Mr. Observer, it is *not* democratically fair to ask the bits of Britain you think (you being the Labour Party of 1997) will always support you for devolution whilst leaving the largest component of the UK without any equal say or Parliament.
As for 'they voted for it': will we see a referendum on reintroducing hanging? Leaving the EU? The devolution vote was not about some high-minded notion of granting the Scots their democratic rights but a cretinous, ill-considered act which has not delivered a permanent fiefdom for Labour but instead brought this country to the brink of destruction.
Labour are inept in many ways, but surely their constitutional meddling must rank alongside their economic incompetence.
I agree that there should be an English Parliament. I would like to see a federal UK. I have made that clear on here time and again. My point is not to defend Labour, which no doubt did believe that it would rule in Scotland forever. My point is that the Scottish people had made clear they wanted a devolved parliament, Labour recognised that, promised a referendum on the subject and delivered, having made it clear what would happen in the manifesto they presented to the entire electorate in 1997. There is nothing to stop any party from promising a referendum on hanging or withdrawing from the EU or anything else. If they are voted into power they can then deliver on that.
What Tories should ask themselves is just why the Scots had become so convinced that they needed devolution in the first place. That, though, may necessitate a level of reflection that they may find uncomfortable. For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
Cornwall has wanted a devolved assembly for years. Amazing how New Labour's devolution agenda never extended to them...
Not really - no votes for Labour in Cornwall.
If Indy goes Yes there'll be no votes for them in Scotland either.
Now where is Stuart Dickson to give us the latest from the Scottish subsamples . Survation had LD's at 10% in their latest national Scottish poll , yesterday's Populus had LDs in Scotland at 12% , today's Yougov sample has them up at 14 % . Clearly Alistair Carmichael is having some effect north of the border .
Lol, sub-sample Senior. It's entertaining that someone decrying small movements towards Yes in Indy polls is scrabbling around in Scottish sub-samples to big-up the etiolated chances of his own party.
LOL , you are missing the sarcasm and irony in my post directed at Stuart following 5 years of a dispute with him over the significance of Scottish sub samples . the Survation poll however was a national VI poll .
Funny, I thought you mentioned yesterday's Populus & today's Yougov. Perhaps you'd like to increase the stake on our bet as to whether the Scottish LDs will beat the SCons on vote share at the next GE.
I have not got any bet with anyone on SLD v SCon vote shares in 2015 .
At some point the conflict between jobs/economy/keeping the lights and on being green/saving the whales is going to burst out into the open. If and when we start to see actual brownouts and utterly unsustainable energy price rises I think the consensus for carbon reduction will finally evaporate and energy policy will start to be driven by those with some understanding of physics and economics.
That conflict is absolutely not the division causing Britain's energy crisis. The problem is that government after government has refused to build significant energy capacity of any type. Mainly because its the same people that don't want either a coal plant, a nuclear power station or a wind farm on their doorsteps.
Now where is Stuart Dickson to give us the latest from the Scottish subsamples . Survation had LD's at 10% in their latest national Scottish poll , yesterday's Populus had LDs in Scotland at 12% , today's Yougov sample has them up at 14 % . Clearly Alistair Carmichael is having some effect north of the border .
Lol, sub-sample Senior. It's entertaining that someone decrying small movements towards Yes in Indy polls is scrabbling around in Scottish sub-samples to big-up the etiolated chances of his own party.
LOL , you are missing the sarcasm and irony in my post directed at Stuart following 5 years of a dispute with him over the significance of Scottish sub samples . the Survation poll however was a national VI poll .
Funny, I thought you mentioned yesterday's Populus & today's Yougov. Perhaps you'd like to increase the stake on our bet as to whether the Scottish LDs will beat the SCons on vote share at the next GE.
I have not got any bet with anyone on SLD v SCon vote shares in 2015 .
Check with Peter the Punter:
Aug 2012
'another couple of bets to add to my growing collection, this time with Mark Senior.
My side of them is: £25 at evens that the LDs will get less votes than the Cons in Scotland at the next GE. £25 at evens that the 'No' side will get 59.99% of the vote or less in an Independence referendum (straight Yes/No, agreed by Holyrood & Westminster).'
Mr. Observer, it is *not* democratically fair to ask the bits of Britain you think (you being the Labour Party of 1997) will always support you for devolution whilst leaving the largest component of the UK without any equal say or Parliament.
As for 'they voted for it': will we see a referendum on reintroducing hanging? Leaving the EU? The devolution vote was not about some high-minded notion of granting the Scots their democratic rights but a cretinous, ill-considered act which has not delivered a permanent fiefdom for Labour but instead brought this country to the brink of destruction.
Labour are inept in many ways, but surely their constitutional meddling must rank alongside their economic incompetence.
I agree that there should be an English Parliament. I would like to see a federal UK. I have made that clear on here time and again. My point is not to defend Labour, which no doubt did believe that it would rule in Scotland forever. My point is that the Scottish people had made clear they wanted a devolved parliament, Labour recognised that, promised a referendum on the subject and delivered, having made it clear what would happen in the manifesto they presented to the entire electorate in 1997. There is nothing to stop any party from promising a referendum on hanging or withdrawing from the EU or anything else. If they are voted into power they can then deliver on that.
What Tories should ask themselves is just why the Scots had become so convinced that they needed devolution in the first place. That, though, may necessitate a level of reflection that they may find uncomfortable. For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
Cornwall has wanted a devolved assembly for years. Amazing how New Labour's devolution agenda never extended to them...
Not really - no votes for Labour in Cornwall.
If Indy goes Yes there'll be no votes for them in Scotland either.
I imagine they'll be running Scotland pretty soon after independence.
Please do not post links that accuse pollsters of push polling and/or that question their integrity.
Sorry??? Are you seriously claiming a pollsters methodology is now "off-limits".
Your choice but if you think it looks good for PB to make certain pollsters immune to criticism then that's a pretty bizarre and revealing stance to make.
Morning all and as I said early last year, if I had £10 to bet, I would put £6 on a narrow YES vote and £4 on a NO vote. It is so much harder to argue for not changing things when since Tony Blair pressed the start button in 1998 it has been all towards change. Many Scots will vote YES simply because they are fed up with the status quo, with being called scroungers, that they owe so much to London in particular and England in general and of course the YES campaign's secret weapon, the BBC endless references to a football match in 1966 which will pollute our airwaves all summer (well at least until England gets turfed out the World Cup).
Very good and astute comment.
My main recent experience with Scotland was an invitation to talk to Holyrood researchers at the Scottish Parliament last year. I had an invigorating time and came away believing that independence was on. If I was Scottish I'd vote YES.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN a scurrilous attempt at publishing a serious leak from my ARSE before the official publication on PB at 0900 hrs this morning.
The culprit has been apprehended and her FBR (Footwear Buying Rights) have been jolly well rescinded for at least, er .... quite some time .... amounting to .... well rather longer .... at least until .... er .... lunchtime today. Pretty stiff punishment I'm sure you'll agree.
Accordingly the latest 2015 ARSE General Election Projection will be published a full hour earlier at 0800hrs this morning.
WIND (Whimsical Independent News Division) is an independent arm of the JNN (Jacobite News Network) publishing the contents of my ARSE (Anonymous Random Selection of Electors)
What is the methodology for this forecast?
you mean the meterology?
(JackW's best guess, based on 109 years of experience)
Mr. Observer, it is *not* democratically fair to ask the bits of Britain you think (you being the Labour Party of 1997) will always support you for devolution whilst leaving the largest component of the UK without any equal say or Parliament.
As for 'they voted for it': will we see a referendum on reintroducing hanging? Leaving the EU? The devolution vote was not about some high-minded notion of granting the Scots their democratic rights but a cretinous, ill-considered act which has not delivered a permanent fiefdom for Labour but instead brought this country to the brink of destruction.
Labour are inept in many ways, but surely their constitutional meddling must rank alongside their economic incompetence.
I agree that there should be an English Parliament. I would like to see a federal UK. I have made that clear on here time and again. My point is not to defend Labour, which no doubt did believe that it would rule in Scotland forever. My point is that the Scottish people had made clear they wanted a devolved parliament, Labour recognised that, promised a referendum on the subject and delivered, having made it clear what would happen in the manifesto they presented to the entire electorate in 1997. There is nothing to stop any party from promising a referendum on hanging or withdrawing from the EU or anything else. If they are voted into power they can then deliver on that.
What Tories should ask themselves is just why the Scots had become so convinced that they needed devolution in the first place. That, though, may necessitate a level of reflection that they may find uncomfortable. For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
" For the Tories it is always easier to blame others. "
Yeah because they're the only political party that does that.
Zzzzzzz.
They all do it, but the Tories seem to lack any degree of introspection. The idea that devolution only occurred in Scotland because of Labour corruption and wickedness, ignoring what had happened there in the 18 years before 1997, is somewhat peculiar to my eyes. But I am biased, of course.
That's just nonsense. I stay on the right because it's prepared - sometimes slowly admittedly - to face up to its failings.
We've had the biggest bust ever, with the IMF saying the UK was horrendously out of place in 2007 and Labour's still fronted by a guy who denies it happened. "It was the bankers, it was Thatcher....."
Please do not post links that accuse pollsters of push polling and/or that question their integrity.
Sorry??? Are you seriously claiming a pollsters methodology is now "off-limits".
Your choice but if you think it looks good for PB to make certain pollsters immune to criticism then that's a pretty bizarre and revealing stance to make.
I rarely agree with you, Mick, but I'm with you 100% here.
Mr. Observer, it is *not* democratically fair to ask the bits of Britain you think (you being the Labour Party of 1997) will always support you for devolution whilst leaving the largest component of the UK without any equal say or Parliament.
As for 'they voted for it': will we see a referendum on reintroducing hanging? Leaving the EU? The devolution vote was not about some high-minded notion of granting the Scots their democratic rights but a cretinous, ill-considered act which has not delivered a permanent fiefdom for Labour but instead brought this country to the brink of destruction.
Labour are inept in many ways, but surely their constitutional meddling must rank alongside their economic incompetence.
I agree that there should be an English Parliament. I would like to see a federal UK. I have made that clear on here time and again. My point is not to defend Labour, which no doubt did believe that it would rule in Scotland forever. My point is that the Scottish people had made clear they wanted a devolved parliament, Labour recognised that, promised a referendum on the subject and delivered, having made it clear what would happen in the manifesto they presented to the entire electorate in 1997. There is nothing to stop any party from promising a referendum on hanging or withdrawing from the EU or anything else. If they are voted into power they can then deliver on that.
What Tories should ask themselves is just why the Scots had become so convinced that they needed devolution in the first place. That, though, may necessitate a level of reflection that they may find uncomfortable. For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
Cornwall has wanted a devolved assembly for years. Amazing how New Labour's devolution agenda never extended to them...
Not really - no votes for Labour in Cornwall.
If Indy goes Yes there'll be no votes for them in Scotland either.
I imagine they'll be running Scotland pretty soon after independence.
Just as long as it's not down here that's good news.
The problem is not devolution, it is the assymetry of the West Lothian question. If Scots interfered less with England, then Westminster may well interfere less with them.
Morning all and as I said early last year, if I had £10 to bet, I would put £6 on a narrow YES vote and £4 on a NO vote. It is so much harder to argue for not changing things when since Tony Blair pressed the start button in 1998 it has been all towards change. Many Scots will vote YES simply because they are fed up with the status quo, with being called scroungers, that they owe so much to London in particular and England in general and of course the YES campaign's secret weapon, the BBC endless references to a football match in 1966 which will pollute our airwaves all summer (well at least until England gets turfed out the World Cup).
The road to where we are today did not begin in 1998. There was a reason that the Scots were so keen on devolution and voted for it so overwhelmingly when given the chance.
The idea that there was any choice whatsoever for Labour but to offer Devolution is one of the more eccentric ones from some of the more batty and out of touch PB tories. Blair didn't want Devolution. He would much rather have not done it but even he knew that he had no chance of being leader without supporting John Smith and labour's settled policy. Rejecting Devolution would have merely hastened where we are today.
Nor can the damage to the tories for opposing Devolution be underestimated. Sure, they had to u-turn on that fairly sharpish after he public told them what they thought of that but the scottish public are somewhat unlikely to view tory prognostications on Devolution particularly seriously even now.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN a scurrilous attempt at publishing a serious leak from my ARSE before the official publication on PB at 0900 hrs this morning.
The culprit has been apprehended and her FBR (Footwear Buying Rights) have been jolly well rescinded for at least, er .... quite some time .... amounting to .... well rather longer .... at least until .... er .... lunchtime today. Pretty stiff punishment I'm sure you'll agree.
Accordingly the latest 2015 ARSE General Election Projection will be published a full hour earlier at 0800hrs this morning.
WIND (Whimsical Independent News Division) is an independent arm of the JNN (Jacobite News Network) publishing the contents of my ARSE (Anonymous Random Selection of Electors)
What is the methodology for this forecast?
you mean the meterology?
(JackW's best guess, based on 109 years of experience)
Please do not post links that accuse pollsters of push polling and/or that question their integrity.
Sorry??? Are you seriously claiming a pollsters methodology is now "off-limits".
Your choice but if you think it looks good for PB to make certain pollsters immune to criticism then that's a pretty bizarre and revealing stance to make.
No.
It is fine to question their methodology, but not fine to question their motives, and saying they are push polling falls into the latter category.
We apply this stricture to all BPC pollsters and have done so in the past.
See here Mike Smithson's comment, when people criticised another pollster.
Now where is Stuart Dickson to give us the latest from the Scottish subsamples . Survation had LD's at 10% in their latest national Scottish poll , yesterday's Populus had LDs in Scotland at 12% , today's Yougov sample has them up at 14 % . Clearly Alistair Carmichael is having some effect north of the border .
Lol, sub-sample Senior. It's entertaining that someone decrying small movements towards Yes in Indy polls is scrabbling around in Scottish sub-samples to big-up the etiolated chances of his own party.
LOL , you are missing the sarcasm and irony in my post directed at Stuart following 5 years of a dispute with him over the significance of Scottish sub samples . the Survation poll however was a national VI poll .
Funny, I thought you mentioned yesterday's Populus & today's Yougov. Perhaps you'd like to increase the stake on our bet as to whether the Scottish LDs will beat the SCons on vote share at the next GE.
I have not got any bet with anyone on SLD v SCon vote shares in 2015 .
Check with Peter the Punter:
Aug 2012
'another couple of bets to add to my growing collection, this time with Mark Senior.
My side of them is: £25 at evens that the LDs will get less votes than the Cons in Scotland at the next GE. £25 at evens that the 'No' side will get 59.99% of the vote or less in an Independence referendum (straight Yes/No, agreed by Holyrood & Westminster).'
Those are not bets that I can recall making , certainly the latter is a bet I would not have made as I have never expected No to get 60% plus . If however PTP confirms that he has an Email from me that I made them then I will honour them win or lose ,
Mr. Observer, it is *not* democratically fair to ask the bits of Britain you think (you being the Labour Party of 1997) will always support you for devolution whilst leaving the largest component of the UK without any equal say or Parliament.
As for 'they voted for it': will we see a referendum on reintroducing hanging? Leaving the EU? The devolution vote was not about some high-minded notion of granting the Scots their democratic rights but a cretinous, ill-considered act which has not delivered a permanent fiefdom for Labour but instead brought this country to the brink of destruction.
Labour are inept in many ways, but surely their constitutional meddling must rank alongside their economic incompetence.
I agree that there should be an English Parliament. I would like to see a federal UK. I have made that clear on here time and again. My point is not to defend Labour, which no doubt did believe that it would rule in Scotland forever. My point is that the Scottish people had made clear they wanted a devolved parliament, Labour recognised that, promised a referendum on the subject and delivered, having made it clear what would happen in the manifesto they presented to the entire electorate in 1997. There is nothing to stop any party from promising a referendum on hanging or withdrawing from the EU or anything else. If they are voted into power they can then deliver on that.
What Tories should ask themselves is just why the Scots had become so convinced that they needed devolution in the first place. That, though, may necessitate a level of reflection that they may find uncomfortable. For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
Cornwall has wanted a devolved assembly for years. Amazing how New Labour's devolution agenda never extended to them...
Not really - no votes for Labour in Cornwall.
Exactly - Labour meddled with the fundamental constitutional setup of this country not by any sense of intellectual philosophy, but merely to extend their partisan ends. It was a disgusting thing to do from a party that clearly lacks any sense of patriotism. And it comes out in other ways too: look at how they're prepared to sell the UK out to the EU so they can get socialism through the back door.
Mr. Observer, it is *not* democratically fair to ask the bits of Britain you think (you being the Labour Party of 1997) will always support you for devolution whilst leaving the largest component of the UK without any equal say or Parliament.
As for 'they voted for it': will we see a referendum on reintroducing hanging? Leaving the EU? The devolution vote was not about some high-minded notion of granting the Scots their democratic rights but a cretinous, ill-considered act which has not delivered a permanent fiefdom for Labour but instead brought this country to the brink of destruction.
Labour are inept in many ways, but surely their constitutional meddling must rank alongside their economic incompetence.
I agree that there should be an English Parliament. I would like to see a federal UK. I have made that clear on here time and again. My point is not to defend Labour, which no doubt did believe that it would rule in Scotland forever. My point is that the Scottish people had made clear they wanted a devolved parliament, Labour recognised that, promised a referendum on the subject and delivered, having made it clear what would happen in the manifesto they presented to the entire electorate in 1997. There is nothing to stop any party from promising a referendum on hanging or withdrawing from the EU or anything else. If they are voted into power they can then deliver on that.
What Tories should ask themselves is just why the Scots had become so convinced that they needed devolution in the first place. That, though, may necessitate a level of reflection that they may find uncomfortable. For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
IIRC English Regional Assemblies were in the 97 Labour manifesto, IF people wanted therm. There was such a referendum in the NE, but, again IIRC, the vote was about 80-20 against, on a reasonable turnout.
AFAIK there's never been such a referendum elsewhere, and Mebyon Kernow doesn't poll all that well in Cornwall.
JackW - interesting. It will be very fortunate for the Conservatives if their seat total turns out almost identical to last time. What are the factors that have led you to up the average forecast from the mid 290s to the mid 300s?
Some of these changes are right at the margin - seats moving from TCTC (Too Close To Call - 500 votes or fewer) from one party to another. ARSE has to call every seat for the projection. Much of the movement arises from the better economic news, some regional polling and other intel.
However what is striking is the stability of the projection. Since Jun 13 the seat ranges for the main parties have been :
Some slight confusion about exactly what YouGov polls have been done when and what they showed.
Can Mike use his Powers as the 89th most influential Twitter pensioner (between Bernard Cribbins and Nerys Hughes) to seek final clarification from YouGov?
I agree. This list has no mention of the 9th Dec poll, for instance.
Be interesting to see if UKIP's "meet the Labour millionaires" line has any impact on Labour's mindless railing against Tory tax cuts for, er, millionaires...
That's not bloody well acceptable. England's one land, not to be carved up into the nine or so EU regions. I don't want a Yorkshire Parliament, I want an English one. Why should England cut to pieces? It shouldn't.
At some point the conflict between jobs/economy/keeping the lights and on being green/saving the whales is going to burst out into the open. If and when we start to see actual brownouts and utterly unsustainable energy price rises I think the consensus for carbon reduction will finally evaporate and energy policy will start to be driven by those with some understanding of physics and economics.
That conflict is absolutely not the division causing Britain's energy crisis. The problem is that government after government has refused to build significant energy capacity of any type. Mainly because its the same people that don't want either a coal plant, a nuclear power station or a wind farm on their doorsteps.
Generators in the UK have not invested in new capacity because power consumption in the UK has been declining, and reserve margins have risen. In winter 2005/2006, peak power usage was about 61GW. This year it will be more like 56GW. With peak demand down around 10%, and with new plants having come on stream (particularly wind, but also some new more modern CCGTs), it is somewhat inevitable that generators have shed some of their older, less efficient plants.
Total "dispatchable" power in the UK is approximately:
22.5GW Coal 10GW Nuclear 22.5GW CCGT 1GW Biomass
plus (very expensive peaking power, we have): 2GW Oil 4GW OCGT (open cycle gas turbine)
In addition there is 7GW of (intermittant) Wind, nearly 3GW of hydro and pumped storage, and around 3GW of interconnect from France and the Netherlands.
Some CCGTs in the UK ran for as little as 10 days in 2013. With more wind still being constructed, and - thanks to LED lighting and more efficient air conditioning - power usage still being at best flat, it is unsurprising that private companies are unwilling to invest in new power plants. And the development of the big new nuclear will further disincentivise building new gas turbines in the UK.
Mr. Observer, it is *not* democratically fair to ask the bits of Britain you think (you being the Labour Party of 1997) will always support you for devolution whilst leaving the largest component of the UK without any equal say or Parliament.
As for 'they voted for it': will we see a referendum on reintroducing hanging? Leaving the EU? The devolution vote was not about some high-minded notion of granting the Scots their democratic rights but a cretinous, ill-considered act which has not delivered a permanent fiefdom for Labour but instead brought this country to the brink of destruction.
Labour are inept in many ways, but surely their constitutional meddling must rank alongside their economic incompetence.
I agree that there should be an English Parliament. I would like to see a federal UK. I have made that clear on here time and again. My point is not to defend Labour, which no doubt did believe that it would rule in Scotland forever. My point is that the Scottish people had made clear they wanted a devolved parliament, Labour recognised that, promised a referendum on the subject and delivered, having made it clear what would happen in the manifesto they presented to the entire electorate in 1997. There is nothing to stop any party from promising a referendum on hanging or withdrawing from the EU or anything else. If they are voted into power they can then deliver on that.
What Tories should ask themselves is just why the Scots had become so convinced that they needed devolution in the first place. That, though, may necessitate a level of reflection that they may find uncomfortable. For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
IIRC English Regional Assemblies were in the 97 Labour manifesto, IF people wanted therm. There was such a referendum in the NE, but, again IIRC, the vote was about 80-20 against, on a reasonable turnout.
AFAIK there's never been such a referendum elsewhere, and Mebyon Kernow doesn't poll all that well in Cornwall.
"We trialled a vote in a heavily Labour area of the country and lost, so we're going to take that as ruling out an assembly in a heavily non-Labour area at the opposite end of the country, with far more of a historic identity."
'another couple of bets to add to my growing collection, this time with Mark Senior.
My side of them is: £25 at evens that the LDs will get less votes than the Cons in Scotland at the next GE. £25 at evens that the 'No' side will get 59.99% of the vote or less in an Independence referendum (straight Yes/No, agreed by Holyrood & Westminster).'
Those are not bets that I can recall making , certainly the latter is a bet I would not have made as I have never expected No to get 60% plus . If however PTP confirms that he has an Email from me that I made them then I will honour them win or lose ,
I sent the original bets (based on our agreeing to them on the forum) to PtP but I would imagine you'd have received a confirmation e-mail from him. I certainly received one.
Have emailed the UKIp campaign team to let them know
Fair play - does seem to be at odds with their perceived ethos of eliminating the deficit faster than the other parties.
Dear Sir
As a relatively new convert to UKIP from Labour, I would like to voice my disapproval of what I have seen of the campaign in Wythenshawe and Sale East, particularly the van proclaiming "Vote UKIP to keep your benefits".
This is the type of thing I would expect from 1980's Labour, not a party that promises to slash the welfare state and encourage people, particularly young people, to work rather than claim benefits.
It also promotes the idea that immigrants come to the UK merely to claim benefits, which is not the problem with immigration in my view (the main problem being that their ability to work for low wages is to the detriment of our own youngsters).
Please review this advertising campaign. We dont want to be all things to all people, we should be the party of hard work, jobs enterprise and prosperity, not benefit claims.
On the past week I've built up a big YES better position in tbe expectation that price will surely narrow. My approach is often to bet on the betting not on the final outcome.
It does amuse me that some Scots Nats refer to certain posters as 'PB Romney's' when Romney was far closer to winning than Yes has ever been, yet while they rightly perceived that Obama would cruise relatively easily to victory, they can't see the parallel in Scotland.
Please do not post links that accuse pollsters of push polling and/or that question their integrity.
Sorry??? Are you seriously claiming a pollsters methodology is now "off-limits".
Your choice but if you think it looks good for PB to make certain pollsters immune to criticism then that's a pretty bizarre and revealing stance to make.
No.
It is fine to question their methodology, but not fine to question their motives, and saying they are push polling falls into the latter category.
We apply this stricture to all BPC pollsters and have done so in the past.
See here Mike Smithson's comment, when people criticised another pollster.
Mr. Observer, it is *not* democratically fair to ask the bits of Britain you think (you being the Labour Party of 1997) will always support you for devolution whilst leaving the largest component of the UK without any equal say or Parliament.
As for 'they voted for it': will we see a referendum on reintroducing hanging? Leaving the EU? The devolution vote was not about some high-minded notion of granting the Scots their democratic rights but a cretinous, ill-considered act which has not delivered a permanent fiefdom for Labour but instead brought this country to the brink of destruction.
Labour are inept in many ways, but surely their constitutional meddling must rank alongside their economic incompetence.
I agree that there should be an English Parliament. I would like to see a federal UK. I have made that clear on here time and again. My point is not to defend Labour, which no doubt did believe that it would rule in Scotland forever. My point is that the Scottish people had made clear they wanted a devolved parliament, Labour recognised that, promised a referendum on the subject and delivered, having made it clear what would happen in the manifesto they presented to the entire electorate in 1997. There is nothing to stop any party from promising a referendum on hanging or withdrawing from the EU or anything else. If they are voted into power they can then deliver on that.
What Tories should ask themselves is just why the Scots had become so convinced that they needed devolution in the first place. That, though, may necessitate a level of reflection that they may find uncomfortable. For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
Cornwall has wanted a devolved assembly for years. Amazing how New Labour's devolution agenda never extended to them...
Not really - no votes for Labour in Cornwall.
Exactly - Labour meddled with the fundamental constitutional setup of this country not by any sense of intellectual philosophy, but merely to extend their partisan ends. It was a disgusting thing to do from a party that clearly lacks any sense of patriotism. And it comes out in other ways too: look at how they're prepared to sell the UK out to the EU so they can get socialism through the back door.
How dare Labour give Scots a chance to decide on the future. It is an outrage. Presumably you believe it was monstrous for the Tories to change their minds on devolution and to accept it was the right thing to do. They hate Britain, hate the British and want Britain to cease existing as soon as possible.
'another couple of bets to add to my growing collection, this time with Mark Senior.
My side of them is: £25 at evens that the LDs will get less votes than the Cons in Scotland at the next GE. £25 at evens that the 'No' side will get 59.99% of the vote or less in an Independence referendum (straight Yes/No, agreed by Holyrood & Westminster).'
Those are not bets that I can recall making , certainly the latter is a bet I would not have made as I have never expected No to get 60% plus . If however PTP confirms that he has an Email from me that I made them then I will honour them win or lose ,
I sent the original bets (based on our agreeing to them on the forum) to PtP but I would imagine you'd have received a confirmation e-mail from him. I certainly received one.
The only Email I have from PTP is one confirming a bet with him re Colchester .
Mr. Observer, it is *not* democratically fair to ask the bits of Britain you think (you being the Labour Party of 1997) will always support you for devolution whilst leaving the largest component of the UK without any equal say or Parliament.
As for 'they voted for it': will we see a referendum on reintroducing hanging? Leaving the EU? The devolution vote was not about some high-minded notion of granting the Scots their democratic rights but a cretinous, ill-considered act which has not delivered a permanent fiefdom for Labour but instead brought this country to the brink of destruction.
Labour are inept in many ways, but surely their constitutional meddling must rank alongside their economic incompetence.
I agree that there should be an English Parliament. I would like to see a federal UK. I have made that clear on here time and again. My point is not to defend Labour, which no doubt did believe that it would rule in Scotland forever. My point is that the Scottish people had made clear they wanted a devolved parliament, Labour recognised that, promised a referendum on the subject and delivered, having made it clear what would happen in the manifesto they presented to the entire electorate in 1997. There is nothing to stop any party from promising a referendum on hanging or withdrawing from the EU or anything else. If they are voted into power they can then deliver on that.
What Tories should ask themselves is just why the Scots had become so convinced that they needed devolution in the first place. That, though, may necessitate a level of reflection that they may find uncomfortable. For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
Cornwall has wanted a devolved assembly for years. Amazing how New Labour's devolution agenda never extended to them...
Not really - no votes for Labour in Cornwall.
Exactly - Labour meddled with the fundamental constitutional setup of this country not by any sense of intellectual philosophy, but merely to extend their partisan ends. It was a disgusting thing to do from a party that clearly lacks any sense of patriotism. And it comes out in other ways too: look at how they're prepared to sell the UK out to the EU so they can get socialism through the back door.
How dare Labour give Scots a chance to decide on the future. It is an outrage. Presumably you believe it was monstrous for the Tories to change their minds on devolution and to accept it was the right thing to do. They hate Britain, hate the British and want Britain to cease existing as soon as possible.
What happened to your Spanish Employment - I thought Spain was on the up?
The Spanish employment number is not seasonally adjusted, unlike the numbers for the UK or the US. So, in 2013, January unemployment rose by 150,000; in 2012, it was 180,000; in 2011, it was 130,000.
The market has takes Spanish unemployment numbers very positively, and - on a day where the Nikkei was down more than 4%, and the British, German, French, etc. stockmarkets are all down - the Spanish stockmarket is up 0.4%.
So, while it may not fit with your personal narrative, Spain is definitely on the up.
Please do not post links that accuse pollsters of push polling and/or that question their integrity.
Sorry??? Are you seriously claiming a pollsters methodology is now "off-limits".
Your choice but if you think it looks good for PB to make certain pollsters immune to criticism then that's a pretty bizarre and revealing stance to make.
No.
It is fine to question their methodology, but not fine to question their motives, and saying they are push polling falls into the latter category.
We apply this stricture to all BPC pollsters and have done so in the past.
See here Mike Smithson's comment, when people criticised another pollster.
I note with wry amusement that is the precise same thing being asked of this YouGov poll by the scottish blog you have banned me from linking to.
That is a methodology issue.
I would also remind you that the blog you linked to, has in the past, been forced to apologise to a BPC pollster for questioning their integrity, so you can understand our caution.
I've also reviewed that site, and note that some of the comments impugn on the personal integrity of Mike Smithson, so in future, no more links from that site.
Fair play - does seem to be at odds with their perceived ethos of eliminating the deficit faster than the other parties.
Not at all, it's entirely consistent with their platform of reduced taxes, reduced public spending, higher pensions, higher benefits, more spending on defence, cutting the deficit, an open international trading economy without immigration, free apple pie and real ale for all, and Britannia once again ruling the waves.
What happened to your Spanish Employment - I thought Spain was on the up?
The Spanish employment number is not seasonally adjusted, .
Cheers, the figure was so far from expectations I had wondered what was up.
It wasn't that far from expectations - UBS expected an increase of 110,000 and it was an increase of 113,100. So definitely worse, but not horrendously bad
At some point the conflict between jobs/economy/keeping the lights and on being green/saving the whales is going to burst out into the open. If and when we start to see actual brownouts and utterly unsustainable energy price rises I think the consensus for carbon reduction will finally evaporate and energy policy will start to be driven by those with some understanding of physics and economics.
That conflict is absolutely not the division causing Britain's energy crisis. The problem is that government after government has refused to build significant energy capacity of any type. Mainly because its the same people that don't want either a coal plant, a nuclear power station or a wind farm on their doorsteps.
Generators in the UK have not invested in new capacity because power consumption in the UK has been declining, and reserve margins have risen. In winter 2005/2006, peak power usage was about 61GW. This year it will be more like 56GW. With peak demand down around 10%, and with new plants having come on stream (particularly wind, but also some new more modern CCGTs), it is somewhat inevitable that generators have shed some of their older, less efficient plants.
Total "dispatchable" power in the UK is approximately:
22.5GW Coal 10GW Nuclear 22.5GW CCGT 1GW Biomass
plus (very expensive peaking power, we have): 2GW Oil 4GW OCGT (open cycle gas turbine)
In addition there is 7GW of (intermittant) Wind, nearly 3GW of hydro and pumped storage, and around 3GW of interconnect from France and the Netherlands.
Some CCGTs in the UK ran for as little as 10 days in 2013. With more wind still being constructed, and - thanks to LED lighting and more efficient air conditioning - power usage still being at best flat, it is unsurprising that private companies are unwilling to invest in new power plants. And the development of the big new nuclear will further disincentivise building new gas turbines in the UK.
The fall in the generation and supply of energy is clearly shown in the ONS figures for GDP.
Here are the figures for output growth (as opposed to contribution to GDP growth) for 'Electricity and Gas' over the past five years:
Now where is Stuart Dickson to give us the latest from the Scottish subsamples . Survation had LD's at 10% in their latest national Scottish poll , yesterday's Populus had LDs in Scotland at 12% , today's Yougov sample has them up at 14 % . Clearly Alistair Carmichael is having some effect north of the border .
I agree Mark that the LD vote is holding well North of the Border in relation to the rest of the country.London at 13 looks pretty low for the party though.
Fair play - does seem to be at odds with their perceived ethos of eliminating the deficit faster than the other parties.
Not at all, it's entirely consistent with their platform of reduced taxes, reduced public spending, higher pensions, higher benefits, more spending on defence, cutting the deficit, an open international trading economy without immigration, free apple pie and real ale for all, and Britannia once again ruling the waves.
I think I was more inclined to vote for them when they were a single issue party..
On topic: I think it's a bit of a stretch, looking at those numbers, to say the gap is closing. Looks more like No consistently in the mid-fifties and Yes in the low thirties, and not much change other than noise.
Still, I was very struck by what Easterross wrote up-thread, especially the last paragraph of his comment at 8.58 am. As at today, the polling looks near-hopeless for the Yes side, but there are still over seven months to go, and it is by no means unknown for polling to shift very substantially over such a period. I still expect a decisive No, but I'm not betting the farm on it.
Mr. Observer, it is *not* democratically fair to ask the bits of Britain you think (you being the Labour Party of 1997) will always support you for devolution whilst leaving the largest component of the UK without any equal say or Parliament.
As for 'they voted for it': will we see a referendum on reintroducing hanging? Leaving the EU? The devolution vote was not about some high-minded notion of granting the Scots their democratic rights but a cretinous, ill-considered act which has not delivered a permanent fiefdom for Labour but instead brought this country to the brink of destruction.
Labour are inept in many ways, but surely their constitutional meddling must rank alongside their economic incompetence.
I agree that there should be an English Parliament. I would like to see a federal UK. I have made that clear on here time and again. My point is not to defend Labour, which no doubt did believe that it would rule in Scotland forever. My point is that the Scottish people had made clear they wanted a devolved parliament, Labour recognised that, promised a referendum on the subject and delivered, having made it clear what would happen in the manifesto they presented to the entire electorate in 1997. There is nothing to stop any party from promising a referendum on hanging or withdrawing from the EU or anything else. If they are voted into power they can then deliver on that.
What Tories should ask themselves is just why the Scots had become so convinced that they needed devolution in the first place. That, though, may necessitate a level of reflection that they may find uncomfortable. For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
IIRC English Regional Assemblies were in the 97 Labour manifesto, IF people wanted therm. There was such a referendum in the NE, but, again IIRC, the vote was about 80-20 against, on a reasonable turnout.
AFAIK there's never been such a referendum elsewhere, and Mebyon Kernow doesn't poll all that well in Cornwall.
"We trialled a vote in a heavily Labour area of the country and lost, so we're going to take that as ruling out an assembly in a heavily non-Labour area at the opposite end of the country, with far more of a historic identity."
You would have thought that the NE was as likely as any to perceive the need for an Assembly. If there is one!!!!
Mr. Observer, it is *not* democratically fair to ask the bits of Britain you think (you being the Labour Party of 1997) will always support you for devolution whilst leaving the largest component of the UK without any equal say or Parliament.
As for 'they voted for it': will we see a referendum on reintroducing hanging? Leaving the EU? The devolution vote was not about some high-minded notion of granting the Scots their democratic rights but a cretinous, ill-considered act which has not delivered a permanent fiefdom for Labour but instead brought this country to the brink of destruction.
Labour are inept in many ways, but surely their constitutional meddling must rank alongside their economic incompetence.
For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
"The recession started in America, we didn't spend too much".......
Boris Johnson's Tory leadership credentials on the line in battle with the RMT,who,via Bob Crow,asked if he would listen to their concerns.He not only flatly refused but became quite menacing,as only a Bullingdon Club bully can do.He is on a hiding to nothing. Meanwhile,the first of many tube strikes will hit Londoners who may reasonably expect their Mayor to rather help resolve the dispute than inflame it.
I agree that there should be an English Parliament. I would like to see a federal UK. I have made that clear on here time and again. My point is not to defend Labour, which no doubt did believe that it would rule in Scotland forever. My point is that the Scottish people had made clear they wanted a devolved parliament, Labour recognised that, promised a referendum on the subject and delivered, having made it clear what would happen in the manifesto they presented to the entire electorate in 1997. There is nothing to stop any party from promising a referendum on hanging or withdrawing from the EU or anything else. If they are voted into power they can then deliver on that.
What Tories should ask themselves is just why the Scots had become so convinced that they needed devolution in the first place. That, though, may necessitate a level of reflection that they may find uncomfortable. For the Tories it is always easier to blame others.
IIRC English Regional Assemblies were in the 97 Labour manifesto, IF people wanted therm. There was such a referendum in the NE, but, again IIRC, the vote was about 80-20 against, on a reasonable turnout.
AFAIK there's never been such a referendum elsewhere, and Mebyon Kernow doesn't poll all that well in Cornwall.
"We trialled a vote in a heavily Labour area of the country and lost, so we're going to take that as ruling out an assembly in a heavily non-Labour area at the opposite end of the country, with far more of a historic identity."
You would have thought that the NE was as likely as any to perceive the need for an Assembly. If there is one!!!!
Otherwise I would agree!
Those regions offered Assemblies under the Prescott Plan were being shown a pig in a poke. Voters were being asked to approve more politicians and probably more taxes for a body with no defined role or powers.
If Cornwall, the NE or Yorkshire - three areas with strong regional / national identities - were offered devolution on the scale that Scotland has, they might well go for it, but tens of millions of pounds a year for a talking shop that might oversee the fire service (the only suggestion I recall being put forward at the time)? No thanks.
Boris Johnson's Tory leadership credentials on the line in battle with the RMT,who,via Bob Crow,asked if he would listen to their concerns.He not only flatly refused but became quite menacing,as only a Bullingdon Club bully can do.He is on a hiding to nothing. Meanwhile,the first of many tube strikes will hit Londoners who may reasonably expect their Mayor to rather help resolve the dispute than inflame it.
Yes, I am sure the Mayor disagreeing with Bob Crow and not giving into that most popular of union leader's demands will go down like a lead balloon.
Boris Johnson's Tory leadership credentials on the line in battle with the RMT,who,via Bob Crow,asked if he would listen to their concerns.He not only flatly refused but became quite menacing,as only a Bullingdon Club bully can do.He is on a hiding to nothing. Meanwhile,the first of many tube strikes will hit Londoners who may reasonably expect their Mayor to rather help resolve the dispute than inflame it.
The problem is not devolution, it is the assymetry of the West Lothian question. If Scots interfered less with England, then Westminster may well interfere less with them.
Which labour were fine with and both the tories and lib dems have the power to change (and even commissioned the McKay report on) but don't. That would be their failure. All of them.
"In this way a vote for independence is a prelude to months and years of extremely tiresome and debilitating uncertainty, horse-trading and jostling over weapons, over the state-owned RBS which would move to England, tax competition and so on."
"In this way a vote for independence is a prelude to months and years of extremely tiresome and debilitating uncertainty, horse-trading and jostling over weapons, over the state-owned RBS which would move to England, tax competition and so on."
"Tiresome"? Oh well we wouldn't want to bore a Tory journalist would we, better hope for No.
Of course the best reason to vote "Yes" is to prevent a Labour govt in rUK for the forseeable future.
The egotist who would be President for Life is an invention.
For six years now Salmond and his government have been running the day to day affairs of Scotland with quiet efficiency and no ideology other than what is best for Scots.
It feels very different to previous administrations.
The egotist who would be President for Life is an invention.
For six years now Salmond and his government have been running the day to day affairs of Scotland with quiet efficiency and no ideology other than what is best for Scots.
It feels very different to previous administrations.
This is the argument for Yes to Indepedence
Sorry, must have imagined the independence referendum then. Clearly no ideology or distraction involved there.
"In this way a vote for independence is a prelude to months and years of extremely tiresome and debilitating uncertainty, horse-trading and jostling over weapons, over the state-owned RBS which would move to England, tax competition and so on."
"Tiresome"? Oh well we wouldn't want to bore a Tory journalist would we, better hope for No.
Of course the best reason to vote "Yes" is to prevent a Labour govt in rUK for the forseeable future.
Would Independence still massively impact Labour? Of course. But they would then morph into an ultra-Blairite party which even Cammie would be hard pushed to try and differentiate against. Not so with a new BOO leader or another jump to the right with a Howard type leader admittedly.
The egotist who would be President for Life is an invention.
For six years now Salmond and his government have been running the day to day affairs of Scotland with quiet efficiency and no ideology other than what is best for Scots.
It feels very different to previous administrations.
This is the argument for Yes to Indepedence
Sorry, must have imagined the independence referendum then. Clearly no ideology or distraction involved there.
*tears of laughter* etc.
Sorry, must have imagined Cammie's Cast Iron Pledge for an EU referendum. Clearly no ideology, distraction or running scared from his own backbenchers there.
"In this way a vote for independence is a prelude to months and years of extremely tiresome and debilitating uncertainty, horse-trading and jostling over weapons, over the state-owned RBS which would move to England, tax competition and so on."
"Tiresome"? Oh well we wouldn't want to bore a Tory journalist would we, better hope for No.
Of course the best reason to vote "Yes" is to prevent a Labour govt in rUK for the forseeable future.
Would Independence still massively impact Labour? Of course. But they would then morph into an ultra-Blairite party which even Cammie would be hard pushed to try and differentiate against. Never mind a new BOO leader or another jump to the right with a Howard type leader.
That would still be a massive change for the better. It's all upside for an English Tory however you look at it.
"In this way a vote for independence is a prelude to months and years of extremely tiresome and debilitating uncertainty, horse-trading and jostling over weapons, over the state-owned RBS which would move to England, tax competition and so on."
"Tiresome"? Oh well we wouldn't want to bore a Tory journalist would we, better hope for No.
Of course the best reason to vote "Yes" is to prevent a Labour govt in rUK for the forseeable future.
Would Independence still massively impact Labour? Of course. But they would then morph into an ultra-Blairite party which even Cammie would be hard pushed to try and differentiate against. Never mind a new BOO leader or another jump to the right with a Howard type leader.
That would still be a massive change for the better. It's all upside for an English Tory however you look at it.
I wasn't clear enough and had to edit. If the tories jump to the right with a new leader then there would be differentiation but that hasn't worked out so well against a New Labour type leader in the past TBH.
But yes, I certainly concede that some tories do seem to want a Yes if only by their massively counterproductive words on Independence and scotland. It can't all be by accident.
I wonder whether the EU is to the Conservatives, what abortion is to the Republicans - that is, something that resonates very strongly, but only with a limited number of voters (say 25% of people).
And, just like abortion and the Republicans, actually achieving their goal (leaving the EU / abolishing abortion) is harder than it appears, and therefore leaves the 'core' permanently disappointed, and feeling betrayed.
George and Dave really should do an extended roadshow in Scotland. Michael Gove and Boris could help out too.
Lots of breaks for salmon fishing, grouse shooting and champagne receptions. A couple of crass/misjudged porridge and/or deep-fried Mars bar jokes and YES would lead by a country mile.
I think the one thing English PBers forget is that the Indy Ref wont be decided by facts or logic. A fellow unionist Andrew Skinner and I have been having a debate for several days with Stewart Stevenson the SNP Minister on Twitter and he just denies anything which doesn't suit the YES message. The majority of Scots will vote according to their heart not their head.
I find that my middle class acquaintances who tend to be LibDem and Tory voters are solidly in the NO camp with a few YES diehards but my working class acquaintances who tend to be Labour and SNP voters are mostly in the YES camp with a few, particularly among the older generation who lived through the war or have a military background in the NO camp.
The referendum wont be won or lost in the rural community, it will be won or lost in the sprawling housing estates in Central Scotland, and other cities. It will be working class Scots, Labour voters who will decide the referendum and they are the ones most likely to respond to the anti-Tory, anti-English rhetoric. If the Scottish trade unions come out for independence (which they may do if little Ed upsets them much more), the YES vote should win quite easily.
All very noble and Braveheart-sounding.
Whereas the reality the polls found was that 500 of our finest (presumably) English pounds would secure it one way or another.
"In this way a vote for independence is a prelude to months and years of extremely tiresome and debilitating uncertainty, horse-trading and jostling over weapons, over the state-owned RBS which would move to England, tax competition and so on."
"Tiresome"? Oh well we wouldn't want to bore a Tory journalist would we, better hope for No.
Of course the best reason to vote "Yes" is to prevent a Labour govt in rUK for the forseeable future.
Small point I know, but precisely how?
.
By removing the 40+ Mps they regularly return from Scotland.
I wonder whether the EU is to the Conservatives, what abortion is to the Republicans - that is, something that resonates very strongly, but only with a limited number of voters (say 25% of people).
And, just like abortion and the Republicans, actually achieving their goal (leaving the EU / abolishing abortion) is harder than it appears, and therefore leaves the 'core' permanently disappointed, and feeling betrayed.
Most Conservatives only want to leave the EU in the sense that they want it to be the EEC. Which may or may not be even less achievable than leaving altogether.
There's a huge difference between the two. Half the country is eurosceptic, and the vast majority is sympathetic to the position. That's not true of abortion in the US.
The egotist who would be President for Life is an invention.
For six years now Salmond and his government have been running the day to day affairs of Scotland with quiet efficiency and no ideology other than what is best for Scots.
It feels very different to previous administrations.
This is the argument for Yes to Indepedence
That must be why he released al-Megrahi from jail. To do what is best for Scots!
I think the one thing English PBers forget is that the Indy Ref wont be decided by facts or logic. A fellow unionist Andrew Skinner and I have been having a debate for several days with Stewart easily.
I think the one thing English PBers forget is that the Indy Ref wont be decided by facts or logic. A fellow unionist Andrew Skinner and I have been having a debate for several days with Stewart Stevenson the SNP Minister on Twitter and he just denies anything which doesn't suit the YES message. The majority of Scots will vote according to their heart not their head.
I find that my middle class acquaintances who tend to be LibDem and Tory voters are solidly in the NO camp with a few YES diehards but my working class acquaintances who tend to be Labour and SNP voters are mostly in the YES camp with a few, particularly among the older generation who lived through the war or have a military background in the NO camp.
The referendum wont be won or lost in the rural community, it will be won or lost in the sprawling housing estates in Central Scotland, and other cities. It will be working class Scots, Labour voters who will decide the referendum and they are the ones most likely to respond to the anti-Tory, anti-English rhetoric. If the Scottish trade unions come out for independence (which they may do if little Ed upsets them much more), the YES vote should win quite easily.
Scotland this Scotland that. The English have now idea what and how the Scots feel etc.
That may well be true, but to turn that round it seems to me that the Scots think (especially Scots nats, which you are not) they know exactly everything about England and the how feel and do things. The Scots are for more arrogant towards the English then vice versa.
Boo Hooo sob , what a poor little dearie , concerned that you will not be able to bully the little boy next door any more. Get over it, England does not come in to it , it is a vote about Scotland.
I think the one thing English PBers forget is that the Indy Ref wont be decided by facts or logic. A fellow unionist Andrew Skinner and I have been having a debate for several days with Stewart easily.
I think the one thing English PBers forget is that the Indy Ref wont be decided by facts or logic. A fellow unionist Andrew Skinner and I have been having a debate for several days with Stewart Stevenson the SNP Minister on Twitter and he just denies anything which doesn't suit the YES message. The majority of Scots will vote according to their heart not their head.
I find that my middle class acquaintances who tend to be LibDem and Tory voters are solidly in the NO camp with a few YES diehards but my working class acquaintances who tend to be Labour and SNP voters are mostly in the YES camp with a few, particularly among the older generation who lived through the war or have a military background in the NO camp.
The referendum wont be won or lost in the rural community, it will be won or lost in the sprawling housing estates in Central Scotland, and other cities. It will be working class Scots, Labour voters who will decide the referendum and they are the ones most likely to respond to the anti-Tory, anti-English rhetoric. If the Scottish trade unions come out for independence (which they may do if little Ed upsets them much more), the YES vote should win quite easily.
Scotland this Scotland that. The English have now idea what and how the Scots feel etc.
That may well be true, but to turn that round it seems to me that the Scots think (especially Scots nats, which you are not) they know exactly everything about England and the how feel and do things. The Scots are for more arrogant towards the English then vice versa.
Boo Hooo sob , what a poor little dearie , concerned that you will not be able to bully the little boy next door any more. Get over it, England does not come in to it , it is a vote about Scotland.
"In this way a vote for independence is a prelude to months and years of extremely tiresome and debilitating uncertainty, horse-trading and jostling over weapons, over the state-owned RBS which would move to England, tax competition and so on."
"Tiresome"? Oh well we wouldn't want to bore a Tory journalist would we, better hope for No.
Of course the best reason to vote "Yes" is to prevent a Labour govt in rUK for the forseeable future.
Small point I know, but precisely how?
.
By removing the 40+ Mps they regularly return from Scotland.
It's a myth that labour need scotish MPs. It just ain't so.
"Much of the reason is careless pundits who focus on the fact that Scotland habitually returns 40+ Labour MPs, but who forget that it also sends members to Westminster from the other parties to offset them. In October 1974, for example – which we’ll discover shortly is a significant date – Labour won 41 Scottish seats. That sounds impressive, until you realise that Scotland also voted in 30 non-Labour MPs (16 Tory, 11 SNP, 3 Liberal), meaning that the net contribution of Scotland towards a Labour majority was just 11. So let’s take a look at the whole historical picture.
Labour didn’t become a significant electoral force at all until the 1920s, with Ramsey MacDonald its first ever Prime Minister in 1923, albeit leading an extremely shaky minority government which only lasted 10 months. Universal suffrage for all men and women over 21 finally arrived in 1928, but the modern political era starts with Clement Attlee’s post-war Labour landslide, and particularly with the Representation Of The People Act 1948, which abolished multiple voting, multi-member constituencies and other anachronisms to create the framework which still essentially, with a few tweaks around the edges (eg lowering the voting age to 18 in 1969), governs British elections.
The 67 years since the end of World War 2 have seen 18 General Elections to the Westminster Parliament, with the following outcomes (sources below):
What happened to your Spanish Employment - I thought Spain was on the up?
The Spanish employment number is not seasonally adjusted, unlike the numbers for the UK or the US. So, in 2013, January unemployment rose by 150,000; in 2012, it was 180,000; in 2011, it was 130,000.
The market has takes Spanish unemployment numbers very positively, and - on a day where the Nikkei was down more than 4%, and the British, German, French, etc. stockmarkets are all down - the Spanish stockmarket is up 0.4%.
So, while it may not fit with your personal narrative, Spain is definitely on the up.
Unemployment rising less quickly counts as being "on the up" these days, does it?
The problem is not devolution, it is the assymetry of the West Lothian question. If Scots interfered less with England, then Westminster may well interfere less with them.
Morning all and as I said early last year, if I had £10 to bet, I would put £6 on a narrow YES vote and £4 on a NO vote. It is so much harder to argue for not changing things when since Tony Blair pressed the start button in 1998 it has been all towards change. Many Scots will vote YES simply because they are fed up with the status quo, with being called scroungers, that they owe so much to London in particular and England in general and of course the YES campaign's secret weapon, the BBC endless references to a football match in 1966 which will pollute our airwaves all summer (well at least until England gets turfed out the World Cup).
The road to where we are today did not begin in 1998. There was a reason that the Scots were so keen on devolution and voted for it so overwhelmingly when given the chance.
The idea that there was any choice whatsoever for Labour but to offer Devolution is one of the more eccentric ones from some of the more batty and out of touch PB tories. Blair didn't want Devolution. He would much rather have not done it but even he knew that he had no chance of being leader without supporting John Smith and labour's settled policy. Rejecting Devolution would have merely hastened where we are today.
Nor can the damage to the tories for opposing Devolution be underestimated. Sure, they had to u-turn on that fairly sharpish after he public told them what they thought of that but the scottish public are somewhat unlikely to view tory prognostications on Devolution particularly seriously even now.
Fox, what planet are you on, that is just bollocks.
England does not come in to it , it is a vote about Scotland.
Which is why David Cameron, an Englishman, who lives in England, and has no vote in Scotland, MUST appear on Scottish TV...
I'm a bit sad that Scotland is going to vote to stay in the union. I quite like the idea of them bolstering the UK's economic status by being our fiscally-constrained protectorate, while not having to worry about Scottish MPs dragging our politics to the left.
I think the one thing English PBers forget is that the Indy Ref wont be decided by facts or logic. A fellow unionist Andrew Skinner and I have been having a debate for several days with Stewart easily.
I think the one thing English PBers forget is that the Indy Ref wont be decided by facts or logic. A fellow unionist Andrew Skinner and I have been having a debate for several days with Stewart Stevenson the SNP Minister on Twitter and he just denies anything which doesn't suit the YES message. The majority of Scots will vote according to their heart not their head.
I find that my middle class acquaintances who tend to be LibDem and Tory voters are solidly in the NO camp with a few YES diehards but my working class acquaintances who tend to be Labour and SNP voters are mostly in the YES camp with a few, particularly among the older generation who lived through the war or have a military background in the NO camp.
The referendum wont be won or lost in the rural community, it will be won or lost in the sprawling housing estates in Central Scotland, and other cities. It will be working class Scots, Labour voters who will decide the referendum and they are the ones most likely to respond to the anti-Tory, anti-English rhetoric. If the Scottish trade unions come out for independence (which they may do if little Ed upsets them much more), the YES vote should win quite easily.
Scotland this Scotland that. The English have now idea what and how the Scots feel etc.
That may well be true, but to turn that round it seems to me that the Scots think (especially Scots nats, which you are not) they know exactly everything about England and the how feel and do things. The Scots are for more arrogant towards the English then vice versa.
Boo Hooo sob , what a poor little dearie , concerned that you will not be able to bully the little boy next door any more. Get over it, England does not come in to it , it is a vote about Scotland.
Bless you. In your typical insular and arrogant Scot Nats way, you misunderstand the point. Of course the Independence vote is purely about the Scots and so it sould. But if they vote yes, it will then be about the rest of the UK. And then it becomes less and less about the Scots. Boo hoo indeed.
"In this way a vote for independence is a prelude to months and years of extremely tiresome and debilitating uncertainty, horse-trading and jostling over weapons, over the state-owned RBS which would move to England, tax competition and so on."
It's hard to argue with the logic of much of that, though the final paragraph is the worst argument for No I have yet come across; but I think that Martin misunderstands the fundamental issue. Salmond knows exactly what he is doing: he is campaigning to get a Yes in the referendum. The day afterwards everything changes forever. Whatever kind of divorce settlement is agreed - and if there is to be a currency union, for example, clearly it will be a settlement imposed on Scotland by the rUK - it does not matter: Scotland will be recognised as an independent country. That is why the SNP exists. It only has to win once and it's job will be done. It will be for others to take things forward from there. And if it takes years, decades even, to do this, what does it matter?
George and Dave really should do an extended roadshow in Scotland. Michael Gove and Boris could help out too.
Lots of breaks for salmon fishing, grouse shooting and champagne receptions. A couple of crass/misjudged porridge and/or deep-fried Mars bar jokes and YES would lead by a country mile.
No need to even go to the organ grinders. Why, right here, Herdson should be encouraged to comment as much as possible and make many more threads on the subject of Independence
"In this way a vote for independence is a prelude to months and years of extremely tiresome and debilitating uncertainty, horse-trading and jostling over weapons, over the state-owned RBS which would move to England, tax competition and so on."
"Tiresome"? Oh well we wouldn't want to bore a Tory journalist would we, better hope for No.
Of course the best reason to vote "Yes" is to prevent a Labour govt in rUK for the forseeable future.
Small point I know, but precisely how?
.
By removing the 40+ Mps they regularly return from Scotland.
It's a myth that labour need scotish MPs. It just ain't so.
There's a huge difference between the two. Half the country is eurosceptic, and the vast majority is sympathetic to the position. That's not true of abortion in the US.
Yes, that's a fair point, but (like with abortion) it is all a matter of degrees.
Of 100 people in the UK (and I'm making up the numbers here, but I'm sure they're broadly right),
25% would like us to leave the EU immediately 35% of people would like a looser relationship with Europe 25% are happy with the status quo 15% wish we'd joined the Euro
So, you can reasonably say that 60% of people are Eurosceptic.
However, for only 25% of people is it a pressing issue. And many of the 35% are keen to remain in the free trade block that is the EEA, and which means they can bring back as much French booze as possible when they're coming from Calais.
And, when you think about it, that's not a million miles different from the US, where there are a lot of people who would like greater controls on abortion (time limits, etc.) but who would fall short of a full ban. But who get somewhat scared off by the most shrill.
The salami method of Salmond seems the most likely way to achieve independence in Scotland (despite my scepticism about this year's vote). Perhaps Britain's Eurosceptics would be better off following a similar strategy: concentrating everything on getting a concession on the ECHR - which, the Germans at least, would be happy to give us. And to move, step-by-step from there.
Comments
Please do not post links that accuse pollsters of push polling and/or that question their integrity.
Aug 2012
'another couple of bets to add to my growing collection, this time with Mark Senior.
My side of them is:
£25 at evens that the LDs will get less votes than the Cons in Scotland at the next GE.
£25 at evens that the 'No' side will get 59.99% of the vote or less in an Independence referendum (straight Yes/No, agreed by Holyrood & Westminster).'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26015532
Your choice but if you think it looks good for PB to make certain pollsters immune to criticism then that's a pretty bizarre and revealing stance to make.
(JackW's best guess, based on 109 years of experience)
We've had the biggest bust ever, with the IMF saying the UK was horrendously out of place in 2007 and Labour's still fronted by a guy who denies it happened. "It was the bankers, it was Thatcher....."
Where's the mea culpa ?
UKIP will be announcing their Manifesto for Manchester today, "which outlines economic and employment aims for the city."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/the-northerner/2014/feb/04/ukip-department-of-culture-manchester
http://www.economicvoice.com/100s-jobs-for-nw-under-proposals-to-move-dcms-to-manchester/
Bizarre is right.
*chortle*
It is fine to question their methodology, but not fine to question their motives, and saying they are push polling falls into the latter category.
We apply this stricture to all BPC pollsters and have done so in the past.
See here Mike Smithson's comment, when people criticised another pollster.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/190084/#Comment_190084
Are the British public really that ignorant. If so I suppose they can do it ! But I think it carries risks.
AFAIK there's never been such a referendum elsewhere, and Mebyon Kernow doesn't poll all that well in Cornwall.
??
*chortle*
That's not bloody well acceptable. England's one land, not to be carved up into the nine or so EU regions. I don't want a Yorkshire Parliament, I want an English one. Why should England cut to pieces? It shouldn't.
http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=1451
Total "dispatchable" power in the UK is approximately:
22.5GW Coal
10GW Nuclear
22.5GW CCGT
1GW Biomass
plus (very expensive peaking power, we have):
2GW Oil
4GW OCGT (open cycle gas turbine)
In addition there is 7GW of (intermittant) Wind, nearly 3GW of hydro and pumped storage, and around 3GW of interconnect from France and the Netherlands.
Some CCGTs in the UK ran for as little as 10 days in 2013. With more wind still being constructed, and - thanks to LED lighting and more efficient air conditioning - power usage still being at best flat, it is unsurprising that private companies are unwilling to invest in new power plants. And the development of the big new nuclear will further disincentivise building new gas turbines in the UK.
As a relatively new convert to UKIP from Labour, I would like to voice my disapproval of what I have seen of the campaign in Wythenshawe and Sale East, particularly the van proclaiming "Vote UKIP to keep your benefits".
This is the type of thing I would expect from 1980's Labour, not a party that promises to slash the welfare state and encourage people, particularly young people, to work rather than claim benefits.
It also promotes the idea that immigrants come to the UK merely to claim benefits, which is not the problem with immigration in my view (the main problem being that their ability to work for low wages is to the detriment of our own youngsters).
Please review this advertising campaign. We dont want to be all things to all people, we should be the party of hard work, jobs enterprise and prosperity, not benefit claims.
Kind Regards
Laurie Grant
What happened to your Spanish Employment - I thought Spain was on the up?
YouGov.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/09/02/indy-ref-polling-round-up/
I note with wry amusement that is the precise same thing being asked of this YouGov poll by the scottish blog you have banned me from linking to.
The market has takes Spanish unemployment numbers very positively, and - on a day where the Nikkei was down more than 4%, and the British, German, French, etc. stockmarkets are all down - the Spanish stockmarket is up 0.4%.
So, while it may not fit with your personal narrative, Spain is definitely on the up.
I would also remind you that the blog you linked to, has in the past, been forced to apologise to a BPC pollster for questioning their integrity, so you can understand our caution.
I've also reviewed that site, and note that some of the comments impugn on the personal integrity of Mike Smithson, so in future, no more links from that site.
This ends the discussion.
Cheers, the figure was so far from expectations I had wondered what was up.
Here are the figures for output growth (as opposed to contribution to GDP growth) for 'Electricity and Gas' over the past five years:
Still, I was very struck by what Easterross wrote up-thread, especially the last paragraph of his comment at 8.58 am. As at today, the polling looks near-hopeless for the Yes side, but there are still over seven months to go, and it is by no means unknown for polling to shift very substantially over such a period. I still expect a decisive No, but I'm not betting the farm on it.
Otherwise I would agree!
Meanwhile,the first of many tube strikes will hit Londoners who may reasonably expect their Mayor to rather help resolve the dispute than inflame it.
If Cornwall, the NE or Yorkshire - three areas with strong regional / national identities - were offered devolution on the scale that Scotland has, they might well go for it, but tens of millions of pounds a year for a talking shop that might oversee the fire service (the only suggestion I recall being put forward at the time)? No thanks.
Tube strike - the drivers get £52k basic so they can afford a day off with no pay.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/04/lisa-jardine-woman-tory-bonfire-quangos?commentpage=1
All of them.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100257961/alex-salmonds-position-is-now-ridiculous-he-wants-to-end-the-union-and-then-negotiate-another-one/
"In this way a vote for independence is a prelude to months and years of extremely tiresome and debilitating uncertainty, horse-trading and jostling over weapons, over the state-owned RBS which would move to England, tax competition and so on."
I thought it had been kicked into the long grass as too expensive.
Not sure they're worth striking over, but there it is.
On the First Minister
The egotist who would be President for Life is an invention.
For six years now Salmond and his government have been running the day to day affairs of Scotland with quiet efficiency and no ideology other than what is best for Scots.
It feels very different to previous administrations.
This is the argument for Yes to Indepedence
*tears of laughter* etc.
I've withdrawn some of my cash from Betway no problem btw - Its an infrequent account so decided to reduce the amount I'm lending to them.
Have you had any experience with Racebets btw ?
http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/
Would Independence still massively impact Labour? Of course. But they would then morph into an ultra-Blairite party which even Cammie would be hard pushed to try and differentiate against. Not so with a new BOO leader or another jump to the right with a Howard type leader admittedly.
Sorry, must have imagined Cammie's Cast Iron Pledge for an EU referendum. Clearly no ideology, distraction or running scared from his own backbenchers there.
*tears of laughter etc.* indeed.
But yes, I certainly concede that some tories do seem to want a Yes if only by their massively counterproductive words on Independence and scotland. It can't all be by accident.
And, just like abortion and the Republicans, actually achieving their goal (leaving the EU / abolishing abortion) is harder than it appears, and therefore leaves the 'core' permanently disappointed, and feeling betrayed.
Lots of breaks for salmon fishing, grouse shooting and champagne receptions. A couple of crass/misjudged porridge and/or deep-fried Mars bar jokes and YES would lead by a country mile.
There's a huge difference between the two. Half the country is eurosceptic, and the vast majority is sympathetic to the position. That's not true of abortion in the US.
I have never bet with racebets, no. Not heard of them tbh
"Much of the reason is careless pundits who focus on the fact that Scotland habitually returns 40+ Labour MPs, but who forget that it also sends members to Westminster from the other parties to offset them. In October 1974, for example – which we’ll discover shortly is a significant date – Labour won 41 Scottish seats. That sounds impressive, until you realise that Scotland also voted in 30 non-Labour MPs (16 Tory, 11 SNP, 3 Liberal), meaning that the net contribution of Scotland towards a Labour majority was just 11. So let’s take a look at the whole historical picture.
Labour didn’t become a significant electoral force at all until the 1920s, with Ramsey MacDonald its first ever Prime Minister in 1923, albeit leading an extremely shaky minority government which only lasted 10 months. Universal suffrage for all men and women over 21 finally arrived in 1928, but the modern political era starts with Clement Attlee’s post-war Labour landslide, and particularly with the Representation Of The People Act 1948, which abolished multiple voting, multi-member constituencies and other anachronisms to create the framework which still essentially, with a few tweaks around the edges (eg lowering the voting age to 18 in 1969), governs British elections.
The 67 years since the end of World War 2 have seen 18 General Elections to the Westminster Parliament, with the following outcomes (sources below):
http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/
Jings - "wings over Somerset" is becoming the SNP holy book..
Of 100 people in the UK (and I'm making up the numbers here, but I'm sure they're broadly right),
25% would like us to leave the EU immediately
35% of people would like a looser relationship with Europe
25% are happy with the status quo
15% wish we'd joined the Euro
So, you can reasonably say that 60% of people are Eurosceptic.
However, for only 25% of people is it a pressing issue. And many of the 35% are keen to remain in the free trade block that is the EEA, and which means they can bring back as much French booze as possible when they're coming from Calais.
And, when you think about it, that's not a million miles different from the US, where there are a lot of people who would like greater controls on abortion (time limits, etc.) but who would fall short of a full ban. But who get somewhat scared off by the most shrill.
The salami method of Salmond seems the most likely way to achieve independence in Scotland (despite my scepticism about this year's vote). Perhaps Britain's Eurosceptics would be better off following a similar strategy: concentrating everything on getting a concession on the ECHR - which, the Germans at least, would be happy to give us. And to move, step-by-step from there.