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.
Indeed. Relations have rarely been better.
The difference here is that the Irish did not care a jot about what happened to GB when they left the union. They just left.
Mr Salmond wants to have a stake in the entity he is seeking to gain independence from in the form of a currency union.
"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.
Good point Mr Llama but the SNP want to split and stay in not split and leave the EU. Quite probable as I said, that all would be arranged Ok for (re)entry but also quite probable it'd be subject to all kinds of negotiation.
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?
You really should learn a little bit about the Empire. It's why we have mass immigration from certain parts of the world in the first place. And why there was mass emigration to certain parts of the world from the UK and Ireland.
I don't think anyone is racist for worrying about what they see as threats to their cultural values and the sudden arrival of a lot of people who speak, look and act differently to them. That seems to me like basic human instinct.
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.
Surely that is true - but only through a unilateral declaration of independence. And therefore not one involving the pound.
The difference here is that the Irish did not care a jot about what happened to GB when they left the union. They just left.
Ireland didnt "just leave". It maintained the use of sterling for a few years. It retained the monarch as head of state for a period of time (exactly how long is a matter of debate for constitutionalists). It leased the treaty ports to the UK for many years.
The process of leaving the UK and becoming the Republic that currently exists contained many stages and covered many of the same issues that Scotland is debating today and none of them caused the world to end. Back then there was no EU to help the unionists scare monger but on the flip side there is no likelihood of the army being sent in to put down unruly nationalists either.
It is also a massive under the table message to Labourites in Lib-Tory marginals. Vote Lib Dem.
Indeed - the collapse of Demery is a bit of a double edged sword for labour. They would not want to see the tories picking up a swathe of southern seats from the dems.
Surely that is true - but only through a unilateral declaration of independence. And therefore not one involving the pound.
If the Scottish Parliament were to declare independence unilaterally, the matter would be subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and would be reduced. There would then follow a constitutional crisis of diabolical proportions. Not even the Scottish Nationalists would be mad enough to attempt a unilateral declaration, even after a "Yes" vote.
Since the Union was between Scotland and rUK, why doesn't rUK get to vote whether they want Scotland to remain in the union?
Why dont we turn the UK into a kind-of constitutional big brother programme with the least popular member being voted off every week. The proceeds of the telephone voting might well pay off the national debt and allow all constituent countries start off owing nothing!
We could then pocket billions by selling the format to the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, Spain, Russia, India...
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.
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?
KW17 2JD
Apologies for pressing O/t button on your post. Fat Finger Syndrome.
Well OK but Ireland didn;t demand a say in bank of England monetary policy when they used sterling. And they didn;t demand a 'currency union'.
As for debt, I'm not sure if the UK asked Ireland to accept any. I'm not aware that they did. I've certainly never read the Irish threatened to default on it.
Conviently for Labour and the Lib Dems they can implicitly point to Gordon Brown as being a deal blocker as well as the seats not adding up in 2010 as to why they didn't do a deal.
Inconveniently for Labour they have Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. Osborne has the whip hand now on the economy but they can't throw Balls overboard now.
Conviently for Labour and the Lib Dems they can implicitly point to Gordon Brown as being a deal blocker as well as the seats not adding up in 2010 as to why they didn't do a deal.
Inconveniently for Labour they have Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. Osborne has the whip hand now on the economy but they can't throw Balls overboard now.
The things that probably may rule out a Lab/Lib coalition.
If Labour win the popular vote, they probably won't need the Lib Dems.
If Labour win the most seats, but second in the popular vote, then that's going to cause problems for Clegg and the Lib Dems.
Well OK but Ireland didn;t demand a say in bank of England monetary policy when they used sterling. And they didn;t demand a 'currency union'.
Ireland didnt ask for a currency union. As it turned out that was probably for the best as it made Ireland's decision to shift from a sterling zone to a DM / euro one easier to implement. I dont think the SNP are doing anything but suggesting that a currency union would be a good idea for both sides (seeing as they are more than aware that both sides would need to agree to one).
As for debt, I'm not sure if the UK asked Ireland to accept any. I'm not aware that they did. I've certainly never read the Irish threatened to default on it.
They did. They also defaulted on some particular types of debts that was a principal cause of the trade war between the two countries.
Like I said, none of this is particularly new or impossible to handle. Even the WLQ is far older than its name suggests. With the experience of Ireland leaving it should be possible to avoid repeating what mistakes were made then.
Conviently for Labour and the Lib Dems they can implicitly point to Gordon Brown as being a deal blocker as well as the seats not adding up in 2010 as to why they didn't do a deal.
Inconveniently for Labour they have Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. Osborne has the whip hand now on the economy but they can't throw Balls overboard now.
The things that probably may rule out a Lab/Lib coalition.
If Labour win the popular vote, they probably won't need the Lib Dems.
If Labour win the most seats, but second in the popular vote, then that's going to cause problems for Clegg and the Lib Dems.
I would have thought that the latter scenario would be likely to lead to another general election shortly afterwards.
Conviently for Labour and the Lib Dems they can implicitly point to Gordon Brown as being a deal blocker as well as the seats not adding up in 2010 as to why they didn't do a deal.
Inconveniently for Labour they have Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. Osborne has the whip hand now on the economy but they can't throw Balls overboard now.
The things that probably may rule out a Lab/Lib coalition.
If Labour win the popular vote, they probably won't need the Lib Dems.
If Labour win the most seats, but second in the popular vote, then that's going to cause problems for Clegg and the Lib Dems.
I don't see why they'd be bothered about that. What matters here is parliamentary arithmetic and realpolitik.
The one thing that might lean the LibDems to Con in the (fairly unlikely) event they have kingmaker power is that the LibDems who lose their seats under a Con-Lib deal will already have lost them, so the decision will be made by people who have proved they can survive Con-Lib, but may not be able to survive Lib-Lab.
Ireland didnt ask for a currency union. As it turned out that was probably for the best as it made Ireland's decision to shift from a sterling zone to a DM / euro one easier to implement. I dont think the SNP are doing anything but suggesting that a currency union would be a good idea for both sides (seeing as they are more than aware that both sides would need to agree to one).
"Anything but suggesting"? They're trying to demand a currency union under threat of blackmail on the debt issue.
Maybe Eck is being smarter than we all realise. He doesn't give a shit how bad the possible terms of a negotiation would be. All that matters is getting to a YES. Ater a YES the terms can evolve over time.
Conviently for Labour and the Lib Dems they can implicitly point to Gordon Brown as being a deal blocker as well as the seats not adding up in 2010 as to why they didn't do a deal.
Inconveniently for Labour they have Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. Osborne has the whip hand now on the economy but they can't throw Balls overboard now.
The things that probably may rule out a Lab/Lib coalition.
If Labour win the popular vote, they probably won't need the Lib Dems.
If Labour win the most seats, but second in the popular vote, then that's going to cause problems for Clegg and the Lib Dems.
I don't see why they'd be bothered about that. What matters here is parliamentary arithmetic and realpolitik.
The one thing that might lean the LibDems to Con in the (fairly unlikely) event they have kingmaker power is that the LibDems who lose their seats under a Con-Lib deal will already have lost them, so the decision will be made by people who have proved they can survive Con-Lib, but may not be able to survive Lib-Lab.
I maybe wrong, but hasn't Clegg in the past said, he'd only deal with the party with the largest mandate?
Maybe Eck is being smarter than we all realise. He doesn't give a shit how bad the possible terms of a negotiation would be. All that matters is getting to a YES. Ater a YES the terms can evolve over time.
Devo max hand depends on how close the referendum is. 55-45 better than 75-25 for Eck.
If the latest opinion poll figures are repeated on election day, Labour would win the first two seats, UKIP the third seat and the Conservatives the fourth. Plaid Cymru would be without an MEP for the first time since the present voting system was introduced in 1999."
"Anything but suggesting"? They're trying to demand a currency union under threat of blackmail on the debt issue.
As I said I think that's the wrong tack but the unionists are also posturing ahead of the referendum so I wouldnt condemn them for it. In the end everyone is aware that a currency union demands the agreement of all parties so I'm sure post referendum discussions would operate from that basis once the silly politicing has ended.
If I may say you are conflating government, its institutions and treaties with that of monarchy. It's an easy mistake to make.
If Scotland leaves the union all manner of new arrangements will be necessary but not that of the Queen becoming Elizabeth I Queen of Scots and the latest in the line of Scottish monarchs following Queen Anne .... or for Jacobites King Henry I
Conviently for Labour and the Lib Dems they can implicitly point to Gordon Brown as being a deal blocker as well as the seats not adding up in 2010 as to why they didn't do a deal.
Inconveniently for Labour they have Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. Osborne has the whip hand now on the economy but they can't throw Balls overboard now.
The things that probably may rule out a Lab/Lib coalition.
If Labour win the popular vote, they probably won't need the Lib Dems.
If Labour win the most seats, but second in the popular vote, then that's going to cause problems for Clegg and the Lib Dems.
I don't see why they'd be bothered about that. What matters here is parliamentary arithmetic and realpolitik.
The one thing that might lean the LibDems to Con in the (fairly unlikely) event they have kingmaker power is that the LibDems who lose their seats under a Con-Lib deal will already have lost them, so the decision will be made by people who have proved they can survive Con-Lib, but may not be able to survive Lib-Lab.
I maybe wrong, but hasn't Clegg in the past said, he'd only deal with the party with the largest mandate?
Not exactly, although he said something that was supposed to sound a bit like that. He said (IIRC) that the winning party would have the first right to try to form a government, but: 1) He wouldn't say whether that meant most voters or most seats, despite often being directly asked. 2) When it actually came to a decision it turned out that having the first right to try to form a government just meant that the LibDems would talk to them first, but it didn't seem to preclude talking to Labour, presumably with the aim of cutting a deal with them instead if they offered more than the Tories did.
You really should learn a little bit about the Empire. It's why we have mass immigration from certain parts of the world in the first place. And why there was mass emigration to certain parts of the world from the UK and Ireland.
I don't think anyone is racist for worrying about what they see as threats to their cultural values and the sudden arrival of a lot of people who speak, look and act differently to them. That seems to me like basic human instinct.
I think the Empire may explain why the mass immigration came from certain countries, but not why we had mass immigration. It would have certainly been possible for us to have had an empire but not the immigration on that scale. The reason for that is that (a) it was considered useful to have large amounts of cheap labour to rebuild after the war and (b) New Labour wanted a more "diverse" society around the turn of the millenia.
Is it possible that holders of UK government debt will become nervous about the prospect of Scottish independence, and the uncertainty that creates, as the referendum approaches?
After independence they either face the debt they hold being split into two chunks, each to be repaid by either Scotland or the remaining UK, or they face the whole of it falling liable on a state now lacking most of its remaining oil and gas reserves and about 1/12th of its economy.
If there was a mild panic about UK government debt in the run-up to the referendum, this could have an effect on the referendum, as remaining within the UK might not seem like such a safe choice.
Is it possible that holders of UK government debt will become nervous about the prospect of Scottish independence, and the uncertainty that creates, as the referendum approaches?
After independence they either face the debt they hold being split into two chunks, each to be repaid by either Scotland or the remaining UK, or they face the whole of it falling liable on a state now lacking most of its remaining oil and gas reserves and about 1/12th of its economy.
If there was a mild panic about UK government debt in the run-up to the referendum, this could have an effect on the referendum, as remaining within the UK might not seem like such a safe choice.
Hence why the Uk govt have guaranteed all debt in all circumstances. If the Nats choose to default on their fair share then good luck in the market with that.
If I may say you are conflating government, its institutions and treaties with that of monarchy. It's an easy mistake to make.
If Scotland leaves the union all manner of new arrangements will be necessary but not that of the Queen becoming Elizabeth I Queen of Scots and the latest in the line of Scottish monarchs following Queen Anne .... or for Jacobites King Henry I
More chortling .....
Wouldn't there still be a UK in terms of the monarch, though? Unless both the 17th and 18th century acts are repealed.
Conviently for Labour and the Lib Dems they can implicitly point to Gordon Brown as being a deal blocker as well as the seats not adding up in 2010 as to why they didn't do a deal.
Inconveniently for Labour they have Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. Osborne has the whip hand now on the economy but they can't throw Balls overboard now.
The things that probably may rule out a Lab/Lib coalition.
If Labour win the popular vote, they probably won't need the Lib Dems.
If Labour win the most seats, but second in the popular vote, then that's going to cause problems for Clegg and the Lib Dems.
I don't see why they'd be bothered about that. What matters here is parliamentary arithmetic and realpolitik.
The one thing that might lean the LibDems to Con in the (fairly unlikely) event they have kingmaker power is that the LibDems who lose their seats under a Con-Lib deal will already have lost them, so the decision will be made by people who have proved they can survive Con-Lib, but may not be able to survive Lib-Lab.
I maybe wrong, but hasn't Clegg in the past said, he'd only deal with the party with the largest mandate?
Not exactly, although he said something that was supposed to sound a bit like that. He said (IIRC) that the winning party would have the first right to try to form a government, but: 1) He wouldn't say whether that meant most voters or most seats, despite often being directly asked. 2) When it actually came to a decision it turned out that having the first right to try to form a government just meant that the LibDems would talk to them first, but it didn't seem to preclude talking to Labour, presumably with the aim of cutting a deal with them instead if they offered more than the Tories did.
If I may say you are conflating government, its institutions and treaties with that of monarchy. It's an easy mistake to make.
If Scotland leaves the union all manner of new arrangements will be necessary but not that of the Queen becoming Elizabeth I Queen of Scots and the latest in the line of Scottish monarchs following Queen Anne .... or for Jacobites King Henry I
More chortling .....
The monarchy is merely an institution of the UK, and serves with the permission of parliament.
Conviently for Labour and the Lib Dems they can implicitly point to Gordon Brown as being a deal blocker as well as the seats not adding up in 2010 as to why they didn't do a deal.
Inconveniently for Labour they have Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. Osborne has the whip hand now on the economy but they can't throw Balls overboard now.
The things that probably may rule out a Lab/Lib coalition.
If Labour win the popular vote, they probably won't need the Lib Dems.
If Labour win the most seats, but second in the popular vote, then that's going to cause problems for Clegg and the Lib Dems.
I don't see why they'd be bothered about that. What matters here is parliamentary arithmetic and realpolitik.
The one thing that might lean the LibDems to Con in the (fairly unlikely) event they have kingmaker power is that the LibDems who lose their seats under a Con-Lib deal will already have lost them, so the decision will be made by people who have proved they can survive Con-Lib, but may not be able to survive Lib-Lab.
I maybe wrong, but hasn't Clegg in the past said, he'd only deal with the party with the largest mandate?
Not exactly, although he said something that was supposed to sound a bit like that. He said (IIRC) that the winning party would have the first right to try to form a government, but: 1) He wouldn't say whether that meant most voters or most seats, despite often being directly asked. 2) When it actually came to a decision it turned out that having the first right to try to form a government just meant that the LibDems would talk to them first, but it didn't seem to preclude talking to Labour, presumably with the aim of cutting a deal with them instead if they offered more than the Tories did.
These negotiations could take ages.
We could become Belgium
Possibly, but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to sort it out in a couple of weeks like last time. I don't think it helps anyone to drag them out.
Is it possible that holders of UK government debt will become nervous about the prospect of Scottish independence, and the uncertainty that creates, as the referendum approaches?
After independence they either face the debt they hold being split into two chunks, each to be repaid by either Scotland or the remaining UK, or they face the whole of it falling liable on a state now lacking most of its remaining oil and gas reserves and about 1/12th of its economy.
If there was a mild panic about UK government debt in the run-up to the referendum, this could have an effect on the referendum, as remaining within the UK might not seem like such a safe choice.
Except the debt would remain wholly with and by guaranteed by rUK. Scotland would have a separate liability towards the latter for it's share.
"Good point Mr Llama but the SNP want to split and stay in not split and leave the EU. Quite probable as I said, that all would be arranged Ok for (re)entry but also quite probable it'd be subject to all kinds of negotiation."
True, Mr. Howl, very true. The renegotiation might take sometime, of course.
Was not the original SNP idea that as a former part of the the UK a newly elected Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU? That idea seems to have been dropped and the need for a negotiated entry accepted. What is the fastest time for a country to negotiate membership?
Then there is the added problem of a succession country gaining membership and creating a precedent. That every existing member of the EU would have to agree to let Scotland,as a new applicant, join is irrefutable, the Lisbon Treaty is explicit on this point. I think it was Mr. Observer who suggested that negotiations would not be concluded until Spain had settled its problem with the Catalan independence movement. If he is right we could be talking about decades.
If the latest opinion poll figures are repeated on election day, Labour would win the first two seats, UKIP the third seat and the Conservatives the fourth. Plaid Cymru would be without an MEP for the first time since the present voting system was introduced in 1999."
Interesting, thanks. It does show UKIP advancing since December. The seat distribution there looks pretty nailed on. It would be a really good PB article to go through all the Euro regions and see where current polling would put the parties in terms of seats, and what could plausibly change. For example, in the East Mids I'd think the outcome is likely to be Lab 2 (+1), UKIP 2 (+1), Con 1 (-1), LD 0 (-1), based on the %s last time being 16/16/30/12, with subsequent polling movements factored in to make something like 30/30/20/8 likely. If the figures were 35/25/20/10 instead,the outcome would be the same.
Is it possible that holders of UK government debt will become nervous about the prospect of Scottish independence, and the uncertainty that creates, as the referendum approaches?
After independence they either face the debt they hold being split into two chunks, each to be repaid by either Scotland or the remaining UK, or they face the whole of it falling liable on a state now lacking most of its remaining oil and gas reserves and about 1/12th of its economy.
After independence the rUK will service the entire UK debt. The doubt is whether Scotland would pay the rUK for its share rather than whether debt holders would get paid at all.
Is it possible that holders of UK government debt will become nervous about the prospect of Scottish independence, and the uncertainty that creates, as the referendum approaches?
After independence they either face the debt they hold being split into two chunks, each to be repaid by either Scotland or the remaining UK, or they face the whole of it falling liable on a state now lacking most of its remaining oil and gas reserves and about 1/12th of its economy.
If there was a mild panic about UK government debt in the run-up to the referendum, this could have an effect on the referendum, as remaining within the UK might not seem like such a safe choice.
Hence why the Uk govt have guaranteed all debt in all circumstances. If the Nats choose to default on their fair share then good luck in the market with that.
Scotland would owe that debt to rUK - there will be no apportionment of current UK debt - tho as you say, if Scotland refused to pay its debt to the UK, i) there would be no agreement on independence, hence ii) no accession to the EU and iii) penal interest rates for Scotland on the international bond market...but apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, its a brilliant idea!
If I may say you are conflating government, its institutions and treaties with that of monarchy. It's an easy mistake to make.
If Scotland leaves the union all manner of new arrangements will be necessary but not that of the Queen becoming Elizabeth I Queen of Scots and the latest in the line of Scottish monarchs following Queen Anne .... or for Jacobites King Henry I
More chortling .....
Wouldn't there still be a UK in terms of the monarch, though? Unless both the 17th and 18th century acts are repealed.
Indeed but a different UK monarch from all other forms previously enacted.
I suspect it's not very wise for obvious No-ers, like the current Establishment, including the BBC, to consistently treat the leader of the Yes campaign as some sort of naive buffoon. Northing is more likely, I suggest, to encourage "rebellious Scots" to stick a sharp claymore up 'em.
If the latest opinion poll figures are repeated on election day, Labour would win the first two seats, UKIP the third seat and the Conservatives the fourth. Plaid Cymru would be without an MEP for the first time since the present voting system was introduced in 1999."
We don't mention Welsh politics on here enough; it gets swamped by English and Scottish affairs. It seems that Plaid isn't really progressing in electoral terms.
'Was not the original SNP idea that as a former part of the the UK a newly elected Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU?'
Yes and they claimed that they had already received legal advice.
As it turned out the legal advice didn't exist and was just a porkie.
www.scotsman.com/.../scottish-independence-snp-s-20k-eu-court-battle-... 9 Oct 2013 - THE SNP Government spent almost £20000 in a court battle to hide legal advice on Scotland's EU membership after independence - advice ...
If I may say you are conflating government, its institutions and treaties with that of monarchy. It's an easy mistake to make.
If Scotland leaves the union all manner of new arrangements will be necessary but not that of the Queen becoming Elizabeth I Queen of Scots and the latest in the line of Scottish monarchs following Queen Anne .... or for Jacobites King Henry I
More chortling .....
The monarchy is merely an institution of the UK, and serves with the permission of parliament.
Who signs the Bills that become Acts ? .. Whose hand is kissed by prospective PM's .. who is Head of State ....
Well Belgium seems to have a managed pretty well, Mr. Eagles. Maybe not having a government passing all sorts of new laws every week might actually be a good thing. A period of stability, without new initiatives and new rules telling us what we can and can't do in ever more detail, yeah I think I could cope with that.
this was conducted at the same times as the EU Parliament poll below, so UKIP & others appear to be sharing 8% from Labour and 5% from the Conservatives in the EU Parliament vote.
There is also a Welsh Assembly VI question, which suggests UKIP will gain 5 seats.
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.
It's happening already. Lots of middle-aged Chinese people have told me they're annoyed by Chinese embrace of Western acquisitive values at the expense of traditional values (a keen UK-resident Chinese Christian tells me that he misses the "good old days" of authoritarian austerity - "it was hard for us Christians but at least we saw some ethical values"), and a number of younger Chinese have told me that they want to be modern and adopt "international ethical standards", which are on closer inspection a somewhat mixed bag.
Well Belgium seems to have a managed pretty well, Mr. Eagles. Maybe not having a government passing all sorts of new laws every week might actually be a good thing. A period of stability, without new initiatives and new rules telling us what we can and can't do in ever more detail, yeah I think I could cope with that.
The best thing about Belgium was that it was created to the annoyed the fromage alimentaires singes capitulards.
Taken from one of the comments "Clegg is clutching at straws; Miliband is hedging his bets... A Tory majority is as likely as Billie Piper playing centre half for Juventus."
If I may say you are conflating government, its institutions and treaties with that of monarchy. It's an easy mistake to make.
If Scotland leaves the union all manner of new arrangements will be necessary but not that of the Queen becoming Elizabeth I Queen of Scots and the latest in the line of Scottish monarchs following Queen Anne .... or for Jacobites King Henry I
More chortling .....
The monarchy is merely an institution of the UK, and serves with the permission of parliament.
Who signs the Bills that become Acts ? .. Whose hand is kissed by prospective PM's .. who is Head of State ....
And most importantly ....
Who has the big pad at Balmoral
Who actually makes the Acts in the first place? Who eliminates or invites back the monarchy as necessary? Who decides whether a monarch has abdicated? Who passes regency bills whether or not they can get the monarchs signature? Who decides what the line of succession will be?
Conviently for Labour and the Lib Dems they can implicitly point to Gordon Brown as being a deal blocker as well as the seats not adding up in 2010 as to why they didn't do a deal.
Inconveniently for Labour they have Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. Osborne has the whip hand now on the economy but they can't throw Balls overboard now.
The things that probably may rule out a Lab/Lib coalition.
If Labour win the popular vote, they probably won't need the Lib Dems.
If Labour win the most seats, but second in the popular vote, then that's going to cause problems for Clegg and the Lib Dems.
I don't see why they'd be bothered about that. What matters here is parliamentary arithmetic and realpolitik.
The one thing that might lean the LibDems to Con in the (fairly unlikely) event they have kingmaker power is that the LibDems who lose their seats under a Con-Lib deal will already have lost them, so the decision will be made by people who have proved they can survive Con-Lib, but may not be able to survive Lib-Lab.
I maybe wrong, but hasn't Clegg in the past said, he'd only deal with the party with the largest mandate?
Not exactly, although he said something that was supposed to sound a bit like that. He said (IIRC) that the winning party would have the first right to try to form a government, but: 1) He wouldn't say whether that meant most voters or most seats, despite often being directly asked. 2) When it actually came to a decision it turned out that having the first right to try to form a government just meant that the LibDems would talk to them first, but it didn't seem to preclude talking to Labour, presumably with the aim of cutting a deal with them instead if they offered more than the Tories did.
These negotiations could take ages.
We could become Belgium
Possibly, but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to sort it out in a couple of weeks like last time. I don't think it helps anyone to drag them out.
Although compared to European countries which are used to coalitions, last time was shockingly quick. I think that is to the credit of all parties involved, but I suspect that next time both parties might be more cognizant of potential pitfalls and seek to be more explicit about 'tit for tat' items and the timing of things etc.
If the latest opinion poll figures are repeated on election day, Labour would win the first two seats, UKIP the third seat and the Conservatives the fourth. Plaid Cymru would be without an MEP for the first time since the present voting system was introduced in 1999."
We don't mention Welsh politics on here enough; it gets swamped by English and Scottish affairs. It seems that Plaid isn't really progressing in electoral terms.
What are the problems facing Plaid?
The second ITV poll write-up includes a reference to a Welsh political blog, from Roger Sculley (Professor of Political Science at the Wales Governance Centre and Director of Research, Politics of Cardiff University).
"More detailed analysis of the poll will be provided in several posts over the next couple of weeks on my blog, Elections in Wales"
If I may say you are conflating government, its institutions and treaties with that of monarchy. It's an easy mistake to make.
If Scotland leaves the union all manner of new arrangements will be necessary but not that of the Queen becoming Elizabeth I Queen of Scots and the latest in the line of Scottish monarchs following Queen Anne .... or for Jacobites King Henry I
More chortling .....
The monarchy is merely an institution of the UK, and serves with the permission of parliament.
Who signs the Bills that become Acts ? .. Whose hand is kissed by prospective PM's .. who is Head of State ....
And most importantly ....
Who has the big pad at Balmoral
Who actually makes the Acts in the first place? Who eliminates or invites back the monarchy as necessary? Who decides whether a monarch has abdicated? Who passes regency bills whether or not they can get the monarchs signature? Who decides what the line of succession will be?
Who will be passing by the flooded River Thames on the way in through Traitors Gate ?
Who actually makes the Acts in the first place? Who eliminates or invites back the monarchy as necessary? Who decides whether a monarch has abdicated? Who passes regency bills whether or not they can get the monarchs signature? Who decides what the line of succession will be?
It is the Crown-in-Parliament that is sovereign, not the Crown, or Parliament, (Jackson v Attorney General per Lord Bingham).
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.
It's happening already. Lots of middle-aged Chinese people have told me they're annoyed by Chinese embrace of Western acquisitive values at the expense of traditional values (a keen UK-resident Chinese Christian tells me that he misses the "good old days" of authoritarian austerity - "it was hard for us Christians but at least we saw some ethical values"), and a number of younger Chinese have told me that they want to be modern and adopt "international ethical standards", which are on closer inspection a somewhat mixed bag.
The future is melange IMO, for all of us.
If he's UK-resident, he should integrate into UK culture.
I suspect it's not very wise for obvious No-ers, like the current Establishment, including the BBC, to consistently treat the leader of the Yes campaign as some sort of naive buffoon. Northing is more likely, I suggest, to encourage "rebellious Scots" to stick a sharp claymore up 'em.
Hardly. They've put forward a case for 'No'.
Remind me which political leader has resorted to personal attacks to bolster the 'Yes' campaign?
Well Belgium seems to have a managed pretty well, Mr. Eagles. Maybe not having a government passing all sorts of new laws every week might actually be a good thing. A period of stability, without new initiatives and new rules telling us what we can and can't do in ever more detail, yeah I think I could cope with that.
The best thing about Belgium was that it was created to the annoyed the fromage alimentaires singes capitulards.
Was it? The main reason it was created was because Catholics in the Southern Netherlands wanted independence from William I. The French actually fought William when he tried to reconquer the place.
Well Belgium seems to have a managed pretty well, Mr. Eagles. Maybe not having a government passing all sorts of new laws every week might actually be a good thing. A period of stability, without new initiatives and new rules telling us what we can and can't do in ever more detail, yeah I think I could cope with that.
The best thing about Belgium was that it was created to the annoyed the fromage alimentaires singes capitulards.
Was it? The main reason it was created was because Catholics in the Southern Netherlands wanted independence from William I. The French actually fought William when he tried to reconquer the place.
Maybe Eck is being smarter than we all realise. He doesn't give a shit how bad the possible terms of a negotiation would be. All that matters is getting to a YES. Ater a YES the terms can evolve over time.
Which is what happened with Ireland from 1922 onwards.
Conviently for Labour and the Lib Dems they can implicitly point to Gordon Brown as being a deal blocker as well as the seats not adding up in 2010 as to why they didn't do a deal.
Inconveniently for Labour they have Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. Osborne has the whip hand now on the economy but they can't throw Balls overboard now.
The things that probably may rule out a Lab/Lib coalition.
If Labour win the popular vote, they probably won't need the Lib Dems.
If Labour win the most seats, but second in the popular vote, then that's going to cause problems for Clegg and the Lib Dems.
I don't see why they'd be bothered about that. What matters here is parliamentary arithmetic and realpolitik.
The one thing that might lean the LibDems to Con in the (fairly unlikely) event they have kingmaker power is that the LibDems who lose their seats under a Con-Lib deal will already have lost them, so the decision will be made by people who have proved they can survive Con-Lib, but may not be able to survive Lib-Lab.
I maybe wrong, but hasn't Clegg in the past said, he'd only deal with the party with the largest mandate?
We could become Belgium
Possibly, but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to sort it out in a couple of weeks like last time. I don't think it helps anyone to drag them out.
Although compared to European countries which are used to coalitions, last time was shockingly quick. I think that is to the credit of all parties involved, but I suspect that next time both parties might be more cognizant of potential pitfalls and seek to be more explicit about 'tit for tat' items and the timing of things etc.
The current coalition was negotiated at a time of euro crisis with the Greek bailout happening the first weekend after the election - remember Darling signed the UK up for that deal and the coalition had to unravel it. The surrounding euro instability was probably the main reason the coalition negotiation went through so fast.
Taken from one of the comments "Clegg is clutching at straws; Miliband is hedging his bets... A Tory majority is as likely as Billie Piper playing centre half for Juventus."
Indeed so. The fact that you can lay a Conservative Majority at 7-2 on Betfair is astonishing.
Not exactly, although he said something that was supposed to sound a bit like that. He said (IIRC) that the winning party would have the first right to try to form a government, but: 1) He wouldn't say whether that meant most voters or most seats, despite often being directly asked. 2) When it actually came to a decision it turned out that having the first right to try to form a government just meant that the LibDems would talk to them first, but it didn't seem to preclude talking to Labour, presumably with the aim of cutting a deal with them instead if they offered more than the Tories did.
I must confess that, as I'm only a Party member, I might be wrong but my understanding has always been that in the event of a Hung Parliament, the LDs would offer first "refusal" to the Party with the greater number of votes.
In practice, it takes two to tango and it should be remembered that David Cameron, not Nick Clegg, created the Coalition with his "offer of talks" on the Friday afternoon after the election.
Cameron could, and I suspect many Tories on here believe should, have declined all negotiations and formed a minority Government but his fear was that a Labour/LD (and others) deal would happen and the Conservatives would be left in the cold.
After thirteen years of Opposition (an unprecedented period for the Conservatives under Universal Suffrage), another four years in the wilderness would have finished Cameron's leadership and sentenced the Party to a round of internecine conflict.
Given the arithmetic (as mentioned by OGH), IF Labour poll more votes than the Conservatives, they will either be over the line or so close as to make no difference.
IF the Party with the largest number of votes doesn't want to talk and the second largest party does and the combined second party/LD total is a majority, then it's a dilemma. I can understand the Party not wanting to close down that option but I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea of that Coalition coming into being.
The nightmare is a narrow Conservative lead over Labour (3-5 points) which could produce a near dead-heat in terms of seats with the much-reduced LD party unable to form a majority Government with either. At that point, I think I'll go off to a dark room and lie down for six months or so...
Could be worth a bet.... 300-300-20 is a viable outcome...
Maybe Eck is being smarter than we all realise. He doesn't give a shit how bad the possible terms of a negotiation would be. All that matters is getting to a YES. Ater a YES the terms can evolve over time.
Which is what happened with Ireland from 1922 onwards.
What proportion of the population wanted 'Out' in 1922?
I think Patrick's right BTW. It would be interesting to see how things went for Salmond if things aren't as rosy for an independent Scotland as the Scots are being lead to believe. Hypothetically of course.
Those claymores might be sticking out of someone's fat,curry fed,rump.
If the latest opinion poll figures are repeated on election day, Labour would win the first two seats, UKIP the third seat and the Conservatives the fourth. Plaid Cymru would be without an MEP for the first time since the present voting system was introduced in 1999."
We don't mention Welsh politics on here enough; it gets swamped by English and Scottish affairs. It seems that Plaid isn't really progressing in electoral terms.
What are the problems facing Plaid?
Start with a leader who in my humble opinion is totally out of her depth, a decent enough Labour administration run by someone who clearly is up to the task. A Welsh Tory party who until recently at least seem alive and well enough (though their leader isn't great either and they seem to be at odds over the details of any further devolution), and a Lib Dem leader who's personable enough.
Plus I'm sure most Welsh folk know deep down that independence means disappearing down a serious notch on the economic front given the Valleys represent approx a third of the population and I should think have the GDP per head of about Portugal.
[A] newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory….
A [membership] application of this type requires, if the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously, a negotiation on an agreement between the Applicant State and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the Applicant State.
Could you get any more pathetic and hideous than the situation in the old South African gold mine?
Scores of men go into an old mine to dig for gold, only they get trapped inside by a rival group. The authorities reopen the entrance, but the men refuse to come out because they might get arrested. When ten do emerge, the police, who were hiding behind a fire engine, arrest them.
O/T There is an interesting post on the vote2012 website by Chris Cassidy who IMO would have been a better UKIP candidate in the Wythenshawe by election . He points out that although it suited UKIP to say that they had no history or organisation in the seat that was not true at least as far as the 5 Manchester wards were concerned . In 2012 local elections they had 3 ( admittedly poor ) 2nd places in these 5 wards and over 10% of the vote .
The nightmare is a narrow Conservative lead over Labour (3-5 points) which could produce a near dead-heat in terms of seats with the much-reduced LD party unable to form a majority Government with either. At that point, I think I'll go off to a dark room and lie down for six months or so...
Could be worth a bet.... 300-300-20 is a viable outcome...
Grand Coalition. Works for everybody. Both Cameron and Miliband get to keep their jobs, while Clegg gets a refreshing new job as Leader of the Opposition...
If the latest opinion poll figures are repeated on election day, Labour would win the first two seats, UKIP the third seat and the Conservatives the fourth. Plaid Cymru would be without an MEP for the first time since the present voting system was introduced in 1999."
We don't mention Welsh politics on here enough; it gets swamped by English and Scottish affairs. It seems that Plaid isn't really progressing in electoral terms.
What are the problems facing Plaid?
Start with a leader who in my humble opinion is totally out of her depth, a decent enough Labour administration run by someone who clearly is up to the task. A Welsh Tory party who until recently at least seem alive and well enough (though their leader isn't great either and they seem to be at odds over the details of any further devolution), and a Lib Dem leader who's personable enough.
Plus I'm sure most Welsh folk know deep down that independence means disappearing down a serious notch on the economic front given the Valleys represent approx a third of the population and I should think have the GDP per head of about Portugal.
Is there also a North / South divide that they have problems overcoming? My understanding is that Plaid's heartlands are in the Welsh speaking North and West, but that people there are often as sceptical of being shackled to Cardiff as they are to London, and so Welsh independence doesn't really help. (Clearly this is a perception which might be totally wrong, in which case please enlighten me!)
The nightmare is a narrow Conservative lead over Labour (3-5 points) which could produce a near dead-heat in terms of seats with the much-reduced LD party unable to form a majority Government with either. At that point, I think I'll go off to a dark room and lie down for six months or so...
Could be worth a bet.... 300-300-20 is a viable outcome...
Grand Coalition. Works for everybody. Both Cameron and Miliband get to keep their jobs, while Clegg gets a refreshing new job as Leader of the Opposition...
The picture on Osbornes face when he realises that he has to be Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Balls as Cof E...
Well Belgium seems to have a managed pretty well, Mr. Eagles. Maybe not having a government passing all sorts of new laws every week might actually be a good thing. A period of stability, without new initiatives and new rules telling us what we can and can't do in ever more detail, yeah I think I could cope with that.
The best thing about Belgium was that it was created to the annoyed the fromage alimentaires singes capitulards.
Was it? The main reason it was created was because Catholics in the Southern Netherlands wanted independence from William I. The French actually fought William when he tried to reconquer the place.
De Gaulle certainly thought so.
De Gaulle had chips on his shoulder wherever he could find them.
Amazed how many of my fellow unionists are happy with the relentlessly negative, ugly campaign by No. Quite depressing.
Why is it "negative" when UK politicians explain the consequences of independence to Scottish voters, but not "negative" when SNP politicians fearmonger over the Barnett formula, "what Westminster will do to Scotland if we don't vote yes" and so forth?
Amazed how many of my fellow unionists are happy with the relentlessly negative, ugly campaign by No. Quite depressing.
I agree it should be more positive. But that is pretty hard when arguing for the status quo.
Also they seem to be doing just fine with the current approach. To borrow a phrase from downthread (or upthread, depending on how you sort it), polling would indicate that a YES vote is about as likely as Billy Piper playing for Juventus.
Comments
Indeed. Relations have rarely been better.
The difference here is that the Irish did not care a jot about what happened to GB when they left the union. They just left.
Mr Salmond wants to have a stake in the entity he is seeking to gain independence from in the form of a currency union.
Both parties have to be careful here. The voters may not like cozy deals being done before they have had their say.
I don't think anyone is racist for worrying about what they see as threats to their cultural values and the sudden arrival of a lot of people who speak, look and act differently to them. That seems to me like basic human instinct.
The process of leaving the UK and becoming the Republic that currently exists contained many stages and covered many of the same issues that Scotland is debating today and none of them caused the world to end. Back then there was no EU to help the unionists scare monger but on the flip side there is no likelihood of the army being sent in to put down unruly nationalists either.
Indeed - the collapse of Demery is a bit of a double edged sword for labour. They would not want to see the tories picking up a swathe of southern seats from the dems.
We could then pocket billions by selling the format to the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, Spain, Russia, India...
Apologies for pressing O/t button on your post. Fat Finger Syndrome.
Well OK but Ireland didn;t demand a say in bank of England monetary policy when they used sterling. And they didn;t demand a 'currency union'.
As for debt, I'm not sure if the UK asked Ireland to accept any. I'm not aware that they did. I've certainly never read the Irish threatened to default on it.
'I care, I don't care, I care, I don't care, I care, I don't care...'
Repeat until sick.
Inconveniently for Labour they have Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor. Osborne has the whip hand now on the economy but they can't throw Balls overboard now.
If Labour win the popular vote, they probably won't need the Lib Dems.
If Labour win the most seats, but second in the popular vote, then that's going to cause problems for Clegg and the Lib Dems.
Like I said, none of this is particularly new or impossible to handle. Even the WLQ is far older than its name suggests. With the experience of Ireland leaving it should be possible to avoid repeating what mistakes were made then.
We'll hold our own referendum We'll agree with Westminster on a referendum
We'll have DevoMax on the Ballot Paper We've agreed to Cameron's in/out question.
We'll be automatic members of the EU We'll have to negotiate with the EU
Its Scotland's pound We'll agree with Westminster on a currency Union
What's next?
The one thing that might lean the LibDems to Con in the (fairly unlikely) event they have kingmaker power is that the LibDems who lose their seats under a Con-Lib deal will already have lost them, so the decision will be made by people who have proved they can survive Con-Lib, but may not be able to survive Lib-Lab.
'You underestimate the entertainment value of the Nats train wreck.....'
Salmond's mate Jim Sillars has called the currency union plan 'stupidity on stilts'
Yes,now fighting among themselves.
Alex salmond's point-by-point deconstruction of osborne's speech amounted to reiteration of a dead argument and "osbone's a tory".
On the whole I found Alex Salmond's speech unconvincing. It's basically "I'm right, everyone else is wrong". He needs more detail
He could say we'd like to turning the spending taps on, but our coalition partners are committed to fiscal rectitude.
Devo max hand depends on how close the referendum is. 55-45 better than 75-25 for Eck.
Looks like a core vote rearguard action now.
Con 17%, Lab 39%, LD 7%, Plaid 12%, UKIP 18%, others 7%.
If the latest opinion poll figures are repeated on election day, Labour would win the first two seats, UKIP the third seat and the Conservatives the fourth. Plaid Cymru would be without an MEP for the first time since the present voting system was introduced in 1999."
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2014-02-17/ukip-leap-to-second-place/
"The Barometer is a collaboration between ITV Cymru Wales, the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University, and the polling agency YouGov."
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2013/12/11/the-welsh-political-barometer/
If I may say you are conflating government, its institutions and treaties with that of monarchy. It's an easy mistake to make.
If Scotland leaves the union all manner of new arrangements will be necessary but not that of the Queen becoming Elizabeth I Queen of Scots and the latest in the line of Scottish monarchs following Queen Anne .... or for Jacobites King Henry I
More chortling .....
1) He wouldn't say whether that meant most voters or most seats, despite often being directly asked.
2) When it actually came to a decision it turned out that having the first right to try to form a government just meant that the LibDems would talk to them first, but it didn't seem to preclude talking to Labour, presumably with the aim of cutting a deal with them instead if they offered more than the Tories did.
Is it possible that holders of UK government debt will become nervous about the prospect of Scottish independence, and the uncertainty that creates, as the referendum approaches?
After independence they either face the debt they hold being split into two chunks, each to be repaid by either Scotland or the remaining UK, or they face the whole of it falling liable on a state now lacking most of its remaining oil and gas reserves and about 1/12th of its economy.
If there was a mild panic about UK government debt in the run-up to the referendum, this could have an effect on the referendum, as remaining within the UK might not seem like such a safe choice.
We could become Belgium
"As an outsider and not really that bothered either way it seems to me the SNP is in complete denial about the cost of leaving the UK to Scotland.
He ignores the voices that tell him various things like "they wont have the pound" and "they wont have the euro"!
Seems to me he is misleading the Scottish people."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638
"Good point Mr Llama but the SNP want to split and stay in not split and leave the EU. Quite probable as I said, that all would be arranged Ok for (re)entry but also quite probable it'd be subject to all kinds of negotiation."
True, Mr. Howl, very true. The renegotiation might take sometime, of course.
Was not the original SNP idea that as a former part of the the UK a newly elected Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU? That idea seems to have been dropped and the need for a negotiated entry accepted. What is the fastest time for a country to negotiate membership?
Then there is the added problem of a succession country gaining membership and creating a precedent. That every existing member of the EU would have to agree to let Scotland,as a new applicant, join is irrefutable, the Lisbon Treaty is explicit on this point. I think it was Mr. Observer who suggested that negotiations would not be concluded until Spain had settled its problem with the Catalan independence movement. If he is right we could be talking about decades.
Northing is more likely, I suggest, to encourage "rebellious Scots" to stick a sharp claymore up 'em.
What are the problems facing Plaid?
'Was not the original SNP idea that as a former part of the the UK a newly elected Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU?'
Yes and they claimed that they had already received legal advice.
As it turned out the legal advice didn't exist and was just a porkie.
www.scotsman.com/.../scottish-independence-snp-s-20k-eu-court-battle-...
9 Oct 2013 - THE SNP Government spent almost £20000 in a court battle to hide legal advice on Scotland's EU membership after independence - advice ...
I'd be voting for Brian Blessed.
Just think of the King's Speech he'd be delivery every Christmas.
And most importantly ....
Who has the big pad at Balmoral
We could become Belgium"
Well Belgium seems to have a managed pretty well, Mr. Eagles. Maybe not having a government passing all sorts of new laws every week might actually be a good thing. A period of stability, without new initiatives and new rules telling us what we can and can't do in ever more detail, yeah I think I could cope with that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1zjeYhJs7o
Con 22%, Lab 47%, LD 7%, Plaid 11%, UKIP 9%, others 4%.
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2014-02-17/polling-trends-still-favour-labour/
this was conducted at the same times as the EU Parliament poll below, so UKIP & others appear to be sharing 8% from Labour and 5% from the Conservatives in the EU Parliament vote.
There is also a Welsh Assembly VI question, which suggests UKIP will gain 5 seats.
The future is melange IMO, for all of us.
"More detailed analysis of the poll will be provided in several posts over the next couple of weeks on my blog, Elections in Wales"
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2014-02-17/polling-trends-still-favour-labour/
Remind me which political leader has resorted to personal attacks to bolster the 'Yes' campaign?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561240/BREAKING-NEWS-IRA-group-claim-responsibility-homemade-bombs-sent-Army-recruitment-centres-sinister-recognised-codeword-Northern-Irish-media.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100259905/william-hague-to-nato-the-david-cameron-reshuffle-plan-the-tories-are-betting-on/
This line caught my eye,
"The scenario may be too fanciful, but it's being talked about and bet on,"
and bet on. By who I wonder.
The afternoon thread is who is next out of the cabinet and my tip isn't William Hague
In practice, it takes two to tango and it should be remembered that David Cameron, not Nick Clegg, created the Coalition with his "offer of talks" on the Friday afternoon after the election.
Cameron could, and I suspect many Tories on here believe should, have declined all negotiations and formed a minority Government but his fear was that a Labour/LD (and others) deal would happen and the Conservatives would be left in the cold.
After thirteen years of Opposition (an unprecedented period for the Conservatives under Universal Suffrage), another four years in the wilderness would have finished Cameron's leadership and sentenced the Party to a round of internecine conflict.
Given the arithmetic (as mentioned by OGH), IF Labour poll more votes than the Conservatives, they will either be over the line or so close as to make no difference.
IF the Party with the largest number of votes doesn't want to talk and the second largest party does and the combined second party/LD total is a majority, then it's a dilemma. I can understand the Party not wanting to close down that option but I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea of that Coalition coming into being.
The nightmare is a narrow Conservative lead over Labour (3-5 points) which could produce a near dead-heat in terms of seats with the much-reduced LD party unable to form a majority Government with either. At that point, I think I'll go off to a dark room and lie down for six months or so...
Could be worth a bet.... 300-300-20 is a viable outcome...
Dan Evans will be joined in the main draw by Kyle Edmunds who has been given a wild card into the event.
I think Patrick's right BTW. It would be interesting to see how things went for Salmond if things aren't as rosy for an independent Scotland as the Scots are being lead to believe. Hypothetically of course.
Those claymores might be sticking out of someone's fat,curry fed,rump.
Plus I'm sure most Welsh folk know deep down that independence means disappearing down a serious notch on the economic front given the Valleys represent approx a third of the population and I should think have the GDP per head of about Portugal.
[A] newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory….
A [membership] application of this type requires, if the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously, a negotiation on an agreement between the Applicant State and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the Applicant State.
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2014/02/how-unexpected-was-barrosos-scotland-declaration/
Scores of men go into an old mine to dig for gold, only they get trapped inside by a rival group. The authorities reopen the entrance, but the men refuse to come out because they might get arrested. When ten do emerge, the police, who were hiding behind a fire engine, arrest them.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is real poverty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26223328
There is a quote from Norman Davies to that effect.
Or is it only negative when Tories talk?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/alex-salmond-attacks-campaign-rhetoric-with-a-george-tax/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=alex-salmond-attacks-campaign-rhetoric-with-a-george-tax&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Arf!