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.
Grants is still Scottish with 10% of the market..
And of the remaining 90%, how much do Diageo and Beam own?
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.
Where would you like your 10% of the Trident warheads delivered?
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 are right, and also I think it could be worth backing 40-45 at 7/2 as well, giving you 11/8 about 35-45%
If you rate the Ladbrokes guy as a judge, taking 11/8 that his level is within a 10 point spread can't be bad
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.
Look at any note in your wallet. They all say that I/the bank "promise to pay the Bearer on demand x pounds sterling at" their registered office.
Every bank note is an IOU, it is a promise to pay. So saying that Scotland "owns" 10% of them means we owe 10% of the IOUs. In fact since even Scottish banks print under licence from the BoE they promise to pay. These promises are used as a means of exchange to facilitate trade. They are not an asset.
This is just silly Malcolm, you know better than this.
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.
Grants is still Scottish with 10% of the market..
And of the remaining 90%, how much do Diageo and Beam own?
Diageo just have the 34% , Pernod 15%. Whyte and Mackay have 3% - but owned by Indian firm.
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 ?
Since you've managed to ask a question without an insult, I'll try.
The Yes campaign will continue on its multifarious way, that's the whole point of a grass roots campaign. It's a commonly voiced though slightly disingenuous complaint from undecideds that they're not getting enough information. Well, there's only one side making an effort to provide it, with at least one and frequently several meetings & events a night. There's no 'one size fits all' decision for independence, and if it takes Tommy Sheridan, Nicola Sturgeon, Jim Sillars, Patrick Harvie, Dennis Canavan, The Proclaimers or Academics for Indy to help make it, great.
Bettertogether have shown a complete unwillingness to debate from top to bottom, and they're preferred strategy is to try and get Yes campaigners banned from public events because they can't find anyone to put on the ground themselves. If their desire to inform consists of a Tory chancellor stamping about Edinburgh in his size 9 Grensons, taking 3 questions and then buggering off, they're struggling. As far as I can see their ONLY strategy is to hope their lead doesn't bleed out in 7 months, with a potential side order of petrified undecideds.
As far as the metanarratives of currency and the EU go, there are a lot of pro EU people very pissed off with Barroso; if you think they're going to turn to a Westminster coalition running scared of UKIP and promising an EU referendum, well, get your mortgage on a No vote. The currency battle has descended to a low calculating streetfight, I'd wait for the next polling before making any predictions. If there's a bounce for Yes, I'd disagree that that'll dissipate before the referendum when voters coolly rationalise the issue. The next seven months will have a dearth of cool rationality.
Last tip, concentrate on the Scottish press for how things are going down in Scotland. As Indy sceptic as they are, they still have a better insight than London-centric outlets, regardless of whether it's the Guardian, Mail or Telegraph.
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.
David I almost agree 100% with you, feet on the street will play a big part and NO have little to no-one as you say which is the opposite of the YES side. People are blase now about BBC propaganda , they have cried wolf far too often. We see buffoons like Carmichael and Darling at very long intervals. All Labour spoke persons are absent , Tories and Lib Dems are not in it and so their main weapon now is London politician's and that is going down well. I think you may have your numbers reversed which is our only difference.
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.
@JosiasJessop - Please accept my apology for the rudeness of my responses to you this morning.
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.
Thanks for the apology; it is of course accepted. Although I don't think you were particularly rude (and please let's not start arguing over that!). It was just the cut and thrust of such a site.
And I hope I didn't push things too far; sorry if I did.
The great thing about my job is that I could just about work from bed most of the time, thus stopping all of this nonsensical getting-out-of-bed nonsense.
Mr Pork - It is not the unionists who are clinging for comfort here. The polls have relentlessly shown no movement
Wrong. They have shown a narrowing. Nor do you seem aware of Holyrood VI. You should have looked that up as it has a direct bearing on competence/trust for the SNP/Salmond among scottish voters.
Your assertion that the EU and currency will shoot up in salience indicates you are unaware of what has already transpired. We've had Osborne scaremongering on this since 2012 with more than one big speech. The No campaign have been banging away relentlessly on the EU and currency for even longer. Granted, it's obviously because they have no positive vision to offer the scottish public but years of that should have impacted in the salience of those two issues long before now if they were the 'magic bullet' the No campaign think they are. They are 7th and 8th in the scottish public's priorities for Independence with 3% and 2% of the scottish public rating them most important. So the No campaign doesn't just need them to go up a bit. They need them to rocket up, and more importantly stay up. You're confusing the volume and intensity of the shrieking from the PB tories on this issue with it's actual potency.
Labour's campaign for the scottish election 2011 was unambiguously negative. It started out negative and when the polls narrowed and things started going very badly for labour in the final weeks of the campaign they merely doubled down on the negativity. Didn't turn out too well for them as it happens. We know that scottish labour are employing some of the exact same people behind their 2011 campaign for the Independence referendum so it matters. Cammie too is quite likely taking advice from the same people behind the No to AV vote. The thing is, No to AV had a mighty weapon to help them with their negativity and they exploited it ruthlessly. Clegg. That's why their negative campaigning was effective. Who on earth trusted Clegg by the time the AV vote was held? Not very many at all. Well I'm sorry to have to break it to you but Clegg is on the No side this time right alongside Cammie, Osborne, Ed Balls and little Ed. So good luck with that when the Independence referendum boils down to trust.
Your faith in the next set of polls being the deciding ones is also very wrong. Yes to AV were leading months out from the referendum as was Labour in the 2011 scottish elections. This will get decided in the final weeks of the campaign just as it was for those two. That's when the wall to wall media coverage truly kicks in with the big setpiece debates and the ground campaigns and GOTV fully engaged. Anyone dumb enough to think the ground campaign or GOTV won't matter is going to be in for one hell of a shock. Every vote will count. If No doubles down on negativity then they had better have far more activists on the ground to GOTV than has been in evidence thus far.
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.
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.
Priceless.
You do not like the truth then, think before you try to be a smart arse.
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.
You are absolutely right, I do fear a yes vote and I do not rule it out. Logic and common sense are both greatly overrated qualities.
Salmond said he had legal advice on joining the EU. This was shown to be untrue. He has also made claims about currency union and its inevitability that are clearly untrue. He has threatened to walk away from Scotlands debts without explaining how this would affect the Scottish economy. He talks of bluffing and bluster by Westminster politicians but is astonishingly lacking in insight to his own.
I did not say he is a liar, but he certainly loves half truths.
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).
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.
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.
I think AfD, who are likely to get MEPs elected in Germany, want to join the ECR. Law and Justice will probably gain seats in Poland, and the Conservatives will lose seats in the UK, so the Conservatives certainly won't provide half the members of the group after May 22nd.
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.
(1) Owning 10% of currency reserves doesn't mean you get any say in anything. It just means you have a pile of money to go take somewhere else. (2) You won't own 10% of the Treasury or any other UK government institution. That's what leaving means. (3) The Treasury is not the Bank of England.
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.
Considering how authoritarian the Turkish government has been recently, it seems they'd fit well with the Tories.
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.
Sadly I must decline as since the inception of PB, and much to my financial detriment, I have enacted a policy of not wagering with fellow PBers.
As ever, thanks for the hard work and effort you undertake on your ARSE. But on this occasion I think you are wrong on both counts: my own personal survey of a Scottish engineer I met in the car park outside Mrs J's office this morning shows that independence will occur, and with 100% turnout (or 0% if he is down here in civilisation on the polling day).
Being serious for a moment (why?), I think it's going to be closer than your latest outpourings show, and the turnout will be less.
Are you sure that a Pooh in the pipes hasn't affected the output from your ARSE?
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.
Yes, you can, but interest rates will be set without you, meaning you'll get even more of a boom and bust cycle, and you'll face higher borrowing rates due to the fact you don't have a lender of last resort.
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.
Yes, the Scots own the "associated assets" just as much as the UK, but they won't own any part of the UK institutions. That's what leaving means. A diktat is telling Scotland what to do. That's not happening at all. George Osborne is just saying what the UK won't do. It is Salmond who is trying to tell the country he's proposing to leave what to do after he's left.
As for media portrayal, I read his full speech unedited:
As for politicians going somewhere, giving a speech and then leaving, that happens in every part of the country. The only difference is that the rest of the country doesn't have a huge chip on the shoulder over and doesn't take offence over stupid shit.
It might make climate change more of an issue, which is clearly a good thing generally, and might benefit Labour slightly
It's also hilarious watching the PB tories cringe as they are reminded time and again that Cammie is also fully signed up to climate change. Apart from the sheer entertainment of that it won't help Cammie with the tory kipper waverers who are fairly unlikely to be as pro climate change as he is.
Must we have every thread for the next 6 months hijacked by endless Scottish referendum wittering ? Day after day now we've had this going on- the original topic is subverted as quickly as possibly and then followed by 292 postings about Scotland complete with hilarious side splitting references to "wee Eck" etc etc ad infinitum. Make it cease - it is making this site boring.
Of course lack of a currency union will mean the death of the Scottish designed notes.
Still the Winston Churchill fiver will be out to cheer all and sundry.
If things get even close in the run up to the vote I will be looking to trade in my Scottish notes for BoE Sterling and I suspect many others will too. I will also be moving my savings into an English registered institution (this will not of itself move markets).
This nonsense risks serious disruption to the Scottish economy which is doing well at the moment and Salmond's absurdity is risking making it worse.
North Cornwall MP Dan Rogerson is the "Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) with responsibility for water, forestry, resource management and rural affairs."
So his opponents should be able to paint him as the person responsible for any perceived failure of gov't responsibility highlighted by the floods.
Must we have every thread for the next 6 months hijacked by endless Scottish referendum wittering ? Day after day now we've had this going on- the original topic is subverted as quickly as possibly and then followed by 292 postings about Scotland complete with hilarious side splitting references to "wee Eck" etc etc ad infinitum. Make it cease - it is making this site boring.
Hortence it is the big political issue of 2014 though - I go off topic more than most here but if we can't wind up the nats discuss this on politicalbetting.com where can we ?
Must we have every thread for the next 6 months hijacked by endless Scottish referendum wittering ? Day after day now we've had this going on- the original topic is subverted as quickly as possibly and then followed by 292 postings about Scotland complete with hilarious side splitting references to "wee Eck" etc etc ad infinitum. Make it cease - it is making this site boring.
All it will take is a good poll or two, or some positive publicity for Yes, and it will calm down
The other argument Salmond brings up for a currency union, is that Scottish oil would help the sterling zones' balance of payments. I'm pretty shocked there hasn't been any scrutiny of this point because, while true, it doesn't help the rUK one bit, so is meaningless to the debate. How do Danish exports help France, just because they're in the eurozone? The only way it would possibly matter is that it could strengthen the exchange rate and thus weaken the rUK's competitiveness, which would be a negative. In reality, Scotland's economy is so small compared to the rUK it would barely have any impact at all. It's thus just a good sounding soundbite without any logic behind it.
With regards to betting on independence, the finest odds can be gained from the United Kingdom's stupidest bookmaker, pb's very own "uniondivvie", who will accept large bets on NO to win at evens. This enables anyone with an IQ over 7 to guarantee a handsome profit, whatever the result, by then going to other, less retarded bookmakers and placing a bet on YES.
The only problem is his mental slowness: it can be a vexing and prolonged process to get a confirmed bet out of him; on the other hand, if you are prepared to endure his tedious screeds, with a judicious amount of emotional goading he can be pricked into doubling his already idiotic wagers.
I recommend him heartily.
I'm afraid us mortals can only get 4/9 from him - which is still fantastic value though.
With regards to betting on independence, the finest odds can be gained from the United Kingdom's stupidest bookmaker, pb's very own "uniondivvie", who will accept large bets on NO to win at evens. This enables anyone with an IQ over 7 to guarantee a handsome profit, whatever the result, by then going to other, less stupid bookmakers and placing a bet on YES.
The only problem is his mental slowness: it can be a vexing and prolonged process to get a confirmed bet out of him; on the other hand, if you are prepared to endure his tedious screeds, with a judicious amount of emotional goading he can be pricked into doubling his already idiotic wagers.
I recommend him heartily.
On the other hand, I had a good size bet that Mitt Romney would win the GOP nomination in 2012 with Philippe Magnan. I was tempted to hedge my exposure via bets with the bookmakers, but am damn glad I didn't, considering he welched on the bet and disappeared.
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.
Maybe he'd be an option for EU Commissioner, too? Clear record of achievement, unimpeachably Conservative, not particularly controversial, no by-election...
It might make climate change more of an issue, which is clearly a good thing generally, and might benefit Labour slightly
It's also hilarious watching the PB tories cringe as they are reminded time and again that Cammie is also fully signed up to climate change. Apart from the sheer entertainment of that it won't help Cammie with the tory kipper waverers who are fairly unlikely to be as pro climate change as he is.
Everyone is pro climate change - unless you don't want seasons ?
I've noticed recently that the fuel prices seem to have eased recently, and looking at the data it seems as though this is the lowest they have been since the large increases leading up to the Omnishambles budget, about three years ago.
The possibility of a link between fuel prices and voting intention has been discussed on pb.com before, so I thought this might be of interest. Although the media attention at the time was on pasties and income tax cuts, the period of decreasing vote share for the Tories may also have been partly because of large increases in fuel prices.
If so, and the present dip in prices is maintained or deepened, then this could have an impact on the government's fortunes.
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.
Maybe he'd be an option for EU Commissioner, too? Clear record of achievement, unimpeachably Conservative, not particularly controversial, no by-election...
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.
Maybe he'd be an option for EU Commissioner, too? Clear record of achievement, unimpeachably Conservative, not particularly controversial, no by-election...
Mail overcooking it as usual but there is no doubt that little Ed is proving less than receptive to Clegg's somewhat pathetic overtures for any theoretical future coalition/lib lab pact
Here's why 'decapitation' is just a bit of a stretch.
Worth noting Nick Clegg has a 15k maj in #Sheffield Hallam.
Not to say it might not be a good idea tactically as it's painfully obvious the lib dem activist base is being hammered year on year while Clegg has made it quite clear that circling the wagons on the lib dems safest seats to protect them is priority number 1. If Clegg has to deploy a big effort just to make sure he wins comfortably then that is a finite resource he will be using in his own seat and not elsewhere.
With regards to betting on independence, the finest odds can be gained from the United Kingdom's stupidest bookmaker, pb's very own "uniondivvie", who will accept large bets on NO to win at evens. This enables anyone with an IQ over 7 to guarantee a handsome profit, whatever the result, by then going to other, less stupid bookmakers and placing a bet on YES.
The only problem is his mental slowness: it can be a vexing and prolonged process to get a confirmed bet out of him; on the other hand, if you are prepared to endure his tedious screeds, with a judicious amount of emotional goading he can be pricked into doubling his already idiotic wagers.
I recommend him heartily.
On the other hand, I had a good size bet that Mitt Romney would win the GOP nomination in 2012 with Philippe Magnan. I was tempted to hedge my exposure via bets with the bookmakers, but am damn glad I didn't, considering he welched on the bet and disappeared.
We should compile a white-list and black-list of those who pay up and those who welch. I can confirm for one that iSam settles up very promptly. I hope not to make either list though I think I have may have a bet with Charles that could turn out to be a loser. I can't for the life of me remember the details though as it was made pre-vanilla. My bet with Antifrank may also be a loser com GE2015 but I feel I have the better side of that one. I am VERY confident about my oil price bet with Fluffy thoughts and reasonably so about my Independence bet with TUD.
I do not anticipate any of TUD, Antifrank or Fluffy Thoughts welching.
With regards to betting on independence, the finest odds can be gained from the United Kingdom's stupidest bookmaker, pb's very own "uniondivvie", who will accept large bets on NO to win at evens. This enables anyone with an IQ over 7 to guarantee a handsome profit, whatever the result, by then going to other, less stupid bookmakers and placing a bet on YES.
The only problem is his mental slowness: it can be a vexing and prolonged process to get a confirmed bet out of him; on the other hand, if you are prepared to endure his tedious screeds, with a judicious amount of emotional goading he can be pricked into doubling his already idiotic wagers.
I recommend him heartily.
You think £100 is a handsome profit? Oh well.
Is your pal Gildas a betting man? For some unaccountable reason he's stopped having his tuppence worth on matters Scottish.
Mail overcooking it as usual but there is no doubt that little Ed is proving less than receptive to Clegg's somewhat pathetic overtures for any theoretical future coalition/lib lab pact
Here's why 'decapitation' is just a bit of a stretch.
Worth noting Nick Clegg has a 15k maj in #Sheffield Hallam.
Not to say it might not be a good idea tactically as it's painfully obvious the lib dem activist base is being hammered year on year while Clegg has made it quite clear that circling the wagons on the lib dems safest seats to protect them is priority number 1. If Clegg has to deploy a big effort just to make sure he wins comfortably then that is a finite resource he will be using in his own seat and not elsewhere.
With regards to betting on independence, the finest odds can be gained from the United Kingdom's stupidest bookmaker, pb's very own "uniondivvie", who will accept large bets on NO to win at evens. This enables anyone with an IQ over 7 to guarantee a handsome profit, whatever the result, by then going to other, less stupid bookmakers and placing a bet on YES.
The only problem is his mental slowness: it can be a vexing and prolonged process to get a confirmed bet out of him; on the other hand, if you are prepared to endure his tedious screeds, with a judicious amount of emotional goading he can be pricked into doubling his already idiotic wagers.
I recommend him heartily.
You think £100 is a handsome profit? Oh well.
Is your pal Gildas a betting man? For some unaccountable reason he's stopped having his tuppence worth on matters Scottish.
With regards to betting on independence, the finest odds can be gained from the United Kingdom's stupidest bookmaker, pb's very own "uniondivvie", who will accept large bets on NO to win at evens. This enables anyone with an IQ over 7 to guarantee a handsome profit, whatever the result, by then going to other, less stupid bookmakers and placing a bet on YES.
The only problem is his mental slowness: it can be a vexing and prolonged process to get a confirmed bet out of him; on the other hand, if you are prepared to endure his tedious screeds, with a judicious amount of emotional goading he can be pricked into doubling his already idiotic wagers.
I recommend him heartily.
On the other hand, I had a good size bet that Mitt Romney would win the GOP nomination in 2012 with Philippe Magnan. I was tempted to hedge my exposure via bets with the bookmakers, but am damn glad I didn't, considering he welched on the bet and disappeared.
We should compile a white-list and black-list of those who pay up and those who welch.
What I am failing to get is how any other party other than the SNP can rule an independent Scotland, should they vote yes
if yes wins it must cement SNP in govt for at least a decade
SNP has such a broad spectrum at present due to the independence factor , that will disappear after a YES vote and many will likely drift away as other real Scottish parties are formed.
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.
The great unanswered question, whether EWNI could conform to the Carney requirements.
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.
Where would you like your 10% of the Trident warheads delivered?
It might be worth reading Robert Rhodes's latest on nuclear arms and in particular what happened when the USSR split up. Some of the warheads were or could be (I forget which, can't lay my hands on the book at the moment) sold to the US for very good money - not merely to prevent spread of the tech but also to feed the civil nuclear power market.
Must we have every thread for the next 6 months hijacked by endless Scottish referendum wittering ? Day after day now we've had this going on- the original topic is subverted as quickly as possibly and then followed by 292 postings about Scotland complete with hilarious side splitting references to "wee Eck" etc etc ad infinitum. Make it cease - it is making this site boring.
Hortence it is the big political issue of 2014 though - I go off topic more than most here but if we can't wind up the nats discuss this on politicalbetting.com where can we ?
OK, whatever turns you on, by does it have to be all day everyday? I don't think any of the contributors to the debate have said anything new for days, and having the same people repeating the same points hour after hour day after day has got pretty tedious. Maybe TSE could set up a PB2 page devoted to the subject and those who want to can go there a repeat themselves to their hearts' content.
On a completely different note, Mr. Pulpstar, this morning Goggle is refusing to allow me to access the PlayDiplomacy.com site - says it contains malware. Bit of a bugger as there is a deadline this afternoon. Can you get access?
With regards to betting on independence, the finest odds can be gained from the United Kingdom's stupidest bookmaker, pb's very own "uniondivvie", who will accept large bets on NO to win at evens. This enables anyone with an IQ over 7 to guarantee a handsome profit, whatever the result, by then going to other, less stupid bookmakers and placing a bet on YES.
The only problem is his mental slowness: it can be a vexing and prolonged process to get a confirmed bet out of him; on the other hand, if you are prepared to endure his tedious screeds, with a judicious amount of emotional goading he can be pricked into doubling his already idiotic wagers.
I recommend him heartily.
On the other hand, I had a good size bet that Mitt Romney would win the GOP nomination in 2012 with Philippe Magnan. I was tempted to hedge my exposure via bets with the bookmakers, but am damn glad I didn't, considering he welched on the bet and disappeared.
We should compile a white-list and black-list of those who pay up and those who welch. I can confirm for one that iSam settles up very promptly. I hope not to make either list though I think I have may have a bet with Charles that could turn out to be a loser. I can't for the life of me remember the details though as it was made pre-vanilla. My bet with Antifrank may also be a loser com GE2015 but I feel I have the better side of that one. I am VERY confident about my oil price bet with Fluffy thoughts and reasonably so about my Independence bet with TUD.
I do not anticipate any of TUD, Antifrank or Fluffy Thoughts welching.
What's the deal w tim and long term bets?
I have some with him, and as it stands he can come back to the site and collect winnings, but stay away if he loses
Salmond said he had legal advice on joining the EU. This was shown to be untrue. He has also made claims about currency union and its inevitability that are clearly untrue. He has threatened to walk away from Scotlands debts without explaining how this would affect the Scottish economy. He talks of bluffing and bluster by Westminster politicians but is astonishingly lacking in insight to his own.
I did not say he is a liar, but he certainly loves half truths.
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).
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.
Fox, Alex Salmond never at any time said he had legal opinion on the EU. He said that as per standard rules the SNP would never divulge any legal opinion it had. If idiots chose that to mean he had legal opinion it is hardly his fault.
Must we have every thread for the next 6 months hijacked by endless Scottish referendum wittering ? Day after day now we've had this going on- the original topic is subverted as quickly as possibly and then followed by 292 postings about Scotland complete with hilarious side splitting references to "wee Eck" etc etc ad infinitum. Make it cease - it is making this site boring.
Hortence it is the big political issue of 2014 though - I go off topic more than most here but if we can't wind up the nats discuss this on politicalbetting.com where can we ?
OK, whatever turns you on, by does it have to be all day everyday? I don't think any of the contributors to the debate have said anything new for days, and having the same people repeating the same points hour after hour day after day has got pretty tedious. Maybe TSE could set up a PB2 page devoted to the subject and those who want to can go there a repeat themselves to their hearts' content.
On a completely different note, Mr. Pulpstar, this morning Goggle is refusing to allow me to access the PlayDiplomacy.com site - says it contains malware. Bit of a bugger as there is a deadline this afternoon. Can you get access?
You can get past the popup - Advanced - Enter at own risk. It is a slight concern though.
I've noticed recently that the fuel prices seem to have eased recently, and looking at the data it seems as though this is the lowest they have been since the large increases leading up to the Omnishambles budget, about three years ago.
The possibility of a link between fuel prices and voting intention has been discussed on pb.com before, so I thought this might be of interest. Although the media attention at the time was on pasties and income tax cuts, the period of decreasing vote share for the Tories may also have been partly because of large increases in fuel prices.
If so, and the present dip in prices is maintained or deepened, then this could have an impact on the government's fortunes.
One of my pet hobby horses is this link to fuel prices (I think I may have been the person who pointed this out, way back when...)
I still have a wry smile at mention of the "Omnishambles" budget. Whilst the media focussed on pasties, Osborne had actually set out the means to get growth racing along in the economy, and the best chance of re-election.
How many votes will Greggs get in 2015 from the Omnishambles, I wonder...?
The simple fact is that Governments no longer get any credit for things going right, they just get the blame when things go wrong even when they are not at fault.
The best example of this is the Olympics.
In a post olympic poll only 1% of people gave credit to the Government for the olympics going well. You can imagine that if things had gone wrong then over 90% would have blamed the government.
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.
Yes, you can, but interest rates will be set without you, meaning you'll get even more of a boom and bust cycle, and you'll face higher borrowing rates due to the fact you don't have a lender of last resort.
Who says we will be borrowing money , we may choose to live within our means , wouldn't that be novel.
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.
Yes, you can, but interest rates will be set without you, meaning you'll get even more of a boom and bust cycle, and you'll face higher borrowing rates due to the fact you don't have a lender of last resort.
Who says we will be borrowing money , we may choose to live within our means , wouldn't that be novel.
Every functioning economy in the world borrows money, be it the government, households or businesses.
With regards to betting on independence, the finest odds can be gained from the United Kingdom's stupidest bookmaker, pb's very own "uniondivvie", who will accept large bets on NO to win at evens. This enables anyone with an IQ over 7 to guarantee a handsome profit, whatever the result, by then going to other, less stupid bookmakers and placing a bet on YES.
The only problem is his mental slowness: it can be a vexing and prolonged process to get a confirmed bet out of him; on the other hand, if you are prepared to endure his tedious screeds, with a judicious amount of emotional goading he can be pricked into doubling his already idiotic wagers.
I recommend him heartily.
On the other hand, I had a good size bet that Mitt Romney would win the GOP nomination in 2012 with Philippe Magnan. I was tempted to hedge my exposure via bets with the bookmakers, but am damn glad I didn't, considering he welched on the bet and disappeared.
We should compile a white-list and black-list of those who pay up and those who welch. I can confirm for one that iSam settles up very promptly. I hope not to make either list though I think I have may have a bet with Charles that could turn out to be a loser. I can't for the life of me remember the details though as it was made pre-vanilla. My bet with Antifrank may also be a loser com GE2015 but I feel I have the better side of that one. I am VERY confident about my oil price bet with Fluffy thoughts and reasonably so about my Independence bet with TUD.
I do not anticipate any of TUD, Antifrank or Fluffy Thoughts welching.
What's the deal w tim and long term bets?
I have some with him, and as it stands he can come back to the site and collect winnings, but stay away if he loses
What I am failing to get is how any other party other than the SNP can rule an independent Scotland, should they vote yes
if yes wins it must cement SNP in govt for at least a decade
SNP has such a broad spectrum at present due to the independence factor , that will disappear after a YES vote and many will likely drift away as other real Scottish parties are formed.
Ah makes sense
Could it get a bit messy if a pro union party were elected, then a pro Indy party etc? We could be in a permanent state of referendum anticipation?! Or is there a time span between each possible referendum that would bind future govts?
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 ?
Since you've managed to ask a question without an insult, I'll try.
The Yes campaign will continue on its multifarious way, that's the whole point of a grass roots campaign. It's a commonly voiced though slightly disingenuous complaint from undecideds that they're not getting enough information. Well, there's only one side making an effort to provide it, with at least one and frequently several meetings & events a night. There's no 'one size fits all' decision for independence, and if it takes Tommy Sheridan, Nicola Sturgeon, Jim Sillars, Patrick Harvie, Dennis Canavan, The Proclaimers or Academics for Indy to help make it, great.
Bettertogether have shown a complete unwillingness to debate from top to bottom, and they're preferred strategy is to try and get Yes campaigners banned from public events because they can't find anyone to put on the ground themselves. If their desire to inform consists of a Tory chancellor stamping about Edinburgh in his size 9 Grensons, taking 3 questions and then buggering off, they're struggling. As far as I can see their ONLY strategy is to hope their lead doesn't bleed out in 7 months, with a potential side order of petrified undecideds.
As far as the metanarratives of currency and the EU go, there are a lot of pro EU people very pissed off with Barroso; if you think they're going to turn to a Westminster coalition running scared of UKIP and promising an EU referendum, well, get your mortgage on a No vote. The currency battle has descended to a low calculating streetfight, I'd wait for the next polling before making any predictions. If there's a bounce for Yes, I'd disagree that that'll dissipate before the referendum when voters coolly rationalise the issue. The next seven months will have a dearth of cool rationality.
Last tip, concentrate on the Scottish press for how things are going down in Scotland. As Indy sceptic as they are, they still have a better insight than London-centric outlets, regardless of whether it's the Guardian, Mail or Telegraph.
Quite right. Add to that Mr Cameron in the UKIP-publicised runup to trying to negotiate the EU equivalent of devomax at the same time ... the more the Brexit issue arises, the less convinving the EU issue becomes vis a vis indy. Even 18 months in limbo is better than being in hell forever.
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.
(1) Owning 10% of currency reserves doesn't mean you get any say in anything. It just means you have a pile of money to go take somewhere else. (2) You won't own 10% of the Treasury or any other UK government institution. That's what leaving means. (3) The Treasury is not the Bank of England.
Other than that, good post.
However when we do not get our share of the assets then we may choose to take away our very kind offer of helping the rump pay its debts. Even squeaky is not stupid enough to think he can keep the assets and have us pay his debts.
It might make climate change more of an issue, which is clearly a good thing generally, and might benefit Labour slightly
It's also hilarious watching the PB tories cringe as they are reminded time and again that Cammie is also fully signed up to climate change. Apart from the sheer entertainment of that it won't help Cammie with the tory kipper waverers who are fairly unlikely to be as pro climate change as he is.
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.
It might make climate change more of an issue, which is clearly a good thing generally, and might benefit Labour slightly
It's also hilarious watching the PB tories cringe as they are reminded time and again that Cammie is also fully signed up to climate change. Apart from the sheer entertainment of that it won't help Cammie with the tory kipper waverers who are fairly unlikely to be as pro climate change as he is.
It might make climate change more of an issue, which is clearly a good thing generally, and might benefit Labour slightly
It's also hilarious watching the PB tories cringe as they are reminded time and again that Cammie is also fully signed up to climate change. Apart from the sheer entertainment of that it won't help Cammie with the tory kipper waverers who are fairly unlikely to be as pro climate change as he is.
"... I think I have may have a bet with Charles that could turn out to be a loser. I can't for the life of me remember the details though ..."
I am in exactly the same position and Mr. Charles either can't remember or is too much of a gentleman to remind me (I suspect the latter).
I also have £50 with the gentleman from Hersham on what I am now sure is going to be losing bet (it seemed sensible to me at the time). However, I am not Paddy Power and will not pay out until the race has actually taken place.
Quite right. Add to that Mr Cameron in the UKIP-publicised runup to trying to negotiate the EU equivalent of devomax at the same time ... the more the Brexit issue arises, the less convinving the EU issue becomes vis a vis indy. Even 18 months in limbo is better than being in hell forever.
Cameron has spoken of reforms to the EU for all member states, not a special deal for the UK.
That said, it appears to be talk rather than action.
That's a wonderfully barmy piece of UKIP logic. They should be delighted if the renegotiation won't win anything, as that would make an Out result more likely. They should be much more worried that the renegotiation will produce results.
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.
(1) Owning 10% of currency reserves doesn't mean you get any say in anything. It just means you have a pile of money to go take somewhere else. (2) You won't own 10% of the Treasury or any other UK government institution. That's what leaving means. (3) The Treasury is not the Bank of England.
Other than that, good post.
However when we do not get our share of the assets then we may choose to take away our very kind offer of helping the rump pay its debts. Even squeaky is not stupid enough to think he can keep the assets and have us pay his debts.
The SNP definition of 'Assets' is very strange. An asset is something you can sell for cash. (MoD bases, hospitals, forex reserves, etc). A currency is not an asset.
More importantly, after a YES, if the negotiations were to stay at the current level of teddy-in-the-corner-ness then nothing would get agreed. Scotland would be forever in the departure lounge. There will not be an Act of Parliament bringing independence into legal effect. The 'we'll not pay our share of the debt' threat is utterly hollow. Scotland would need to agree to service its share of debt before it could even actually become independent.
I still have a wry smile at mention of the "Omnishambles" budget. Whilst the media focussed on pasties, Osborne had actually set out the means to get growth racing along in the economy, and the best chance of re-election.
How many votes will Greggs get in 2015 from the Omnishambles, I wonder...?
You know who finds it far funnier? The kippers who were at 5% before the omnishambles wrecked the chumocracy's 'competence' factor which enabled so many of the tory kipper wavers to start jumping ship over to Farage. The omnishambles is unquestionably one of the three biggest concrete examples of a huge VI and political change that also had an effect at the ballot box for local elections etc. The other two are the kipper rise (to which it is linked) and the lib dems flatlining at 10% since late 2010. (which gave the kippers so much room to rise in the first place)
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.
Sadly I must decline as since the inception of PB, and much to my financial detriment, I have enacted a policy of not wagering with fellow PBers.
Jack, Not even one of your famous pies perhaps.
Sadly not even one of my internationally renowned pies, supply being severely restricted as Scottish LibDems are likely to be placed on the endangered species list and they are not even as numerous in their Highland heartlands as was the case just a few years ago !!
Cameron has spoken of reforms to the EU for all member states, not a special deal for the UK.
I think his original idea was to try to take the credit for everybody else's labour market reforms. But his back-benchers weren't prepared to put up with that, which is why he's ended up talking like he's against core features of the EU like freedom of movement.
Must we have every thread for the next 6 months hijacked by endless Scottish referendum wittering ? Day after day now we've had this going on- the original topic is subverted as quickly as possibly and then followed by 292 postings about Scotland complete with hilarious side splitting references to "wee Eck" etc etc ad infinitum. Make it cease - it is making this site boring.
Hortence it is the big political issue of 2014 though - I go off topic more than most here but if we can't wind up the nats discuss this on politicalbetting.com where can we ?
OK, whatever turns you on, by does it have to be all day everyday? I don't think any of the contributors to the debate have said anything new for days, and having the same people repeating the same points hour after hour day after day has got pretty tedious. Maybe TSE could set up a PB2 page devoted to the subject and those who want to can go there a repeat themselves to their hearts' content.
On a completely different note, Mr. Pulpstar, this morning Goggle is refusing to allow me to access the PlayDiplomacy.com site - says it contains malware. Bit of a bugger as there is a deadline this afternoon. Can you get access?
I fear I may have been a victim of the malware/blocker already - in my other game Turkey has just NMRed from a decent position where he would have had a massive influence - able to attack Russia's southern flank or France in the med. In fact the influence is so big that Russia has proposed a draw which I have accepted - France may not though... but at any rate Turkey NMRing in his position is wrecking the game. Could be unrelated but highly highly annoying
Game 75568 btw -
Also
The forum admin has stated this too: (rick.leeds)
Google are playing their money-making game again and you will seen the Malware Detected warning.
The site is clean. Google's own systems can't detect malware on the site.
We've taken steps to have Google remove the warning... again. We're also looking at ways to avoid this in the future.
The SNP definition of 'Assets' is very strange. An asset is something you can sell for cash. (MoD bases, hospitals, forex reserves, etc). A currency is not an asset.
Of course the remaining North Sea oil & gas reserves are certainly an asset, so to be fair it is very generous of the SNP to argue that assets should be distributed according to percentage of population.
Must we have every thread for the next 6 months hijacked by endless Scottish referendum wittering ? Day after day now we've had this going on- the original topic is subverted as quickly as possibly and then followed by 292 postings about Scotland complete with hilarious side splitting references to "wee Eck" etc etc ad infinitum. Make it cease - it is making this site boring.
Hortence it is the big political issue of 2014 though - I go off topic more than most here but if we can't wind up the nats discuss this on politicalbetting.com where can we ?
OK, whatever turns you on, by does it have to be all day everyday? I don't think any of the contributors to the debate have said anything new for days, and having the same people repeating the same points hour after hour day after day has got pretty tedious. Maybe TSE could set up a PB2 page devoted to the subject and those who want to can go there a repeat themselves to their hearts' content.
On a completely different note, Mr. Pulpstar, this morning Goggle is refusing to allow me to access the PlayDiplomacy.com site - says it contains malware. Bit of a bugger as there is a deadline this afternoon. Can you get access?
Well, Mr Salmond did give his speech only yesterday, so 'days' is hardly literally correct. But I can sympathise!
That's a wonderfully barmy piece of UKIP logic. They should be delighted if the renegotiation won't win anything, as that would make an Out result more likely. They should be much more worried that the renegotiation will produce results.
The gov't has been unable to find anything about the current EU arrangement that is less than perfect.
Quite right. Add to that Mr Cameron in the UKIP-publicised runup to trying to negotiate the EU equivalent of devomax at the same time ... the more the Brexit issue arises, the less convinving the EU issue becomes vis a vis indy. Even 18 months in limbo is better than being in hell forever.
Cameron has spoken of reforms to the EU for all member states, not a special deal for the UK.
That said, it appears to be talk rather than action.
He's spoken of both at different times, but he's never actually said what he wants. That's because he doesn't actually want anything other than being seen to be successful in getting what he wants, so he'll see what he can get and then insist that was everything he wanted all along.
Mail overcooking it as usual but there is no doubt that little Ed is proving less than receptive to Clegg's somewhat pathetic overtures for any theoretical future coalition/lib lab pact
Here's why 'decapitation' is just a bit of a stretch.
Worth noting Nick Clegg has a 15k maj in #Sheffield Hallam.
Not to say it might not be a good idea tactically as it's painfully obvious the lib dem activist base is being hammered year on year while Clegg has made it quite clear that circling the wagons on the lib dems safest seats to protect them is priority number 1. If Clegg has to deploy a big effort just to make sure he wins comfortably then that is a finite resource he will be using in his own seat and not elsewhere.
Although interestingly there aren't a lot of LD seats all that close to Hallam (assuming you don't cross the pennines to the dark side and Cheadle, Hazel Grove etc. - they only have Leeds North West and Bradford East - so I am fairly sure that the whole of the Sheffield LD activist base would be in Hallam anyway.
The gov't has been unable to find anything about the current EU arrangement that is less than perfect..
Garbage, but even if that nonsense were true, so what? We'd then get the straight In/Out referendum which the Kippers have been demanding for years. What part of 'Yes' do they not understand?
Mail overcooking it as usual but there is no doubt that little Ed is proving less than receptive to Clegg's somewhat pathetic overtures for any theoretical future coalition/lib lab pact
Here's why 'decapitation' is just a bit of a stretch.
Worth noting Nick Clegg has a 15k maj in #Sheffield Hallam.
Not to say it might not be a good idea tactically as it's painfully obvious the lib dem activist base is being hammered year on year while Clegg has made it quite clear that circling the wagons on the lib dems safest seats to protect them is priority number 1. If Clegg has to deploy a big effort just to make sure he wins comfortably then that is a finite resource he will be using in his own seat and not elsewhere.
Although interestingly there aren't a lot of LD seats all that close to Hallam (assuming you don't cross the pennines to the dark side and Cheadle, Hazel Grove etc. - they only have Leeds North West and Bradford East - so I am fairly sure that the whole of the Sheffield LD activist base would be in Hallam anyway.
You also have to wonder if Farage was just spouting platitudes when he said he would be making it a priority to make sure no extremists or BNP types would be jumping on the kipper bandwagon. He clearly knew it was a danger and was well aware that Crosby and CCHQ would be doing everything they can to take advantage of any fruitcakery. He's building a base up so he can expect far more scrutiny before and after May.
The gov't has been unable to find anything about the current EU arrangement that is less than perfect..
Garbage, but even if that nonsense were true, so what? We'd then get the straight In/Out referendum which the Kippers have been demanding for years. What part of 'Yes' do they not understand?
The point is the rhetoric, does not match the actions. So the rhetoric is suspect.
Quite right. Add to that Mr Cameron in the UKIP-publicised runup to trying to negotiate the EU equivalent of devomax at the same time ... the more the Brexit issue arises, the less convinving the EU issue becomes vis a vis indy. Even 18 months in limbo is better than being in hell forever.
Cameron has spoken of reforms to the EU for all member states, not a special deal for the UK.
That said, it appears to be talk rather than action.
He's spoken of both at different times, but he's never actually said what he wants. That's because he doesn't actually want anything other than being seen to be successful in getting what he wants, so he'll see what he can get and then insist that was everything he wanted all along.
He's a PR man turned politician. What do you expect? He didn't even make the gin and tonics for his clients guests!
Salmond said he had legal advice on joining the EU. This was shown to be untrue. He has also made claims about currency union and its inevitability that are clearly untrue. He has threatened to walk away from Scotlands debts without explaining how this would affect the Scottish economy. He talks of bluffing and bluster by Westminster politicians but is astonishingly lacking in insight to his own.
I did not say he is a liar, but he certainly loves half truths.
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).
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.
Fox, Alex Salmond never at any time said he had legal opinion on the EU. He said that as per standard rules the SNP would never divulge any legal opinion it had. If idiots chose that to mean he had legal opinion it is hardly his fault.
Mail overcooking it as usual but there is no doubt that little Ed is proving less than receptive to Clegg's somewhat pathetic overtures for any theoretical future coalition/lib lab pact
Here's why 'decapitation' is just a bit of a stretch.
Worth noting Nick Clegg has a 15k maj in #Sheffield Hallam.
Not to say it might not be a good idea tactically as it's painfully obvious the lib dem activist base is being hammered year on year while Clegg has made it quite clear that circling the wagons on the lib dems safest seats to protect them is priority number 1. If Clegg has to deploy a big effort just to make sure he wins comfortably then that is a finite resource he will be using in his own seat and not elsewhere.
Although interestingly there aren't a lot of LD seats all that close to Hallam (assuming you don't cross the pennines to the dark side and Cheadle, Hazel Grove etc. - they only have Leeds North West and Bradford East - so I am fairly sure that the whole of the Sheffield LD activist base would be in Hallam anyway.
Fair point but those active in the leaders seat might have been expected to be bussed out elsewhere when it's all hands to the pump. If you can't take that for granted then it bodes ill in other high profile seats
You also have to wonder if Farage was just spouting platitudes when he said he would be making it a priority to make sure no extremists or BNP types would be jumping on the kipper bandwagon.
This particular councillor is "a former Conservative councillor".
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).
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.
Fox, Alex Salmond never at any time said he had legal opinion on the EU. He said that as per standard rules the SNP would never divulge any legal opinion it had. If idiots chose that to mean he had legal opinion it is hardly his fault.
Really:
"Mr Neil asked Mr Salmond in March if he "sought advice from your own law officers" on the matter of Scotland's future in Europe.
Mr Salmond replied that "we have, yes, in terms of the debate" and said the advice can be read "in the documents that we have put forward which argue the position that we would be a successor state".
He said: "You know I can't give you the legal advice or reveal the legal advice of law officers. You know that Andrew.
Not sure why anyone would be surprised by that though. Cammie wants to stay IN. His Eurosceptic backbench MPs have proved time and time again they are already painfully aware of that fact. If they didn't know by now then their gullibility truly is boundless.
You also have to wonder if Farage was just spouting platitudes when he said he would be making it a priority to make sure no extremists or BNP types would be jumping on the kipper bandwagon.
This particular councillor is "a former Conservative councillor".
Indeed. Nor will it be the first time Farage has had to use that excuse after the 'gay floods'.
Mail overcooking it as usual but there is no doubt that little Ed is proving less than receptive to Clegg's somewhat pathetic overtures for any theoretical future coalition/lib lab pact
Here's why 'decapitation' is just a bit of a stretch.
Worth noting Nick Clegg has a 15k maj in #Sheffield Hallam.
Not to say it might not be a good idea tactically as it's painfully obvious the lib dem activist base is being hammered year on year while Clegg has made it quite clear that circling the wagons on the lib dems safest seats to protect them is priority number 1. If Clegg has to deploy a big effort just to make sure he wins comfortably then that is a finite resource he will be using in his own seat and not elsewhere.
Although interestingly there aren't a lot of LD seats all that close to Hallam (assuming you don't cross the pennines to the dark side and Cheadle, Hazel Grove etc. - they only have Leeds North West and Bradford East - so I am fairly sure that the whole of the Sheffield LD activist base would be in Hallam anyway.
Clegg will hold Sheffield Hallam easily in 2015.
Oh, I quite agree - my point was more that when we consider the LD strategy of concentrating on defense something to bear in mind which isn't talked of much is proximity to other LD seats and hence a diffusion of the local activist base over too many seats. If you consider Somerset they have the 4 Somerset seats, plus Bath to try and defend, and they are unlikely to get much help from Bristol as they will be in Bristol West, or Chippenham, and are unlikely to get much help from Exeter as they will be in Torbay or North Devon.
By contrast all the LD activists in Brighton, East Sussex and Kent can be in just the 2 seats of Lewes and Eastbourne as the next nearest places to defend are Portsmouth or South-West London.
Is Salmond proposing that all real assets get split by geography or by population %? I’m sure Scotland would only get Scottish hospitals and not one or two in England if population suggested such. He also seems to be saying 100% of the oil is Scottish. So it seems to me he’s saying geography.
Does that mean forex reserves and gold (in London) are to be EWNI assets?
Comments
If you rate the Ladbrokes guy as a judge, taking 11/8 that his level is within a 10 point spread can't be bad
Every bank note is an IOU, it is a promise to pay. So saying that Scotland "owns" 10% of them means we owe 10% of the IOUs. In fact since even Scottish banks print under licence from the BoE they promise to pay. These promises are used as a means of exchange to facilitate trade. They are not an asset.
This is just silly Malcolm, you know better than this.
The Yes campaign will continue on its multifarious way, that's the whole point of a grass roots campaign. It's a commonly voiced though slightly disingenuous complaint from undecideds that they're not getting enough information. Well, there's only one side making an effort to provide it, with at least one and frequently several meetings & events a night. There's no 'one size fits all' decision for independence, and if it takes Tommy Sheridan, Nicola Sturgeon, Jim Sillars, Patrick Harvie, Dennis Canavan, The Proclaimers or Academics for Indy to help make it, great.
Bettertogether have shown a complete unwillingness to debate from top to bottom, and they're preferred strategy is to try and get Yes campaigners banned from public events because they can't find anyone to put on the ground themselves. If their desire to inform consists of a Tory chancellor stamping about Edinburgh in his size 9 Grensons, taking 3 questions and then buggering off, they're struggling. As far as I can see their ONLY strategy is to hope their lead doesn't bleed out in 7 months, with a potential side order of petrified undecideds.
As far as the metanarratives of currency and the EU go, there are a lot of pro EU people very pissed off with Barroso; if you think they're going to turn to a Westminster coalition running scared of UKIP and promising an EU referendum, well, get your mortgage on a No vote. The currency battle has descended to a low calculating streetfight, I'd wait for the next polling before making any predictions. If there's a bounce for Yes, I'd disagree that that'll dissipate before the referendum when voters coolly rationalise the issue. The next seven months will have a dearth of cool rationality.
Last tip, concentrate on the Scottish press for how things are going down in Scotland. As Indy sceptic as they are, they still have a better insight than London-centric outlets, regardless of whether it's the Guardian, Mail or Telegraph.
I think you may have your numbers reversed which is our only difference.
Sadly I must decline as since the inception of PB, and much to my financial detriment, I have enacted a policy of not wagering with fellow PBers.
And I hope I didn't push things too far; sorry if I did.
The great thing about my job is that I could just about work from bed most of the time, thus stopping all of this nonsensical getting-out-of-bed nonsense.
You should have looked that up as it has a direct bearing on competence/trust for the SNP/Salmond among scottish voters.
Your assertion that the EU and currency will shoot up in salience indicates you are unaware of what has already transpired. We've had Osborne scaremongering on this since 2012 with more than one big speech. The No campaign have been banging away relentlessly on the EU and currency for even longer. Granted, it's obviously because they have no positive vision to offer the scottish public but years of that should have impacted in the salience of those two issues long before now if they were the 'magic bullet' the No campaign think they are. They are 7th and 8th in the scottish public's priorities for Independence with 3% and 2% of the scottish public rating them most important. So the No campaign doesn't just need them to go up a bit. They need them to rocket up, and more importantly stay up. You're confusing the volume and intensity of the shrieking from the PB tories on this issue with it's actual potency.
Labour's campaign for the scottish election 2011 was unambiguously negative. It started out negative and when the polls narrowed and things started going very badly for labour in the final weeks of the campaign they merely doubled down on the negativity. Didn't turn out too well for them as it happens. We know that scottish labour are employing some of the exact same people behind their 2011 campaign for the Independence referendum so it matters.
Cammie too is quite likely taking advice from the same people behind the No to AV vote. The thing is, No to AV had a mighty weapon to help them with their negativity and they exploited it ruthlessly. Clegg. That's why their negative campaigning was effective. Who on earth trusted Clegg by the time the AV vote was held? Not very many at all. Well I'm sorry to have to break it to you but Clegg is on the No side this time right alongside Cammie, Osborne, Ed Balls and little Ed. So good luck with that when the Independence referendum boils down to trust.
Your faith in the next set of polls being the deciding ones is also very wrong. Yes to AV were leading months out from the referendum as was Labour in the 2011 scottish elections. This will get decided in the final weeks of the campaign just as it was for those two. That's when the wall to wall media coverage truly kicks in with the big setpiece debates and the ground campaigns and GOTV fully engaged. Anyone dumb enough to think the ground campaign or GOTV won't matter is going to be in for one hell of a shock. Every vote will count. If No doubles down on negativity then they had better have far more activists on the ground to GOTV than has been in evidence thus far.
I did not say he is a liar, but he certainly loves half truths.
(2) You won't own 10% of the Treasury or any other UK government institution. That's what leaving means.
(3) The Treasury is not the Bank of England.
Other than that, good post.
Being serious for a moment (why?), I think it's going to be closer than your latest outpourings show, and the turnout will be less.
Are you sure that a Pooh in the pipes hasn't affected the output from your ARSE?
(Edit: it's perhaps wise for me to link to the article that explains the last line: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561563/Who-flushed-Winnie-Pooh-toilet-Giant-stuffed-bear-lurking-Scottish-sewer.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 )
It seems a fairly pointless hostage to fortune to me. What do they do when the AK get (even more) repressive?
After years of hearing about Latvian homophobes I would be distressed if that started all over again.
Still the Winston Churchill fiver will be out to cheer all and sundry.
As for media portrayal, I read his full speech unedited:
http://news.stv.tv/politics/264391-in-full-alex-salmonds-speech-on-currency-union-and-independence/
As for politicians going somewhere, giving a speech and then leaving, that happens in every part of the country. The only difference is that the rest of the country doesn't have a huge chip on the shoulder over and doesn't take offence over stupid shit.
This nonsense risks serious disruption to the Scottish economy which is doing well at the moment and Salmond's absurdity is risking making it worse.
if yes wins it must cement SNP in govt for at least a decade
Chortle ....
So his opponents should be able to paint him as the person responsible for any perceived failure of gov't responsibility highlighted by the floods.
http://www.danrogerson.org/about-dan/
Most curious.
The possibility of a link between fuel prices and voting intention has been discussed on pb.com before, so I thought this might be of interest. Although the media attention at the time was on pasties and income tax cuts, the period of decreasing vote share for the Tories may also have been partly because of large increases in fuel prices.
If so, and the present dip in prices is maintained or deepened, then this could have an impact on the government's fortunes.
Here's why 'decapitation' is just a bit of a stretch. Not to say it might not be a good idea tactically as it's painfully obvious the lib dem activist base is being hammered year on year while Clegg has made it quite clear that circling the wagons on the lib dems safest seats to protect them is priority number 1. If Clegg has to deploy a big effort just to make sure he wins comfortably then that is a finite resource he will be using in his own seat and not elsewhere.
I do not anticipate any of TUD, Antifrank or Fluffy Thoughts welching.
Is your pal Gildas a betting man? For some unaccountable reason he's stopped having his tuppence worth on matters Scottish.
Here's why 'decapitation' is just a bit of a stretch. Not to say it might not be a good idea tactically as it's painfully obvious the lib dem activist base is being hammered year on year while Clegg has made it quite clear that circling the wagons on the lib dems safest seats to protect them is priority number 1. If Clegg has to deploy a big effort just to make sure he wins comfortably then that is a finite resource he will be using in his own seat and not elsewhere.
Good post.
Haseloff says the UK 'is asking the right questions' on the EU and the Germans very much want the UK to stay in.
Merkel will visit the UK later this month, according to the article. That should be interesting.**
** NB: Mick' s comments about 'eurosceptics getting duped by Cast Iron Cammie Blair' should be along very shortly.
On a completely different note, Mr. Pulpstar, this morning Goggle is refusing to allow me to access the PlayDiplomacy.com site - says it contains malware. Bit of a bugger as there is a deadline this afternoon. Can you get access?
A wise move as the EU referendum Bill proved.
I have some with him, and as it stands he can come back to the site and collect winnings, but stay away if he loses
A free option, not really cricket
If idiots chose that to mean he had legal opinion it is hardly his fault.
I think £100 is a handsome profit. I suppose a higher rate taxpayer wouldn't get out of bed for it, but I would.
Not that I've any idea of who will win the vote, but I wouldn't need to.
Although I commend your loyalty to the cause.
I still have a wry smile at mention of the "Omnishambles" budget. Whilst the media focussed on pasties, Osborne had actually set out the means to get growth racing along in the economy, and the best chance of re-election.
How many votes will Greggs get in 2015 from the Omnishambles, I wonder...?
The best example of this is the Olympics.
In a post olympic poll only 1% of people gave credit to the Government for the olympics going well. You can imagine that if things had gone wrong then over 90% would have blamed the government.
Could it get a bit messy if a pro union party were elected, then a pro Indy party etc? We could be in a permanent state of referendum anticipation?! Or is there a time span between each possible referendum that would bind future govts?
http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1167-barroso-exposes-cameron-s-renegotiation-pledge-as-sham
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/over-flooding-the-met-office-has-hung-its-boss-out-to-dry/
I'm not entirely sure that's the case. Merkel is far more powerful than those plastic politicos Reding and Barrosso.
A consensus of the EU's bankrollers might in truth be quite difficult to resist.
In any case Merkel's visit might give us a much better idea of what might and might not be achievable than the hot air we;ve had so far.
I'm not hopeful, but at least we will soon have a better idea of what is in play.
I am in exactly the same position and Mr. Charles either can't remember or is too much of a gentleman to remind me (I suspect the latter).
I also have £50 with the gentleman from Hersham on what I am now sure is going to be losing bet (it seemed sensible to me at the time). However, I am not Paddy Power and will not pay out until the race has actually taken place.
Yes but Cameron doesn't need answers from Barosso.
He needs them from Merkel.
That said, it appears to be talk rather than action.
http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/local/former-nazi-wins-a-labour-council-seat-1-3826439
More importantly, after a YES, if the negotiations were to stay at the current level of teddy-in-the-corner-ness then nothing would get agreed. Scotland would be forever in the departure lounge. There will not be an Act of Parliament bringing independence into legal effect. The 'we'll not pay our share of the debt' threat is utterly hollow. Scotland would need to agree to service its share of debt before it could even actually become independent.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
You know who finds it far funnier? The kippers who were at 5% before the omnishambles wrecked the chumocracy's 'competence' factor which enabled so many of the tory kipper wavers to start jumping ship over to Farage. The omnishambles is unquestionably one of the three biggest concrete examples of a huge VI and political change that also had an effect at the ballot box for local elections etc. The other two are the kipper rise (to which it is linked) and the lib dems flatlining at 10% since late 2010. (which gave the kippers so much room to rise in the first place)
Game 75568 btw -
Also
The forum admin has stated this too: (rick.leeds)
Google are playing their money-making game again and you will seen the Malware Detected warning.
The site is clean. Google's own systems can't detect malware on the site.
We've taken steps to have Google remove the warning... again. We're also looking at ways to avoid this in the future.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2558480/Britain-not-rushing-EU-exit-door-Cabinet-minister-insists-government-study-says-Brussels-rules-fine.html
So Mr Barroso informing us that HMG has not raised any issues for renegotiation or reform should not be a surprise.
It does however make Mr Cameron look like a liar.
Here's why 'decapitation' is just a bit of a stretch. Not to say it might not be a good idea tactically as it's painfully obvious the lib dem activist base is being hammered year on year while Clegg has made it quite clear that circling the wagons on the lib dems safest seats to protect them is priority number 1. If Clegg has to deploy a big effort just to make sure he wins comfortably then that is a finite resource he will be using in his own seat and not elsewhere.
Although interestingly there aren't a lot of LD seats all that close to Hallam (assuming you don't cross the pennines to the dark side and Cheadle, Hazel Grove etc. - they only have Leeds North West and Bradford East - so I am fairly sure that the whole of the Sheffield LD activist base would be in Hallam anyway.
Although interestingly there aren't a lot of LD seats all that close to Hallam (assuming you don't cross the pennines to the dark side and Cheadle, Hazel Grove etc. - they only have Leeds North West and Bradford East - so I am fairly sure that the whole of the Sheffield LD activist base would be in Hallam anyway.
Clegg will hold Sheffield Hallam easily in 2015.
You also have to wonder if Farage was just spouting platitudes when he said he would be making it a priority to make sure no extremists or BNP types would be jumping on the kipper bandwagon. He clearly knew it was a danger and was well aware that Crosby and CCHQ would be doing everything they can to take advantage of any fruitcakery. He's building a base up so he can expect far more scrutiny before and after May.
Although interestingly there aren't a lot of LD seats all that close to Hallam (assuming you don't cross the pennines to the dark side and Cheadle, Hazel Grove etc. - they only have Leeds North West and Bradford East - so I am fairly sure that the whole of the Sheffield LD activist base would be in Hallam anyway.
Fair point but those active in the leaders seat might have been expected to be bussed out elsewhere when it's all hands to the pump. If you can't take that for granted then it bodes ill in other high profile seats
"Mr Neil asked Mr Salmond in March if he "sought advice from your own law officers" on the matter of Scotland's future in Europe.
Mr Salmond replied that "we have, yes, in terms of the debate" and said the advice can be read "in the documents that we have put forward which argue the position that we would be a successor state".
He said: "You know I can't give you the legal advice or reveal the legal advice of law officers. You know that Andrew.
"But what you can say is that everything that we publish is consistent with the legal advice that we receive."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042069
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
His Eurosceptic backbench MPs have proved time and time again they are already painfully aware of that fact. If they didn't know by now then their gullibility truly is boundless.
Clegg will hold Sheffield Hallam easily in 2015.
Oh, I quite agree - my point was more that when we consider the LD strategy of concentrating on defense something to bear in mind which isn't talked of much is proximity to other LD seats and hence a diffusion of the local activist base over too many seats. If you consider Somerset they have the 4 Somerset seats, plus Bath to try and defend, and they are unlikely to get much help from Bristol as they will be in Bristol West, or Chippenham, and are unlikely to get much help from Exeter as they will be in Torbay or North Devon.
By contrast all the LD activists in Brighton, East Sussex and Kent can be in just the 2 seats of Lewes and Eastbourne as the next nearest places to defend are Portsmouth or South-West London.
Does that mean forex reserves and gold (in London) are to be EWNI assets?