK: it is in their back yard too.
It is not Cameron's position on the EU which is the gun but the threat that UK public opinion and voting patterns will move from being an irrelevant irritant to a decisive driver of policy.
I know your fanatical support for Cameron won't let you see this but he has become the problem not the answer.
But since you seem to think his renegotiation ploy is genuine do tell me exactly how you think he is going to be able to win any meaningful and binding change from the EU before 2017? I would love to hear how you think he will persuade the other 27 members unanimously to support repatriation of powers and get it all passed and ratified by a treaty before 2017?
‘It will send out worrying messages to the wrong people, and will risk confidence and investment. My biggest single worry is why, when we have come all this way, would you want to risk that with a move like this?"
Perhaps the Scots now see the Lib Dems as Tories too - they certainly don't vote for them much at all now. So they'd view a continuation of the coalition as a bad thing ? That scenario I'd agree is entirely plausible though the midpoint of my view is Labour Minority still.
If the GE parliament 2015 was to be made up of 591 seats, that wouldn't be great for my bets - so it is a smidgen of a worry (Betting on Conservatives in seats, Labour/NOM for the overall)
At any rate the 4-1 available from Betway and Stan James (Barred from there personally) is longer than Betfair so represents value I think...
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/plan-for-doomsday-scenario-of-uk-exiting-eu-hayes-29893667.html
If E&W wanted they would be perfectly at liberty to have a separate vote to dissolve the Union. But they don't get to vote in the Scots' referendum.
(DevoMax is a different topic, because that is a change in the terms of a partnership rather than one of the partners deciding to exit the arrangement)
http://archive.is/m0nCm
All we need now is for Cameron to enter the debate ;-)
First, as I've mentioned, there was the cost.
Then there's the selling point. How would the 'no' campaign (against the treaty) have sold it? "We know the treaty is signed and we cannot alter it, but perhaps if we vote yes, other countries might listen to our concerns a bit more, even if they did not for Ireland."
It would be impossible to sell to the public. And when 'yes' won, the Europhiles would have won for another decade. A referendum should have a well-defined, simple-to-sell message on either side, similar to the Scottish Independence one, or a future EU in-or-out one. A post-Lisbon referendum on Lisbon would have been unsaleable and farcical.
So how would you have sold a post-treaty Lisbon referendum to the public and justified the vast cost?
Which "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country"? Most of the regions have a (generalising) rural/urban split between the Tories and Labour. If you are talking about carving out powers for the conurbations, then why did they all vote against the chance to have local Mayors?
#flightlessincambs
Another view is that the leaders of the main EU countries will recognise that survival after the Euro crisis should lead to a reappraisal of popular support for the union and a fundamental review of its structures and competencies.
No renegotiation outcome short of dissolution of the EU will satisfy those committed to Brexit, but compromise solutions which go some way towards addressing popular concerns are likely to meet with majority support.
At least Cameron is committed to a referendum and is prepared to risk the defeat of his strategy.
What if labour get in power in 2015 with Scottish MP's voting powers on only England matters,the call for a English parliament/assembly will get louder,it might go as far as give England a independence vote.
The Pandora's box is now open.