The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :
Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?
YES 36% .. No 64%
Turnout Projection 79%
.......................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
Another 'poll' just pulled out of your Arse
It's not a poll or even 'poll' you dimwit.
Pleasant.
What would you call someone who over several months, despite being disabused of the fact, kept calling a projection a poll ?? .... A Nobel Prize winner ?!?
So explain your hatred of Scotland, SNP and Salmond.
There's your problem. Scotland /= SNP or Salmond
Compare and contrast
Islamic fundamentalist: A cartoon of The Prophet denigrates Islam
ScotNat FundaMentalist: A cartoon of Eck 'The Prophet' Salmond denigrates Scotland
Salmond is not Scotland.
I love Scotland. I have no love for Salmond. I haven't drunk the KoolAid. I don't believe his agenda is good for Scotland or Scots.
You are a typical BT supporter , no principles, no hope.
Who was accusing the other side of "negative campaigning"?
As you are interested in Scotland's future, what do you think the currency plan should be, now that currency union is off the table?
It is not off the table.
The criticism I have of ASalmond (and in many respects I admire him as a conviction politician) is that he is "neglecting" to tell the Scottish electorate just what a currency union actually means with the consequent loss of fiscal and monetary autonomy (I'm sure the fiscal pact and banking union issues could be addressed).
This verges on disingenuousness and for that reason it is legitimate to criticise him.
There are four problems with a currency union - the fiscal pact only addresses one of them - the other three may be insoluble: 1) the markets have to believe it is irreversible and will "last forever" - the SNP have made clear its a stop-gap, 2) the burden of risk is grossly asymmetrical and 3) the impositions on Holyrood spending from "London politicians" will poison relations between the two countries.
Added to that it's now electorally unpopular in rUK, why would an rUK government agree to it?
It's dead. Move on.
You are right on each count. But this is politics (as Mark Carney astutely observed) and should there be a YES vote (there won't be) then you can expect some kind of fudged agreement but for sure with disadvantageous terms for Scotland.
The only reason that it is not a 100% waste of time discussing this is that following a NO vote there will be some kind of Devo max negotiations and I believe that Devo max won't look a whole lot different to a YES with currency union.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :
Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?
YES 36% .. No 64%
Turnout Projection 79%
.......................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
Another 'poll' just pulled out of your Arse
It's not a poll or even 'poll' you dimwit.
Pleasant.
What would you call someone who over several months, despite being disabused of the fact, kept calling a projection a poll ?? .... A Nobel Prize winner ?!?
I would call them no name at all. For what it is worth, this is the first time you have argued over the poll/projection thing. Most of the time you simply rebuff my questions re: your methodology. Therefore I can only assume it's a guess.
It's also worth considering the curious franchise for the referendum, which includes 16-18 year olds and EU citizens resident in Scotland.
A good friend of mine is a German living in Scotland who has decided not to vote in the referendum on the principle that it's the sort of decision that should be made by Scottish people. If some of the English temporarily resident in Scotland take the same view then the turnout could be relatively low for reasons of principle rather than apathy.
Far from being malodorous hot air, the outpourings of Jacks ARSE and McARSE are solid and regular. They should not be ignored, or they may cause a few slip ups.
To my mind the 79% turnout figure looks rather high. In 1978 the turnout was only 63%, in a time when electoral turnouts were rather higher generally.
Gosh, I'm sure if Eck were even aware of PB.com he'd be gratified to see so many PB Unionists dancing to a Scottish jig.
Surprised no one has commented on Al Darling's performance on C4 News last night; he was given a rougher ride than he's used to with BBC Scotland interviewers, the blink count was up to at least 100 per minute. Not comforting viewing for Unionists I'd surmise.
In today's other news, Gordon Brown is launching a campaign to tell us how our pensions would be really ****ed up in an independent Scotland.
@JosiasJessop - in the video I link to Monbiot does say that dredging has a role to play at some points in the Somerset Levels. It is however far from being the cure-all that the farming lobby claims.
Land-use practices, things that sound as simple as not leaving the ground bare in winter - it doesn't necessarily have to be covered in trees - can have a much larger impact.
The thing that particularly impresses me about Monbiot is that he follows things through and gets into the detail - in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods as a result of removing regulations on soil erosion prevention for farmers growing maize.
Much more convincing than the dredging drones.
It didn't take much science to say in December 2013 that there would be floods in the future on the levels, given that there were (admittedly lesser but disruptive) floods in the previous two winters.
I'm not convinced about the maize arguments (it will be a factor of some size, but I doubt it's major). However I am fairly convinced that lack of dredging *is* a major factor. It will not have stopped these floods, but it may have the 2011 and 2012 ones.
Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.
Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.
It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.
*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.
There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.
I rather dislike many Westminster politicians , of all nationalities and the troughers in HOL and I strongly hope the union is broken. The threats are all coming one way , usual big boy trying to bully the smaller opponent. If Westminster threaten to keep the assets then it is unreasonable to expect Scotland to accept Westminster's debts. The unionists seem determined to make it acrimonious as they have little positive to offer. As ever your myopic view regarding UK banks regulated by Westminster is rather disingenuous. Westminster caused the problem and then bailed out UK banks, Scotland had little say in the regulation of the bankers and therin lies the problem. A nameplate in Edinburgh does not make a bank Scottish.
You do realise that a currency is a liability, not an asset, right?
No: it's JackW's best guess/estimate at the likely outcome, based on all sorts of factors some of which are relevant, others of which are not.
He did well in the US presidential elections, but don't know about other previous predictions.
I don't think JackW is particularly proud of his predictions for Lib Dem seats at the 2010GE, but his contributions to the site are greatly appreciated be me.
@JosiasJessop - in the video I link to Monbiot does say that dredging has a role to play at some points in the Somerset Levels. It is however far from being the cure-all that the farming lobby claims.
Land-use practices, things that sound as simple as not leaving the ground bare in winter - it doesn't necessarily have to be covered in trees - can have a much larger impact.
The thing that particularly impresses me about Monbiot is that he follows things through and gets into the detail - in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods as a result of removing regulations on soil erosion prevention for farmers growing maize.
Much more convincing than the dredging drones.
It didn't take much science to say in December 2013 that there would be floods in the future on the levels, given that there were (admittedly lesser but disruptive) floods in the previous two winters.
I'm not convinced about the maize arguments (it will be a factor of some size, but I doubt it's major). However I am fairly convinced that lack of dredging *is* a major factor. It will not have stopped these floods, but it may have the 2011 and 2012 ones.
The research was not specifically about the Somerset Levels.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :
Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?
YES 36% .. No 64%
Turnout Projection 79%
.......................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
Another 'poll' just pulled out of your Arse
It's not a poll or even 'poll' you dimwit.
Pleasant.
What would you call someone who over several months, despite being disabused of the fact, kept calling a projection a poll ?? .... A Nobel Prize winner ?!?
I would call them no name at all. For what it is worth, this is the first time you have argued over the poll/projection thing. Most of the time you simply rebuff my questions re: your methodology. Therefore I can only assume it's a guess.
Unless you've not noticed every prior notification has "Projection Countdown" and the actual notification has "Projection" and not one solitary mention of a poll.
You seem to be the only person confused and that is your problem and not mine.
If you had been with PB a little longer you would have realised that my ARSE has an incomparable record of making outstanding projections over several elections here and across the pond.
So may I suggest that instead of quibbling, that you like most other PBers simply embrace my magnificent organ and enjoy .... and the profits that go with it.
Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.
Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.
It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.
*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.
There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.
Much or all of this is not Mr Salmond but down to the media's classic personalization/trivialisation strategy of equating indy with Mr Salmond. It seems to me that Mr Osborne and his allies are also whipping up divisiveness to their own ends (waving the patriotism card to fend off UKIP, and damage Labour as a bonus).
The SNP position is consistent and positive - that the Scots lay claim to pro rata share of the assets, apparatus [including BoE ], and debts of the UK of which Scotland is legally a full partner. The other option is of course the new state, no assets, no debts option, but that is not what the SNP have offered, except latterly as a default should the unionist side demand it. The unionist position has in general been far more negative and incoherent but tending to the new state view.
Now some horsetrading is inevitable - the Scots would hardly want 17% of a QE2 class aircraft carrier, for instance. But to deny currency union so early, without negotiation, is not convincing except as propaganda to influence the vote. Mr Osborne's speech has not been probed as it should be, given the obvious problems and careful omissions in it; and it is significant that he disappeared after his speech rather than be questioned on it. To give two examples: how Scottish financial sector assets being 12X GDP somehow equated directly to a banking regulatory disaster; and Mr Osborne's reluctance to discuss the advantages for EWNI of currency union - no mention of balance of payments issues, for instance. Or whether EWNI itself could meet the BoE's proposed controls which - as Mr Carney stressed - apply to both parties. Too early to say so far.
Gosh, I'm sure if Eck were even aware of PB.com he'd be gratified to see so many PB Unionists dancing to a Scottish jig.
Surprised no one has commented on Al Darling's performance on C4 News last night; he was given a rougher ride than he's used to with BBC Scotland interviewers, the blink count was up to at least 100 per minute. Not comforting viewing for Unionists I'd surmise.
In today's other news, Gordon Brown is launching a campaign to tell us how our pensions would be really ****ed up in an independent Scotland.
Irony has been tortured, executed and its body dumped in a ditch.
Eck and his team of advisers are well aware of PB.com. No.10 is not the only political office which keeps a regular eye on this august political organ. There will be much angst in YESNP circles this morning at the results predicted by Jack's arse.
Mr. Carnyx, whilst I concur the media generally prefers personalities to issues (simpler for them to handle), Salmond has referred to a 'George Tax', so personalisation cannot be a charge levelled solely at the media.
I also disagree on the divisiveness, or lack thereof, of Osborne/Balls/Alexander. They're setting out the UK position should independence occur. You cannot expect them to remain mute whilst Salmond tells of mana raining from the sky to nourish the chosen people of God.
Balance of payments is a legitimate issue to raise, but so are the many reasons against a currency union (not least the lack of a desire for one from the English, Welsh and Northern Irish). Salmond's 'deconstruction' amounted to naming a tax after an Englishman and saying "Yes we can" when it comes to forcing a foreign country (as it would be) into a currency union.
Court of Appeal to announce ruling on whole-life terms
I heard on the radio a human rights lawyer talking about the 'possibility' of release after each block of 25 years. But whenever I hear a human rights/parole type person mention the word 'possibility' I always consider them to mean 'will be unless there is cause not to' - which generally then means 'will be let out'
I hope our court of appeal stands firm on this one.
Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.
Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.
It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.
*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.
There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.
. Mr Osborne's speech has not been probed as it should be, given the obvious problems and careful omissions in it
Why did Salmind not do that yesterday?
And Sterling is not "an asset" of the UK - it is a monetary instrument of the UK government - which Salmind knows, but chooses to misrepresent. If the UK splits, Sterling stays with the continuing state, the country departing having given up its right to use it.
It's also worth considering the curious franchise for the referendum, which includes 16-18 year olds and EU citizens resident in Scotland.
A good friend of mine is a German living in Scotland who has decided not to vote in the referendum on the principle that it's the sort of decision that should be made by Scottish people. If some of the English temporarily resident in Scotland take the same view then the turnout could be relatively low for reasons of principle rather than apathy.
Far from being malodorous hot air, the outpourings of Jacks ARSE and McARSE are solid and regular. They should not be ignored, or they may cause a few slip ups.
To my mind the 79% turnout figure looks rather high. In 1978 the turnout was only 63%, in a time when electoral turnouts were rather higher generally.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :
Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?
YES 36% .. No 64%
Turnout Projection 79%
.......................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
Another 'poll' just pulled out of your Arse
In my experience the most rabid pro independence residents of Scotland include many who have not lost the English accents they hold having been born on the southern side of the border. I well remember in the late 1960s a London born friend of my father's joined the SNP. The SNP has a very active group among the Asian communities in Scotland with people who were not born here being very pro independence as much as those who are 2nd, 3rd or even 4th generation Scots Asians.
You seem very easily confused. There is no 'class war' here - and I am a unionist. I merely want to know what Jack's methodology is. I have asked him quite politely a number of times and he has simply fobbed me off. All he had to say was "I'd prefer not to tell you thanks". How you equate that with class war, only you know.
With regards to your specific point - there have been no polls since the currency row. Even Jack doesn't classify his projection as a poll.
Would be refreshing if a "Yes" poster could be honest about the last week and give a positive appraisal of how they can turn it around - could even be a thread.
@JosiasJessop - in the video I link to Monbiot does say that dredging has a role to play at some points in the Somerset Levels. It is however far from being the cure-all that the farming lobby claims.
Land-use practices, things that sound as simple as not leaving the ground bare in winter - it doesn't necessarily have to be covered in trees - can have a much larger impact.
The thing that particularly impresses me about Monbiot is that he follows things through and gets into the detail - in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods as a result of removing regulations on soil erosion prevention for farmers growing maize.
Much more convincing than the dredging drones.
It didn't take much science to say in December 2013 that there would be floods in the future on the levels, given that there were (admittedly lesser but disruptive) floods in the previous two winters.
I'm not convinced about the maize arguments (it will be a factor of some size, but I doubt it's major). However I am fairly convinced that lack of dredging *is* a major factor. It will not have stopped these floods, but it may have the 2011 and 2012 ones.
The research was not specifically about the Somerset Levels.
@JosiasJessop - in the video I link to Monbiot does say that dredging has a role to play at some points in the Somerset Levels. It is however far from being the cure-all that the farming lobby claims.
Land-use practices, things that sound as simple as not leaving the ground bare in winter - it doesn't necessarily have to be covered in trees - can have a much larger impact.
The thing that particularly impresses me about Monbiot is that he follows things through and gets into the detail - in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods as a result of removing regulations on soil erosion prevention for farmers growing maize.
Much more convincing than the dredging drones.
It didn't take much science to say in December 2013 that there would be floods in the future on the levels, given that there were (admittedly lesser but disruptive) floods in the previous two winters.
I'm not convinced about the maize arguments (it will be a factor of some size, but I doubt it's major). However I am fairly convinced that lack of dredging *is* a major factor. It will not have stopped these floods, but it may have the 2011 and 2012 ones.
The research was not specifically about the Somerset Levels.
No sane farmer would grow maize on the levels - they're primarily used for grazing. Why? Because they're water meadows, and have been flooding for centuries.
The severity of the flooding has been exacerbated by the lack of dredging, fewer pumps and their reduced maintenance, and the subsequent inability to move water towards the sea at a higher rate.
Personalisation of the campaign is hardly a phenomenon of the No campaign, earlier this thread we had malcolmg construing dislike of Salmond as hatred of Scotland.
I am not opposed to Scottish independence, but Salmond has not been telling the truth to the Electorate on a variety of issues, a currency union being the most recent.
Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.
There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.
Much or all of this is not Mr Salmond but down to the media's classic personalization/trivialisation strategy of equating indy with Mr Salmond. It seems to me that Mr Osborne and his allies are also whipping up divisiveness to their own ends (waving the patriotism card to fend off UKIP, and damage Labour as a bonus).
The SNP position is consistent and positive - that the Scots lay claim to pro rata share of the assets, apparatus [including BoE ], and debts of the UK of which Scotland is legally a full partner. The other option is of course the new state, no assets, no debts option, but that is not what the SNP have offered, except latterly as a default should the unionist side demand it. The unionist position has in general been far more negative and incoherent but tending to the new state view.
Now some horsetrading is inevitable - the Scots would hardly want 17% of a QE2 class aircraft carrier, for instance. But to deny currency union so early, without negotiation, is not convincing except as propaganda to influence the vote. Mr Osborne's speech has not been probed as it should be, given the obvious problems and careful omissions in it; and it is significant that he disappeared after his speech rather than be questioned on it. To give two examples: how Scottish financial sector assets being 12X GDP somehow equated directly to a banking regulatory disaster; and Mr Osborne's reluctance to discuss the advantages for EWNI of currency union - no mention of balance of payments issues, for instance. Or whether EWNI itself could meet the BoE's proposed controls which - as Mr Carney stressed - apply to both parties. Too early to say so far.
No: it's JackW's best guess/estimate at the likely outcome, based on all sorts of factors some of which are relevant, others of which are not.
He did well in the US presidential elections, but don't know about other previous predictions.
I don't think JackW is particularly proud of his predictions for Lib Dem seats at the 2010GE, but his contributions to the site are greatly appreciated be me.
My own prediction was 75 and ARSE 65. So ARSE was ok but clearly not as fine as the Con largest party on 305.
My ARSE US projections have been outstanding.
In 08 Missouri let me down, mighty close but no cigar, and in 12 Florida did for me. I had Romney to edge the state by 0.5%. It comes to something when you can't rely on the GOP to fix Florida in a close race .... hanging chads, my arse !!
Would be refreshing if a "Yes" poster could be honest about the last week and give a positive appraisal of how they can turn it around - could even be a thread.
We just don't know whether it's been good or bad for Yes until we have seen some polling!
@JosiasJessop - in the video I link to Monbiot does say that dredging has a role to play at some points in the Somerset Levels. It is however far from being the cure-all that the farming lobby claims.
Land-use practices, things that sound as simple as not leaving the ground bare in winter - it doesn't necessarily have to be covered in trees - can have a much larger impact.
The thing that particularly impresses me about Monbiot is that he follows things through and gets into the detail - in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods as a result of removing regulations on soil erosion prevention for farmers growing maize.
Much more convincing than the dredging drones.
It didn't take much science to say in December 2013 that there would be floods in the future on the levels, given that there were (admittedly lesser but disruptive) floods in the previous two winters.
I'm not convinced about the maize arguments (it will be a factor of some size, but I doubt it's major). However I am fairly convinced that lack of dredging *is* a major factor. It will not have stopped these floods, but it may have the 2011 and 2012 ones.
The research was not specifically about the Somerset Levels.
So they were predicting floods *somewhere*?
Wow, what great prediction that was.
The paper was not specifically about predicting floods, but about soil degradation - one of the consequences of which would be flooding.
If you can't be bothered to read the things I link to why can you be bothered to argue about them?
It's pointless to argue about something you haven't read, because you are arguing about things that you *think* it says, rather than the things it *actually* says.
Gosh, I'm sure if Eck were even aware of PB.com he'd be gratified to see so many PB Unionists dancing to a Scottish jig.
Surprised no one has commented on Al Darling's performance on C4 News last night; he was given a rougher ride than he's used to with BBC Scotland interviewers, the blink count was up to at least 100 per minute. Not comforting viewing for Unionists I'd surmise.
In today's other news, Gordon Brown is launching a campaign to tell us how our pensions would be really ****ed up in an independent Scotland.
Irony has been tortured, executed and its body dumped in a ditch.
Eck and his team of advisers are well aware of PB.com. No.10 is not the only political office which keeps a regular eye on this august political organ. There will be much angst in YESNP circles this morning at the results predicted by Jack's arse.
Even if 'Eck and his team of advisers are well aware of PB.com', they'd be hard put to distinguish the outpourings of one arse from another.
It's also worth considering the curious franchise for the referendum, which includes 16-18 year olds and EU citizens resident in Scotland.
A good friend of mine is a German living in Scotland who has decided not to vote in the referendum on the principle that it's the sort of decision that should be made by Scottish people. If some of the English temporarily resident in Scotland take the same view then the turnout could be relatively low for reasons of principle rather than apathy.
Far from being malodorous hot air, the outpourings of Jacks ARSE and McARSE are solid and regular. They should not be ignored, or they may cause a few slip ups.
To my mind the 79% turnout figure looks rather high. In 1978 the turnout was only 63%, in a time when electoral turnouts were rather higher generally.
In my experience the most rabid pro independence residents of Scotland include many who have not lost the English accents they hold having been born on the southern side of the border. I well remember in the late 1960s a London born friend of my father's joined the SNP. The SNP has a very active group among the Asian communities in Scotland with people who were not born here being very pro independence as much as those who are 2nd, 3rd or even 4th generation Scots Asians.
That's an interesting observation, thanks.
I would have assumed that English residents in Scotland would be most likely to vote for the Union, if they vote, because they will have first-hand experience of the advantages that being in the Union bring to making it easier to move across the border.
A note on inflation and the floods - the floods may well be mixed news for UK inflation as it will not dip too far below the 2% target - food prices to rise later in the year which will create upward pressure on inflation.
I lived in Somerset for over 8 years...I can't remember seeing fields and fields of much maize.
Maize needs a lot of water, doesn't it? So it's great when there is a lot of water. But not so great when there isn't. And remember, it was only two years ago that we had a major drought on our hands. There has to be a better solution than that.
Gosh, I'm sure if Eck were even aware of PB.com he'd be gratified to see so many PB Unionists dancing to a Scottish jig.
Surprised no one has commented on Al Darling's performance on C4 News last night; he was given a rougher ride than he's used to with BBC Scotland interviewers, the blink count was up to at least 100 per minute. Not comforting viewing for Unionists I'd surmise.
In today's other news, Gordon Brown is launching a campaign to tell us how our pensions would be really ****ed up in an independent Scotland.
Irony has been tortured, executed and its body dumped in a ditch.
Eck and his team of advisers are well aware of PB.com. No.10 is not the only political office which keeps a regular eye on this august political organ. There will be much angst in YESNP circles this morning at the results predicted by Jack's arse.
Even if 'Eck and his team of advisers are well aware of PB.com', they'd be hard put to distinguish the outpourings of one arse from another.
They are aware of PB.
The Grand Poobahs of the SNP (and all the other parties) invited Mike up to Holyrood last year for a few days to listen to Mike's thoughts and opinions on how the referendum might turn out and what they should and shouldn't do.
Mike left with the impression that Yes could win and if he had a vote, he'd vote yes.
Would be refreshing if a "Yes" poster could be honest about the last week and give a positive appraisal of how they can turn it around - could even be a thread.
You want honesty and positivity? There's no need to disfigure Irony's cold, dead body.
@foxinsox - "Salmond has not been telling the truth to the Electorate on a variety of issues, a currency union being the most recent"
The SNP leadership do not trust the Scottish electorate to make the right decision if the full facts of independence are discussed. In that sense they are very different to other members of the Yes side, such as Jim Sillars and Patrick Harvie. Salmond and Sturgeon both know that the vision of the independence process they are peddling is complete nonsense, but their aim is to win the vote - nothing more.
You seem very easily confused. There is no 'class war' here - and I am a unionist. I merely want to know what Jack's methodology is. I have asked him quite politely a number of times and he has simply fobbed me off. All he had to say was "I'd prefer not to tell you thanks". How you equate that with class war, only you know.
With regards to your specific point - there have been no polls since the currency row. Even Jack doesn't classify his projection as a poll.
The penny has dropped ?!?
You have indeed politely requested the ARSE methodology and I have rebuffed you. I do not issue details of my own patent methodology.
Might I suggest that you simply embrace my ARSE and not try to over anal-yse it.
@JosiasJessop - in the video I link to Monbiot does say that dredging has a role to play at some points in the Somerset Levels. It is however far from being the cure-all that the farming lobby claims.
Land-use practices, things that sound as simple as not leaving the ground bare in winter - it doesn't necessarily have to be covered in trees - can have a much larger impact.
The thing that particularly impresses me about Monbiot is that he follows things through and gets into the detail - in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods as a result of removing regulations on soil erosion prevention for farmers growing maize.
Much more convincing than the dredging drones.
It didn't take much science to say in December 2013 that there would be floods in the future on the levels, given that there were (admittedly lesser but disruptive) floods in the previous two winters.
I'm not convinced about the maize arguments (it will be a factor of some size, but I doubt it's major). However I am fairly convinced that lack of dredging *is* a major factor. It will not have stopped these floods, but it may have the 2011 and 2012 ones.
The research was not specifically about the Somerset Levels.
So they were predicting floods *somewhere*?
Wow, what great prediction that was.
The paper was not specifically about predicting floods, but about soil degradation - one of the consequences of which would be flooding.
If you can't be bothered to read the things I link to why can you be bothered to argue about them?
It's pointless to argue about something you haven't read, because you are arguing about things that you *think* it says, rather than the things it *actually* says.
Stop being so silly.
Further upthread you said: " ... in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods"
At least you now admit that the paper did no such thing.
The sad thing is I don't think we're a million miles apart on this issue, it's just the degree the causes (and there will be multiple) have on the floods.
I lived in Somerset for over 8 years...I can't remember seeing fields and fields of much maize.
Maize needs a lot of water, doesn't it? So it's great when there is a lot of water. But not so great when there isn't. And remember, it was only two years ago that we had a major drought on our hands. There has to be a better solution than that.
A couple of weeks ago I did suggest turning parts of the levels into a water supply-reservoir for London and the southeast. Mind, that 'idea' was only the febrile result of a dream and would require massive engineering, and have severe ecological and social effects.
But it would at least be more honest to the residents than EA's current policy.
Would be refreshing if a "Yes" poster could be honest about the last week and give a positive appraisal of how they can turn it around - could even be a thread.
You want honesty and positivity? There's no need to disfigure Irony's cold, dead body.
The floor is yours UD - what should the last 6 months focus on for YES - more of the same or a different tack ?
@foxinsox - "Salmond has not been telling the truth to the Electorate on a variety of issues, a currency union being the most recent"
The SNP leadership do not trust the Scottish electorate to make the right decision if the full facts of independence are discussed. In that sense they are very different to other members of the Yes side, such as Jim Sillars and Patrick Harvie. Salmond and Sturgeon both know that the vision of the independence process they are peddling is complete nonsense, but their aim is to win the vote - nothing more.
@JosiasJessop - in the video I link to Monbiot does say that dredging has a role to play at some points in the Somerset Levels. It is however far from being the cure-all that the farming lobby claims.
Land-use practices, things that sound as simple as not leaving the ground bare in winter - it doesn't necessarily have to be covered in trees - can have a much larger impact.
The thing that particularly impresses me about Monbiot is that he follows things through and gets into the detail - in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods as a result of removing regulations on soil erosion prevention for farmers growing maize.
Much more convincing than the dredging drones.
It didn't take much science to say in December 2013 that there would be floods in the future on the levels, given that there were (admittedly lesser but disruptive) floods in the previous two winters.
I'm not convinced about the maize arguments (it will be a factor of some size, but I doubt it's major). However I am fairly convinced that lack of dredging *is* a major factor. It will not have stopped these floods, but it may have the 2011 and 2012 ones.
The research was not specifically about the Somerset Levels.
So they were predicting floods *somewhere*?
Wow, what great prediction that was.
The paper was not specifically about predicting floods, but about soil degradation - one of the consequences of which would be flooding.
If you can't be bothered to read the things I link to why can you be bothered to argue about them?
It's pointless to argue about something you haven't read, because you are arguing about things that you *think* it says, rather than the things it *actually* says.
Stop being so silly.
Further upthread you said: " ... in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods"
At least you now admit that the paper did no such thing.
The sad thing is I don't think we're a million miles apart on this issue, it's just the degree the causes (and there will be multiple) have on the floods.
In my understanding of the phrase "... all but predicted the floods" the meaning is that it does not predict the floods - hence the "but" in the sentence - but it very nearly does.
Which if you'd bother to read the extract from the abstract that I posted in the thread, or the abstract itself, or Monbiot's article, or understood basic grammar, you might have understood.
Your blind insistence on disagreeing with Monbiot for ideological reasons is clouding your judgement.
I see inflation has fallen below 2%. Can we please take a moment to remember every individual on here that was saying for years inflation would take off eventually, due to all the "money printing", often with a smug "just you see"? Some of us actually appreciated Keynesian economics and liquidity traps, but were mocked at the time.
Good to see the scottish tory surgers and PB Romneys are still shrieking away pointlessly. Next thing they'll be sniffing some old codgers arse for comfort.
The number of UK-born children thought to have been trafficked for sexual exploitation more than doubled last year, the National Crime Agency said.
The most common nationality or country of origin for child victims of trafficking (not just for sexual abuse) was Vietnam, followed by the UK and then Albania.
This is actually a really serious issue that deserves attention, as much as the more disgusting posters on here like to accuse anyone concerned about it as "an obsessive" as a way to score points against those they disagree with.
Oh, it happens on both sides - and I don't think it is very helpful certainly on PB. But I was thinking more of the sheer scale of the UK media, especially the DT, which makes it all rather reminiscent of Emmanuel Goldstein. Mind you, that may simply be because the media outlets are all more or less Unionist - but that is not much of an excuse. And, of course, what the media say Mr Salmond says is not necessarily what Mr Salmond actually says, either in content or still more so in balance, editing, and so on.
It is one of the big disappointments of this campaign that the level of critical analysis has been so uneven, when one side's speeches are treated with relative deference and the other side's smallest remarks are taken out of context and seized on for weeks and made to bear meanings they never had. Moreover, such asymmetry makes the contests very difficult to call, partly because the media reports do not necessarily bear any close relation to the actual situation. Just look at the reporting of Mr Carney's speech, for instance.
On the currency union truth issue, I'd say that the question is whether Mr Salmond or Mr Osborne is more likely to be right in saying that there would be one in the event of a Yes vote; that this has not been negotiated yet; and that Mr Osborne's speech and the media coverage has been notably, let's say, incomplete. So I'm keeping an open mind for now.
Personalisation of the campaign is hardly a phenomenon of the No campaign, earlier this thread we had malcolmg construing dislike of Salmond as hatred of Scotland.
I am not opposed to Scottish independence, but Salmond has not been telling the truth to the Electorate on a variety of issues, a currency union being the most recent.
[earlier posts edited out/down] Much or all of this is not Mr Salmond but down to the media's classic personalization/trivialisation strategy of equating indy with Mr Salmond. It seems to me that Mr Osborne and his allies are also whipping up divisiveness to their own ends (waving the patriotism card to fend off UKIP, and damage Labour as a bonus).
Good to see the scottish tory surgers and PB Romneys are still shrieking away pointlessly. Next thing they'll be sniffing some old codgers arse for comfort.
Oh, it happens on both sides - and I don't think it is very helpful certainly on PB. But I was thinking more of the sheer scale of the UK media, especially the DT, which makes it all rather reminiscent of Emmanuel Goldstein. Mind you, that may simply be because the media outlets are all more or less Unionist - but that is not much of an excuse. And, of course, what the media say Mr Salmond says is not necessarily what Mr Salmond actually says, either in content or still more so in balance, editing, and so on.
You can edit it however you want, when Alex Salmond says it's a "diktat" to Scotland when the UK government won't do what he wants it to do, he's damned with his own words. As he is when he reacts to anyone outside of his country talking about economics as flying up from England and being ignorant of Scottishness.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :
Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?
YES 36% .. No 64%
Turnout Projection 79%
.......................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
My, my! Clearly a hugely oversold ARSE here. A hole in one, one might say.
There are indeed flaws in JackW's methodology. To iron these out I am working on a set of equations which could loosely be described as a Riemannian electoral calculus tensor unity matrix. The bottom, as it were, line is: do not trust the output of Jack's ARSE unless it has also passed through my RECTUM.
Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.
Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.
It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.
*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.
There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.
I rather dislike many Westminster politicians , of all nationalities and the troughers in HOL and I strongly hope the union is broken. The threats are all coming one way , usual big boy trying to bully the smaller opponent. If Westminster threaten to keep the assets then it is unreasonable to expect Scotland to accept Westminster's debts. The unionists seem determined to make it acrimonious as they have little positive to offer. As ever your myopic view regarding UK banks regulated by Westminster is rather disingenuous. Westminster caused the problem and then bailed out UK banks, Scotland had little say in the regulation of the bankers and therin lies the problem. A nameplate in Edinburgh does not make a bank Scottish.
You do realise that a currency is a liability, not an asset, right?
Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum
Good to see the scottish tory surgers and PB Romneys are still shrieking away pointlessly. Next thing they'll be sniffing some old codgers arse for comfort.
*chortle*
Mr Pork - It is not the unionists who are clinging for comfort here. The polls have relentlessly shown no movement and the latest currency debacle will not help Salmond. He has been ruled out of any control of the £ whether he likes it or not and entry to the Euro has for the moment been barred too. Both may be a bluff, I suspect the £ isn't and Spain will not be happy to see Scotland enter the euro with its own Catalonia issue. So I would envisage he Scots continuing to use the £ in much the same way alot of the world uses the Dollar before difficult and compromising negotiations to enter the Euro. This uncertainty over something so fundamental of course has not registered in salience issues - If you asked me what my concerns are the currency would not be amongst them. But it would be if I was a Scot right now.
Expect saliency of the currency to increase and the polls continue to show no movement - not good for Yes.
The price for independence has moved out to 9/2 on the betting markets from 4/1 where OGH bought in heavily. He is a patient and steady gambler but that 9/2 may not move in. I'd probably buy at 11/2 right now.
The next poll is crucial - unless there is a decent swing to Yes the referendum is lost.
Good to see the scottish tory surgers and PB Romneys are still shrieking away pointlessly. Next thing they'll be sniffing some old codgers arse for comfort.
"On Sunday I speculated on whether the government’s response to the flooding would have an electoral effect."
It's not hit VI but I doubt the shambles around the blame game or deploying Pickles as flood response/sandbag has helped much with the competence perception. Nor will the slow response have helped the out of touch ratings that Cammie enjoys.
I'm alright, Jack: David Cameron boasts that HIS river has been dredged twice since 2007 http://mirr.im/1kOGRNx
However, this should have been an easy boost for the kippers as a protest party yet they are still not repeating the rise in VI that preceded last May's local elections. Those EU and local elections might still be a few months away but they are closing in fast and the campaigns for each party are already taking shape.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :
Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?
YES 36% .. No 64%
Turnout Projection 79%
.......................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
May one enquire how this compares with previous effusions?
Yes indeed.
Sep .. Yes 42% .. No 58% Oct .. Yes 39.5% .. No 60.5% Jan .. Yes 38% .. No 62% Feb .. Yes 36% .. No 64%
Thank you - a clear move away from "Yes"..... Have you sniffed any movement as a result of the McSterling McFandango?
LOL, toom tabard is easily taken in, only a fool would think the polls are moving to NO. Even flipper Darling had to admit that last night after being called out on the same LIE.
Good to see the scottish tory surgers and PB Romneys are still shrieking away pointlessly. Next thing they'll be sniffing some old codgers arse for comfort.
Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.
Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.
It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.
*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.
There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.
I rather dislike many Westminster politicians , of all nationalities and the troughers in HOL and I strongly hope the union is broken. The threats are all coming one way , usual big boy trying to bully the smaller opponent. If Westminster threaten to keep the assets then it is unreasonable to expect Scotland to accept Westminster's debts. The unionists seem determined to make it acrimonious as they have little positive to offer. As ever your myopic view regarding UK banks regulated by Westminster is rather disingenuous. Westminster caused the problem and then bailed out UK banks, Scotland had little say in the regulation of the bankers and therin lies the problem. A nameplate in Edinburgh does not make a bank Scottish.
You do realise that a currency is a liability, not an asset, right?
Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum
Gosh, I'm sure if Eck were even aware of PB.com he'd be gratified to see so many PB Unionists dancing to a Scottish jig.
Surprised no one has commented on Al Darling's performance on C4 News last night; he was given a rougher ride than he's used to with BBC Scotland interviewers, the blink count was up to at least 100 per minute. Not comforting viewing for Unionists I'd surmise.
In today's other news, Gordon Brown is launching a campaign to tell us how our pensions would be really ****ed up in an independent Scotland.
Irony has been tortured, executed and its body dumped in a ditch.
Eck and his team of advisers are well aware of PB.com. No.10 is not the only political office which keeps a regular eye on this august political organ. There will be much angst in YESNP circles this morning at the results predicted by Jack's arse.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :
Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?
YES 36% .. No 64%
Turnout Projection 79%
.......................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
My, my! Clearly a hugely oversold ARSE here. A hole in one, one might say.
There are indeed flaws in JackW's methodology. To iron these out I am working on a set of equations which could loosely be described as a Riemannian electoral calculus tensor unity matrix. The bottom, as it were, line is: do not trust the output of Jack's ARSE unless it has also passed through my RECTUM.
Madam !! .... We've not even been introduced ......
Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum
You're quite entitled to have your share of UK currency reserves after the split, as well as a share of the Bank's assets. What you're not entitled to is for the UK Government to consider your interests when setting monetary policy, or for the UK Government to act as a lender of last resort for your economy. In the same way, you don't get a share of the Treasury's decisions, or a share of the Defence department's decisions. That's what separation means: removing yourself from UK institutions.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :
Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?
YES 36% .. No 64%
Turnout Projection 79%
.......................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
May one enquire how this compares with previous effusions?
Yes indeed.
Sep .. Yes 42% .. No 58% Oct .. Yes 39.5% .. No 60.5% Jan .. Yes 38% .. No 62% Feb .. Yes 36% .. No 64%
Thank you - a clear move away from "Yes"..... Have you sniffed any movement as a result of the McSterling McFandango?
LOL, toom tabard is easily taken in, only a fool would think the polls are moving to NO. Even flipper Darling had to admit that last night after being called out on the same LIE.
You guys are fascinating to watch.
It's like a convention of the Flat Earth Society held on a space station, with everyone sitting with their back to the window.
A currency union requires willing partners, it is not for one to force on the others. How would Scots react if rUK insisted that Independent Scotland use a particular currency?
Floundering politicians often claim that they were misquoted, or things taken out of context. Salmond is no different to the rest.
Oh, it happens on both sides - and I don't think it is very helpful certainly on PB. But I was thinking more of the sheer scale of the UK media, especially the DT, which makes it all rather reminiscent of Emmanuel Goldstein. Mind you, that may simply be because the media outlets are all more or less Unionist - but that is not much of an excuse. And, of course, what the media say Mr Salmond says is not necessarily what Mr Salmond actually says, either in content or still more so in balance, editing, and so on.
It is one of the big disappointments of this campaign that the level of critical analysis has been so uneven, when one side's speeches are treated with relative deference and the other side's smallest remarks are taken out of context and seized on for weeks and made to bear meanings they never had. Moreover, such asymmetry makes the contests very difficult to call, partly because the media reports do not necessarily bear any close relation to the actual situation. Just look at the reporting of Mr Carney's speech, for instance.
On the currency union truth issue, I'd say that the question is whether Mr Salmond or Mr Osborne is more likely to be right in saying that there would be one in the event of a Yes vote; that this has not been negotiated yet; and that Mr Osborne's speech and the media coverage has been notably, let's say, incomplete. So I'm keeping an open mind for now.
Personalisation of the campaign is hardly a phenomenon of the No campaign, earlier this thread we had malcolmg construing dislike of Salmond as hatred of Scotland.
I am not opposed to Scottish independence, but Salmond has not been telling the truth to the Electorate on a variety of issues, a currency union being the most recent.
[earlier posts edited out/down] Much or all of this is not Mr Salmond but down to the media's classic personalization/trivialisation strategy of equating indy with Mr Salmond. It seems to me that Mr Osborne and his allies are also whipping up divisiveness to their own ends (waving the patriotism card to fend off UKIP, and damage Labour as a bonus).
Gosh, I'm sure if Eck were even aware of PB.com he'd be gratified to see so many PB Unionists dancing to a Scottish jig.
Surprised no one has commented on Al Darling's performance on C4 News last night; he was given a rougher ride than he's used to with BBC Scotland interviewers, the blink count was up to at least 100 per minute. Not comforting viewing for Unionists I'd surmise.
In today's other news, Gordon Brown is launching a campaign to tell us how our pensions would be really ****ed up in an independent Scotland.
Irony has been tortured, executed and its body dumped in a ditch.
Eck and his team of advisers are well aware of PB.com. No.10 is not the only political office which keeps a regular eye on this august political organ. There will be much angst in YESNP circles this morning at the results predicted by Jack's arse.
They will be rolling in the aisles.
Then they should keep off the meths before breakfast.
Would be refreshing if a "Yes" poster could be honest about the last week and give a positive appraisal of how they can turn it around - could even be a thread.
TGOHF, you seem deluded. Salmond clearly stated he has 5 options on the table of which his chosen one is currency union. He also expects Squeaky or balls to fold when faced with reality. Barosso is back pedalling very quickly on his lies. What is to turn around , the Scottish Government has a printed plan it is sticking to , the unionists change with the weather and focus group opinions. Idiots like yourself who are not in Scotland and have no vote take their positions from London newspapers.
The paper was not specifically about predicting floods, but about soil degradation - one of the consequences of which would be flooding.
If you can't be bothered to read the things I link to why can you be bothered to argue about them?
It's pointless to argue about something you haven't read, because you are arguing about things that you *think* it says, rather than the things it *actually* says.
Stop being so silly.
Further upthread you said: " ... in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods"
At least you now admit that the paper did no such thing.
The sad thing is I don't think we're a million miles apart on this issue, it's just the degree the causes (and there will be multiple) have on the floods.
In my understanding of the phrase "... all but predicted the floods" the meaning is that it does not predict the floods - hence the "but" in the sentence - but it very nearly does.
Which if you'd bother to read the extract from the abstract that I posted in the thread, or the abstract itself, or Monbiot's article, or understood basic grammar, you might have understood.
Your blind insistence on disagreeing with Monbiot for ideological reasons is clouding your judgement.
Oh Lordy. What do you think are my 'ideological' reasons for disagreeing with Monbiot? Go on, I could do with a laugh.
I do understand basic grammar thanks, and I understand what it means when someone uses 'all but'.
It's you who is trying to big up your opinion, even when there is no basis behind it. So let's take your modified sentence. 'But it very nearly does' 'predict the floods'. How nearly? A little? A lot? And which floods? You've already said it isn't the ones on the Levels.
So we have a paper 'very nearly' (but not actually) predicting floods that have occurred (in the Levels) for two previous years, or in various parts of the country most years.
Given the projections dropped from JackW's McArse That Lays the Golden Haggis, it's time to look at the 'Yes' percentage market.
Ladbrokes' inimitable Shadsy, who is no fool, sets the line at 41%, offering 5/6 on both over and under that figure. So, is there value on the Under 41% market?
Maybe, but I think there's a better option: Ladbrokes' 4/1 on 35% to 40%. Not only is that in Jack's range, it also looks very good value if you look at the polling and also at Shadsy's 41% line: it's hard to see how it can both be true that there's a 50% chance of the Yes side getting less than 41% and that there is only a 20% chance of them getting 35% to 40%; if the centre of the Bell curve is indeed at 41%, then I'd expect most of the probability on the lower side of the band to be in the 35% to 41% range.
Alternatively, it might be the case that Jack is more right than Shadsy on the central projection, it which case it's an even better bet.
Personalisation of the campaign is hardly a phenomenon of the No campaign, earlier this thread we had malcolmg construing dislike of Salmond as hatred of Scotland.
I am not opposed to Scottish independence, but Salmond has not been telling the truth to the Electorate on a variety of issues, a currency union being the most recent.
Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.
There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.
Much or all of this is not Mr Salmond but down to the media's classic personalization/trivialisation strategy of equating indy with Mr Salmond. It seems to me that Mr Osborne and his allies are also whipping up divisiveness to their own ends (waving the patriotism card to fend off UKIP, and damage Labour as a bonus).
The SNP position is consistent and positive - that the Scots lay claim to pro rata share of the assets, apparatus [including BoE ], and debts of the UK of which Scotland is legally a full partner. The other option is of course the new state, no assets, no debts option, but that is not what the SNP have offered, except latterly as a default should the unionist side demand it. The unionist position has in general been far more negative and incoherent but tending to the new state view.
Now some horsetrading is inevitable - the Scots would hardly want 17% of a QE2 class aircraft carrier, for instance. But to deny currency union so early, without negotiation, is not convincing except as propaganda to influence the vote. Mr Osborne's speech has not been probed as it should be, given the obvious problems and careful omissions in it; and it is significant that he disappeared after his speech rather than be questioned on it. To give two examples: how Scottish financial sector assets being 12X GDP somehow equated directly to a banking regulatory disaster; and Mr Osborne's reluctance to discuss the advantages for EWNI of currency union - no mention of balance of payments issues, for instance. Or whether EWNI itself could meet the BoE's proposed controls which - as Mr Carney stressed - apply to both parties. Too early to say so far.
You seem to have lost of your senses and joined the other stooges on here. Name one lie from Alex Salmond. He has said he favours a currency union and believes Westminster will to when faced with reality , where is the lie in that perchance.
Intresting on the Mayoral race for London - The LAY prices are often a decent guide as to who the runners and riders are right now:
Only 3 with cash wanting to back them below 20-1 Khan, Jowell and Coe.
I can honestly see Coe going for it for the Conservatives, the IAAF top job will be the one to watch - if he doesn't go for it I think it is a strong pointer he will run for the Conservatives for the Mayor. A popular figure with the legacy of a very good Olympics held crucially in London behind him I also think he has the best chance of defeating Labour there. I'm on him at 16-1 btw.
Oh, it happens on both sides - and I don't think it is very helpful certainly on PB. But I was thinking more of the sheer scale of the UK media, especially the DT, which makes it all rather reminiscent of Emmanuel Goldstein. Mind you, that may simply be because the media outlets are all more or less Unionist - but that is not much of an excuse. And, of course, what the media say Mr Salmond says is not necessarily what Mr Salmond actually says, either in content or still more so in balance, editing, and so on.
You can edit it however you want, when Alex Salmond says it's a "diktat" to Scotland when the UK government won't do what he wants it to do, he's damned with his own words. As he is when he reacts to anyone outside of his country talking about economics as flying up from England and being ignorant of Scottishness.
Thank you. That is actually very interesting, that you should put it that way. To me, the flat denial of a currency union is indeed a denial a priori, without proper negotiation or public debate, of an element of public apparatus with associated assets, which the Scots own just as much as those in the rest of the UK, with radical implications for whatever settlement is reached. That is a diktat by any standards and needs to be challenged and explored. Moreover, it simply would not occur to me to say 'Oh, Mr Salmond will be upset that Mr Osborne is not letting him do what he wants'. It's not about what he wants, as far as we are concerned. That you or your source should see it differently isi nteresting, and perhaps relates to my point about the media portrayal. Might I ask, what sources did you use, and did you read/hear his entire speech unedited?
And for Mr Osborne to come up and talk at us, and then fly back again, without proper discussion, is undoubtedly not tactful in view of the way in which Scottish politics has developed, and in the way in which the locals might react, as has been discussed by others including Mr Easterross.
Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.
Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.
It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.
*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.
There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.
I rather dislike many Westminster politicians , of all nationalities and the troughers in HOL and I strongly hope the union is broken. The threats are all coming one way , usual big boy trying to bully the smaller opponent. If Westminster threaten to keep the assets then it is unreasonable to expect Scotland to accept Westminster's debts. The unionists seem determined to make it acrimonious as they have little positive to offer. As ever your myopic view regarding UK banks regulated by Westminster is rather disingenuous. Westminster caused the problem and then bailed out UK banks, Scotland had little say in the regulation of the bankers and therin lies the problem. A nameplate in Edinburgh does not make a bank Scottish.
You do realise that a currency is a liability, not an asset, right?
Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum
Whisky? A large proportion of the distilleries are foreign owned. Ditto the oil exploration and production businesses. Unless Eck is planning on nationalising them, the profits will keep flowing out of the promised land regardless.
Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.
Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.
It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.
*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.
There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.
I rather dislike many Westminster politicians , of all nationalities and the troughers in HOL and I strongly hope the union is broken. The threats are all coming one way , usual big boy trying to bully the smaller opponent. If Westminster threaten to keep the assets then it is unreasonable to expect Scotland to accept Westminster's debts. The unionists seem determined to make it acrimonious as they have little positive to offer. As ever your myopic view regarding UK banks regulated by Westminster is rather disingenuous. Westminster caused the problem and then bailed out UK banks, Scotland had little say in the regulation of the bankers and therin lies the problem. A nameplate in Edinburgh does not make a bank Scottish.
You do realise that a currency is a liability, not an asset, right?
Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum
What are you talking about?
"A share of the pound is ours."
As teens across the globe would put it:
What does that even mean?
For thickos like yourself it means we currently use the pound and we will continue to use it as long as we like, and we own 10% of all those in circulation.
Whilst I respect JackW's perspicacity (and that's not easy to spell at this time of day) I think he is being very optimistic for the "no" vote.
I think it will be a lot closer. If I had to guess at the moment I would say 56:44 no. I also think he is a little optimistic in turnout, especially with 16 year olds on the register.
The yes campaign has been embarrassing but there is a campaign and there is a GOTV operation dedicated to the cause. The no campaign to me seems only to exist in TV studios and it is far from clear that Labour will be in a position to use their GOTV operation to help. The Labour vote will be too fragmented for that.
So despite the absurdities I think this will get closer. And there is still the risk of a black swan event shaking everything up and making the result less predictable.
Given the projections dropped from JackW's McArse That Lays the Golden Haggis, it's time to look at the 'Yes' percentage market.
Ladbrokes' inimitable Shadsy, who is no fool, sets the line at 41%, offering 5/6 on both over and under that figure. So, is there value on the Under 41% market?
Maybe, but I think there's a better option: Ladbrokes' 4/1 on 35% to 40%. Not only is that in Jack's range, it also looks very good value if you look at the polling and also at Shadsy's 41% line: it's hard to see how it can both be true that there's a 50% chance of the Yes side getting less than 41% and that there is only a 20% chance of them getting 35% to 40%; if the centre of the Bell curve is indeed at 41%, then I'd expect most of the probability on the lower side of the band to be in the 35% to 41% range.
Alternatively, it might be the case that Jack is more right than Shadsy on the central projection, it which case it's an even better bet.
I think you have had your head up Jack's predictor
Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.
Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.
It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.
*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.
There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.
I rather dislike many Westminster politicians , of all nationalities and the troughers in HOL and I strongly hope the union is broken. The threats are all coming one way , usual big boy trying to bully the smaller opponent. If Westminster threaten to keep the assets then it is unreasonable to expect Scotland to accept Westminster's debts. The unionists seem determined to make it acrimonious as they have little positive to offer. As ever your myopic view regarding UK banks regulated by Westminster is rather disingenuous. Westminster caused the problem and then bailed out UK banks, Scotland had little say in the regulation of the bankers and therin lies the problem. A nameplate in Edinburgh does not make a bank Scottish.
You do realise that a currency is a liability, not an asset, right?
Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum
What are you talking about?
"A share of the pound is ours."
As teens across the globe would put it:
What does that even mean?
For thickos like yourself it means we currently use the pound and we will continue to use it as long as we like, and we own 10% of all those in circulation.
For those who have read the judgment of the Court of Appeal, it will be noted that the appeal turned on the interpretation of s. 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. The Court essentially made clear, quite rightly, that the Strasbourg Court's construction of that provision had been seriously erroneous. How any one can think that a court which simply failed to grasp what the law of England and Wales was (when it was perfectly clear and had been stated by the previous but one Lord Chief in Bieber) ought to have any jurisdiction over this country I fail to understand. The Strasbourg Court used an executive policy to construe primary legislation, contrary to every principle of English public law. The court is a disgrace.
Gosh, I'm sure if Eck were even aware of PB.com he'd be gratified to see so many PB Unionists dancing to a Scottish jig.
Surprised no one has commented on Al Darling's performance on C4 News last night; he was given a rougher ride than he's used to with BBC Scotland interviewers, the blink count was up to at least 100 per minute. Not comforting viewing for Unionists I'd surmise.
In today's other news, Gordon Brown is launching a campaign to tell us how our pensions would be really ****ed up in an independent Scotland.
Irony has been tortured, executed and its body dumped in a ditch.
Eck and his team of advisers are well aware of PB.com. No.10 is not the only political office which keeps a regular eye on this august political organ. There will be much angst in YESNP circles this morning at the results predicted by Jack's arse.
They will be rolling in the aisles.
Then they should keep off the meths before breakfast.
Would be refreshing if a "Yes" poster could be honest about the last week and give a positive appraisal of how they can turn it around - could even be a thread.
We just don't know whether it's been good or bad for Yes until we have seen some polling!
That's right. I think the next Indyref poll might be genuinely interesting, and I wouldn't like to predict it.
Wildly off-topic - did people know that the Conservative-led ECR welcomed Erdogan's AK party in Turkey as a member a few months ago? Erdogan has had good moments and arguably is still an improvement on the military front-men who preceded him, but his government is quite controversial and increasingly emphasising its Islamic roots. The ECR need to spread out to more countries from their UK base is perhaps trumping natural caution - they do have members scattered around now (e.g. one Dutchman) including the dodgy Baltic members who tim used to go on about and quite a few right-wing Poles and Czechs, but it's still roughly half a British Tory thing.
Whilst I respect JackW's perspicacity (and that's not easy to spell at this time of day) I think he is being very optimistic for the "no" vote.
I think it will be a lot closer. If I had to guess at the moment I would say 56:44 no. I also think he is a little optimistic in turnout, especially with 16 year olds on the register.
The yes campaign has been embarrassing but there is a campaign and there is a GOTV operation dedicated to the cause. The no campaign to me seems only to exist in TV studios and it is far from clear that Labour will be in a position to use their GOTV operation to help. The Labour vote will be too fragmented for that.
So despite the absurdities I think this will get closer. And there is still the risk of a black swan event shaking everything up and making the result less predictable.
This is not over.
With respect I think you fear a YES vote, and like someone who has backed the favourite a mile out in front you are worried about a fall at the last. Yes could win but it is a mile behind.
For those who have read the judgment of the Court of Appeal, it will be noted that the appeal turned on the interpretation of s. 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. The Court essentially made clear, quite rightly, that the Strasbourg Court's construction of that provision had been seriously erroneous. How any one can think that a court which simply failed to grasp what the law of England and Wales was (when it was perfectly clear and had been stated by the previous but one Lord Chief in Bieber) ought to have any jurisdiction over this country I fail to understand. The Strasbourg Court used an executive policy to construe primary legislation, contrary to every principle of English public law. The court is a disgrace.
I completely agree. The quality of the judgments by the ECtHR is the worst I have read. Decisions of the ECJ are a paragon of clarity and reasoning by comparison. It brings the Court and the Convention itself into disrepute.
Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.
Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.
It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.
*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.
There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.
.
You do realise that a currency is a liability, not an asset, right?
Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum
Whisky? A large proportion of the distilleries are foreign owned. Ditto the oil exploration and production businesses. Unless Eck is planning on nationalising them, the profits will keep flowing out of the promised land regardless.
Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum
You're quite entitled to have your share of UK currency reserves after the split, as well as a share of the Bank's assets. What you're not entitled to is for the UK Government to consider your interests when setting monetary policy, or for the UK Government to act as a lender of last resort for your economy. In the same way, you don't get a share of the Treasury's decisions, or a share of the Defence department's decisions. That's what separation means: removing yourself from UK institutions.
who wants a share of the morons at defence. If we have 10% of the currency reserves and we own 10% of the Treasury ( BofE ) then I would suspect we would get some say in the matter. We would need to check rumpUK budgets to ensure they did not drag us down with their profligate borrowing habits.
Comments
The only reason that it is not a 100% waste of time discussing this is that following a NO vote there will be some kind of Devo max negotiations and I believe that Devo max won't look a whole lot different to a YES with currency union.
Sep .. Yes 42% .. No 58%
Oct .. Yes 39.5% .. No 60.5%
Jan .. Yes 38% .. No 62%
Feb .. Yes 36% .. No 64%
A good friend of mine is a German living in Scotland who has decided not to vote in the referendum on the principle that it's the sort of decision that should be made by Scottish people. If some of the English temporarily resident in Scotland take the same view then the turnout could be relatively low for reasons of principle rather than apathy.
He did well in the US presidential elections, but don't know about other previous predictions.
You may think he's wrong, but it's always useful to know what smart analysts are thinking
Surprised no one has commented on Al Darling's performance on C4 News last night; he was given a rougher ride than he's used to with BBC Scotland interviewers, the blink count was up to at least 100 per minute. Not comforting viewing for Unionists I'd surmise.
In today's other news, Gordon Brown is launching a campaign to tell us how our pensions would be really ****ed up in an independent Scotland.
http://tinyurl.com/nnmhldl
Irony has been tortured, executed and its body dumped in a ditch.
I'm not convinced about the maize arguments (it will be a factor of some size, but I doubt it's major). However I am fairly convinced that lack of dredging *is* a major factor. It will not have stopped these floods, but it may have the 2011 and 2012 ones.
Just seems weird that you would get annoyed about something that is trivial and none of your business
UK CPI inflation drops from 2pc in Dec to 1.9pc in Jan. First time it's been below target since late 2009
Wonder what Ed Balls has to say now!
UK inflation falls to 1.9%
Fantastic.
You seem to be the only person confused and that is your problem and not mine.
If you had been with PB a little longer you would have realised that my ARSE has an incomparable record of making outstanding projections over several elections here and across the pond.
So may I suggest that instead of quibbling, that you like most other PBers simply embrace my magnificent organ and enjoy .... and the profits that go with it.
The SNP position is consistent and positive - that the Scots lay claim to pro rata share of the assets, apparatus [including BoE ], and debts of the UK of which Scotland is legally a full partner. The other option is of course the new state, no assets, no debts option, but that is not what the SNP have offered, except latterly as a default should the unionist side demand it. The unionist position has in general been far more negative and incoherent but tending to the new state view.
Now some horsetrading is inevitable - the Scots would hardly want 17% of a QE2 class aircraft carrier, for instance. But to deny currency union so early, without negotiation, is not convincing except as propaganda to influence the vote. Mr Osborne's speech has not been probed as it should be, given the obvious problems and careful omissions in it; and it is significant that he disappeared after his speech rather than be questioned on it. To give two examples: how Scottish financial sector assets being 12X GDP somehow equated directly to a banking regulatory disaster; and Mr Osborne's reluctance to discuss the advantages for EWNI of currency union - no mention of balance of payments issues, for instance. Or whether EWNI itself could meet the BoE's proposed controls which - as Mr Carney stressed - apply to both parties. Too early to say so far.
I also disagree on the divisiveness, or lack thereof, of Osborne/Balls/Alexander. They're setting out the UK position should independence occur. You cannot expect them to remain mute whilst Salmond tells of mana raining from the sky to nourish the chosen people of God.
Balance of payments is a legitimate issue to raise, but so are the many reasons against a currency union (not least the lack of a desire for one from the English, Welsh and Northern Irish). Salmond's 'deconstruction' amounted to naming a tax after an Englishman and saying "Yes we can" when it comes to forcing a foreign country (as it would be) into a currency union.
Court of Appeal to announce ruling on whole-life terms
I heard on the radio a human rights lawyer talking about the 'possibility' of release after each block of 25 years. But whenever I hear a human rights/parole type person mention the word 'possibility' I always consider them to mean 'will be unless there is cause not to' - which generally then means 'will be let out'
I hope our court of appeal stands firm on this one.
And Sterling is not "an asset" of the UK - it is a monetary instrument of the UK government - which Salmind knows, but chooses to misrepresent. If the UK splits, Sterling stays with the continuing state, the country departing having given up its right to use it.
You seem very easily confused. There is no 'class war' here - and I am a unionist. I merely want to know what Jack's methodology is. I have asked him quite politely a number of times and he has simply fobbed me off. All he had to say was "I'd prefer not to tell you thanks". How you equate that with class war, only you know.
With regards to your specific point - there have been no polls since the currency row. Even Jack doesn't classify his projection as a poll.
Wow, what great prediction that was.
The severity of the flooding has been exacerbated by the lack of dredging, fewer pumps and their reduced maintenance, and the subsequent inability to move water towards the sea at a higher rate.
I am not opposed to Scottish independence, but Salmond has not been telling the truth to the Electorate on a variety of issues, a currency union being the most recent.
My ARSE US projections have been outstanding.
In 08 Missouri let me down, mighty close but no cigar, and in 12 Florida did for me. I had Romney to edge the state by 0.5%. It comes to something when you can't rely on the GOP to fix Florida in a close race .... hanging chads, my arse !!
If you can't be bothered to read the things I link to why can you be bothered to argue about them?
It's pointless to argue about something you haven't read, because you are arguing about things that you *think* it says, rather than the things it *actually* says.
Stop being so silly.
Even if 'Eck and his team of advisers are well aware of PB.com', they'd be hard put to distinguish the outpourings of one arse from another.
I would have assumed that English residents in Scotland would be most likely to vote for the Union, if they vote, because they will have first-hand experience of the advantages that being in the Union bring to making it easier to move across the border.
Court of Appeal upholds the principle of whole life terms for most serious killers in England and Wales.
Excellent....
The Grand Poobahs of the SNP (and all the other parties) invited Mike up to Holyrood last year for a few days to listen to Mike's thoughts and opinions on how the referendum might turn out and what they should and shouldn't do.
Mike left with the impression that Yes could win and if he had a vote, he'd vote yes.
There's no need to disfigure Irony's cold, dead body.
The SNP leadership do not trust the Scottish electorate to make the right decision if the full facts of independence are discussed. In that sense they are very different to other members of the Yes side, such as Jim Sillars and Patrick Harvie. Salmond and Sturgeon both know that the vision of the independence process they are peddling is complete nonsense, but their aim is to win the vote - nothing more.
You have indeed politely requested the ARSE methodology and I have rebuffed you. I do not issue details of my own patent methodology.
Might I suggest that you simply embrace my ARSE and not try to over anal-yse it.
At least you now admit that the paper did no such thing.
The sad thing is I don't think we're a million miles apart on this issue, it's just the degree the causes (and there will be multiple) have on the floods.
Far too many rows to be had.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/salmond-didnt-even-come-close-rebutting-osbornes-currency-threat
"But today, Panglossian as ever, he unambiguously failed on his own terms. "
But it would at least be more honest to the residents than EA's current policy.
but you might not be wrong.
Which if you'd bother to read the extract from the abstract that I posted in the thread, or the abstract itself, or Monbiot's article, or understood basic grammar, you might have understood.
Your blind insistence on disagreeing with Monbiot for ideological reasons is clouding your judgement.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/suicides-in-the-united-kingdom/2012/index.html?WT.mc_id=a67630d79aa3a85d0468225f5df3bef2&WT.z_taxonomy=population&WT.z_format=headline&WT.z_content=post&WT.z_trigger=proactive
Next thing they'll be sniffing some old codgers arse for comfort.
*chortle*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26234092
The number of UK-born children thought to have been trafficked for sexual exploitation more than doubled last year, the National Crime Agency said.
The most common nationality or country of origin for child victims of trafficking (not just for sexual abuse) was Vietnam, followed by the UK and then Albania.
This is actually a really serious issue that deserves attention, as much as the more disgusting posters on here like to accuse anyone concerned about it as "an obsessive" as a way to score points against those they disagree with.
It is one of the big disappointments of this campaign that the level of critical analysis has been so uneven, when one side's speeches are treated with relative deference and the other side's smallest remarks are taken out of context and seized on for weeks and made to bear meanings they never had. Moreover, such asymmetry makes the contests very difficult to call, partly because the media reports do not necessarily bear any close relation to the actual situation. Just look at the reporting of Mr Carney's speech, for instance.
On the currency union truth issue, I'd say that the question is whether Mr Salmond or Mr Osborne is more likely to be right in saying that there would be one in the event of a Yes vote; that this has not been negotiated yet; and that Mr Osborne's speech and the media coverage has been notably, let's say, incomplete. So I'm keeping an open mind for now.
ROFLPBtorypandashrieksurge 359, substantive comment nil.
A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum
Expect saliency of the currency to increase and the polls continue to show no movement - not good for Yes.
The price for independence has moved out to 9/2 on the betting markets from 4/1 where OGH bought in heavily. He is a patient and steady gambler but that 9/2 may not move in. I'd probably buy at 11/2 right now.
The next poll is crucial - unless there is a decent swing to Yes the referendum is lost.
It's not hit VI but I doubt the shambles around the blame game or deploying Pickles as flood response/sandbag has helped much with the competence perception. Nor will the slow response have helped the out of touch ratings that Cammie enjoys. However, this should have been an easy boost for the kippers as a protest party yet they are still not repeating the rise in VI that preceded last May's local elections. Those EU and local elections might still be a few months away but they are closing in fast and the campaigns for each party are already taking shape.
Even flipper Darling had to admit that last night after being called out on the same LIE.
East Fife 5 .. Forfar 4
"A share of the pound is ours."
As teens across the globe would put it:
What does that even mean?
It's like a convention of the Flat Earth Society held on a space station, with everyone sitting with their back to the window.
Floundering politicians often claim that they were misquoted, or things taken out of context. Salmond is no different to the rest.
Barosso is back pedalling very quickly on his lies.
What is to turn around , the Scottish Government has a printed plan it is sticking to , the unionists change with the weather and focus group opinions. Idiots like yourself who are not in Scotland and have no vote take their positions from London newspapers.
I do understand basic grammar thanks, and I understand what it means when someone uses 'all but'.
It's you who is trying to big up your opinion, even when there is no basis behind it. So let's take your modified sentence. 'But it very nearly does' 'predict the floods'. How nearly? A little? A lot? And which floods? You've already said it isn't the ones on the Levels.
So we have a paper 'very nearly' (but not actually) predicting floods that have occurred (in the Levels) for two previous years, or in various parts of the country most years.
Ladbrokes' inimitable Shadsy, who is no fool, sets the line at 41%, offering 5/6 on both over and under that figure. So, is there value on the Under 41% market?
Maybe, but I think there's a better option: Ladbrokes' 4/1 on 35% to 40%. Not only is that in Jack's range, it also looks very good value if you look at the polling and also at Shadsy's 41% line: it's hard to see how it can both be true that there's a 50% chance of the Yes side getting less than 41% and that there is only a 20% chance of them getting 35% to 40%; if the centre of the Bell curve is indeed at 41%, then I'd expect most of the probability on the lower side of the band to be in the 35% to 41% range.
Alternatively, it might be the case that Jack is more right than Shadsy on the central projection, it which case it's an even better bet.
Only 3 with cash wanting to back them below 20-1 Khan, Jowell and Coe.
I can honestly see Coe going for it for the Conservatives, the IAAF top job will be the one to watch - if he doesn't go for it I think it is a strong pointer he will run for the Conservatives for the Mayor. A popular figure with the legacy of a very good Olympics held crucially in London behind him I also think he has the best chance of defeating Labour there. I'm on him at 16-1 btw.
And for Mr Osborne to come up and talk at us, and then fly back again, without proper discussion, is undoubtedly not tactful in view of the way in which Scottish politics has developed, and in the way in which the locals might react, as has been discussed by others including Mr Easterross.
I think it will be a lot closer. If I had to guess at the moment I would say 56:44 no. I also think he is a little optimistic in turnout, especially with 16 year olds on the register.
The yes campaign has been embarrassing but there is a campaign and there is a GOTV operation dedicated to the cause. The no campaign to me seems only to exist in TV studios and it is far from clear that Labour will be in a position to use their GOTV operation to help. The Labour vote will be too fragmented for that.
So despite the absurdities I think this will get closer. And there is still the risk of a black swan event shaking everything up and making the result less predictable.
This is not over.
Wildly off-topic - did people know that the Conservative-led ECR welcomed Erdogan's AK party in Turkey as a member a few months ago? Erdogan has had good moments and arguably is still an improvement on the military front-men who preceded him, but his government is quite controversial and increasingly emphasising its Islamic roots. The ECR need to spread out to more countries from their UK base is perhaps trumping natural caution - they do have members scattered around now (e.g. one Dutchman) including the dodgy Baltic members who tim used to go on about and quite a few right-wing Poles and Czechs, but it's still roughly half a British Tory thing.
I think this is less a matter of having risen from the wrong side of the bed this morning, and more that doing so by any exit was a grave mistake.