So ends the England bowling display for the 2013/14 Ashes tour.
Fitting it should be Dernbach and that it should go for just 26 in the last over.
Is there some small signs of improvement? Last time he managed the full 4 overs he went for 50, this time only 49.
I am sure the English selectors would not want to be too hasty in light of evidence like this...
I'm slightly confused about what happened to Flower. He originally said he wanted to go on and on, and Downton has expressed regret that he has stepped down... yet he seems to be credited by some commentators with engineering his departure.
Maybe it went like this:
Flower: I'm happy to stay on, but I won't work with that a***hole Petersen.
Downton: I know he's a bit of a prima donna but he's still our best player. He played no worse than any of them. And, frankly, it's your job to work with sportsmen who may have big egos.
Flower: In which case I am tendering my resignation.
Downton: I'm sorry you feel that way. Do you have Ashley's number?
Personally I think this analysis http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/714677.html hits the mark: something has to explain why England succumbed to groupthink, and why something that worked for a number of years has suddenly failed so catastrophically.
Very perspicacious commentator, George Dobell. I liked the comments about Gooch, too. Gooch was one of these players who were a natural; such players rarely ...... Flower is an exception .... make good coaches.
I honestly think that English cricket is in shock. They had no idea how far their standards had slipped or how poor they had become. Many of this team still hark back to when they were number one in the world and seem to be living on past glories.
This tour has been harsh but they seriously needed it if they were to build for the future. Flower did a good job of picking them up once (although they were not as low as this) but it needs a new team to do it again. A new captain too I think although Broad has hardly boosted his credentials with the shorter over stuff.
Below; the only pertinent figures that matter: all the rest is bollocks.
YOUGOV
Of every 1,000 votes in #GE2010 how many would vote the same?
LABOUR 730 CONSERVATIVES 653 LIBDEMS 246
This means that Labour have lost a quarter of their vote. This means that Tories have lost 2/5 of their vote. This means that the L/Dems have lost 3/4 of their vote.
Where have these votes gone? Some have vanished forever Some have gone to the don't knows. Some have sprinkled to the other main parties. A very few have gone green. But the majority have gone to UKIP.
Perhaps a person much cleverer in maths than me can make a proper table on this.
the majority have not gone to UKIP many more have gone to WNV or DK The numbers who have gone to UKIP are roughly Labour 45 Conservative 140 Lib Dem 48 all per thousand
The 48/1000 LD's are really NOTA's. The Greens could have had them if they had put their act together !
the figures I gave are from today's Yougov . From the Iast ICM they would be Labour 22 Conservatives 124 Lib Dem 30 all per thousand
Charles Dagnall, BBC Test Match Special "If Jade Dernbach can bat as well as he talks, England have a chance."
17 overs: Eng 110-9 Stuart Broad, the man booed throughout the tour by Aussie fans, is replaced by last man Jade Dernbach, who may well be booed by any remaining England fans inside Stadium Australia after his bowling in this series (combined series figures 11-0-141-1, you may remember).
How desperate, Americans cannot even understand or run their own country, yet pontificate on others they know nothing about. priceless, just about sums up the unionist campaign, Putin has chased Cameron so he will be begging Obama to up the intervention even more. We are real worried.
Why not answer the points he makes? Oh, you can't.
The answer is that the Reuters guy is talking out his rear end. There will be a currency union agreed between Scotland and rumpUK. carney clearly stated that it was doable and would actually be beneficial but would need some rules. So the Reuters guy changes that to bollocks that it is impossible , Scotland is small , scary scary , it cannot be done. Just what you would expect from an idiot who does not have a clue what he is talking about or a paid stooge. Is that clear enough for you.
Below; the only pertinent figures that matter: all the rest is bollocks.
YOUGOV
Of every 1,000 votes in #GE2010 how many would vote the same?
LABOUR 730 CONSERVATIVES 653 LIBDEMS 246
This means that Labour have lost a quarter of their vote. This means that Tories have lost 2/5 of their vote. This means that the L/Dems have lost 3/4 of their vote.
Where have these votes gone? Some have vanished forever Some have gone to the don't knows. Some have sprinkled to the other main parties. A very few have gone green. But the majority have gone to UKIP.
Perhaps a person much cleverer in maths than me can make a proper table on this.
the majority have not gone to UKIP many more have gone to WNV or DK The numbers who have gone to UKIP are roughly Labour 45 Conservative 140 Lib Dem 48 all per thousand
The 48/1000 LD's are really NOTA's. The Greens could have had them if they had put their act together !
the figures I gave are from today's Yougov . From the Iast ICM they would be Labour 22 Conservatives 124 Lib Dem 30 all per thousand
How desperate, Americans cannot even understand or run their own country, yet pontificate on others they know nothing about. priceless, just about sums up the unionist campaign, Putin has chased Cameron so he will be begging Obama to up the intervention even more. We are real worried.
Why not answer the points he makes? Oh, you can't.
The author of the piece isn't even American ( shamefully he's an Eton and Oxford Scholar ). Malcolm tried to play the man but missed.
So even more obvious why he wrote a lot of lies and bollocks then as I predicted. A stooge unionist LOL.
So it is perhaps not surprising the tories are getting little lift. We do not "feel good". Their last remaining hope is that given a forced choice they may grudgingly admit that they have done a better job than the other lot.
You're right about the causes of out problems but those haven't been stopped let alone reversed.
Since 2008 productivity has fallen and is still in decline while unit labour costs have risen significantly and are still increasing.
These trends will continue as long as long as the economy continues to be dominated by ever more wealth consumption.
There are clear limits what the government can do about productivity in the short term. Reducing head count in the public sector helps and they have done that. They can try to encourage investment but that is very difficult after a financial recession where credit and demand are both limited. In the longer run education can help but that is a very long run.
I am not completely sure what you mean by wealth consumption. If you mean running a trade deficit there is little the government can do about that either. This government has put more effort into international trade than any I can recall but international demand is also restricted especially in our main market in Europe.
To have done major damage to our trade deficit domestic demand would have had to have been slaughtered in a recession that would have caused massive unemployment (no doubt boosting productivity). That would really not have been better.
There are no easy solutions. The decline in our trade and competitiveness had been going on since at least 1997 (last year when our BoP was in credit) with a government that was indifferent. Your complaints about this government not having reversed these trends overnight are unrealistic in my opinion.
Its not overnight its nearly four years now and far from having reversed these trends they've allowed them to grow stronger.
As to the "we can't do anything because we're too weak from the last recession" line what are we going to do when the NEXT recession hits and we're already probably closer to the next recession than we are to the last one.
And next time we'll be hitting recession with a trillion quid more government debt already on the books, what will we do then ? Run a budget deficit of £200bn a year ?
The fact is that Osborne has chosen the 'easy solution' ie subsidise house prices and consumption. It might buy votes in the short term but its causing even more permanent damage.
So ends the England bowling display for the 2013/14 Ashes tour.
Fitting it should be Dernbach and that it should go for just 26 in the last over.
Is there some small signs of improvement? Last time he managed the full 4 overs he went for 50, this time only 49.
I am sure the English selectors would not want to be too hasty in light of evidence like this...
I'm slightly confused about what happened to Flower. He originally said he wanted to go on and on, and Downton has expressed regret that he has stepped down... yet he seems to be credited by some commentators with engineering his departure.
Maybe it went like this:
Flower: I'm happy to stay on, but I won't work with that a***hole Petersen.
Downton: I know he's a bit of a prima donna but he's still our best player. He played no worse than any of them. And, frankly, it's your job to work with sportsmen who may have big egos.
Flower: In which case I am tendering my resignation.
Downton: I'm sorry you feel that way. Do you have Ashley's number?
Personally I think this analysis http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/714677.html hits the mark: something has to explain why England succumbed to groupthink, and why something that worked for a number of years has suddenly failed so catastrophically.
Very perspicacious commentator, George Dobell. I liked the comments about Gooch, too. Gooch was one of these players who were a natural; such players rarely ...... Flower is an exception .... make good coaches.
A new captain too I think although Broad has hardly boosted his credentials with the shorter over stuff.
I do feel sorry for Cook. He isn't a great captain, and is tactically not astute, but I guess the strategy was to give him the job while the team was playing well, little captaincy was needed, and he would learn his way into the job. And of course Strauss probably resigned a year or so before the plan required. Instead, Cook has walked into this and seems to have little influence on the result and it has trashed his batting form. I agree he probably needs to give up the captaincy for a bit and concentrate on his batting. Ideally the job should go to a "senior professional" who is likely to retire in a year or two, when Cook can get it back, but I don't think we have one of those.
So ends the England bowling display for the 2013/14 Ashes tour.
Fitting it should be Dernbach and that it should go for just 26 in the last over.
Is there some small signs of improvement? Last time he managed the full 4 overs he went for 50, this time only 49.
I am sure the English selectors would not want to be too hasty in light of evidence like this...
I'm slightly confused about what happened to Flower. He originally said he wanted to go on and on, and Downton has expressed regret that he has stepped down... yet he seems to be credited by some commentators with engineering his departure.
Maybe it went like this:
Flower: I'm happy to stay on, but I won't work with that a***hole Petersen.
Downton: I know he's a bit of a prima donna but he's still our best player. He played no worse than any of them. And, frankly, it's your job to work with sportsmen who may have big egos.
Flower: In which case I am tendering my resignation.
Downton: I'm sorry you feel that way. Do you have Ashley's number?
Personally I think this analysis http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/714677.html hits the mark: something has to explain why England succumbed to groupthink, and why something that worked for a number of years has suddenly failed so catastrophically.
Very perspicacious commentator, George Dobell. I liked the comments about Gooch, too. Gooch was one of these players who were a natural; such players rarely ...... Flower is an exception .... make good coaches.
I honestly think that English cricket is in shock. They had no idea how far their standards had slipped or how poor they had become. Many of this team still hark back to when they were number one in the world and seem to be living on past glories.
This tour has been harsh but they seriously needed it if they were to build for the future. Flower did a good job of picking them up once (although they were not as low as this) but it needs a new team to do it again. A new captain too I think although Broad has hardly boosted his credentials with the shorter over stuff.
And if the scoring system for England's men's tour followed the same scheme as the Women's Ashes (six points for winning a Test, two for an ODI or T20), Australia would have triumphed 44-2.
Usually, local by-election results are a good guide. Hardened voters vote in these elections.
Therefore, a 25% turnout is worth more, perhaps, 30% as most of these voters are 100% certs.
These are real votes, not some sample in a database.
For some reason, the Tories have started 2014 badly. I cannot see any particular reason.
Maybe, this one. For all talk of economic recovery, it maybe upsetting some people as they contrast their own situations with the rich, i.e. the Tories.
UK Real Wages Down 6.1% In Biggest Fall Of G7 Nations
Why would you expect otherwise after Brown's spectacular crash ?
Unless in some Tardis-related incident we have slipped back to fighting the last election, we can probably now acknowledge that "Brown's spectacular crash" was in fact a global event that started in America and was not caused by Gordon Brown.
How desperate, Americans cannot even understand or run their own country, yet pontificate on others they know nothing about. priceless, just about sums up the unionist campaign, Putin has chased Cameron so he will be begging Obama to up the intervention even more. We are real worried.
Why not answer the points he makes? Oh, you can't.
The answer is that the Reuters guy is talking out his rear end. There will be a currency union agreed between Scotland and rumpUK.
You know that do you? Your crystal ball tells you that does it? rUK might refuse to play ball. More likely, we might fail to agree terms before Independence Day. You will end up like Kosovo: using the Euro but not in the currency union, subject to someone else's economics.
carney clearly stated that it was doable and would actually be beneficial but would need some rules.
I haven't read Carney's speech in detail, so I'll give you that, but "doable" doesn't equal "will happen".
So the Reuters guy changes that to bollocks that it is impossible , Scotland is small , scary scary , it cannot be done. Just what you would expect from an idiot who does not have a clue what he is talking about or a paid stooge.
not so, just injecting some political realism. What is "doable" and indeed "beneficial" might turn out to be politically unacceptable either to Scotland or rUK.
How desperate, Americans cannot even understand or run their own country, yet pontificate on others they know nothing about. priceless, just about sums up the unionist campaign, Putin has chased Cameron so he will be begging Obama to up the intervention even more. We are real worried.
Why not answer the points he makes? Oh, you can't.
The answer is that the Reuters guy is talking out his rear end. There will be a currency union agreed between Scotland and rumpUK. carney clearly stated that it was doable and would actually be beneficial but would need some rules. So the Reuters guy changes that to bollocks that it is impossible , Scotland is small , scary scary , it cannot be done. Just what you would expect from an idiot who does not have a clue what he is talking about or a paid stooge. Is that clear enough for you.
He did not say currency union is "cannot be done", merely that it might not be wholly advantageous to Scotland. Of course, this rather begs the question of whether Scotland's interests are properly (or at all) represented in London now.
Apparently Cook was suffering with his back at the start of the tour, and there was, in some circles, a question over whether or not he should go. Talking about things the other day ...... we're both Essex members ..... my wife, who has probably watched the game longer than I have, remarked that Cook probably hasn't, ever in his life, had to face a really challenging situation.
So ends the England bowling display for the 2013/14 Ashes tour.
Fitting it should be Dernbach and that it should go for just 26 in the last over.
Very perspicacious commentator, George Dobell. I liked the comments about Gooch, too. Gooch was one of these players who were a natural; such players rarely ...... Flower is an exception .... make good coaches.
A new captain too I think although Broad has hardly boosted his credentials with the shorter over stuff.
I do feel sorry for Cook. He isn't a great captain, and is tactically not astute, but I guess the strategy was to give him the job while the team was playing well, little captaincy was needed, and he would learn his way into the job. And of course Strauss probably resigned a year or so before the plan required. Instead, Cook has walked into this and seems to have little influence on the result and it has trashed his batting form. I agree he probably needs to give up the captaincy for a bit and concentrate on his batting. Ideally the job should go to a "senior professional" who is likely to retire in a year or two, when Cook can get it back, but I don't think we have one of those.
Cook is a world class batsman. Being captain seemed to help with that when things are going well but right now England need him to be their rock at the top of the order and nothing else. That is too important a task.
England need more life and threat in the middle order. Morgan needs brought back and not suffocated. They need to concentrate less on the all rounders and more on specialists. Bresnan, whole hearted though he is, will not do. Stokes might and certainly needs a go after a tour where he was one of the highlights. Jordan probably deserves a go too.
Jimmy has been fantastic but may be near the end. The collapse of Finn and the failure of Tremlett to have any impact has been disappointing. Is there more to bowling than being 6ft 10? I think England need to find out.
Glad to see the PB Ally McLeod's keeping a sense of proportion. No doubt they have Hampden Park booked for their victory celebration.................in August.
Usually, local by-election results are a good guide. Hardened voters vote in these elections.
Therefore, a 25% turnout is worth more, perhaps, 30% as most of these voters are 100% certs.
These are real votes, not some sample in a database.
For some reason, the Tories have started 2014 badly. I cannot see any particular reason.
Maybe, this one. For all talk of economic recovery, it maybe upsetting some people as they contrast their own situations with the rich, i.e. the Tories.
UK Real Wages Down 6.1% In Biggest Fall Of G7 Nations
Why would you expect otherwise after Brown's spectacular crash ?
Unless in some Tardis-related incident we have slipped back to fighting the last election, we can probably now acknowledge that "Brown's spectacular crash" was in fact a global event that started in America and was not caused by Gordon Brown.
Absolutely. Gideon seems to have managed to pass all the blame onto the party in power at the time, and away from his City friends.
So ends the England bowling display for the 2013/14 Ashes tour.
Fitting it should be Dernbach and that it should go for just 26 in the last over.
Very perspicacious commentator, George Dobell. I liked the comments about Gooch, too. Gooch was one of these players who were a natural; such players rarely ...... Flower is an exception .... make good coaches.
A new captain too I think although Broad has hardly boosted his credentials with the shorter over stuff.
I do feel sorry for Cook. He isn't a great captain, and is tactically not astute, but I guess the strategy was to give him the job while the team was playing well, little captaincy was needed, and he would learn his way into the job. And of course Strauss probably resigned a year or so before the plan required. Instead, Cook has walked into this and seems to have little influence on the result and it has trashed his batting form. I agree he probably needs to give up the captaincy for a bit and concentrate on his batting. Ideally the job should go to a "senior professional" who is likely to retire in a year or two, when Cook can get it back, but I don't think we have one of those.
England need more life and threat in the middle order. Morgan needs brought back and not suffocated. They need to concentrate less on the all rounders and more on specialists. Bresnan, whole hearted though he is, will not do. Stokes might and certainly needs a go after a tour where he was one of the highlights. Jordan probably deserves a go too.
One of the bonuses of the beginning of the Flower era was that they picked players out of county cricket who might not have been the obvious next choice - but were obviously up to the job, and up for it, and performed well. In contrast to early periods where new players lasted a series - even less - and then went back to county cricket none the wiser.
Not sure this is happening any more - and in an earlier article on CricInfo, Dobell claimed that counties were commenting that new England players were having their flair and skill coached out of them.
Andy Flowers has done well. The question is this: Was it him or the team?
Low-glamour players like Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell gell[-ed] the batting-order. They are the types - along with the wickie-likes of Stewart and Prior - that extend the English tail. The likes of Morgan and Bopara have not, sadly, lived up to their promise.
I'd prefer to see Stuart Broad at seven or eight. Outwith him and Anderson - sans Swann - I don't see anything left in the line-out to give me confidence*....
How desperate, Americans cannot even understand or run their own country, yet pontificate on others they know nothing about. priceless, just about sums up the unionist campaign, Putin has chased Cameron so he will be begging Obama to up the intervention even more. We are real worried.
Why not answer the points he makes? Oh, you can't.
The answer is that the Reuters guy is talking out his rear end. There will be a currency union agreed between Scotland and rumpUK. carney clearly stated that it was doable and would actually be beneficial but would need some rules. So the Reuters guy changes that to bollocks that it is impossible , Scotland is small , scary scary , it cannot be done. Just what you would expect from an idiot who does not have a clue what he is talking about or a paid stooge. Is that clear enough for you.
He did not say currency union is "cannot be done", merely that it might not be wholly advantageous to Scotland. Of course, this rather begs the question of whether Scotland's interests are properly (or at all) represented in London now.
John, short term at least it will be an absolute necessity for both sides. I certainly would not expect it to last longer term but until everything is undone it will be necessary. reality of that will ensure that both sides agree a deal at the outset.
How desperate, Americans cannot even understand or run their own country, yet pontificate on others they know nothing about. priceless, just about sums up the unionist campaign, Putin has chased Cameron so he will be begging Obama to up the intervention even more. We are real worried.
Why not answer the points he makes? Oh, you can't.
The answer is that the Reuters guy is talking out his rear end. There will be a currency union agreed between Scotland and rumpUK. carney clearly stated that it was doable and would actually be beneficial but would need some rules. So the Reuters guy changes that to bollocks that it is impossible , Scotland is small , scary scary , it cannot be done. Just what you would expect from an idiot who does not have a clue what he is talking about or a paid stooge. Is that clear enough for you.
He did not say currency union is "cannot be done", merely that it might not be wholly advantageous to Scotland. Of course, this rather begs the question of whether Scotland's interests are properly (or at all) represented in London now.
I'm actually coming round to this idea of pseudo-independence under a currency union arrangement. Scotland can continue on as an English protectorate under our economic control, but without Scottish MPs causing Labour governments.
Glad to see the PB Ally McLeod's keeping a sense of proportion. No doubt they have Hampden Park booked for their victory celebration.................in August.
"... short term at least it [a currency union] will be an absolute necessity for both sides..."
Why, Mr. G, why? Do please explain why it will be an absolute necessity for England that a newly independent Scotland does not, for example, start off with its own currency.
I don't know how he ever claimed to be a liberal Conservative with a straight face. Clearly he leans towards the authoritarian side of the argument, and what's worse is that his likely successor - Theresa May - is the same. We really do need a return to our traditional rights and liberties. General warrants were outlawed in the middle of the 18th Century, yet they've apparently been brought back by Labour and supported by the Tories.
The SNP's position will change completely the day after a Yes result, for all the reasons outlined in the article. And there will be a currency union on the terms set out by the rUK, for all the reasons outlined in the article.
Are you officially predicting a YES vote? Can we file this alongside your famous declaration that Romney Will Win?
I am not predicting a Yes or No. But it does look like it is going to be very close. You can file that with my prediction about UKIP having most of its successes in last year's council elections in the East of England.
What I am also predicting is that should there be a Yes vote the Scottish negotiating position will be much more realistic than is currently anticipated (or, to be more accurate, than is currently stated) by those on both the Yes and No sides. As that Reuters article makes clear, Scotland will need a very good relationship with the rUK as it will be a G8 economy to which 60% of all its exports go and which accounts for 70% of all its imports. Obviously, the rUK has much bigger fish to fry, so the concessions are inevitably going to be very one sided. There is just no way around that. Salmond, Sturgeon, Darling et al are far too intelligent not to realise this. But they have a vote to win.
I have a £50 free bet at Betway, need to use in the next 12 days and the market has to close in the next 12 days too...
Considering Scotland at 8.0, West Brom at 5.5, Chelsea at 4.2, Arsenal at 3.2, Everton at 3.4, Fulham at 12.0...
Back Everton to win the FA Cup at 6/1.
Utd and Spurs are already out and either City/Chelsea and Arsenal/Liverpool will go out next round. Everton are home to a piss poor Swansea team, Martinez won it last year, good bet in my opinion.
So it looks like the bad batch of polls for Labour at the beginning of last week was a blip. I'm going to assume it was a result of people simply being reminded of Ed Balls' existence last weekend with his round of media appearances (a "Balls crush", if you will). Hopefully the "powers that be" finally learn they need to sack this carcrash, and until they do, keep him as far away from the media as possible.
I have a £50 free bet at Betway, need to use in the next 12 days and the market has to close in the next 12 days too...
Considering Scotland at 8.0, West Brom at 5.5, Chelsea at 4.2, Arsenal at 3.2, Everton at 3.4, Fulham at 12.0...
Back Everton to win the FA Cup at 6/1.
Utd and Spurs are already out and either City/Chelsea and Arsenal/Liverpool will go out next round. Everton are home to a piss poor Swansea team, Martinez won it last year, good bet in my opinion.
One of the rules is the market needs to settle in 30 days from 14th Jan (Date of triggering) so I can't use on that one ;(
As a father of children....dismayed that the teletubbies were only secure due to the all seeing eye which over looks their bunker. Coming soon, I saw Dick Dastardly and Mutley bug Penelope Pitstop's home.
Must have been drinking Francois Hollande's X Bitter.
The SNP's position will change completely the day after a Yes result, for all the reasons outlined in the article. And there will be a currency union on the terms set out by the rUK, for all the reasons outlined in the article.
Are you officially predicting a YES vote? Can we file this alongside your famous declaration that Romney Will Win?
I am not predicting a Yes or No. But it does look like it is going to be very close. You can file that with my prediction about UKIP having most of its successes in last year's council elections in the East of England.
What I am also predicting is that should there be a Yes vote the Scottish negotiating position will be much more realistic than is currently anticipated (or, to be more accurate, than is currently stated) by those on both the Yes and No sides. As that Reuters article makes clear, Scotland will need a very good relationship with the rUK as it will be a G8 economy to which 60% of all its exports go and which accounts for 70% of all its imports. Obviously, the rUK has much bigger fish to fry, so the concessions are inevitably going to be very one sided. There is just no way around that. Salmond, Sturgeon, Darling et al are far too intelligent not to realise this. But they have a vote to win.
If you think it's gonna be very close (52-48, that kind of thing?) you should be minting it in the betting markets, which all predict a wider victory for NO.
The other absurdity of David Cameron's argument is that even if we take television dramas as gospel truth, they still solve them by looking at individual people's phones after they have reasonable cause as a suspect. That's a completely different situation to bulk collection and exploration of data of the entire population without specified warrants. That breaks an individual's privacy without reasonable cause, and is also a recipe for abuse.
It's also amazing how complicit the media is in all of this. In Germany and much of the rest of Europe, the Edward Snowden interview got blanket coverage. In the UK and the US it has hardly been covered at all, lest it upset the powers that be.
How desperate, Americans cannot even understand or run their own country, yet pontificate on others they know nothing about. priceless, just about sums up the unionist campaign, Putin has chased Cameron so he will be begging Obama to up the intervention even more. We are real worried.
Why not answer the points he makes? Oh, you can't.
The answer is that the Reuters guy is talking out his rear end. There will be a currency union agreed between Scotland and rumpUK. carney clearly stated that it was doable and would actually be beneficial but would need some rules. So the Reuters guy changes that to bollocks that it is impossible , Scotland is small , scary scary , it cannot be done. Just what you would expect from an idiot who does not have a clue what he is talking about or a paid stooge. Is that clear enough for you.
He did not say currency union is "cannot be done", merely that it might not be wholly advantageous to Scotland. Of course, this rather begs the question of whether Scotland's interests are properly (or at all) represented in London now.
I'm actually coming round to this idea of pseudo-independence under a currency union arrangement. Scotland can continue on as an English protectorate under our economic control, but without Scottish MPs causing Labour governments.
Socrates , You are a bit confused but your brain is beginning to see reality, soon the fog will lift you will be a YES man.
Recently had a look at some of Cameron's speeches in 2009/10. The difference is stark. The Tories were more confident and much more coherent than they are today. They're missing Steve Hilton or some other brain behind the scenes. It's all tactics today.
I have just - ahem - looked-up a great band from the past. Somehow it looks as though Al-Beeb Cardiffistan may have stolen the idea (and I only watch Dr Who once-in-a-blue-moon).
"... short term at least it [a currency union] will be an absolute necessity for both sides..."
Why, Mr. G, why? Do please explain why it will be an absolute necessity for England that a newly independent Scotland does not, for example, start off with its own currency.
Hurst they are almost bankrupt, debt to GDP will go to well over 100% , balance of payments in the toilet , etc , etc
The SNP's position will change completely the day after a Yes result, for all the reasons outlined in the article. And there will be a currency union on the terms set out by the rUK, for all the reasons outlined in the article.
Are you officially predicting a YES vote? Can we file this alongside your famous declaration that Romney Will Win?
I am not predicting a Yes or No. But it does look like it is going to be very close. You can file that with my prediction about UKIP having most of its successes in last year's council elections in the East of England.
What I am also predicting is that should there be a Yes vote the Scottish negotiating position will be much more realistic than is currently anticipated (or, to be more accurate, than is currently stated) by those on both the Yes and No sides. As that Reuters article makes clear, Scotland will need a very good relationship with the rUK as it will be a G8 economy to which 60% of all its exports go and which accounts for 70% of all its imports. Obviously, the rUK has much bigger fish to fry, so the concessions are inevitably going to be very one sided. There is just no way around that. Salmond, Sturgeon, Darling et al are far too intelligent not to realise this. But they have a vote to win.
If you think it's gonna be very close (52-48, that kind of thing?) you should be minting it in the betting markets, which all predict a wider victory for NO.
I reckon it will end about 56-44 in favour of No. Close enough to give Labour the willies.
If the polls narrow a lot further we will see the Brit establishment dangling devomax in front of the Scots, as long as they vote No.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.
Hurst they are almost bankrupt, debt to GDP will go to well over 100% , balance of payments in the toilet , etc , etc
Unckie' Malc': Troll better please. The US and Japan have a Public-Sector/GDP that is above 100%. Outwith the English tax-payer then Scotland has no benies - and income stream will not count- so what will she do?
Her major market may devalue the currency owned by the English; raise taxes upon Scottish (alcohol products) to marry with those of the Caribbean and East-European products; and, given the Edinborough Parish Clowns, decide not to underwrite the Public-Sector pensions upon which you nation will require.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Oh, I absolutely agree. But firstly, you are no doubt agreeing that the No campaign is verging on dishonesty, with its implicit and not always so implicit promise of no change if we vote no (given its emphasis on the current benefits, in its view, of the status quo).
And secondly, given that change is inevitable, the question is what change that is. The fact that the No campaign parties will not say what that is can also be interpreted as being unwilling to admit that they plan to give us devo minus or even no devo at all (given Ms Lamont's recent plans to downgrade the Scottish Parliament and redirect the block grant back to London (I think - would need to check) and (certainly) to local authorities such as Glasgow Council, which also helps to keep the big public sector unions on board).
So which is it going to be? Especially when set against the fat volume which is the White Paper. The No Campaign and the Unionists are close to achieving the feat of making a no vote a voyage into the unknown by comparison with a yes vote.
Hurst they are almost bankrupt, debt to GDP will go to well over 100% , balance of payments in the toilet , etc , etc
Unckie' Malc': Troll better please. The US and Japan have a Public-Sector/GDP that is above 100%. Outwith the English tax-payer then Scotland has no benies - and income stream will not count- so what will she do?
Her major market may devalue the currency owned by the English; raise taxes upon Scottish (alcohol products) to marry with those of the Caribbean and East-European products; and, given the Edinborough Parish Clowns, decide not to underwrite the Public-Sector pensions upon which you nation will require.
:grow-a-pair:
Delusions as ever, you suggesting England will welch on pensions fully paid up to date by Scottish people, very nice position. As to tax on whisky big deal I would not expect that to cause much hassle apart from some smuggling and tourism benefit. Cutting off your nose to spite your face even for Unionists is a bit much.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
MalcolmG's idiotic logic,
First sentence, " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes ". Second sentence, " A NO vote will guarantee changes ".
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.
MalcolmG's idiotic logic,
First sentence, " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes ". Second sentence, " A NO vote will guarantee changes ".
Can you not read a full sentence Monica , just to help the bit after the comma is connected to the first bit. English grammar seems to be a bit of an issue for you or perhaps you are a typical Unionist liar.
What are the methological differences between TNS and Survation ? The gap is huge !
Survation weights by 2010 Westminster voting, not very sensible imo.
Agreed. Survation should have weighted by Holyrood 2011 which is the latest snapshot of the Scottish electorate. Certainly other pollsters that past vote weight have done it this way.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Oh, I absolutely agree. But firstly, you are no doubt agreeing that the No campaign is verging on dishonesty, with its implicit and not always so implicit promise of no change if we vote no (given its emphasis on the current benefits, in its view, of the status quo).
And secondly, given that change is inevitable, the question is what change that is. The fact that the No campaign parties will not say what that is can also be interpreted as being unwilling to admit that they plan to give us devo minus or even no devo at all (given Ms Lamont's recent plans to downgrade the Scottish Parliament and redirect the block grant back to London (I think - would need to check) and (certainly) to local authorities such as Glasgow Council, which also helps to keep the big public sector unions on board).
So which is it going to be? Especially when set against the fat volume which is the White Paper. The No Campaign and the Unionists are close to achieving the feat of making a no vote a voyage into the unknown by comparison with a yes vote.
The Yes side is being as dishonest as the No side. Neither side is engaging with the reality of what a vote for them will actually lead to. I suspect because both understand that the difference between Devomax and independence within a sterling zone is pretty small beyond the ceremonial and symbolic. If the Yes side really does want a sterling zone, then what the vote actually comes down to is whether the Scots should have separate passports, a seat in the UN and their own international sports teams. Economically and financially everything will remain pretty much the same - or maybe less beneficial for Scotland than it is at the moment given that Scots will no longer be able to vote on who controls the sterling zone.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
DevoMax might not be on the ballot but it is where we will end up.
On the other stuff, you are right that it will not be in Britain's interests to screw the Scots, or vice versa, so "something will be worked out" and that something, even in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, will look like DevoMax.
I'm not sure I've seen much convincing evidence for a shift to 'Yes'. Over a protracted campaign, and 'No' has been pretty consistently strong over the last 12-18 months, it would be surprising if we didn't have the occasional poll showing a potentially closer result. What matters is the trend and whether it's sustained.
As the campaign gathers steam in the summer, slogans and arguments are honed and spending and media coverage increases, I'd expect more polls showing a close result. Probably a few spikes in August, before a pretty clear shift out to 'No' again in the final 1-2 weeks.
Nothing has altered my view that the referendum will be defeated 60/40.
What are the methological differences between TNS and Survation ? The gap is huge !
Survation weights by 2010 Westminster voting, not very sensible imo.
Is TNS totally random ? They must weigh something. Age profile, location, Holyrood election ?
TNS weights on 2011 Holyrood constituency voting. As Gildas points out, the figs in the above TNS graph look wrong, should be Yes 29% (+2 since Dec, +4 since Oct), No 42% (+1 since Dec, -2 since Oct).
Interesting numbers, particulary the Labour ones. The strategy of keeping the 2010 Labour voters and gaining a lump of 2010 LDs would be in peril if they lose 1/4 of the 2010 vote. The other parties cannot be too happy either. It also shows that fairly steady polls camoflage a lot of churn.
Below; the only pertinent figures that matter: all the rest is bollocks.
YOUGOV
Of every 1,000 votes in #GE2010 how many would vote the same?
LABOUR 730 CONSERVATIVES 653 LIBDEMS 246
This means that Labour have lost a quarter of their vote. This means that Tories have lost 2/5 of their vote. This means that the L/Dems have lost 3/4 of their vote.
Where have these votes gone? Some have vanished forever Some have gone to the don't knows. Some have sprinkled to the other main parties. A very few have gone green. But the majority have gone to UKIP.
Perhaps a person much cleverer in maths than me can make a proper table on this.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.
MalcolmG's idiotic logic,
First sentence, " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes ". Second sentence, " A NO vote will guarantee changes ".
Can you not read a full sentence Monica , just to help the bit after the comma is connected to the first bit. English grammar seems to be a bit of an issue for you or perhaps you are a typical Unionist liar.
Your blatant doublethink is typical of worshipers of Salmond. It's horrific.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.
MalcolmG's idiotic logic,
First sentence, " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes ". Second sentence, " A NO vote will guarantee changes ".
Can you not read a full sentence Monica , just to help the bit after the comma is connected to the first bit. English grammar seems to be a bit of an issue for you or perhaps you are a typical Unionist liar.
Your blatant doublethink is typical of worshipers of Salmond. It's horrific.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.
MalcolmG's idiotic logic,
First sentence, " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes ". Second sentence, " A NO vote will guarantee changes ".
Can you not read a full sentence Monica , just to help the bit after the comma is connected to the first bit. English grammar seems to be a bit of an issue for you or perhaps you are a typical Unionist liar.
Your blatant doublethink is typical of worshipers of Salmond. It's horrific.
I see Clegg's ostrich faction of spinners are ramping up their 'differentiation' master strategy. Yet again.
Vapid posturing on the snoopers charter and Ofsted. Expect it to be a successful as every other time they did it before local elections.
The results thus far. Losing AV and Lords reform, the lib dem councillors and activist base getting pounded year on year and the Lib dems flatlining on 10% since late 2010.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.
MalcolmG's idiotic logic,
First sentence, " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes ". Second sentence, " A NO vote will guarantee changes ".
Can you not read a full sentence Monica , just to help the bit after the comma is connected to the first bit. English grammar seems to be a bit of an issue for you or perhaps you are a typical Unionist liar.
Your blatant doublethink is typical of worshipers of Salmond. It's horrific.
So you were just lying then.............LOL
Lying about what?
What I said , you used half a sentence to imply I had said something else, typical unionist in being economical with the truth
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.
MalcolmG's idiotic logic,
First sentence, " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes ". Second sentence, " A NO vote will guarantee changes ".
Can you not read a full sentence Monica , just to help the bit after the comma is connected to the first bit. English grammar seems to be a bit of an issue for you or perhaps you are a typical Unionist liar.
Your blatant doublethink is typical of worshipers of Salmond. It's horrific.
So you were just lying then.............LOL
Lying about what?
What I said , you used half a sentence to imply I had said something else, typical unionist in being economical with the truth
LOL A separatist fanatic like yourself would not recognise the truth if it smacked you in the face . You are barely able to respond to a post without calling that poster a liar .
[earlier stuff deleted] So which is it going to be? Especially when set against the fat volume which is the White Paper. The No Campaign and the Unionists are close to achieving the feat of making a no vote a voyage into the unknown by comparison with a yes vote.
The Yes side is being as dishonest as the No side. Neither side is engaging with the reality of what a vote for them will actually lead to. I suspect because both understand that the difference between Devomax and independence within a sterling zone is pretty small beyond the ceremonial and symbolic. If the Yes side really does want a sterling zone, then what the vote actually comes down to is whether the Scots should have separate passports, a seat in the UN and their own international sports teams. Economically and financially everything will remain pretty much the same - or maybe less beneficial for Scotland than it is at the moment given that Scots will no longer be able to vote on who controls the sterling zone.
I'm inclined to agree with you, though I beg to differ on your first sentence, if only because the Yes side has issued a lot more (and thanks for your courteous approach BTW).
But consider Westminster voting. The Scots will not, for the foreseeable future, say 10-15 years, vote for a Tory government at Westminster, and recent polling posted here suggests that they could also reject Labour there (too early to say, though). So for much, perhaps all, the time, Westminster fiscal policy will be controlled by a party for which the Scots did not vote; and even when it is, they are only a small part of the UK, so other issues such as London housing markets will dominate. So the situation you describe is no worse and - assuming a seat on the relevant board - better than it now is, while being so similar to today that current UK government hostility is inexplicable unless it is EWNI politicians fearing being restricted in fiscal policy by the BoE under the same agreement as the Scots, who are hardly likely to be extravagant under Swinney anyway.
And there is more to independence - industrial, defence, energy, farming and fisheries policies. And (as you (I think?) and others have said) it will no doubt be an interim arrangement till things develop and the economies begin to diverge.
I'm reminded that Charles Darwin's 'Origin of Species' was profoundly counterintuitive, in that, unlike his predecessors, he did not attempt to prove in one go that (say) amoebas became human beings, but simply demonstrated that even the greatest changes can be formed by small, even gradual ones. It was a devastating logical strategy.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.
MalcolmG's idiotic logic,
First sentence, " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes ". Second sentence, " A NO vote will guarantee changes ".
Can you not read a full sentence Monica , just to help the bit after the comma is connected to the first bit. English grammar seems to be a bit of an issue for you or perhaps you are a typical Unionist liar.
Your blatant doublethink is typical of worshipers of Salmond. It's horrific.
So you were just lying then.............LOL
Lying about what?
What I said , you used half a sentence to imply I had said something else, typical unionist in being economical with the truth
LOL A separatist fanatic like yourself would not recognise the truth if it smacked you in the face . You are barely able to respond to a post without calling that poster a liar .
I only call liars , liars and I make that a total of one. Only a turnip head like yourself could get that to be every post. Stick to insults you are better at that then counting.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.
MalcolmG's idiotic logic,
First sentence, " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes ". Second sentence, " A NO vote will guarantee changes ".
Can you not read a full sentence Monica , just to help the bit after the comma is connected to the first bit. English grammar seems to be a bit of an issue for you or perhaps you are a typical Unionist liar.
Your blatant doublethink is typical of worshipers of Salmond. It's horrific.
So you were just lying then.............LOL
Lying about what?
What I said , you used half a sentence to imply I had said something else, typical unionist in being economical with the truth
LOL A separatist fanatic like yourself would not recognise the truth if it smacked you in the face . You are barely able to respond to a post without calling that poster a liar .
I only call liars , liars and I make that a total of one. Only a turnip head like yourself could get that to be every post. Stick to insults you are better at that then counting.
@Carnyx - "And there is more to independence - industrial, defence, energy, farming and fisheries policies. And (as you (I think?) and others have said) it will no doubt be an interim arrangement till things develop and the economies begin to diverge."
This is absolutely true.
I also think there is a lot of downside for the rUK elite if Scotland were to become independent. Economically and financially, it may not make much difference, but politically it will be a very big deal - the elite will be emasculated in Europe and beyond as the UK, with all its historical legacy, will cease to exist. This, as well as a genuine affection for and pride in the UK, lies behind a lot of the vehemence. I also think that a Yes will have a profound effect on public opinion in England (as opposed to the rUK), especially among many UKIP and Tory voters. When they post on here and elsewhere "Please just get on with it", "Can we have a vote?" and other things to that effect, it seems to me that they protest too much. That may affect negotiations post-Yes, but in the end I believe that pragmatism on both sides will win the day. Anything else will be self-defeating.
For me, I am torn. I like the idea of the UK and what it could be. And as a centre-leftist (albeit a woolly one) I am suspicious of movements that seek to highlight differences rather than focus on similarities. However, I also think that if I were in Scotland I'd find it very difficult to argue against a Yes vote as it represents such a great opportunity to start again. And, in a way, a yes vote will also offer the rest of that too. It seems pretty obvious to me that after a Yes, the rUK is going to have to think seriously and deeply about how it is structured. The idea that separation will herald a long period of Tory rule is nonsensical to my eyes as in the rUK, just as in Scotland, there is no Tory majority.
What I'd really like to see is a No vote followed by Devomax, as that will force a rethink across the UK too while keeping it intact. But then I hoped for a Lab/LD rapprochement in 2010 and did not get that, so I am used to being disappointed!
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.
MalcolmG's idiotic logic,
First sentence, " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes ". Second sentence, " A NO vote will guarantee changes ".
Can you not read a full sentence Monica , just to help the bit after the comma is connected to the first bit. English grammar seems to be a bit of an issue for you or perhaps you are a typical Unionist liar.
Your blatant doublethink is typical of worshipers of Salmond. It's horrific.
So you were just lying then.............LOL
Lying about what?
What I said , you used half a sentence to imply I had said something else, typical unionist in being economical with the truth
LOL A separatist fanatic like yourself would not recognise the truth if it smacked you in the face . You are barely able to respond to a post without calling that poster a liar .
I only call liars , liars and I make that a total of one. Only a turnip head like yourself could get that to be every post. Stick to insults you are better at that then counting.
Dear Dear Monica , look a squirrel. Just admit you were economical with truth and tried to misrepresent me and move on. Attempting to divert to something completely different is pretty pathetic.
DevoMax is not on offer , cameron was scared to have it on the ballot. The 3 Unionist parties cannot agree on anything and so they can lie as usual but promise nothing, that train has left the station. Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no change after a 'no' vote, especially if the result is close.
Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.
MalcolmG's idiotic logic,
First sentence, " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes ". Second sentence, " A NO vote will guarantee changes ".
Can you not read a full sentence Monica , just to help the bit after the comma is connected to the first bit. English grammar seems to be a bit of an issue for you or perhaps you are a typical Unionist liar.
Your blatant doublethink is typical of worshipers of Salmond. It's horrific.
So you were just lying then.............LOL
Lying about what?
What I said , you used half a sentence to imply I had said something else, typical unionist in being economical with the truth
LOL A separatist fanatic like yourself would not recognise the truth if it smacked you in the face . You are barely able to respond to a post without calling that poster a liar .
I only call liars , liars and I make that a total of one. Only a turnip head like yourself could get that to be every post. Stick to insults you are better at that then counting.
Dear Dear Monica , look a squirrel. Just admit you were economical with truth and tried to misrepresent me and move on. Attempting to divert to something completely different is pretty pathetic.
Your exact words were " Only an imbecile would vote NO thinking there will be changes , for the better at least. A NO vote will guarantee changes but not for the better.", I think they speak for themselves.
R.I.P. Swein Forkbeard King of England died 2nd February 1014
I will have to tell my daughter. She is 16 today and will be delighted to know that she shares the date with such an auspicious moment in English history.
@Carnyx - "And there is more to independence - industrial, defence, energy, farming and fisheries policies. And (as you (I think?) and others have said) it will no doubt be an interim arrangement till things develop and the economies begin to diverge."
This is absolutely true.
I also think there is a lot of downside for the rUK elite if Scotland were to become independent. Economically and financially, it may not make much difference, but politically it will be a very big deal - the elite will be emasculated in Europe and beyond as the UK, with all its historical legacy, will cease to exist. This, as well as a genuine affection for and pride in the UK, lies behind a lot of the vehemence. I also think that a Yes will have a profound effect on public opinion in England (as opposed to the rUK), especially among many UKIP and Tory voters. When they post on here and elsewhere "Please just get on with it", "Can we have a vote?" and other things to that effect, it seems to me that they protest too much. That may affect negotiations post-Yes, but in the end I believe that pragmatism on both sides will win the day. Anything else will be self-defeating.
For me, I am torn. I like the idea of the UK and what it could be. And as a centre-leftist (albeit a woolly one) I am suspicious of movements that seek to highlight differences rather than focus on similarities. However, I also think that if I were in Scotland I'd find it very difficult to argue against a Yes vote as it represents such a great opportunity to start again. And, in a way, a yes vote will also offer the rest of that too. It seems pretty obvious to me that after a Yes, the rUK is going to have to think seriously and deeply about how it is structured. The idea that separation will herald a long period of Tory rule is nonsensical to my eyes as in the rUK, just as in Scotland, there is no Tory majority.
What I'd really like to see is a No vote followed by Devomax, as that will force a rethink across the UK too while keeping it intact. But then I hoped for a Lab/LD rapprochement in 2010 and did not get that, so I am used to being disappointed!
Nah. If YES wins, you will see Tory hegemony in England for 10-15 years, as Labour's Scottish heart is ripped out, and they struggle to recover. Sorry.
@Carnyx - [my comment deleted] This is absolutely true.
I also think there is a lot of downside for the rUK elite if Scotland were to become independent. Economically and financially, it may not make much difference, but politically it will be a very big deal - the elite will be emasculated in Europe and beyond as the UK, with all its historical legacy, will cease to exist. This, as well as a genuine affection for and pride in the UK, lies behind a lot of the vehemence. I also think that a Yes will have a profound effect on public opinion in England (as opposed to the rUK), especially among many UKIP and Tory voters. When they post on here and elsewhere "Please just get on with it", "Can we have a vote?" and other things to that effect, it seems to me that they protest too much. That may affect negotiations post-Yes, but in the end I believe that pragmatism on both sides will win the day. Anything else will be self-defeating.
For me, I am torn. I like the idea of the UK and what it could be. And as a centre-leftist (albeit a woolly one) I am suspicious of movements that seek to highlight differences rather than focus on similarities. However, I also think that if I were in Scotland I'd find it very difficult to argue against a Yes vote as it represents such a great opportunity to start again. And, in a way, a yes vote will also offer the rest of that too. It seems pretty obvious to me that after a Yes, the rUK is going to have to think seriously and deeply about how it is structured. The idea that separation will herald a long period of Tory rule is nonsensical to my eyes as in the rUK, just as in Scotland, there is no Tory majority.
What I'd really like to see is a No vote followed by Devomax, as that will force a rethink across the UK too while keeping it intact. But then I hoped for a Lab/LD rapprochement in 2010 and did not get that, so I am used to being disappointed!
Many thanks for this. It is looking more and more unfortunate for those of your views that Mr Cameron completely fluffed it by refusing devomax - and then by not saying just what we can expect when we vote no. Anyway.
I have to say I'm increasingly unhappy that so much of the history of the UK is being abused by the no campaign - the Yes campaign is barely even mentioning the past which I find a great relief as I firmly think that history should be studied, reflected on, and commemorated - but not celebrated. It is too ambiguous for that . Tory and Labour ex-Ss of S for Scotland last week tried to conscript the pale battalions of the dead of the Great War, when even Niall Ferguson is of the opinion that the UK should have kept out. And I recall Mr C urged us to vote no just cos Scots fought at D-Day ... yet those latter people fought also for the postwar Attlee consensus which, to me, in part defined Britishness and of which the centrist SNP are, politically, one of the last bastions.
@Carnyx - "And there is more to independence - industrial, defence, energy, farming and fisheries policies. And (as you (I think?) and others have said) it will no doubt be an interim arrangement till things develop and the economies begin to diverge."
This is absolutely true.
I also think there is a lot of downside for the rUK elite if Scotland were to become independent. Economically and financially, it may not make much difference, but politically it will be a very big deal - the elite will be emasculated in Europe and beyond as the UK, with all its historical legacy, will cease to exist. This, as well as a genuine affection for and pride in the UK, lies behind a lot of the vehemence. I also think that a Yes will have a profound effect on public opinion in England (as opposed to the rUK), especially among many UKIP and Tory voters. When they post on here and elsewhere "Please just get on with it", "Can we have a vote?" and other things to that effect, it seems to me that they protest too much. That may affect negotiations post-Yes, but in the end I believe that pragmatism on both sides will win the day. Anything else will be self-defeating.
For me, I am torn. I like the idea of the UK and what it could be. And as a centre-leftist (albeit a woolly one) I am suspicious of movements that seek to highlight differences rather than focus on similarities. However, I also think that if I were in Scotland I'd find it very difficult to argue against a Yes vote as it represents such a great opportunity to start again. And, in a way, a yes vote will also offer the rest of that too. It seems pretty obvious to me that after a Yes, the rUK is going to have to think seriously and deeply about how it is structured. The idea that separation will herald a long period of Tory rule is nonsensical to my eyes as in the rUK, just as in Scotland, there is no Tory majority.
What I'd really like to see is a No vote followed by Devomax, as that will force a rethink across the UK too while keeping it intact. But then I hoped for a Lab/LD rapprochement in 2010 and did not get that, so I am used to being disappointed!
Nah. If YES wins, you will see Tory hegemony in England for 10-15 years, as Labour's Scottish heart is ripped out, and they struggle to recover. Sorry.
I hope we never find out. But if we do, I fear you may be disappointed.
politically it will be a very big deal - the elite will be emasculated in Europe and beyond
Nah......
Russia survived a much greater loss in the collapse of the Soviet empire and the abandonment of its ideology.
Though painful, the loss to economic output will be similar to Brown's recession.
The British establishment have been "managing decline" for nearly 70 years....I suspect our Euro colleagues will congratulate us both on a relatively smooth separation, while eyeing Spain/Catelonia nervously, and with a new member of the awkward squad at the table occasionally think back fondly to the days of when it was only the UK and Mrs Thatcher they had to deal with......
@Carnyx - "And there is more to independence - industrial, defence, energy, farming and fisheries policies. And (as you (I think?) and others have said) it will no doubt be an interim arrangement till things develop and the economies begin to diverge."
This is absolutely true.
I also think there is a lot of downside for the rUK elite if Scotland were to become independent. Economically and financially, it may not make much difference, but politically it will be a very big deal - the elite will be emasculated in Europe and beyond as the UK, with all its historical legacy, will cease to exist. This, as well as a genuine affection for and pride in the UK, lies behind a lot of the vehemence. I also think that a Yes will have a profound effect on public opinion in England (as opposed to the rUK), especially among many UKIP and Tory voters. When they post on here and elsewhere "Please just get on with it", "Can we have a vote?" and other things to that effect, it seems to me that they protest too much. That may affect negotiations post-Yes, but in the end I believe that pragmatism on both sides will win the day. Anything else will be self-defeating.
For me, I am torn. I like the idea of the UK and what it could be. And as a centre-leftist (albeit a woolly one) I am suspicious of movements that seek to highlight differences rather than focus on similarities. However, I also think that if I were in Scotland I'd find it very difficult to argue against a Yes vote as it represents such a great opportunity to start again. And, in a way, a yes vote will also offer the rest of that too. It seems pretty obvious to me that after a Yes, the rUK is going to have to think seriously and deeply about how it is structured. The idea that separation will herald a long period of Tory rule is nonsensical to my eyes as in the rUK, just as in Scotland, there is no Tory majority.
What I'd really like to see is a No vote followed by Devomax, as that will force a rethink across the UK too while keeping it intact. But then I hoped for a Lab/LD rapprochement in 2010 and did not get that, so I am used to being disappointed!
Nah. If YES wins, you will see Tory hegemony in England for 10-15 years, as Labour's Scottish heart is ripped out, and they struggle to recover. Sorry.
I hope we never find out. But if we do, I fear you may be disappointed.
Your style is familiar.
IIRC he did write De excidio et conquestu Britanniae ['Concerning the downfall of the UK', translating loosely]!
Comments
I honestly think that English cricket is in shock. They had no idea how far their standards had slipped or how poor they had become. Many of this team still hark back to when they were number one in the world and seem to be living on past glories.
This tour has been harsh but they seriously needed it if they were to build for the future. Flower did a good job of picking them up once (although they were not as low as this) but it needs a new team to do it again. A new captain too I think although Broad has hardly boosted his credentials with the shorter over stuff.
Labour 22 Conservatives 124 Lib Dem 30 all per thousand
Charles Dagnall, BBC Test Match Special
"If Jade Dernbach can bat as well as he talks, England have a chance."
17 overs:
Eng 110-9
Stuart Broad, the man booed throughout the tour by Aussie fans, is replaced by last man Jade Dernbach, who may well be booed by any remaining England fans inside Stadium Australia after his bowling in this series (combined series figures 11-0-141-1, you may remember).
Is that clear enough for you.
Labour 22 Conservatives 122 Lib Dem 72
When I said Dernbach to be last out, I was going to say run out in farcical circumstances but thought, don't 'push it'.
Sometimes the script is obvious but you daren't write it!!!!
As to the "we can't do anything because we're too weak from the last recession" line what are we going to do when the NEXT recession hits and we're already probably closer to the next recession than we are to the last one.
And next time we'll be hitting recession with a trillion quid more government debt already on the books, what will we do then ? Run a budget deficit of £200bn a year ?
The fact is that Osborne has chosen the 'easy solution' ie subsidise house prices and consumption. It might buy votes in the short term but its causing even more permanent damage.
A flattering scoreline.
I do feel sorry for Cook. He isn't a great captain, and is tactically not astute, but I guess the strategy was to give him the job while the team was playing well, little captaincy was needed, and he would learn his way into the job. And of course Strauss probably resigned a year or so before the plan required. Instead, Cook has walked into this and seems to have little influence on the result and it has trashed his batting form. I agree he probably needs to give up the captaincy for a bit and concentrate on his batting. Ideally the job should go to a "senior professional" who is likely to retire in a year or two, when Cook can get it back, but I don't think we have one of those.
I believe AVB is being lined up to replace Andy Flower.
This tour has been harsh but they seriously needed it if they were to build for the future. Flower did a good job of picking them up once (although they were not as low as this) but it needs a new team to do it again. A new captain too I think although Broad has hardly boosted his credentials with the shorter over stuff.
David, easier just to say they are crap.
And if the scoring system for England's men's tour followed the same scheme as the Women's Ashes (six points for winning a Test, two for an ODI or T20), Australia would have triumphed 44-2.
Talking about things the other day ...... we're both Essex members ..... my wife, who has probably watched the game longer than I have, remarked that Cook probably hasn't, ever in his life, had to face a really challenging situation.
England need more life and threat in the middle order. Morgan needs brought back and not suffocated. They need to concentrate less on the all rounders and more on specialists. Bresnan, whole hearted though he is, will not do. Stokes might and certainly needs a go after a tour where he was one of the highlights. Jordan probably deserves a go too.
Jimmy has been fantastic but may be near the end. The collapse of Finn and the failure of Tremlett to have any impact has been disappointing. Is there more to bowling than being 6ft 10? I think England need to find out.
Not sure this is happening any more - and in an earlier article on CricInfo, Dobell claimed that counties were commenting that new England players were having their flair and skill coached out of them.
Andy Flowers has done well. The question is this: Was it him or the team?
Low-glamour players like Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell gell[-ed] the batting-order. They are the types - along with the wickie-likes of Stewart and Prior - that extend the English tail. The likes of Morgan and Bopara have not, sadly, lived up to their promise.
I'd prefer to see Stuart Broad at seven or eight. Outwith him and Anderson - sans Swann - I don't see anything left in the line-out to give me confidence*....
* Tim Bresnan is getting old...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140131/09523326059/david-cameron-says-snoopers-charter-is-necessary-because-fictional-crime-dramas-he-watches-prove-it.shtml
Why, Mr. G, why? Do please explain why it will be an absolute necessity for England that a newly independent Scotland does not, for example, start off with its own currency.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.101416490
I have a £50 free bet at Betway, need to use in the next 12 days and the market has to close in the next 12 days too...
Considering Scotland at 8.0, West Brom at 5.5, Chelsea at 4.2, Arsenal at 3.2, Everton at 3.4, Fulham at 12.0...
What I am also predicting is that should there be a Yes vote the Scottish negotiating position will be much more realistic than is currently anticipated (or, to be more accurate, than is currently stated) by those on both the Yes and No sides. As that Reuters article makes clear, Scotland will need a very good relationship with the rUK as it will be a G8 economy to which 60% of all its exports go and which accounts for 70% of all its imports. Obviously, the rUK has much bigger fish to fry, so the concessions are inevitably going to be very one sided. There is just no way around that. Salmond, Sturgeon, Darling et al are far too intelligent not to realise this. But they have a vote to win.
Utd and Spurs are already out and either City/Chelsea and Arsenal/Liverpool will go out next round. Everton are home to a piss poor Swansea team, Martinez won it last year, good bet in my opinion.
http://www.philosophersmail.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549107/PM-cites-TV-spies-justify-snooping-Cameron-says-eavesdropping-mobile-Internet-use-essential-protect-citizens-terrorists-attacks.html
Shallow PR spiv, is it any wonder why he rubs up some supporters the wrong way.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/snoopers-charter-david-cameron-says-3095693
As a father of children....dismayed that the teletubbies were only secure due to the all seeing eye which over looks their bunker. Coming soon, I saw Dick Dastardly and Mutley bug Penelope Pitstop's home.
Must have been drinking Francois Hollande's X Bitter.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/yes-vote-percentage
I reckon it will end about 56-44 in favour of No. Close enough to give Labour the willies.
If the polls narrow a lot further we will see the Brit establishment dangling devomax in front of the Scots, as long as they vote No.
It's also amazing how complicit the media is in all of this. In Germany and much of the rest of Europe, the Edward Snowden interview got blanket coverage. In the UK and the US it has hardly been covered at all, lest it upset the powers that be.
I have just - ahem - looked-up a great band from the past. Somehow it looks as though Al-Beeb Cardiffistan may have stolen the idea (and I only watch Dr Who once-in-a-blue-moon).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NMxwbn_QoU
You judge if I am correct....
Their arrogance has done for them just as Alex Salmond knew it would do. Anybody wanting change has to vote YES, a NO vote is a NO hope vote.
Her major market may devalue the currency owned by the English; raise taxes upon Scottish (alcohol products) to marry with those of the Caribbean and East-European products; and, given the Edinborough Parish Clowns, decide not to underwrite the Public-Sector pensions upon which you nation will require.
:grow-a-pair:
And secondly, given that change is inevitable, the question is what change that is. The fact that the No campaign parties will not say what that is can also be interpreted as being unwilling to admit that they plan to give us devo minus or even no devo at all (given Ms Lamont's recent plans to downgrade the Scottish Parliament and redirect the block grant back to London (I think - would need to check) and (certainly) to local authorities such as Glasgow Council, which also helps to keep the big public sector unions on board).
So which is it going to be? Especially when set against the fat volume which is the White Paper. The No Campaign and the Unionists are close to achieving the feat of making a no vote a voyage into the unknown by comparison with a yes vote.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face even for Unionists is a bit much.
On the other stuff, you are right that it will not be in Britain's interests to screw the Scots, or vice versa, so "something will be worked out" and that something, even in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, will look like DevoMax.
As the campaign gathers steam in the summer, slogans and arguments are honed and spending and media coverage increases, I'd expect more polls showing a close result. Probably a few spikes in August, before a pretty clear shift out to 'No' again in the final 1-2 weeks.
Nothing has altered my view that the referendum will be defeated 60/40.
As Gildas points out, the figs in the above TNS graph look wrong, should be Yes 29% (+2 since Dec, +4 since Oct), No 42% (+1 since Dec, -2 since Oct).
Peter Edwards-Daem (UKIP, Faversham & Kent Mid)
Peter Griffiths (UKIP, Wealden)
Allen Cowles (UKIP, Rother Valley)
Caven Vines (UKIP, Wentworth & Dearne)
Paul Oakden (UKIP, Northampton North)
Rose Gibbins (UKIP, Northampton South)
Jane Burnet (Green, Dorset South)
Peter Barton (Green, Dorset West)
Clive Martin (Green, Taunton Deane)
Eliminating DKs gives Survation Yes 38 No 62 and TNS Yes 41 No 59
Either way Yes looks toast
Yet again.
Vapid posturing on the snoopers charter and Ofsted. Expect it to be a successful as every other time they did it before local elections.
The results thus far. Losing AV and Lords reform, the lib dem councillors and activist base getting pounded year on year and the Lib dems flatlining on 10% since late 2010.
But this time it will be different will it?
Nope.
But consider Westminster voting. The Scots will not, for the foreseeable future, say 10-15 years, vote for a Tory government at Westminster, and recent polling posted here suggests that they could also reject Labour there (too early to say, though). So for much, perhaps all, the time, Westminster fiscal policy will be controlled by a party for which the Scots did not vote; and even when it is, they are only a small part of the UK, so other issues such as London housing markets will dominate. So the situation you describe is no worse and - assuming a seat on the relevant board - better than it now is, while being so similar to today that current UK government hostility is inexplicable unless it is EWNI politicians fearing being restricted in fiscal policy by the BoE under the same agreement as the Scots, who are hardly likely to be extravagant under Swinney anyway.
And there is more to independence - industrial, defence, energy, farming and fisheries policies. And (as you (I think?) and others have said) it will no doubt be an interim arrangement till things develop and the economies begin to diverge.
I'm reminded that Charles Darwin's 'Origin of Species' was profoundly counterintuitive, in that, unlike his predecessors, he did not attempt to prove in one go that (say) amoebas became human beings, but simply demonstrated that even the greatest changes can be formed by small, even gradual ones. It was a devastating logical strategy.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/bare-faced-liar-alex-salmond-s-reputation-in-the-mud
This is absolutely true.
I also think there is a lot of downside for the rUK elite if Scotland were to become independent. Economically and financially, it may not make much difference, but politically it will be a very big deal - the elite will be emasculated in Europe and beyond as the UK, with all its historical legacy, will cease to exist. This, as well as a genuine affection for and pride in the UK, lies behind a lot of the vehemence. I also think that a Yes will have a profound effect on public opinion in England (as opposed to the rUK), especially among many UKIP and Tory voters. When they post on here and elsewhere "Please just get on with it", "Can we have a vote?" and other things to that effect, it seems to me that they protest too much. That may affect negotiations post-Yes, but in the end I believe that pragmatism on both sides will win the day. Anything else will be self-defeating.
For me, I am torn. I like the idea of the UK and what it could be. And as a centre-leftist (albeit a woolly one) I am suspicious of movements that seek to highlight differences rather than focus on similarities. However, I also think that if I were in Scotland I'd find it very difficult to argue against a Yes vote as it represents such a great opportunity to start again. And, in a way, a yes vote will also offer the rest of that too. It seems pretty obvious to me that after a Yes, the rUK is going to have to think seriously and deeply about how it is structured. The idea that separation will herald a long period of Tory rule is nonsensical to my eyes as in the rUK, just as in Scotland, there is no Tory majority.
What I'd really like to see is a No vote followed by Devomax, as that will force a rethink across the UK too while keeping it intact. But then I hoped for a Lab/LD rapprochement in 2010 and did not get that, so I am used to being disappointed!
King of England
died 2nd February 1014
I have to say I'm increasingly unhappy that so much of the history of the UK is being abused by the no campaign - the Yes campaign is barely even mentioning the past which I find a great relief as I firmly think that history should be studied, reflected on, and commemorated - but not celebrated. It is too ambiguous for that . Tory and Labour ex-Ss of S for Scotland last week tried to conscript the pale battalions of the dead of the Great War, when even Niall Ferguson is of the opinion that the UK should have kept out. And I recall Mr C urged us to vote no just cos Scots fought at D-Day ... yet those latter people fought also for the postwar Attlee consensus which, to me, in part defined Britishness and of which the centrist SNP are, politically, one of the last bastions.
Your style is familiar.
Russia survived a much greater loss in the collapse of the Soviet empire and the abandonment of its ideology.
Though painful, the loss to economic output will be similar to Brown's recession.
The British establishment have been "managing decline" for nearly 70 years....I suspect our Euro colleagues will congratulate us both on a relatively smooth separation, while eyeing Spain/Catelonia nervously, and with a new member of the awkward squad at the table occasionally think back fondly to the days of when it was only the UK and Mrs Thatcher they had to deal with......