Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lib Dem deposit losses at the General Election

24

Comments

  • Today's quiz question.

    A cyclist is approaching this junction - http://goo.gl/xyGnKA - and wishes to turn right. Which lane should they use?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    welshowl said:

    Salmond says he'll deconstruct Osborne's case against a currency union:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638

    It'll be interesting to see whether he actually does this, or just goes tub-thumping with slogans. It's also worth noting that a currency union requires both parties to agree, it's not something solely in the gift of the Scottish people. I wonder whether that will be acknowledged.

    How about this as a revised draft of todays speech by Salmond:



    However, not all is bleak, we can set up the Scots Pound after agreeing a two/three year transition with London, (during which time we'll agree to run our budget past them for approval), and if we're responsibly fiscally (no really, really, not just pretending we will be), after a probable little discount devaluation against Sterling we'll probably rub along at about parity, might involve slightly higher interest rates but nothing too scary. This does however, mean we'll have to be careful with a declining oil revenue and make sure we put a bit away for a rainy day, and contrary to expectations public spending won't increase and might have to be trimmed a bit. ( No free unicorns pooing tartan chocolate on every street corner in Airdrie I'm afraid kids). We should really save a bit on defence as we only need a few fishery vessels (not much use for 8% of an aircraft carrier really), and I doubt we'll need sophisticated jet fighters.

    There we are, a real independent country, that can pay its way, tailor its public services as it wants and not how those nasty money grabbing so and so's in the Home Counties want, its own currency, friendly relations with England ("a good neighbour, not a surly lodger" I think A Salmond once said).
    Interesting reality on the BBC Scotland "call in" this morning on Barosso EU propaganda from yesterday. Almost everybody was irate and said it was rubbish, Better Together spokesperson slunk off early on after his lies were repudiated and the straw poll on voting was, 2 voting NO all the rest voting YES, so about 80% to 20% being very very generous.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,038

    Today's quiz question.

    A cyclist is approaching this junction - http://goo.gl/xyGnKA - and wishes to turn right. Which lane should they use?

    You share the car line, surely? The small lane is only there because only bikes can go straight on.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Also, burning a Koran is a religious provocation, not a racial one.

    I doubt that. I think the racial angle was the point, at least partly. To show you my thinking, I reckon that if fate had mysteriously switched the doctrines of Scientology and Islam, Pastor Terry Jones have been burning (or being hilariously foiled while trying to burn) the book of Scientology that the brown people were using, and the Korans beloved by Sonny Bono and Tom Cruise would have remained kerosene-free.
    In that situation it would have entirely depended which crowd had flown planes into American buildings, killing thousands of American citizens. You are completely out of touch with American evangelicals if you think this is race-based. They are quite capable of hating white people with such a passion, if you just look at what they thought of godless Russian commies back in the 1980s, and they consider black African churches to be allies in fighting the gays.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited February 2014

    isam said:

    James Delingpole (@JamesDelingpole)
    17/02/2014 07:57
    On the hatefulness of liberal-lefties - or Why I'm joining Breitbart.com breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond… @BreitbartNews

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Delingpole-Why-Breitbart

    We have yet to see a liberal leftie blow up the centre of a western European city, killing eight, and then systematically murder dozens of defenceless people because he did not approve of their politics.
    Did you really just do that? We're a short step from someone pointing out the "socialist" in National Socialist and from there on it's just a race to the bottom!

  • isam said:

    James Delingpole (@JamesDelingpole)
    17/02/2014 07:57
    On the hatefulness of liberal-lefties - or Why I'm joining Breitbart.com breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond… @BreitbartNews

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Delingpole-Why-Breitbart

    We have yet to see a liberal leftie blow up the centre of a western European city, killing eight, and then systematically murder dozens of defenceless people because he did not approve of their politics.

    It's only a matter of time though..
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    malcolmg said:

    welshowl said:

    Salmond says he'll deconstruct Osborne's case against a currency union:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638

    It'll be interesting to see whether he actually does this, or just goes tub-thumping with slogans. It's also worth noting that a currency union requires both parties to agree, it's not something solely in the gift of the Scottish people. I wonder whether that will be acknowledged.

    How about this as a revised draft of todays speech by Salmond:



    However, not all is bleak, we can set up the Scots Pound after agreeing a two/three year transition with London, (during which time we'll agree to run our budget past them for approval), and if we're responsibly fiscally (no really, really, not just pretending we will be), after a probable little discount devaluation against Sterling we'll probably rub along at about parity, might involve slightly higher interest rates but nothing too scary. This does however, mean we'll have to be careful with a declining oil revenue and make sure we put a bit away for a rainy day, and contrary to expectations public spending won't increase and might have to be trimmed a bit. ( No free unicorns pooing tartan chocolate on every street corner in Airdrie I'm afraid kids). We should really save a bit on defence as we only need a few fishery vessels (not much use for 8% of an aircraft carrier really), and I doubt we'll need sophisticated jet fighters.

    There we are, a real independent country, that can pay its way, tailor its public services as it wants and not how those nasty money grabbing so and so's in the Home Counties want, its own currency, friendly relations with England ("a good neighbour, not a surly lodger" I think A Salmond once said).
    Interesting reality on the BBC Scotland "call in" this morning on Barosso EU propaganda from yesterday. Almost everybody was irate and said it was rubbish, Better Together spokesperson slunk off early on after his lies were repudiated and the straw poll on voting was, 2 voting NO all the rest voting YES, so about 80% to 20% being very very generous.
    That the YES supporters are noiser is not up for debate is it ?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited February 2014
    TGOHF said:

    Salmond has been forced onto the defensive on two fronts - yet both were well telegraphed in advance

    By which you actually mean the tories (very 'popular' in scotland as the twits on PB would never be stupid enough to forget) and 'better together' have been furiously banging away on these two issues since 2012. With the result that the EU and currency are now 7th and 8th in the list of the scottish public's priorities for independence with a tiny 3% and 2% of the scottish public rating them most important.

    I look forward to any PB tory reading of scottish public opinion and how it will react with the same amusement as the much heralded yet sadly oft-delayed scottish tory surge.

    :)

    Those who still don't realise the reason behind the timing for Osborne and 'better together's' panic negativity will find out soon enough.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989

    Nice to see all these by-election results together.

    Eastleigh is often mentioned as an example of the LD vote 'holding up', yet it was one of their worst declines, masked by the decline in the Conservative vote.

    That in a seat that has an active LD branch, and in a contest supported by the full resources of the national party.

    An incredibly difficult defence against the backdrop of the sitting MP's very public humiliation and conviction. In addition, a strong UKIP challenge from a very capable candidate and a well-resourced Conservative campaign to boot.

    In addition, defending a seat as part of the Government was a new experience but the seat was held but the work was needed and, as OGH has said before, the local organisation in place was a huge factor.
  • malcolmg said:

    welshowl said:

    Salmond says he'll deconstruct Osborne's case against a currency union:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638

    It'll be interesting to see whether he actually does this, or just goes tub-thumping with slogans. It's also worth noting that a currency union requires both parties to agree, it's not something solely in the gift of the Scottish people. I wonder whether that will be acknowledged.

    How about this as a revised draft of todays speech by Salmond:



    However, not all is bleak, we can set up the Scots Pound after agreeing a two/three year transition with London, (during which time we'll agree to run our budget past them for approval), and if we're responsibly fiscally (no really, really, not just pretending we will be), after a probable little discount devaluation against Sterling we'll probably rub along at about parity, might involve slightly higher interest rates but nothing too scary. This does however, mean we'll have to be careful with a declining oil revenue and make sure we put a bit away for a rainy day, and contrary to expectations public spending won't increase and might have to be trimmed a bit. ( No free unicorns pooing tartan chocolate on every street corner in Airdrie I'm afraid kids). We should really save a bit on defence as we only need a few fishery vessels (not much use for 8% of an aircraft carrier really), and I doubt we'll need sophisticated jet fighters.

    There we are, a real independent country, that can pay its way, tailor its public services as it wants and not how those nasty money grabbing so and so's in the Home Counties want, its own currency, friendly relations with England ("a good neighbour, not a surly lodger" I think A Salmond once said).
    Interesting reality on the BBC Scotland "call in" this morning on Barosso EU propaganda from yesterday. Almost everybody was irate and said it was rubbish, Better Together spokesperson slunk off early on after his lies were repudiated and the straw poll on voting was, 2 voting NO all the rest voting YES, so about 80% to 20% being very very generous.
    Malcolm is there a tiny part of you that fears a YES may indeed be followed by full independence - from Sterling, from the EU, from the markets, etc? What if they aren't joking?
  • Anorak said:

    isam said:

    James Delingpole (@JamesDelingpole)
    17/02/2014 07:57
    On the hatefulness of liberal-lefties - or Why I'm joining Breitbart.com breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond… @BreitbartNews

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Delingpole-Why-Breitbart

    We have yet to see a liberal leftie blow up the centre of a western European city, killing eight, and then systematically murder dozens of defenceless people because he did not approve of their politics.
    Did you really just do that? We're a short step from someone pointing out the "socialist" in National Socialist and from there on it's just a race to the bottom!

    I am happy to have a debate on the socialism of the Nazis, those great privatisers of German state assets. But my point was more that these relentless links to right-wing blogs whose basic theme is "Left-wingers are evil hypocrites who hate freedom, democracy and everything that makes the west great" are ever so slightly tedious, however good they make the person posting the link.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,155
    edited February 2014
    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    welshowl said:

    Salmond says he'll deconstruct Osborne's case against a currency union:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638

    It'll be interesting to see whether he actually does this, or just goes tub-thumping with slogans. It's also worth noting that a currency union requires both parties to agree, it's not something solely in the gift of the Scottish people. I wonder whether that will be acknowledged.

    How about this as a revised draft of todays speech by Salmond:



    However, not all is bleak, we can set up the Scots Pound after agreeing a two/three year transition with London, (during which time we'll agree to run our budget past them for approval), and if we're responsibly fiscally (no really, really, not just pretending we will be), after a probable little discount devaluation against Sterling we'll probably rub along at about parity, might involve slightly higher interest rates but nothing too scary. This does however, mean we'll have to be careful with a declining oil revenue and make sure we put a bit away for a rainy day, and contrary to expectations public spending won't increase and might have to be trimmed a bit. ( No free unicorns pooing tartan chocolate on every street corner in Airdrie I'm afraid kids). We should really save a bit on defence as we only need a few fishery vessels (not much use for 8% of an aircraft carrier really), and I doubt we'll need sophisticated jet fighters.

    There we are, a real independent country, that can pay its way, tailor its public services as it wants and not how those nasty money grabbing so and so's in the Home Counties want, its own currency, friendly relations with England ("a good neighbour, not a surly lodger" I think A Salmond once said).
    Interesting reality on the BBC Scotland "call in" this morning on Barosso EU propaganda from yesterday. Almost everybody was irate and said it was rubbish, Better Together spokesperson slunk off early on after his lies were repudiated and the straw poll on voting was, 2 voting NO all the rest voting YES, so about 80% to 20% being very very generous.
    That the YES supporters are noiser is not up for debate is it ?
    The BBC ask their callers for their voting intentions beforehand. Do you think they were deliberately skewing the caller breakdown?

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Anorak said:

    isam said:

    James Delingpole (@JamesDelingpole)
    17/02/2014 07:57
    On the hatefulness of liberal-lefties - or Why I'm joining Breitbart.com breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond… @BreitbartNews

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Delingpole-Why-Breitbart

    We have yet to see a liberal leftie blow up the centre of a western European city, killing eight, and then systematically murder dozens of defenceless people because he did not approve of their politics.
    Did you really just do that? We're a short step from someone pointing out the "socialist" in National Socialist and from there on it's just a race to the bottom!

    The National Socialists were about as socialist as the Russian Liberal Democrats are liberal and democratic. Hitler's Germany was a corporatist state, where the owners of big business were clearly favoured over the unions. The Night of the Long Knives clearly killed off the left-wing part of the Nazi party. While there have certainly been evil and intolerant left-wing regimes, it's frankly laughable to describe them as the same group as "liberal-lefties".
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Mick_Pork said:

    TGOHF said:

    Salmond has been forced onto the defensive on two fronts - yet both were well telegraphed in advance

    By which you actually mean the tories (very 'popular' in scotland as the twits on PB would never be stupid enough to forget) and 'better together' have been furiously banging away on these two issues since 2012. With the result that the EU and currency are now 7th and 8th in the list of the scottish public's priorities for independence with a tiny 3% and 2% of the scottish public rating them most important.

    I look forward to any PB tory reading of scottish public opinion and how it will react with the same amusement as the much heralded yet sadly oft-delayed scottish tory surge.

    :)

    Those who still don't realise the reason behind the timing for Osborne and 'better together's' panic negativity will find out soon enough.
    Will be interesting to see where the EU and currency feature in priorities if a poll were done now
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Mick_Pork said:

    TGOHF said:

    Salmond has been forced onto the defensive on two fronts - yet both were well telegraphed in advance

    By which you actually mean the tories (very 'popular' in scotland as the twits on PB would never be stupid enough to forget) and 'better together' have been furiously banging away on these two issues since 2012. With the result that the EU and currency are now 7th and 8th in the list of the scottish public's priorities for independence with a tiny 3% and 2% of the scottish public rating them most important.

    I look forward to any PB tory reading of scottish public opinion and how it will react with the same amusement as the much heralded yet sadly oft-delayed scottish tory surge.

    Mick - sounds like we are both happy with the latest twists and turns in the campaign - what's to argue.

    I'm happy that No has dissected the currency issue.

    You are happy that people from the wrong country and circumstances are voicing an opinion.

    Carry on old thing...
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2014
    Patrick said:

    malcolmg said:

    welshowl said:

    Salmond says he'll deconstruct Osborne's case against a currency union:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638

    It'll be interesting to see whether he actually does this, or just goes tub-thumping with slogans. It's also worth noting that a currency union requires both parties to agree, it's not something solely in the gift of the Scottish people. I wonder whether that will be acknowledged.

    How about this as a revised draft of todays speech by Salmond:



    However, not all is bleak, we can set up the Scots Pound after agreeing a two/three year transition with London, (during which time we'll agree to run our budget past them for approval), and if we're responsibly fiscally (no really, really, not just pretending we will be), after a probable little discount devaluation against Sterling we'll probably rub along at about parity, might involve slightly higher interest rates but nothing too scary. This does however, mean we'll have to be careful with a declining oil revenue and make sure we put a bit away for a rainy day, and contrary to expectations public spending won't increase and might have to be trimmed a bit. ( No free unicorns pooing tartan chocolate on every street corner in Airdrie I'm afraid kids). We should really save a bit on defence as we only need a few fishery vessels (not much use for 8% of an aircraft carrier really), and I doubt we'll need sophisticated jet fighters.

    There we are, a real independent country, that can pay its way, tailor its public services as it wants and not how those nasty money grabbing so and so's in the Home Counties want, its own currency, friendly relations with England ("a good neighbour, not a surly lodger" I think A Salmond once said).
    Interesting reality on the BBC Scotland "call in" this morning on Barosso EU propaganda from yesterday. Almost everybody was irate and said it was rubbish, Better Together spokesperson slunk off early on after his lies were repudiated and the straw poll on voting was, 2 voting NO all the rest voting YES, so about 80% to 20% being very very generous.
    Malcolm is there a tiny part of you that fears a YES may indeed be followed by full independence - from Sterling, from the EU, from the markets, etc? What if they aren't joking?
    Kim Al Salm's supporters do not question the wisdom of their Glorious Leader. (And everyone else is clearly wrong anyway).
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited February 2014

    The BBC ask their callers for their voting intentions. Do you think they were deliberately skewing the caller breakdown?

    Whether or not they skewer their calls, the BBC is clearly biased in a pro-union direction, just as they are biased in a centre-left direction.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    welshowl said:

    Salmond says he'll deconstruct Osborne's case against a currency union:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638

    It'll be interesting to see whether he actually does this, or just goes tub-thumping with slogans. It's also worth noting that a currency union requires both parties to agree, it's not something solely in the gift of the Scottish people. I wonder whether that will be acknowledged.

    How about this as a revised draft of todays speech by Salmond:



    However, not all is bleak, we can set up the Scots Pound after agreeing a two/three year transition with London, (during which time we'll agree to run our budget past them for approval), and if we're responsibly fiscally (no really, really, not just pretending we will be), after a probable little discount devaluation against Sterling we'll probably rub along at about parity, might involve slightly higher interest rates but nothing too scary. This does however, mean we'll have to be careful with a declining oil revenue and make sure we put a bit away for a rainy day, and contrary to expectations public spending won't increase and might have to be trimmed a bit. ( No free unicorns pooing tartan chocolate on every street corner in Airdrie I'm afraid kids). We should really save a bit on defence as we only need a few fishery vessels (not much use for 8% of an aircraft carrier really), and I doubt we'll need sophisticated jet fighters.

    There we are, a real independent country, that can pay its way, tailor its public services as it wants and not how those nasty money grabbing so and so's in the Home Counties want, its own currency, friendly relations with England ("a good neighbour, not a surly lodger" I think A Salmond once said).
    Interesting reality on the BBC Scotland "call in" this morning on Barosso EU propaganda from yesterday. Almost everybody was irate and said it was rubbish, Better Together spokesperson slunk off early on after his lies were repudiated and the straw poll on voting was, 2 voting NO all the rest voting YES, so about 80% to 20% being very very generous.
    That the YES supporters are noiser is not up for debate is it ?
    The BBC ask their callers for their voting intentions. Do you think they were deliberately skewing the caller breakdown?

    Since the site's greatest proponent of using radio phone ins to gauge the political weather left I had thought it was a largely extinct science.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567
    Socrates said:



    While (1) is certainly pro-religion, I've not heard them be anti-free speech. In my experience Christians are less sensitive to offensive jokes and such. Hence the reactions to the Jesus & Mo comics. Are you aware of examples of the Blair/Gove group demanding limits on free speech?

    As an MP I was frequently lobbied by Christian groups demanding that people somehow be prevented from insulting Christianity. An example was a "work of art" which had Jesus on a crucifix in a vase of urine. It was clearly intended as an offensive provocation, and I could understand why they were upset. I wasn't in favour of banning it, but I wouldn't have liked to see it featured in a newspaper either. In the same way, I don't think it should be illegal to display sarky pictures of Mohammed, and people who try to enforce a ban by threats should be prosecuted for intimidation, but I'd like newspapers to refrain from it voluntarily (which I suppose one could call self-censorship, but I'd call reasonable respect for the views of others).

    I do feel more strongly about protecting groups that are traditionally targeted for other reasons. People can say pretty much what they like about MPs or Londoners or socialists as a group and I'll probably disagree but ultimately so what. But if you're a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant struggling to make a living as a cleaner in the East End and someone organises a march past your door to denounce your religious beliefs, I feel a bit more protective, even though I think religion of any stripe is inherently implausible.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    James Delingpole (@JamesDelingpole)
    17/02/2014 07:57
    On the hatefulness of liberal-lefties - or Why I'm joining Breitbart.com breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond… @BreitbartNews

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Delingpole-Why-Breitbart

    We have yet to see a liberal leftie blow up the centre of a western European city, killing eight, and then systematically murder dozens of defenceless people because he did not approve of their politics.

    I'm sure we could play left / right top trumps all day when it comes to atrocities carried out, but id rather not.

    Looks like Delingpole has got his hands on a lot of PBers debating tactics manual though!
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    isam said:


    Looks like Delingpole has got his hands on a lot of PBers debating tactics manual though!

    It's a shame he pulled out of the Corby by-election. What is the record for least votes ever polled in a by-election?
  • Neil said:

    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    welshowl said:

    Salmond says he'll deconstruct Osborne's case against a currency union:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638

    It'll be interesting to see whether he actually does this, or just goes tub-thumping with slogans. It's also worth noting that a currency union requires both parties to agree, it's not something solely in the gift of the Scottish people. I wonder whether that will be acknowledged.

    How about this as a revised draft of todays speech by Salmond:



    However, not all is bleak, we can set up the Scots Pound after agreeing a two/three year transition with London, (during which time we'll agree to run our budget past them for approval), and if we're responsibly fiscally (no really, really, not just pretending we will be), after a probable little discount devaluation against Sterling we'll probably rub along at about parity, might involve slightly higher interest rates but nothing too scary. This does however, mean we'll have to be careful with a declining oil revenue and make sure we put a bit away for a rainy day, and contrary to expectations public spending won't increase and might have to be trimmed a bit. ( No free unicorns pooing tartan chocolate on every street corner in Airdrie I'm afraid kids). We should really save a bit on defence as we only need a few fishery vessels (not much use for 8% of an aircraft carrier really), and I doubt we'll need sophisticated jet fighters.

    There we are, a real independent country, that can pay its way, tailor its public services as it wants and not how those nasty money grabbing so and so's in the Home Counties want, its own currency, friendly relations with England ("a good neighbour, not a surly lodger" I think A Salmond once said).
    Interesting reality on the BBC Scotland "call in" this morning on Barosso EU propaganda from yesterday. Almost everybody was irate and said it was rubbish, Better Together spokesperson slunk off early on after his lies were repudiated and the straw poll on voting was, 2 voting NO all the rest voting YES, so about 80% to 20% being very very generous.
    That the YES supporters are noiser is not up for debate is it ?
    The BBC ask their callers for their voting intentions. Do you think they were deliberately skewing the caller breakdown?

    Since the site's greatest proponent of using radio phone ins to gauge the political weather left I had thought it was a largely extinct science.
    I feel I should know who that is, but it may have been before my time.
  • Socrates said:

    The BBC ask their callers for their voting intentions. Do you think they were deliberately skewing the caller breakdown?

    Whether or not they skewer their calls, the BBC is clearly biased in a pro-union direction, just as they are biased in a centre-left direction.

    Hmmm ....

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-accused-ofpolitical-bias--on-the-right-not-the-left-9129639.html

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Anorak said:

    isam said:

    James Delingpole (@JamesDelingpole)
    17/02/2014 07:57
    On the hatefulness of liberal-lefties - or Why I'm joining Breitbart.com breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond… @BreitbartNews

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Delingpole-Why-Breitbart

    We have yet to see a liberal leftie blow up the centre of a western European city, killing eight, and then systematically murder dozens of defenceless people because he did not approve of their politics.
    Did you really just do that? We're a short step from someone pointing out the "socialist" in National Socialist and from there on it's just a race to the bottom!

    I am happy to have a debate on the socialism of the Nazis, those great privatisers of German state assets. But my point was more that these relentless links to right-wing blogs whose basic theme is "Left-wingers are evil hypocrites who hate freedom, democracy and everything that makes the west great" are ever so slightly tedious, however good they make the person posting the link.

    It's a new blog I thought I'd share it to give it some publicity!

    Nice to see you are proving the point my making it personal!
  • Mick Pork

    Both today and yesterday, you have called other PBers twits, despite be warned not to.

    Can you confirm you haven't forgotten this instruction.
  • http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26225205

    This is all flipping scary stuff....
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    The question of the monarchy in an independent Scotland is an interesting one.

    The present status of the monarchy derives from James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England following the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603. Should such a breakup of the union of the crowns occur then the present queen would be Queen of Scots and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England and Wales) and Northern Ireland.

    In such a form the Scottish monarchy would take precedence as being of greater age. Perhaps the Queen of Scots would then look to appoint a Governor General to the UK ....

    Titters ....
  • TGOHF said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    TGOHF said:

    Salmond has been forced onto the defensive on two fronts - yet both were well telegraphed in advance

    By which you actually mean the tories (very 'popular' in scotland as the twits on PB would never be stupid enough to forget) and 'better together' have been furiously banging away on these two issues since 2012. With the result that the EU and currency are now 7th and 8th in the list of the scottish public's priorities for independence with a tiny 3% and 2% of the scottish public rating them most important.

    I look forward to any PB tory reading of scottish public opinion and how it will react with the same amusement as the much heralded yet sadly oft-delayed scottish tory surge.

    Mick - sounds like we are both happy with the latest twists and turns in the campaign - what's to argue.

    I'm happy that No has dissected the currency issue.

    You are happy that people from the wrong country and circumstances are voicing an opinion.

    Carry on old thing...

    Absolutely. Given that the events of the last week are having the effect of driving Scots voters to the Yes side in droves, I am surprised at the fury of the SNP reaction to what Osborne, Balls, Alexander and Barrosso have said.

    All sides should welcome the interventions as they give everyone a clearer picture of how things will be once Yes wins the landslide victory that we must clearly now anticipate.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:



    While (1) is certainly pro-religion, I've not heard them be anti-free speech. In my experience Christians are less sensitive to offensive jokes and such. Hence the reactions to the Jesus & Mo comics. Are you aware of examples of the Blair/Gove group demanding limits on free speech?

    As an MP I was frequently lobbied by Christian groups demanding that people somehow be prevented from insulting Christianity. An example was a "work of art" which had Jesus on a crucifix in a vase of urine. It was clearly intended as an offensive provocation, and I could understand why they were upset. I wasn't in favour of banning it, but I wouldn't have liked to see it featured in a newspaper either. In the same way, I don't think it should be illegal to display sarky pictures of Mohammed, and people who try to enforce a ban by threats should be prosecuted for intimidation, but I'd like newspapers to refrain from it voluntarily (which I suppose one could call self-censorship, but I'd call reasonable respect for the views of others).

    I do feel more strongly about protecting groups that are traditionally targeted for other reasons. People can say pretty much what they like about MPs or Londoners or socialists as a group and I'll probably disagree but ultimately so what. But if you're a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant struggling to make a living as a cleaner in the East End and someone organises a march past your door to denounce your religious beliefs, I feel a bit more protective, even though I think religion of any stripe is inherently implausible.

    I can understand wanting newspapers to avoid being deliberately antagonistic (which is just rudeness), but the idea that we should have self-censorship in terms of satire (like the Jesus & Mo comics) is just ridiculous.

    On the second point, are you protective against people denouncing the Zionists and the bankers past places where lots of Jewish bankers work? I'm also intrigued about what your protectiveness would mean in terms of government policy. Frankly, I think a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant benefits from increased exposure to arguments for a scientifically rational belief system.
  • isam said:

    Anorak said:

    isam said:

    James Delingpole (@JamesDelingpole)
    17/02/2014 07:57
    On the hatefulness of liberal-lefties - or Why I'm joining Breitbart.com breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond… @BreitbartNews

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Delingpole-Why-Breitbart

    We have yet to see a liberal leftie blow up the centre of a western European city, killing eight, and then systematically murder dozens of defenceless people because he did not approve of their politics.
    Did you really just do that? We're a short step from someone pointing out the "socialist" in National Socialist and from there on it's just a race to the bottom!

    I am happy to have a debate on the socialism of the Nazis, those great privatisers of German state assets. But my point was more that these relentless links to right-wing blogs whose basic theme is "Left-wingers are evil hypocrites who hate freedom, democracy and everything that makes the west great" are ever so slightly tedious, however good they make the person posting the link.

    It's a new blog I thought I'd share it to give it some publicity!

    Nice to see you are proving the point my making it personal!

    Absolutely!!

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    JackW said:

    The question of the monarchy in an independent Scotland is an interesting one.

    The present status of the monarchy derives from James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England following the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603. Should such a breakup of the union of the crowns occur then the present queen would be Queen of Scots and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England and Wales) and Northern Ireland.

    In such a form the Scottish monarchy would take precedence as being of greater age. Perhaps the Queen of Scots would then look to appoint a Governor General to the UK ....

    Titters ....

    The Scottish monarchy would not be an older institution, as it ceased to exist with the end of the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707. It would start afresh if it was created again.
  • JackW said:

    The question of the monarchy in an independent Scotland is an interesting one.

    The present status of the monarchy derives from James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England following the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603. Should such a breakup of the union of the crowns occur then the present queen would be Queen of Scots and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England and Wales) and Northern Ireland.

    In such a form the Scottish monarchy would take precedence as being of greater age. Perhaps the Queen of Scots would then look to appoint a Governor General to the UK ....

    Titters ....

    George Galloway just the man..

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Socrates said:

    Frankly, I think a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant benefits from increased exposure to arguments for a scientifically rational belief system.

    I dont think the EDL have particularly coherent arguments in favour of scientifically rational beliefs.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464

    How about this as a revised draft of todays speech by Salmond:



    However, not all is bleak, we can set up the Scots Pound after agreeing a two/three year transition with London, (during which time we'll agree to run our budget past them for approval), and if we're responsibly fiscally (no really, really, not just pretending we will be), after a probable little discount devaluation against Sterling we'll probably rub along at about parity, might involve slightly higher interest rates but nothing too scary. This does however, mean we'll have to be careful with a declining oil revenue and make sure we put a bit away for a rainy day, and contrary to expectations public spending won't increase and might have to be trimmed a bit. ( No free unicorns pooing tartan chocolate on every street corner in Airdrie I'm afraid kids). We should really save a bit on defence as we only need a few fishery vessels (not much use for 8% of an aircraft carrier really), and I doubt we'll need sophisticated jet fighters.

    There we are, a real independent country, that can pay its way, tailor its public services as it wants and not how those nasty money grabbing so and so's in the Home Counties want, its own currency, friendly relations with England ("a good neighbour, not a surly lodger" I think A Salmond once said).

    Interesting reality on the BBC Scotland "call in" this morning on Barosso EU propaganda from yesterday. Almost everybody was irate and said it was rubbish, Better Together spokesperson slunk off early on after his lies were repudiated and the straw poll on voting was, 2 voting NO all the rest voting YES, so about 80% to 20% being very very generous.

    Didn't hear it, west of Offa's Dike as I am, but I can believe it. It really puzzles me why the Yes camp seem to be blowing up at others that (reasonably) have a different view of the world.

    The EU situation is unprecedented in that no member state has split and therefore there's never been a case before like it. I think it's fair to say it's "fuzzy". What you can't say is that there is 100% certainty either way.

    The currency situation to me is clearer. It ain't happening in the way the SNP want it to. rUK is united and crystal clear. You can say they're bluffing, fair enough, but geez that's a hell of a gamble. Don't forget, assuming a Yes, Scotland has to be governed afterwards. It will have a large rump of variously disgruntled No voters to placate anyway, it does not need a block of folk who've been swung on what turns out to be a mistaken view of bluffing.




  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Sorry Malcolm G meant to quote you in previous post, but I had a case of fat fingers! Sorry
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Neil said:

    Socrates said:

    Frankly, I think a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant benefits from increased exposure to arguments for a scientifically rational belief system.

    I dont think the EDL have particularly coherent arguments in favour of scientifically rational beliefs.
    Tommy Robinson changed his views after reasoned argument, which is more than you can say for most Islamists.
  • RobD said:

    Today's quiz question.

    A cyclist is approaching this junction - http://goo.gl/xyGnKA - and wishes to turn right. Which lane should they use?

    You share the car line, surely? The small lane is only there because only bikes can go straight on.
    That's what I thought - though the cars can also go straight on, which makes it more important to be in the car lane, so as not to cross the path of cars going straight on.

    Unfortunately, a driver didn't see it that way this morning, and their passenger appears to believe that it would teach me a lesson to be knocked off my bicycle when I attempted to explain the road markings to them.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2014
    welshowl said:


    How about this as a revised draft of todays speech by Salmond:



    However, not all is bleak, we can set up the Scots Pound after agreeing a two/three year transition with London, (during which time we'll agree to run our budget past them for approval), and if we're responsibly fiscally (no really, really, not just pretending we will be), after a probable little discount devaluation against Sterling we'll probably rub along at about parity, might involve slightly higher interest rates but nothing too scary. This does however, mean we'll have to be careful with a declining oil revenue and make sure we put a bit away for a rainy day, and contrary to expectations public spending won't increase and might have to be trimmed a bit. ( No free unicorns pooing tartan chocolate on every street corner in Airdrie I'm afraid kids). We should really save a bit on defence as we only need a few fishery vessels (not much use for 8% of an aircraft carrier really), and I doubt we'll need sophisticated jet fighters.

    There we are, a real independent country, that can pay its way, tailor its public services as it wants and not how those nasty money grabbing so and so's in the Home Counties want, its own currency, friendly relations with England ("a good neighbour, not a surly lodger" I think A Salmond once said).

    It will have a large rump of variously disgruntled No voters to placate anyway, it does not need a block of folk who've been swung on what turns out to be a mistaken view of bluffing.






    What happens 5 years down the line, post any theoretical Independence, when the SNP fall out of favour, and the majority are clamouring to rejoin rUK?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Socrates said:

    Neil said:

    Socrates said:

    Frankly, I think a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant benefits from increased exposure to arguments for a scientifically rational belief system.

    I dont think the EDL have particularly coherent arguments in favour of scientifically rational beliefs.
    Tommy Robinson changed his views after reasoned argument, which is more than you can say for most Islamists.
    I dont think that changes the fact that the kind of EDL marches Nick was talking about are low on rational arguments and high on intolerance and hate.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Anorak said:

    isam said:

    James Delingpole (@JamesDelingpole)
    17/02/2014 07:57
    On the hatefulness of liberal-lefties - or Why I'm joining Breitbart.com breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond… @BreitbartNews

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Delingpole-Why-Breitbart

    We have yet to see a liberal leftie blow up the centre of a western European city, killing eight, and then systematically murder dozens of defenceless people because he did not approve of their politics.
    Did you really just do that? We're a short step from someone pointing out the "socialist" in National Socialist and from there on it's just a race to the bottom!
    But my point was more that these relentless links to right-wing blogs whose basic theme is "Left-wingers are evil hypocrites who hate freedom, democracy and everything that makes the west great" are ever so slightly tedious, however good they make the person posting the link.
    But such truth has a great beauty!
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Socrates said:

    Anorak said:

    isam said:

    James Delingpole (@JamesDelingpole)
    17/02/2014 07:57
    On the hatefulness of liberal-lefties - or Why I'm joining Breitbart.com breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond… @BreitbartNews

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Delingpole-Why-Breitbart

    We have yet to see a liberal leftie blow up the centre of a western European city, killing eight, and then systematically murder dozens of defenceless people because he did not approve of their politics.
    Did you really just do that? We're a short step from someone pointing out the "socialist" in National Socialist and from there on it's just a race to the bottom!

    The National Socialists were about as socialist as the Russian Liberal Democrats are liberal and democratic. Hitler's Germany was a corporatist state, where the owners of big business were clearly favoured over the unions. The Night of the Long Knives clearly killed off the left-wing part of the Nazi party. While there have certainly been evil and intolerant left-wing regimes, it's frankly laughable to describe them as the same group as "liberal-lefties".
    Yes, I know. The 'laughable' nature of the argument was my, er, point.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Socrates said:

    JackW said:

    The question of the monarchy in an independent Scotland is an interesting one.

    The present status of the monarchy derives from James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England following the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603. Should such a breakup of the union of the crowns occur then the present queen would be Queen of Scots and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England and Wales) and Northern Ireland.

    In such a form the Scottish monarchy would take precedence as being of greater age. Perhaps the Queen of Scots would then look to appoint a Governor General to the UK ....

    Titters ....

    The Scottish monarchy would not be an older institution, as it ceased to exist with the end of the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707. It would start afresh if it was created again.
    Couldn't they have the Duke of Wuttemberg or whoever the current Jacobite claimant is?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    welshowl said:


    How about this as a revised draft of todays speech by Salmond:

    There we are, a real independent country, that can pay its way, tailor its public services as it wants and not how those nasty money grabbing so and so's in the Home Counties want, its own currency, friendly relations with England ("a good neighbour, not a surly lodger" I think A Salmond once said).

    It will have a large rump of variously disgruntled No voters to placate anyway, it does not need a block of folk who've been swung on what turns out to be a mistaken view of bluffing.




    What happens 5 years down the line, post any theoretical Independence, when the SNP fall out of favour, and the majority are clamouring to rejoin rUK?


    It would need EU sanction, the Spaniards would say no.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Well, now lets see what the Glorious One has to say about currency union.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,711
    Is the SNP not likely to split anyway, post independence, between Social Democrats and "sort of" Conservatives/Christian Democrats?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 2014
    Neil said:

    Socrates said:

    Neil said:

    Socrates said:

    Frankly, I think a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant benefits from increased exposure to arguments for a scientifically rational belief system.

    I dont think the EDL have particularly coherent arguments in favour of scientifically rational beliefs.
    Tommy Robinson changed his views after reasoned argument, which is more than you can say for most Islamists.
    I dont think that changes the fact that the kind of EDL marches Nick was talking about are low on rational arguments and high on intolerance and hate.
    You are right, but I have to wonder how the natives would react in Pakistan if years of mass immigràtion of white European atheîsts made large areas of their land into places they felt like immigrants where the atheis majority marched saying death to those who believe in Allah,, and also how people that crucify the EDL here would view any violence should it arise as a result of the atheist immigration.

    The EDL seem unsavoury to me, but I am reasonably well educated and don't live in an area where I am in a minority.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Socrates said:

    JackW said:

    The question of the monarchy in an independent Scotland is an interesting one.

    The present status of the monarchy derives from James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England following the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603. Should such a breakup of the union of the crowns occur then the present queen would be Queen of Scots and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England and Wales) and Northern Ireland.

    In such a form the Scottish monarchy would take precedence as being of greater age. Perhaps the Queen of Scots would then look to appoint a Governor General to the UK ....

    Titters ....

    The Scottish monarchy would not be an older institution, as it ceased to exist with the end of the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707. It would start afresh if it was created again.
    Not so.

    Both the Scottish and English monarchies were merged into that of Great Britain by the 1707 Act of Union. Should the Act be repealed then the previous personal 1603 Union of the Crowns would become the form of relationship, by which the Scottish monarchy is senior.

    Look at in terms of the Commonwealth interregnum.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    edited February 2014
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Also, burning a Koran is a religious provocation, not a racial one.

    I doubt that. I think the racial angle was the point, at least partly. To show you my thinking, I reckon that if fate had mysteriously switched the doctrines of Scientology and Islam, Pastor Terry Jones have been burning (or being hilariously foiled while trying to burn) the book of Scientology that the brown people were using, and the Korans beloved by Sonny Bono and Tom Cruise would have remained kerosene-free.
    In that situation it would have entirely depended which crowd had flown planes into American buildings, killing thousands of American citizens. You are completely out of touch with American evangelicals if you think this is race-based. They are quite capable of hating white people with such a passion, if you just look at what they thought of godless Russian commies back in the 1980s, and they consider black African churches to be allies in fighting the gays.
    And, you should hear what they say about freemasonry.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    isam said:


    The EDL seem unsavoury to me, but I am reasonably well educated and don't live in an area where I am in a minority.

    You are a UKIP supporter - you're in a minority everywhere ;)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    Socrates said:


    While (1) is certainly pro-religion, I've not heard them be anti-free speech. In my experience Christians are less sensitive to offensive jokes and such. Hence the reactions to the Jesus & Mo comics. Are you aware of examples of the Blair/Gove group demanding limits on free speech?

    Look up Blair's Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, especially the bits they tried to introduce but failed because Labour MPs rebelled (a rare defeat in those days) and then the Lords started ripping things out.

    In the opposite direction, Brown's government finally abolished Britain's blasphemy laws in 2008, which were still on the books after years of Blair's Home Secretaries tinkering around with all kinds of related areas, and Thatcher refusing to fix them when the issue came up over the Satanic Verses death threats.
    The blasphemy law was a dead letter (think there were three successful prosecutions after 1900, and none after 1977. ) As originally drafted, the incitement to religious hatred law was potentially far more chilling towards free speech than the blasphemy law.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    JackW said:

    The question of the monarchy in an independent Scotland is an interesting one.

    The present status of the monarchy derives from James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England following the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603. Should such a breakup of the union of the crowns occur then the present queen would be Queen of Scots and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England and Wales) and Northern Ireland.

    In such a form the Scottish monarchy would take precedence as being of greater age. Perhaps the Queen of Scots would then look to appoint a Governor General to the UK ....

    Titters ....

    The Scottish monarchy would not be an older institution, as it ceased to exist with the end of the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707. It would start afresh if it was created again.
    Not so.

    Both the Scottish and English monarchies were merged into that of Great Britain by the 1707 Act of Union. Should the Act be repealed then the previous personal 1603 Union of the Crowns would become the form of relationship, by which the Scottish monarchy is senior.

    Look at in terms of the Commonwealth interregnum.

    You can't repeal the Act of Union 1707 because the Kingdom of Great Britain created by such has now been superseded by the UK, with the Kingdom of Ireland joining. Should Scotland get independence, the historic kingdoms of Scotland and England will not be created anew. A new Kingdom of Scotland will be formed and the existing United Kingdom will continue with less territory. Thus the analogy is more akin to the Kingdom of Italy being formed in 1861, a different legal entity to the medieval Kingdom of Italy, rather than that of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    welshowl said:

    Socrates said:

    JackW said:

    The question of the monarchy in an independent Scotland is an interesting one.

    The present status of the monarchy derives from James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England following the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603. Should such a breakup of the union of the crowns occur then the present queen would be Queen of Scots and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England and Wales) and Northern Ireland.

    In such a form the Scottish monarchy would take precedence as being of greater age. Perhaps the Queen of Scots would then look to appoint a Governor General to the UK ....

    Titters ....

    The Scottish monarchy would not be an older institution, as it ceased to exist with the end of the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707. It would start afresh if it was created again.
    Couldn't they have the Duke of Wuttemberg or whoever the current Jacobite claimant is?
    If they wish to resurrect the philosophy of the Divine Right of Kings, I suppose that would be the sensible option.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    "The EU situation is unprecedented in that no member state has split and therefore there's never been a case before like it. I think it's fair to say it's "fuzzy". What you can't say is that there is 100% certainty either way."

    Point of order, Mr. Chairman. It has happened before, Greenland spit from Denmark and left the EU despite there being no mechanism in the treaties at that time for a state to do so.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    RobD said:

    Today's quiz question.

    A cyclist is approaching this junction - http://goo.gl/xyGnKA - and wishes to turn right. Which lane should they use?

    You share the car line, surely? The small lane is only there because only bikes can go straight on.
    That's what I thought - though the cars can also go straight on, which makes it more important to be in the car lane, so as not to cross the path of cars going straight on.

    Unfortunately, a driver didn't see it that way this morning, and their passenger appears to believe that it would teach me a lesson to be knocked off my bicycle when I attempted to explain the road markings to them.
    Wow sorry to hear that hope you're ok.

    knocked off as in ran into you in your car or knocked off as in white audi passenger jumps out knocked off?
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2014
    I see Salmond's making the argument personal.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    "Alex Salmond tells business audience in Aberdeen the chancellor has badly misread nature of Scotland and character of its people"

    How patronising of him to suggest that they will vote based on whether an Englishman intervenes or not.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,346

    TGOHF said:



    [deleted for space]
    Mick - sounds like we are both happy with the latest twists and turns in the campaign - what's to argue.

    I'm happy that No has dissected the currency issue.

    You are happy that people from the wrong country and circumstances are voicing an opinion.

    Carry on old thing...

    Absolutely. Given that the events of the last week are having the effect of driving Scots voters to the Yes side in droves, I am surprised at the fury of the SNP reaction to what Osborne, Balls, Alexander and Barrosso have said.

    All sides should welcome the interventions as they give everyone a clearer picture of how things will be once Yes wins the landslide victory that we must clearly now anticipate.

    I would hardly call the recent interventions as adding clarity, given the inaccuracy (I originally put mendacity, but I'm trying to be objective here) with which Mr Carney's speech was reported, and the logical incoherence and careful omissions of Mr Osborne's speech (I've read both). Indeed what is said in the overwhelmingly Unionist media is neither necessarily the truth nor what is going on in the Scottish electorate, and I'm surprised there has been so little discussion (Mr Pork's mentions aside) of two key elements:

    The intervention by a senior Coalition figure (who? Rifkind? Clarke?) that a Yes vote doesn't necessarily mean yes, and they'll regard it as a no as long as they like. This was well publicised here in Scotland, despite Mr Alexander running around afterwards saying Yes did perhaps mean Yes after all. Now, for the Coalition to deny that they have to respect a yes vote has to some extent, I think, had the effect of saying 'forget Mr Cameron and his valentine and flowers, forget Mr Osborne and his threat not to let us share the joint account or house while sending his chums round if we don't pay the mortgage, it's not worth listening to us'. It basically risks obliterating everything the No side says - one might almost just as well ignore it all now and vote yes and leave it to negotiation.

    2. The even more significant intervention of Mr Balls. A London New Labour front bencher joins with the Coalition in a specific policy issue in an orchestrated, and widely pre-trailed, move (so it's not as if he had reacted to Mr O's speech). That will have an impact on the Labour voting DKs, who would have plumped for No ages ago if they were happy with the status quo.

    I will be very interested to see the polls and how the Labour conference goes.

    And on the EU, see this in a mostly Unionist paper
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/barroso-scotland-ludicrous-remarks





  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Neil said:

    isam said:


    The EDL seem unsavoury to me, but I am reasonably well educated and don't live in an area where I am in a minority.

    You are a UKIP supporter - you're in a minority everywhere ;)
    Soon to be the majority. LOL

  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782

    Today's quiz question.

    A cyclist is approaching this junction - http://goo.gl/xyGnKA - and wishes to turn right. Which lane should they use?

    As a regular cyclist in London I would position myself slightly to the right of the centre line of the right hand lane - with a very obvious Right hand signal so that I am both very visible, taking the primary position, and it is obvious to even the daftest of other road users that I am indeed turning right. The cycle lane for someone turning right looks like a suicide attempt if there are cars that go straight ahead that you would be cutting across.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited February 2014
    MikeK said:

    Neil said:

    isam said:


    The EDL seem unsavoury to me, but I am reasonably well educated and don't live in an area where I am in a minority.

    You are a UKIP supporter - you're in a minority everywhere ;)
    Soon to be the majority. LOL

    Are you upping your seat projections again?! ;)
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567
    Socrates said:



    I can understand wanting newspapers to avoid being deliberately antagonistic (which is just rudeness), but the idea that we should have self-censorship in terms of satire (like the Jesus & Mo comics) is just ridiculous.

    On the second point, are you protective against people denouncing the Zionists and the bankers past places where lots of Jewish bankers work? I'm also intrigued about what your protectiveness would mean in terms of government policy. Frankly, I think a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant benefits from increased exposure to arguments for a scientifically rational belief system.

    Again, the history of anti-semitism makes me want to be a bit more protective of Jewish people than, say, Yorkshiremen. But I don't favour government policy doing much more than the classic ability to prevent activity "likely or intended to cause a breach of the peace". I'm against rudeness, like you, but think the bar for police intervention should be a lot higher - essentially conduct which is intended to provoke violence or stir up hatred.

    I know a constituent who thinks I should be imprisoned or perhaps executed for crimes against the British people (because I voted for the Iraq war, where friends of his died). He writes to the papers to denounce me from time to time. As long as that's all he does, I'm fine with it - he's entitled to his views. However, if he walked up and down outside my flat with a placard urging people to abuse me, I'd be inclined to call the fuzz.

    But it's a difficult balance and I wouldn't say that I feel sure I get it right.

  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    A bet taken at 9-2 which has come in to 7-4 is worthy of congratulation.Looking at the information supplied by AndyJS,that might end up looking big-you could be looking to green up at evens.
    One thing that is not likely to change is the sharp downward trend of the L/Ds in seats where they have little presence and a lot less activists,councillors and money.They will for sure target keeping the 57 seats they hold,activity will be a bare minimum/invisible everywhere else.
    I'm happy to piggy-back even at 7-4.
  • Salmond reiterating his 'no pound no share of UK debt'......which of course, means no agreement on independence, no EU membership.......
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,346

    Socrates said:



    I can understand wanting newspapers to avoid being deliberately antagonistic (which is just rudeness), but the idea that we should have self-censorship in terms of satire (like the Jesus & Mo comics) is just ridiculous.

    On the second point, are you protective against people denouncing the Zionists and the bankers past places where lots of Jewish bankers work? I'm also intrigued about what your protectiveness would mean in terms of government policy. Frankly, I think a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant benefits from increased exposure to arguments for a scientifically rational belief system.

    Again, the history of anti-semitism makes me want to be a bit more protective of Jewish people than, say, Yorkshiremen. But I don't favour government policy doing much more than the classic ability to prevent activity "likely or intended to cause a breach of the peace". I'm against rudeness, like you, but think the bar for police intervention should be a lot higher - essentially conduct which is intended to provoke violence or stir up hatred.

    I know a constituent who thinks I should be imprisoned or perhaps executed for crimes against the British people (because I voted for the Iraq war, where friends of his died). He writes to the papers to denounce me from time to time. As long as that's all he does, I'm fine with it - he's entitled to his views. However, if he walked up and down outside my flat with a placard urging people to abuse me, I'd be inclined to call the fuzz.

    But it's a difficult balance and I wouldn't say that I feel sure I get it right.

    Just to say, most interesting discussion, many thanks.

  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Add-Paddy Power have just cut it to 11-8.The value is going fast.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Will the LDs bottom out?

    The declines above suggest an increase in vote share loss. ICM, reported to be the pollster most favourable to the LDs, also show a continuing decline.

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/icm

    Is there a rock bottom for the LDs?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited February 2014


    @Socrates wrote :

    "You can't repeal the Act of Union 1707 because the Kingdom of Great Britain created by such has now been superseded by the UK, with the Kingdom of Ireland joining. Should Scotland get independence, the historic kingdoms of Scotland and England will not be created anew. A new Kingdom of Scotland will be formed and the existing United Kingdom will continue with less territory. Thus the analogy is more akin to the Kingdom of Italy being formed in 1861, a different legal entity to the medieval Kingdom of Italy, rather than that of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland."

    .....................................................

    Again not so.

    There is no precedent for a United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. That would be a new kingdom. Unlike Scotland which would simply revert to its old pre 1707 status.

    Perhaps this Scottish independence has some merit ....

    Chortle ....

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Lennon said:

    Today's quiz question.

    A cyclist is approaching this junction - http://goo.gl/xyGnKA - and wishes to turn right. Which lane should they use?

    As a regular cyclist in London I would position myself slightly to the right of the centre line of the right hand lane - with a very obvious Right hand signal so that I am both very visible, taking the primary position, and it is obvious to even the daftest of other road users that I am indeed turning right. The cycle lane for someone turning right looks like a suicide attempt if there are cars that go straight ahead that you would be cutting across.
    On bike or horse - centre of right hand lane - clear right signal and twice on sundays. The cycle lane to go straight on looks dangerous to me even if you are going straight on.
  • TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    Today's quiz question.

    A cyclist is approaching this junction - http://goo.gl/xyGnKA - and wishes to turn right. Which lane should they use?

    You share the car line, surely? The small lane is only there because only bikes can go straight on.
    That's what I thought - though the cars can also go straight on, which makes it more important to be in the car lane, so as not to cross the path of cars going straight on.

    Unfortunately, a driver didn't see it that way this morning, and their passenger appears to believe that it would teach me a lesson to be knocked off my bicycle when I attempted to explain the road markings to them.
    Wow sorry to hear that hope you're ok.

    knocked off as in ran into you in your car or knocked off as in white audi passenger jumps out knocked off?
    Ah, no, I wasn't knocked off today - though they came close. It's just in the argument that followed I was told that it would be a good thing if I was knocked off.

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Deadpan from BBC live text:

    11:02: Mr Salmond is about to be introduced at the Business for Scotland event in Aberdeen. The organisation has 1,400 members in Scotland, mainly from small to medium enterprises. The organisation says it prides itself on the diversity of its membership.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262

    Salmond reiterating his 'no pound no share of UK debt'......which of course, means no agreement on independence, no EU membership.......

    "Westminster, I can't hear you if I stick my fingers in my ears ... La La La... And George Osborne, you're a nasty boy".
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Salmond reiterating his 'no pound no share of UK debt'.....

    I cant help but think this is the wrong line to take but presumably they have focus-grouped the alternatives and this one works best with their target demographics.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Salmond reiterating his 'no pound no share of UK debt'......which of course, means no agreement on independence, no EU membership.......

    If Scotland will not pay its share of debts, can we not just confiscate their assets based south of the border?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    edited February 2014

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    Today's quiz question.

    A cyclist is approaching this junction - http://goo.gl/xyGnKA - and wishes to turn right. Which lane should they use?

    You share the car line, surely? The small lane is only there because only bikes can go straight on.
    That's what I thought - though the cars can also go straight on, which makes it more important to be in the car lane, so as not to cross the path of cars going straight on.

    Unfortunately, a driver didn't see it that way this morning, and their passenger appears to believe that it would teach me a lesson to be knocked off my bicycle when I attempted to explain the road markings to them.
    Wow sorry to hear that hope you're ok.

    knocked off as in ran into you in your car or knocked off as in white audi passenger jumps out knocked off?
    Ah, no, I wasn't knocked off today - though they came close. It's just in the argument that followed I was told that it would be a good thing if I was knocked off.

    ah thank goodness.

    Yes I sometimes wonder that with the increased rhetoric (esp. in London, I appreciate that junction and therefore presumably you was/were in Exeter) people on both sides have cranked it up.
  • @Carnyx - "The intervention by a senior Coalition figure (who? Rifkind? Clarke?) that a Yes vote doesn't necessarily mean yes, and they'll regard it as a no as long as they like."

    I am not sure that this is what the source said, is it? I can see why the Yes side would want to portray it in that way, but it seemed to me that what was actually being stated is that until both sides can reach an agreement on independence the status quo will pertain. That seems pretty self evident to me and not really something to get too furious about.

    The Guardian regularly prints a variety of opinions on independence, so again there is nothing very unusual in the article that you link to. If the SNP wants to believe that all 28 EU member states will agree to Scotland becoming a member of the EU on the date that independence occurs then that is fine. Barrosso disagrees. My guess is that Spain will too. It may not object to Scottish membership, but it has made clear time and again that from its perspective an application would need to be submitted once Scotland became independent. Here, for example:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu

    This may end up at the European Court. But that will also take time.

    As for Balls. There are plenty of things that him and Osborne agree on: membership of the Euro, for example. His intervention seems to have made no difference to labour's opinion poll scores.

    However, if all that the last week does is to drive people into the Yes camp - what is the problem? At least people cannot say they were not warned should it turn out that what Osborne and Barroso have said is the reality. My suspicion, though, is that what will actually happen is that there will be a sterling currency union on terms dictated by the rUK, but that Scotland will not become an EU member state on independence. We shall see.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Salmond's visceral hatred and contempt for the democratically elected George Osborne aptly illustrate why a currency union could never work.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Socrates said:

    Salmond reiterating his 'no pound no share of UK debt'......which of course, means no agreement on independence, no EU membership.......

    If Scotland will not pay its share of debts, can we not just confiscate their assets based south of the border?
    If an independent Scotland reneges on its debt it'll have to go to Wonga to borrow, and as for membership of the EU I think Eric Pickles would have a better chance of asking Chris Smith for his hand in marriage !!

  • isam said:

    Neil said:

    Socrates said:

    Neil said:

    Socrates said:

    Frankly, I think a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant benefits from increased exposure to arguments for a scientifically rational belief system.

    I dont think the EDL have particularly coherent arguments in favour of scientifically rational beliefs.
    Tommy Robinson changed his views after reasoned argument, which is more than you can say for most Islamists.
    I dont think that changes the fact that the kind of EDL marches Nick was talking about are low on rational arguments and high on intolerance and hate.
    You are right, but I have to wonder how the natives would react in Pakistan if years of mass immigràtion of white European atheîsts made large areas of their land into places they felt like immigrants where the atheis majority marched saying death to those who believe in Allah,, and also how people that crucify the EDL here would view any violence should it arise as a result of the atheist immigration.

    The EDL seem unsavoury to me, but I am reasonably well educated and don't live in an area where I am in a minority.

    Pakistanis - or Indians as were - did go through something just like that, didn't they? They were never a minority, but they certainly were ruled over by white people who imposed themselves without permission and treated them like second or maybe even third class citizens. Certainly no-one ever asked them whether they were happy for it to be taking place.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    I see Salmond's making the argument personal.


    To some extent its good to make the Independence Argument as divisive as possible so that everyone who would possibly think of wanting independence commits to it. There is no point in having further votes a few years down the line because people change their minds based on a few small technicalities or new economic policies. This vote should be on as emotional a level as possible: those who value the Union and those who don't.

    Better to have a vote and get on with life rather than having long term uncertainties.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    Today's quiz question.

    A cyclist is approaching this junction - http://goo.gl/xyGnKA - and wishes to turn right. Which lane should they use?

    You share the car line, surely? The small lane is only there because only bikes can go straight on.
    That's what I thought - though the cars can also go straight on, which makes it more important to be in the car lane, so as not to cross the path of cars going straight on.

    Unfortunately, a driver didn't see it that way this morning, and their passenger appears to believe that it would teach me a lesson to be knocked off my bicycle when I attempted to explain the road markings to them.
    Wow sorry to hear that hope you're ok.

    knocked off as in ran into you in your car or knocked off as in white audi passenger jumps out knocked off?
    Ah, no, I wasn't knocked off today - though they came close. It's just in the argument that followed I was told that it would be a good thing if I was knocked off.

    ah thank goodness.

    Yes I sometimes wonder that with the increased rhetoric (esp. in London, I appreciate that junction and therefore presumably you was in Exeter) people on both sides have cranked it up.
    Yes, well, I'm not in the best mood to explain things calmly when I've nearly been knocked off, unfortunately.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    "However, if all that the last week does is to drive people into the Yes camp - what is the problem?"

    The problem is that it will poison relations between the countries for ever afterwards, whichever way the the referendum goes. As Wellington said after Waterloo, the only thing worse than winning a referendum is losing one.
  • Neil said:

    Salmond reiterating his 'no pound no share of UK debt'.....

    I cant help but think this is the wrong line to take but presumably they have focus-grouped the alternatives and this one works best with their target demographics.

    It's all about the Yes vote. It's clearly not a serious proposition given that Scotland cannot become legally independent until both sides agree.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    A Scot tweets...

    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 17m
    This is not Mr Salmond's most statesmanlike intervention.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    JonathanD said:

    I see Salmond's making the argument personal.


    To some extent its good to make the Independence Argument as divisive as possible so that everyone who would possibly think of wanting independence commits to it. There is no point in having further votes a few years down the line because people change their minds based on a few small technicalities or new economic policies. This vote should be on as emotional a level as possible: those who value the Union and those who don't.

    Better to have a vote and get on with life rather than having long term uncertainties.
    Where does Salmond go post a 'No' vote?
  • Ishmael_X said:

    "However, if all that the last week does is to drive people into the Yes camp - what is the problem?"

    The problem is that it will poison relations between the countries for ever afterwards, whichever way the the referendum goes. As Wellington said after Waterloo, the only thing worse than winning a referendum is losing one.

    There is the potential for that, of course. But I imagine that should there be a Yes things will clam down pretty rapidly. The SNP know there can only be a currency union on terms dictated by the rUK and they must also realise that realpolitik will trump all else on the EU. It's just that for obvious reasons they cannot say these things prior to 18th September. Afterwards it will be a very different matter.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    JonathanD said:

    I see Salmond's making the argument personal.


    To some extent its good to make the Independence Argument as divisive as possible so that everyone who would possibly think of wanting independence commits to it. There is no point in having further votes a few years down the line because people change their minds based on a few small technicalities or new economic policies. This vote should be on as emotional a level as possible: those who value the Union and those who don't.

    Better to have a vote and get on with life rather than having long term uncertainties.
    Where does Salmond go post a 'No' vote?
    Devo max.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited February 2014
    Ishmael_X said:


    The problem is that it will poison relations between the countries for ever afterwards, whichever way the the referendum goes.

    Forever is a long time. After a war of independence, a trade war and a distinctly different approach to the calamity of WW2 the UK and the Republic of Ireland seem to be rubbing along together just fine these days. In fact this year will see the first ever state visit from the President of Ireland to the UK. Given the lack of a war between them I'm sure Scotland and the rUK can look forward to equally warm relations in an even shorter timescale.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited February 2014
    JackW said:


    Again not so.

    There is no precedent for a United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. That would be a new kingdom. Unlike Scotland which would simply revert to its old pre 1707 status.

    Perhaps this Scottish independence has some merit ....

    Chortle ....

    There would be no new United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would continue with the same name until it decided to change it, just as it did when it changed its name from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland a full six years after Irish independence. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that things like the UK parliament, EU membership, UNSC status etc would continue for the United Kingdom, while Scotland would have to negotiate such things anew, something recognised even by Alex Salmond.
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited February 2014
    JackW said:

    Again not so.

    There is no precedent for a United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. That would be a new kingdom. Unlike Scotland which would simply revert to its old pre 1707 status.

    Perhaps this Scottish independence has some merit ....

    Chortle ....

    Scotland would not return to its pre-1707 status. It would be a new kingdom, whose status depended on the terms by which it was granted independence. The relevant precedent is Irish. The form of Irish Free State depended on the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922 and the Irish Free State (Constitution) Act of the same year. The position before the Act of Union 1800 was irrelevant. You claim that there is no precedent for the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Indeed, but there was no precedent for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1922 (albeit the name only changed via the Royal And Parliamentary Titles Act 1927).
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    isam said:

    Neil said:

    Socrates said:

    Neil said:

    Socrates said:

    Frankly, I think a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant benefits from increased exposure to arguments for a scientifically rational belief system.

    I dont think the EDL have particularly coherent arguments in favour of scientifically rational beliefs.
    Tommy Robinson changed his views after reasoned argument, which is more than you can say for most Islamists.
    I dont think that changes the fact that the kind of EDL marches Nick was talking about are low on rational arguments and high on intolerance and hate.
    You are right, but I have to wonder how the natives would react in Pakistan if years of mass immigràtion of white European atheîsts made large areas of their land into places they felt like immigrants where the atheis majority marched saying death to those who believe in Allah,, and also how people that crucify the EDL here would view any violence should it arise as a result of the atheist immigration.

    The EDL seem unsavoury to me, but I am reasonably well educated and don't live in an area where I am in a minority.

    Pakistanis - or Indians as were - did go through something just like that, didn't they? They were never a minority, but they certainly were ruled over by white people who imposed themselves without permission and treated them like second or maybe even third class citizens. Certainly no-one ever asked them whether they were happy for it to be taking place.
    Yes, and it was a huge mistake that caused much human misery. Thanks for the good analogy.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    TGOHF said:

    JonathanD said:

    I see Salmond's making the argument personal.


    To some extent its good to make the Independence Argument as divisive as possible so that everyone who would possibly think of wanting independence commits to it. There is no point in having further votes a few years down the line because people change their minds based on a few small technicalities or new economic policies. This vote should be on as emotional a level as possible: those who value the Union and those who don't.

    Better to have a vote and get on with life rather than having long term uncertainties.
    Where does Salmond go post a 'No' vote?
    Devo max.
    Which is what he really wants anyway.

    But having made the argument personal, and soured relations with so many, he's hardly going to be the best person to negotiate and gain favourable terms now.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    Salmond reiterating his 'no pound no share of UK debt'.....

    I cant help but think this is the wrong line to take but presumably they have focus-grouped the alternatives and this one works best with their target demographics.

    It's all about the Yes vote. It's clearly not a serious proposition given that Scotland cannot become legally independent until both sides agree.

    I meant I think it's the wrong line to take to achieve a yes vote! By making the alternative to a currency union appear so dire that it merits reneging on debts they elevate the importance of the issue and make the unionist parties' posturing on it more effective. But obviously the people in the campaign have better data on this than I do.
  • Blimey, the PB Unionists seem to be hanging on Eck's every word.
    It's almost like they think it really matters what he says.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    For tennis fans - Dan Evans has come though three rounds of qualifying to enter the draw of the ATP main tour event in Marseilles.

    James Ward is presently playing in the final round of qualifying - up 4:3 with a break in the first set.
  • It's all about the Yes vote. It's clearly not a serious proposition given that Scotland cannot become legally independent until both sides agree.

    There is a thoroughly debunked theory, albeit very popular among the nationalists, that since the Declaration of Arbroath (1320), popular sovereignty has been the governing constitutional principle of Scotland. Accordingly, they will argue that, in the event of a "Yes" vote in the referendum, Scotland can become independent in law as soon as "the people" desire.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 2014

    isam said:

    Neil said:

    Socrates said:

    Neil said:

    Socrates said:

    Frankly, I think a poorly-educated Pakistani-born immigrant benefits from increased exposure to arguments for a scientifically rational belief system.

    I dont think the EDL have particularly coherent arguments in favour of scientifically rational beliefs.
    Tommy Robinson changed his views after reasoned argument, which is more than you can say for most Islamists.
    I dont think that changes the fact that the kind of EDL marches Nick was talking about are low on rational arguments and high on intolerance and hate.
    You are right, but I have to wonder how the natives would react in Pakistan if years of mass immigràtion of white European atheîsts made large areas of their land into places they felt like immigrants where the atheis majority marched saying death to those who believe in Allah,, and also how people that crucify the EDL here would view any violence should it arise as a result of the atheist immigration.

    The EDL seem unsavoury to me, but I am reasonably well educated and don't live in an area where I am in a minority.

    Pakistanis - or Indians as were - did go through something just like that, didn't they? They were never a minority, but they certainly were ruled over by white people who imposed themselves without permission and treated them like second or maybe even third class citizens. Certainly no-one ever asked them whether they were happy for it to be taking place.
    I'm not well up on how the Indians were treated, and as you say there weren't great parts of India where they were the minority. But if your comparison is valid, do you think the majority of high ranking Indians called the less well off Indians racist for wanting independence?

    Seems to me that in a generation or two it will be white Europeans that work in Asia, Saudi Arabia, etc and will be interesting how those societies react to breakdown of their religions and culture. Being humans they will probably be like many white Europeans and not like it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    edited February 2014
    Matthew Revett Tweets: still no clearer if my mortgage will be secure in SNP's vision for independent Scotland #currency #indyref

    This is precisely why I've switched my view 180 on a Yes/No vote recently and why I bit TUD's hand off to take some 4/9 on a No vote.

    The currency issue might be a very cynical ploy by the No campaign and they have done alot of fearmongering. But this is a REAL threat - Barosso ruling Scotland out the Euro and everyone else ruling them out of Sterling is a massive broadside to the Yes campaign.

    OGH reckons the price may move in for Yes. I have a hunch that 7-2 is as short as it is going to get, and Don't knows will harden into the No camp with this very real uncertainty to their mortgages in particular.
  • I think I've been a little sick in my mouth

    But Miliband and Balls have both smiled on Clegg and called him "a person of integrity" who is capable of having "friendly and warm chats".

    This is the political equivalent of explicit sex.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/labour-lib-dem-cameron
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Neil said:

    Ishmael_X said:


    The problem is that it will poison relations between the countries for ever afterwards, whichever way the the referendum goes.

    Forever is a long time. After a war of independence, a trade war and a distinctly different approach to the calamity of WW2 the UK and the Republic of Ireland seem to be rubbing along together just fine these days. In fact this year will see the first ever state visit from the President of Ireland to the UK. Given the lack of a war between them I'm sure Scotland and the rUK can look forward to equally warm relations in an even shorter timescale.
    Possibly so, but none of that applies in what is, on the polling, the likelier outcome of a "no" result. I dislike the trivializing of the debate into sporting terms but there is a certain crude value in asking whether the average Scot will be more or less likely to support England's opponents the world cup after a no vote.

This discussion has been closed.