LOL , the Tories are reduced to grubbing in the gutter. Surges forgotten.
Which Tory or are you suggesting Scottish police are all Conservatives and "grubbing in the gutter" ?
I was referring to the desperation of the Tory poster to get some crumb of comfort from an absurd story in the NON-Scotsman rag. The police would have been rolling about the floor whilst listening to the person complaining and I am certain would have advised them to see their GP this morning.
LOL , the Tories are reduced to grubbing in the gutter. Surges forgotten.
'Different methodology' currently Top of the Discredit Survation Pops.
"Wrong voting weighting" was top of the Nat discredit Survation pops when their first poll came out....now curiously forgotten in the rush to compare the two polls.
As I pointed out, when I first raised the question, if Survation are weighting by Holyrood vote the new poll may be more reliable - but the hilarity is the rush of Nats scurrying to compare it with a poll they previously discredited.....
Mr. Eagles, Scotland knew what they were getting with Robinson after his less than glorious reign at Twickenham. Bloody odd decision to hire him.
From the BBC F1 livefeed: "After doing just eight laps on the first day of public testing of the new E22, the Franco-Swiss admitted the team would not even try to find the best handling balance before the first race. 'I don't really care about set-up work,' Grosjean said. 'That's going to be when we are in free practice (in Melbourne). It's just about fixing all the issues and making sure the car is in one piece when we do long runs.'""
Yes it was odd, it would have been like the Romans appointed a Carthiginian as head of their army after the second Punic War.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
Been discussed on previous threads. But basically unless the GE is postponed to after independence day, there is no way that one can disenfranchise voters in Scottish constituencies just for voting in the referendum. Or even just for being in Scottish constituencies at all. The UK Parliament is, and will still be, the UK Parliament.
It's been suggested that some interim arrangement to replace the Barnett Formula would be needed, to reduce the number of supposedly "English" HoC votes where there is a genuinely Scottish element through Barnett linkage, and this would be sensible. However, whether the Scottish MPs of the unionist parties, mainly Labour, could resist temptation and follow the SNP who currently avoid truly English-only votes would remain to be seen.
There will be nothing to stop David Cameron laying a Parliament Act bill before the HoC in October after the summer recess disqualifying all 59 Scottish constituencies as from the Dissolution of the 2010 Parliament. If it is passed as it will be by English, Welsh and Ulster MPs, it becomes the law and Scotland ceases to have Westminster MPs from March 2015. The courts would not have authority to overturn any legislation passed under the Parliament Act. Any attempt in the courts could take longer to be resolved than the independence negotiations.
The logical thing would be to do a deal with Holyrood whereby from May next year until the date of Independence, the 56 regional Scottish MSPs could be delegated by Holyrood to attend Westminster and vote on any UK legislation which needs a Scottish input.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks</blockquote
Depends on what they want to do , people will have choice of dual nationality so they will continue as they are now. Despite all the claptrap from unionists you can be sure there will be no change to people going between the countries for work or pleasure.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
No such thing as formal Scottish, or EWNI, nationality till independence. They can claim Scottish passports if born in Scotland if it happens as per White Paper. Presumably if they are resident in EWNI at indy then they are given EWNI passports but that is not really for the Scots to decide.
An article about the decline of Scottish rugby and Andy Robinson isn't mentioned once.
Hmmmm
Andy Robinson did a good job at Edinburgh (with numerous non Scots players) but the Scottish job was beyond him and probably any coach presently. Damage limitation and avoiding the wooden spoon seems to be the extent of our realistic ambition !!
We have too small a base of professional players and presently we are in a trough of international standard players. The only positive is that the junior base is growing, so perhaps some hope for the future.
Mr. Eagles, Scotland knew what they were getting with Robinson after his less than glorious reign at Twickenham. Bloody odd decision to hire him.
From the BBC F1 livefeed: "After doing just eight laps on the first day of public testing of the new E22, the Franco-Swiss admitted the team would not even try to find the best handling balance before the first race. 'I don't really care about set-up work,' Grosjean said. 'That's going to be when we are in free practice (in Melbourne). It's just about fixing all the issues and making sure the car is in one piece when we do long runs.'""
Yes it was odd, it would have been like the Romans appointed a Carthiginian as head of their army after the second Punic War.
Why would anyone want a serial loser in charge.
I'm sure the Glazers may be able to provide an answer..
Mr. Eagles, Scotland knew what they were getting with Robinson after his less than glorious reign at Twickenham. Bloody odd decision to hire him.
From the BBC F1 livefeed: "After doing just eight laps on the first day of public testing of the new E22, the Franco-Swiss admitted the team would not even try to find the best handling balance before the first race. 'I don't really care about set-up work,' Grosjean said. 'That's going to be when we are in free practice (in Melbourne). It's just about fixing all the issues and making sure the car is in one piece when we do long runs.'""
Yes it was odd, it would have been like the Romans appointed a Carthiginian as head of their army after the second Punic War.
Why would anyone want a serial loser in charge.
I'm sure the Glazers may be able to provide an answer..
I keep on having nightmares, as a Liverpool fan, we finish fourth this season, and Moyes leads Man U to the Champs League, and thus we end up in the Europa league.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
thanks.
Interesting. IMO I agree with @SeanT. If they perceive that grown-up discussion about the future of an independent Scotland and its currency is "bullying" I can see how they might lash out. Which they appear to have done here.
They will return to the fold come the actual vote.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing and to what degree the debate becomes ever more poisonous will be interesting with no doubt some repercussions.
If this really is ASalmond's game plan it is a pretty brutal and selfish one.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
Been discussed on previous threads. But basically unless the GE is postponed to after independence day, there is no way that one can disenfranchise voters in Scottish constituencies just for voting in the referendum. Or even just for being in Scottish constituencies at all. The UK Parliament is, and will still be, the UK Parliament.
It's been suggested that some interim arrangement to replace the Barnett Formula would be needed, to reduce the number of supposedly "English" HoC votes where there is a genuinely Scottish element through Barnett linkage, and this would be sensible. However, whether the Scottish MPs of the unionist parties, mainly Labour, could resist temptation and follow the SNP who currently avoid truly English-only votes would remain to be seen.
There will be nothing to stop David Cameron laying a Parliament Act bill before the HoC in October after the summer recess disqualifying all 59 Scottish constituencies as from the Dissolution of the 2010 Parliament. If it is passed as it will be by English, Welsh and Ulster MPs, it becomes the law and Scotland ceases to have Westminster MPs from March 2015. The courts would not have authority to overturn any legislation passed under the Parliament Act. Any attempt in the courts could take longer to be resolved than the independence negotiations.
The logical thing would be to do a deal with Holyrood whereby from May next year until the date of Independence, the 56 regional Scottish MSPs could be delegated by Holyrood to attend Westminster and vote on any UK legislation which needs a Scottish input.
Interesting suggestion, thanks though whether Labour and the LDs would sign up to it I am not sure. I also doubt it would happen in quite that way because the list MSPs are probably not typical of the parliament as a whole (disproportionately Labour IIRC). .
Edit: And also Tory - Ms Davidson is a List MSP IIRC.
At independence would every current UK passport become an invalid travel document? I expect the passport office will need a practical plan on replacement of the entire nation's stock of passports. And the new Scotland will need a similar plan.
LOL , the Tories are reduced to grubbing in the gutter. Surges forgotten.
'Different methodology' currently Top of the Discredit Survation Pops.
"Wrong voting weighting" was top of the Nat discredit Survation pops when their first poll came out....now curiously forgotten in the rush to compare the two polls.
As I pointed out, when I first raised the question, if Survation are weighting by Holyrood vote the new poll may be more reliable - but the hilarity is the rush of Nats scurrying to compare it with a poll they previously discredited.....
You have to agree that we have said many polls recently were rubbish as the weighting was incorrect. That was a fact and it is good that they are trying to be more accurate. Underlying it is still heading in the right direction, of those sure to vote YES was 45% I believe.
LOL , the Tories are reduced to grubbing in the gutter. Surges forgotten.
Which Tory or are you suggesting Scottish police are all Conservatives and "grubbing in the gutter" ?
I was referring to the desperation of the Tory poster to get some crumb of comfort from an absurd story in the NON-Scotsman rag. The police would have been rolling about the floor whilst listening to the person complaining and I am certain would have advised them to see their GP this morning.
Ah .... you mean in complete contrast to Scot Nats not trawling the web for any snippet to support their cause ....
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
It's probably very simple. Those born in Scotland will be able to apply for a Scottish passport. Those resident in Scotland (probably after a certain period of residence & subject to immigration status) will be able to apply for a Scottish passport. Current citizens of the UK will be able to keep British passports wherever they live. Children born of British citizens will be able to apply for British passports. It's their children who may not get British passports if their parents did not apply for British passports - so it may be a problem for the children of those born after independence - but it shouldn't be a problem for anyone alive today, or for a good many years yet....
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
We have got to stop this sort of nonsense. It's risible scaremongering of the worst order. Ireland left the UK fine - as I understand it, the Irish have fully functioning passports. Where are the positive visions for the Union? Where are the No footsoldiers?
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
No such thing as formal Scottish, or EWNI, nationality till independence. They can claim Scottish passports if born in Scotland if it happens as per White Paper. Presumably if they are resident in EWNI at indy then they are given EWNI passports but that is not really for the Scots to decide.
Carnyx, however as they have agreement re dual nationality for any UN recognised nation the likelihood is that we would have dual nationality choice.
At independence would every current UK passport become an invalid travel document? I expect the passport office will need a practical plan on replacement of the entire nation's stock of passports. And the new Scotland will need a similar plan.
Have a look at the White Paper, maybe?. (Have to go and do something else now.)
At independence would every current UK passport become an invalid travel document? I expect the passport office will need a practical plan on replacement of the entire nation's stock of passports. And the new Scotland will need a similar plan.
"People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland"
Mr. Carnyx, I also agree it is unlikely to occur (although it could be a sensible alternative to the possible insanity of having Scottish MPs on both sides of the negotiating table). However, if the proposal were laid down and Labour/the Lib Dems voted against it then come the election that would be a very significant issue.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
I imagine that many Scots like me will choose to have joint nationality. As for politics, why should any of the roughly 50 English MPs born in Scotland be disbarred from continuing in their seats. David McAllister has joint British and German citizenship but it didn't stop him being Premier of Lower Saxony and a possible successor to Angela Merkel.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
Where are the positive visions for the Union? Where are the No footsoldiers?
Good question - where is Scottish Labour and why are they too divided to campaign effectively?
At independence would every current UK passport become an invalid travel document? I expect the passport office will need a practical plan on replacement of the entire nation's stock of passports. And the new Scotland will need a similar plan.
Mr. Eagles, Scotland knew what they were getting with Robinson after his less than glorious reign at Twickenham. Bloody odd decision to hire him.
From the BBC F1 livefeed: "After doing just eight laps on the first day of public testing of the new E22, the Franco-Swiss admitted the team would not even try to find the best handling balance before the first race. 'I don't really care about set-up work,' Grosjean said. 'That's going to be when we are in free practice (in Melbourne). It's just about fixing all the issues and making sure the car is in one piece when we do long runs.'""
Yes it was odd, it would have been like the Romans appointed a Carthiginian as head of their army after the second Punic War.
Why would anyone want a serial loser in charge.
I'm sure the Glazers may be able to provide an answer..
I keep on having nightmares, as a Liverpool fan, we finish fourth this season, and Moyes leads Man U to the Champs League, and thus we end up in the Europa league.
I keep on having nightmares, as a Scottish rugby fan, that we finish sixth this season and with the wooden spoon in the Six Nations and San Marino replace us !!
Mr. Eagles, Scotland knew what they were getting with Robinson after his less than glorious reign at Twickenham. Bloody odd decision to hire him.
From the BBC F1 livefeed: "After doing just eight laps on the first day of public testing of the new E22, the Franco-Swiss admitted the team would not even try to find the best handling balance before the first race. 'I don't really care about set-up work,' Grosjean said. 'That's going to be when we are in free practice (in Melbourne). It's just about fixing all the issues and making sure the car is in one piece when we do long runs.'""
Yes it was odd, it would have been like the Romans appointed a Carthiginian as head of their army after the second Punic War.
Why would anyone want a serial loser in charge.
I'm sure the Glazers may be able to provide an answer..
I keep on having nightmares, as a Liverpool fan, we finish fourth this season, and Moyes leads Man U to the Champs League, and thus we end up in the Europa league.
I keep on having nightmares, as a Scottish rugby fan, that we finish sixth this season and with the wooden spoon in the Six Nations and San Marino replace us !!
You make finishing sixth a bad thing.
Some wise fellow tipped Scotland to finish 5th or 6th.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
Where are the positive visions for the Union? Where are the No footsoldiers?
Good question - where is Scottish Labour and why are they too divided to campaign effectively?
At independence would every current UK passport become an invalid travel document? I expect the passport office will need a practical plan on replacement of the entire nation's stock of passports. And the new Scotland will need a similar plan.
"People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland"
From parliament.uk.
I suppose they would bolt on "Or Scotland."
Scotland is part of Britain and will remain so, it is the UK that will cease to exist, British Isles will still remain.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
Where are the positive visions for the Union? Where are the No footsoldiers?
Good question - where is Scottish Labour and why are they too divided to campaign effectively?
It's sad when your opponents start playing the blame game 7 months before the event.
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare.
No it wont, it's not as if the prospect of a country leaving the UK is unprecedented.
It hasn't happened in modern times, when systems and processes are much more complex.
As an example, take the DVLA. It's obvious that detailed driver data will need to be shared between the two countries, maybe permanently, or maybe Scotland will take their own in a year or three.
But that means that detailed driver data for the rest of the UK will be available, and this will probably be much more than our obligations under the Prüm Convention. Likewise, data for Scottish drivers will be available to the rest of the UK.
It's admittedly a small issue, but there are hundreds of such issues that will need sorting, and they all add up.
It will require a maturity on both sides that no amount of chortling, tears of laughter or ROFL'ing will make up for.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Presumably if they are resident in EWNI at indy then they are given EWNI passports but that is not really for the Scots to decide.
They will have been born in "The UK" and as since (despite some Nat claims to the contrary) rUK is the "continuing state" will be entitled to an rUK passport. The only people who could make life difficult by playing silly buggers are the Scots - but the White paper is entirely sensible on this.
At independence would every current UK passport become an invalid travel document? I expect the passport office will need a practical plan on replacement of the entire nation's stock of passports. And the new Scotland will need a similar plan.
"People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland"
From parliament.uk.
I suppose they would bolt on "Or Scotland."
Scotland is part of Britain and will remain so, it is the UK that will cease to exist, British Isles will still remain.
I wouldn't count on it Malcolm. It can only be a matter of time before one of our Conservative colleagues warns of a giant circular saw being run through the bed of the Tweed as a necessary consequence of independence.
Mr. Eagles, you've made many good tips recently but it must be said backing Scotland to be 5th or 6th was perhaps the least heroic since I backed Vettel to get a pole position.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
Where are the positive visions for the Union? Where are the No footsoldiers?
Good question - where is Scottish Labour and why are they too divided to campaign effectively?
At independence would every current UK passport become an invalid travel document? I expect the passport office will need a practical plan on replacement of the entire nation's stock of passports. And the new Scotland will need a similar plan.
"People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland"
From parliament.uk.
I suppose they would bolt on "Or Scotland."
There would be no need, Scotland's entry into the Commonwealth is probably the least problematic (along with the UN) of the international bodies it wants to join. A positive cakewalk compared to the EU or NATO.
Well this is disappointing if not completely surprising.
If Survation have changed their methodology the swing may not be as great but the results are perhaps more indicative than their earlier surveys based on Westminster voting intentions. There is nothing on their website yet.
Why is it that we only get second or third division polling in Scotland? It is very frustrating.
As I have repeatedly said this is not over. I don't think those commenting from England are getting the full picture. They have the perception that there are two campaigns slogging it out. It is not like that. The "no" campaign is invisible apart from interviews in the media.
The Labour party need to step up to the plate and get a grip. September is by far the biggest single threat to Miliband ever getting to Downing Street. I just don't get why they are putting in so little effort.
I don't think that's quite the case DL.
Coverage SOTB has been pretty minimal largely because the campaign has been ridiculously long ( and tedious to date ). I'd expect the tempo to pick up as we get closer to the vote much the same as any other election.
PB isn't really the place to get a good feel for where things are in Scotland since our contributors consist of hardline nats and hardline unionists. There are very few middle of the road Scots on the board and we've suffered in the debate from having no SLAB bloggers to even out the picture or give an alternative view.
As to how campaigning is going I suspect last week was the first serious shots of the campaign and the intensity will increase from here on in with a break of sorts for the Euros in May.
Alan, the Yes campaign have been organising and having meetings for months. They have literature going to every house, at least in my area, regularly. They are in the city centres with loud speakers, petitions and leaflets. They have the organisation of the SNP to support them whole heartedly.
No so far has none of this. You might be right that it is too early and the effort will start now but I fear that SLAB are (a) incompetent and (b) too conflicted internally to campaign effectively.
So for 2 years they've been spending their money and the poills haven't mobed and now all their hopes rest on George Osborne ?
'Different methodology' currently Top of the Discredit Survation Pops.
Which for those us 'allowed' to visit certain scottish blogs knew last night but also knew that
1/ It's an 11 point swing away from No to Yes. Not 4 or 5 or 6. On what far distant planet do you have to live to think that's a vindication of Osbrowne?? As the Bowie 'No speech' would have us believe, the Moon? Venus? Mars?
2/ TNS Poll "Yes voters are more likely to vote than No voters, by 84% to 73%" Don't the shriekers understand yet what that means? Once they work it out and realise how many points Yes could be behind in the polls and still win with that kind of differential turnout then maybe they'll stop making a fool of themselves.
At independence would every current UK passport become an invalid travel document? I expect the passport office will need a practical plan on replacement of the entire nation's stock of passports. And the new Scotland will need a similar plan.
"People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland"
From parliament.uk.
I suppose they would bolt on "Or Scotland."
There would be no need, Scotland's entry into the Commonwealth is probably the least problematic (along with the UN) of the international bodies it wants to join. A positive cakewalk compared to the EU or NATO.
Interesting also in that vein is I wonder how many soldiers in current Scottish regiments would seek to re-badge to or join the rUK army. If CDS had anything about him he would announce a "British" Scottish regiment for such ex-pats.
You appear to have a problem with probability-based forecasts.
I did hear that the reason the BBC refused to have more sophisticated probabilistic-based forecasts was because they assumed the public were too stupid to understand them. You are yet one more data point that proves them right.
Clue: If we had experienced a record dry winter it would not have proved the Met Office forecast right. That's simply not how a probabilistic forecast of this nature works. You cannot make a deterministic forecast of a chaotic system on those timescales.
At independence would every current UK passport become an invalid travel document? I expect the passport office will need a practical plan on replacement of the entire nation's stock of passports. And the new Scotland will need a similar plan.
"People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland"
From parliament.uk.
I suppose they would bolt on "Or Scotland."
Scotland is part of Britain and will remain so, it is the UK that will cease to exist, British Isles will still remain.
I wouldn't count on it Malcolm. It can only be a matter of time before one of our Conservative colleagues warns of a giant circular saw being run through the bed of the Tweed as a necessary consequence of independence.
While one of our Scottish Labour colleagues is too busy bickering within his party to notice......
There will be nothing to stop David Cameron laying a Parliament Act bill before the HoC in October after the summer recess disqualifying all 59 Scottish constituencies as from the Dissolution of the 2010 Parliament. If it is passed as it will be by English, Welsh and Ulster MPs, it becomes the law and Scotland ceases to have Westminster MPs from March 2015. The courts would not have authority to overturn any legislation passed under the Parliament Act. Any attempt in the courts could take longer to be resolved than the independence negotiations.
The logical thing would be to do a deal with Holyrood whereby from May next year until the date of Independence, the 56 regional Scottish MSPs could be delegated by Holyrood to attend Westminster and vote on any UK legislation which needs a Scottish input.
Interesting suggestion, thanks though whether Labour and the LDs would sign up to it I am not sure. I also doubt it would happen in quite that way because the list MSPs are probably not typical of the parliament as a whole (disproportionately Labour IIRC). .
Edit: And also Tory - Ms Davidson is a List MSP IIRC.
Carnyx the reason I suggest the List MSPs is firstly because there are almost exactly the same number as Scottish Westminster MPs (3 fewer) and secondly, they are more representative of the voting intentions of the Scots in 2011 i.e. they saved the bacon of the 3 unionist parties who lost a great many of their constituency seats to the SNP. It also gives the Greens and Margo a say.
In the year 2015-16 it is hard to see Westminster passing much legislation which would actually take effect before Independence, given that most legislation comes into force a year or so after the Royal Assent. As a Scot, if we do vote for Independence, I feel uncomfortable at the prospect of MPs representing Scottish constituencies potentially being on the rUK side of the discussions. They must have a major conflict of interest.
You appear to have a problem with probability-based forecasts.
I did hear that the reason the BBC refused to have more sophisticated probabilistic-based forecasts was because they assumed the public were too stupid to understand them. You are yet one more data point that proves them right.
Clue: If we had experienced a record dry winter it would not have proved the Met Office forecast right. That's simply not how a probabilistic forecast of this nature works. You cannot make a deterministic forecast of a chaotic system on those timescales.
At independence would every current UK passport become an invalid travel document? I expect the passport office will need a practical plan on replacement of the entire nation's stock of passports. And the new Scotland will need a similar plan.
"People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland"
From parliament.uk.
I suppose they would bolt on "Or Scotland."
Scotland is part of Britain and will remain so, it is the UK that will cease to exist, British Isles will still remain.
No quite so.
You are confusing the nation that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that presently by various Acts of Union includes Scotland and the geographic Britain and British Isles that also includes the Republic of Ireland.
An independent Scotland would no longer be a member of the first but would be of the second and third.
The remaining elements of the UK may still wish to be called UK as the nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or The United Kingdom of England Wales and Northern Ireland. The former is more likely as Great Britain is a political construct rather than a geographic one.
You appear to have a problem with probability-based forecasts.
I did hear that the reason the BBC refused to have more sophisticated probabilistic-based forecasts was because they assumed the public were too stupid to understand them. You are yet one more data point that proves them right.
Clue: If we had experienced a record dry winter it would not have proved the Met Office forecast right. That's simply not how a probabilistic forecast of this nature works. You cannot make a deterministic forecast of a chaotic system on those timescales.
weather is not climate, of course.
"You are yet one more data point that proves them right."
on the other hand, hunchman, as a single data point doesn't prove anything either...
You appear to have a problem with probability-based forecasts.
I did hear that the reason the BBC refused to have more sophisticated probabilistic-based forecasts was because they assumed the public were too stupid to understand them. You are yet one more data point that proves them right.
Clue: If we had experienced a record dry winter it would not have proved the Met Office forecast right. That's simply not how a probabilistic forecast of this nature works. You cannot make a deterministic forecast of a chaotic system on those timescales.
Can I draw your attention to the first sentence in the Met Office's summary: "Confidence in the forecast for precipitation across the UK over the next three months is relatively low"
Could, I suppose be argued that they'd have been better off not publishing it at all!
Mr. Eagles: serial loser? Name two battles Hannibal lost during the Second Punic War.
Mr Dancer, at the risk of intruding into a private conversation, but aside from Zama there was the 1st, 2nd and 3rd battles of Nola (wikipedia lists them as stalemates, but when Hannibal attacks with the aim of capturing a city and is beaten back by the defenders without taking the city then it reads as a defeat in my book). Grumentum, where Hannibal was stopped from marching north thereby allowing the Romans to destroy Hasdrubal at the Metaurus, is another one. Adding in Zama, that makes at least five in my book. Hannibal was good - very good indeed, and by some way the best the Carthaginians had, but he was not unbeatable. Unlike Julius Caesar, forex...
You appear to have a problem with probability-based forecasts.
I did hear that the reason the BBC refused to have more sophisticated probabilistic-based forecasts was because they assumed the public were too stupid to understand them. You are yet one more data point that proves them right.
Clue: If we had experienced a record dry winter it would not have proved the Met Office forecast right. That's simply not how a probabilistic forecast of this nature works. You cannot make a deterministic forecast of a chaotic system on those timescales.
How are things in the global cooling camp?
Very bad.
Governments are set on subsidising global warming by throwing money at digging up fossil fuels and no-one wants to spend money on our plans for solar parasols, sulphate aerosol super-guns, or sea-spray ships. They're obsessed with this idea of warming Torbay up so that it lives up to the name "The English Riviera", without realising that if it does warm up to Mediterranean levels the consequent sea level rise will wash all the sand away...
Dear Scotland: here are 76 things we'd like to apologise for, love England
28. "Sorry for suggesting that there was a Scottish mafia in the Labour party consisting of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Charles Falconer, Derry Irvine, Michael Martin and John Reid. Apart from the obvious fact that this would be the most effete mafia in mob history, it's unfair to suggest that there's a Scottish conspiracy to ruin Westminster. Or (sinister face) is there?"
57. "Sorry for laughing when Alex Salmond said an independent Scotland's fiscal future was secure because you were sitting on £1tn of North Sea oil and had a long-standing budget surplus. Maybe he's right. After all he is an economist, albeit one at the worst bank in the history of banking, namely the Royal Bank of Scotland."
75. "... We have tried to stop being wankers, but it's really hard! That's just how we are. But we realise that we have thereby contributed to your tragi-comic national psyche. Our bad. Sorry!"
the guardian has gone rather mental over the Independence issue. it's quite strange
It is fascinating to see how the English media have responded to the IndyRef. My personal favourite is the Financial Times, which seems to have metamorphosed into Elmer Fudd.
You appear to have a problem with probability-based forecasts.
I did hear that the reason the BBC refused to have more sophisticated probabilistic-based forecasts was because they assumed the public were too stupid to understand them. You are yet one more data point that proves them right.
Clue: If we had experienced a record dry winter it would not have proved the Met Office forecast right. That's simply not how a probabilistic forecast of this nature works. You cannot make a deterministic forecast of a chaotic system on those timescales.
Can I draw your attention to the first sentence in the Met Office's summary: "Confidence in the forecast for precipitation across the UK over the next three months is relatively low"
Could, I suppose be argued that they'd have been better off not publishing it at all!
The same might have been said of FitzRoy's first forecasts 150 years ago. One has to start somewhere.
Better Together do not have an office in Dundee. They are in Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. But you are right. I have volunteered to do what I can in my own area.
Looking at their website they are having some events but these seem to be mainly in Glasgow where SLAB are strongest.
Well this is disappointing if not completely surprising.
If Survation have changed their methodology the swing may not be as great but the results are perhaps more indicative than their earlier surveys based on Westminster voting intentions. There is nothing on their website yet.
Why is it that we only get second or third division polling in Scotland? It is very frustrating.
As I have repeatedly said this is not over. I don't think those commenting from England are getting the full picture. They have the perception that there are two campaigns slogging it out. It is not like that. The "no" campaign is invisible apart from interviews in the media.
The Labour party need to step up to the plate and get a grip. September is by far the biggest single threat to Miliband ever getting to Downing Street. I just don't get why they are putting in so little effort.
I don't think that's quite the case DL.
Coverage SOTB has been pretty minimal largely because the campaign has been ridiculously long ( and tedious to date ). I'd expect the tempo to pick up as we get closer to the vote much the same as any other election.
PB isn't really the place to get a good feel for where things are in Scotland since our contributors consist of hardline nats and hardline unionists. There are very few middle of the road Scots on the board and we've suffered in the debate from having no SLAB bloggers to even out the picture or give an alternative view.
As to how campaigning is going I suspect last week was the first serious shots of the campaign and the intensity will increase from here on in with a break of sorts for the Euros in May.
Alan, the Yes campaign have been organising and having meetings for months. They have literature going to every house, at least in my area, regularly. They are in the city centres with loud speakers, petitions and leaflets. They have the organisation of the SNP to support them whole heartedly.
No so far has none of this. You might be right that it is too early and the effort will start now but I fear that SLAB are (a) incompetent and (b) too conflicted internally to campaign effectively.
I keep on having nightmares, as a Scottish rugby fan, that we finish sixth this season and with the wooden spoon in the Six Nations and San Marino replace us !!
Surely the inability of Scotland to even maintain a decent rugby pitch means that an independent Scotland is doomed!! If they do get independence they will be begging to be taken back after a couple of years.
Curtice right now stating the bleeding obvious- "In short, however one looks at this poll, one has, at minimum, to conclude that it offers no evidence that the currency intervention has delivered the No side any immediate boost."
Looks like the Osborne-Balls-Alexander coordinated currency intervention and Jose Manuel Barroso’s EU intervention have backfired in quite spectacular fashion.
I look forward to Salmond and Sturgeon similarly making fools of themselves in public.....but as they already do over the simple impact of defaulting on debts over future bond rates, something like "a change in weighting impacting a poll result" is probably well over their heads.....
Lovely to see a Tory admitting that Osborne, Balls, Alexander and Barroso made fools of themselves in public last week. The funny thing is that you were the last ones to see the elephant in the room.
'Different methodology' currently Top of the Discredit Survation Pops.
Which for those us 'allowed' to visit certain scottish blogs knew last night but also knew that
1/ It's an 11 point swing away from No to Yes. Not 4 or 5 or 6. On what far distant planet do you have to live to think that's a vindication of Osbrowne?? As the Bowie 'No speech' would have us believe, the Moon? Venus? Mars?
2/ TNS Poll "Yes voters are more likely to vote than No voters, by 84% to 73%" Don't the shriekers understand yet what that means? Once they work it out and realise how many points Yes could be behind in the polls and still win with that kind of differential turnout then maybe they'll stop making a fool of themselves.
Yeah, the differential thing is interesting. Purely anecdotally, some No voting friends say their main worry is getting their vote out. Trying to burrow into the reasoning for that, I can only conclude that No might inspire dogged loyalty, but very little enthusiasm.
At independence would every current UK passport become an invalid travel document? I expect the passport office will need a practical plan on replacement of the entire nation's stock of passports. And the new Scotland will need a similar plan.
"People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland"
From parliament.uk.
I suppose they would bolt on "Or Scotland."
There would be no need, Scotland's entry into the Commonwealth is probably the least problematic (along with the UN) of the international bodies it wants to join. A positive cakewalk compared to the EU or NATO.
Interesting also in that vein is I wonder how many soldiers in current Scottish regiments would seek to re-badge to or join the rUK army. If CDS had anything about him he would announce a "British" Scottish regiment for such ex-pats.
There already is one. Just as the Irish Guards continued to exist after Irish independence (and even accept recruits from south of the border) , the Scots Guards will surely continue to exist after 2016. A great many historic Irish regiments were sadly wound up in the 1920's (something which the SNP, who seem to take it for granted they'll inherit the British army's Scottish regiments, seem determined to ignore) but the Guards continued.
Curtice right now stating the bleeding obvious- "In short, however one looks at this poll, one has, at minimum, to conclude that it offers no evidence that the currency intervention has delivered the No side any immediate boost."
You missed a bit (and a link):
Still, the poll does raise some questions for the Yes side. In particular, even a majority of Yes voters (59%), let alone of all voters (65%), think that Mr Salmond should spell out his currency Plan B in case a currency union does prove impossible to forge. Moreover, Yes voters are far from agreed on what that alternative should be. While 29% would like Scotland to have its own currency that is pegged to the pound, 23% would like to use the pound unilaterally, and 20% would prefer a fully floating separate currency. Corralling them all around an agreed alternative may not prove easy.
Mr. Random, no intrusion at all. Always happy to talk about classical history, even with people who are utterly wrong
Hannibal had fewer soldiers of less certain loyalty yet remained in Italy undefeated for a decade. I can see the argument for considering a stalemate result to be a defeat for the aggressor (usually Hannibal), but certainly do not subscribe to it myself. A problem for him was that because Rome was at the peak of its patriotic fervour punching them hard, repeatedly, made them only get stronger (not unlike a non-Newtonian fluid, or Doomsday). He effectively trained almost all of the Roman commanders (with the notable exception, at least in part, of Scipio Africanus) and soon had a cadre of foes who, if not capable of defeating him, were at least capable of not getting massacred every other Tuesday.
Caesar lost at Dyrrhachium. He chose to attack a place defended by newly raised legions with his own loyal veterans and lost. He only won at Pharsalus because the man opposing him was so predictable Caesar knew even before the battle started what his plan would be.
So the real answer to what would really happen after a Yes vote is that nobody knows. All we seem to have at present is that there will be discussions but highly likely that independence will come within 2016.
Surely it is necessary before the referendum to set out some ground rules regarding timing and who will qualify to be party to those discussions.
Also if EdM is PM, would he seek to delay those discussions in order to prolong a majority that is dependent on the votes of Scottish MP's?
If any Tory "strategists" (ahem) need me to explain why, I'll be happy to oblige. I have a very reasonable fee rate.
If there was a 'Cross Party Plan' it would be denounced as 'Diktats' from 'Westminster Bullies' anyway......by the way, how's the Currency Plan B coming along - your supporters are waiting!
On the face of it, real wages are still rising more slowly than inflation. But if one strips out public sector workers, whose pay is being kept low deliberately by the government, a much more positive picture seems to be emerging for those workers whose earnings are determined by market forces. Average earnings excluding bonuses for private sector workers rose by 1.5 per cent year on year in the three months to December, significantly faster than the 1.2 per cent seen in November. The ONS also reports that median gross weekly earnings of the 18.8m full-time employees rose 2.8 per cent year on year in the fourth quarter. It’s all rather encouraging.
I keep on having nightmares, as a Scottish rugby fan, that we finish sixth this season and with the wooden spoon in the Six Nations and San Marino replace us !!
Surely the inability of Scotland to even maintain a decent rugby pitch means that an independent Scotland is doomed!! If they do get independence they will be begging to be taken back after a couple of years.
Ha ha .... that was a decent rugby pitch at Murrayfield as of old and not the manicured lawn bowls grounds that you soft lads prefer !!
'Different methodology' currently Top of the Discredit Survation Pops.
Which for those us 'allowed' to visit certain scottish blogs knew last night but also knew that
1/ It's an 11 point swing away from No to Yes. Not 4 or 5 or 6. On what far distant planet do you have to live to think that's a vindication of Osbrowne?? As the Bowie 'No speech' would have us believe, the Moon? Venus? Mars?
2/ TNS Poll "Yes voters are more likely to vote than No voters, by 84% to 73%" Don't the shriekers understand yet what that means? Once they work it out and realise how many points Yes could be behind in the polls and still win with that kind of differential turnout then maybe they'll stop making a fool of themselves.
Yeah, the differential thing is interesting. Purely anecdotally, some No voting friends say their main worry is getting their vote out. Trying to burrow into the reasoning for that, I can only conclude that No might inspire dogged loyalty, but very little enthusiasm.
Heard the same myself and since it's backed up by the polling just a bit more than anecdotal.
I said long ago (nor was I alone) that a massively negative campaign would just drive the turnout down for 'better together' and they were in no state whatsoever to compensate for that with the kind of huge GOTV and grass roots effort required. The lions share of resources, infrastructure and enthusiasm for that are fairly obviously on the Yes campaign's side.
I also warned at the time of the ICM poll and OGH saying back Yes that given the past history of those behind the No campaign the thing to watch out for now that the polls were narrowing would be a doubling down on the negativity from No as that's what happened in 2011. Well labour just had their answer to that 'master strategy' and it wasn't even them who initiated it this time. So they can quite happily blame Cammie and Osbrowne for the time being.
But will it stop No and 'better together' from doubling down on the negativity? I just can't see it. They know of little else to do and with cretins like the ultra-Blairite "no-brainer" McTernan back, and giving such 'helpful' advice to the No campaign as he did in 2011, thankfully it's a safe bet they'll just keep right on going and conclude that if only they were just a bit more negative then that will seal the deal for them.
Curtice right now stating the bleeding obvious- "In short, however one looks at this poll, one has, at minimum, to conclude that it offers no evidence that the currency intervention has delivered the No side any immediate boost."
You missed a bit (and a link):
Still, the poll does raise some questions for the Yes side. In particular, even a majority of Yes voters (59%), let alone of all voters (65%), think that Mr Salmond should spell out his currency Plan B in case a currency union does prove impossible to forge. Moreover, Yes voters are far from agreed on what that alternative should be. While 29% would like Scotland to have its own currency that is pegged to the pound, 23% would like to use the pound unilaterally, and 20% would prefer a fully floating separate currency. Corralling them all around an agreed alternative may not prove easy.
Don't be silly we will vote as normal given the UK will still be intact at that point. Will give some troughers a year to fill their boots, but unlikely that over 40 of them will be pig swilling Labour ones.
Let's take one example: given the tendency for tax changes to be announced up to a year in advance, why is it right that MPs for Scottish seats should vote on changes that will not come into force until after I-day?
Seems to me that the fairest solution is that Westminster passes a quick Act immediately after a Yes vote:
- acknowledging the referendum result - authorising ministers to enter into practical negotiations - replacing the Barnett formula witha fixed block grant for the next couple of years - immediately devolving (to extent practical) all Scottish-only matters to Holyrood and authorising UK ministers to use Crown Prerogative where necessary to give Holyrood decisions force of law - confirming the SMPs constituency and representative roles - suspending the right of SMPs to vote on non-devolved matters.
Even something like foreign affairs - given we are talking about 12months of overlap, there is no reason why SMPs should get to set the foreign policy of rUK. In practice, even if rUK went to war, I am sure that (a) plans could be developed that minimised the use of future Scottish assets and (b) Salmond would be unlikely to object during the separation negotiations if such assets (eg air bases) were necessary. No doubt, though, - and reasonably - he would want something in return
I believe you were saying the double whammy of Carney and Osborne were game-changing masterstrokes. Does that mean you think Yes would be much higher without their interventions?
Mr. Random, no intrusion at all. Always happy to talk about classical history, even with people who are utterly wrong
Hannibal had fewer soldiers of less certain loyalty yet remained in Italy undefeated for a decade. I can see the argument for considering a stalemate result to be a defeat for the aggressor (usually Hannibal), but certainly do not subscribe to it myself. A problem for him was that because Rome was at the peak of its patriotic fervour punching them hard, repeatedly, made them only get stronger (not unlike a non-Newtonian fluid, or Doomsday). He effectively trained almost all of the Roman commanders (with the notable exception, at least in part, of Scipio Africanus) and soon had a cadre of foes who, if not capable of defeating him, were at least capable of not getting massacred every other Tuesday.
Caesar lost at Dyrrhachium. He chose to attack a place defended by newly raised legions with his own loyal veterans and lost. He only won at Pharsalus because the man opposing him was so predictable Caesar knew even before the battle started what his plan would be.
Mr Dancer, Hannibals' career reminds me of nothing so much as an incident during the Paris peace conferences at the end of the Vietnam War (I apologise for this diverse into dangerously modern territory). An American and Vietnamese officer attached to the fringes of their respective delegations got talking, and as soldiers often do started reminiscing about the battles they'd seen.
"You know what?" Said the American. "out of all the battles we fought, you guys never won a single one. Not one!"
"That is true," said the Vietnamese officer. "But it is also irrelevant."
No prizes for guessing which is the Roman and which is Hannibal in this story.
And I have to disagree with you about Nola - the only definition of victory worth a damn is wether you achieved the objective the battle was fought for. At Nola, Hannibal fought with the goal of taking the city and failed, three times. Marcellus fought with the objective of keeping the city and succeeded, three times. Hannibal lost...
Mr. Divvie, polling now is almost irrelevant. What matters is how people will vote. Salmond has to decide whether he's going to outline plan B for currency, or just keep schtum.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
Where are the positive visions for the Union? Where are the No footsoldiers?
Good question - where is Scottish Labour and why are they too divided to campaign effectively?
Don't be silly we will vote as normal given the UK will still be intact at that point. Will give some troughers a year to fill their boots, but unlikely that over 40 of them will be pig swilling Labour ones.
Let's take one example: given the tendency for tax changes to be announced up to a year in advance, why is it right that MPs for Scottish seats should vote on changes that will not come into force until after I-day?
Seems to me that the fairest solution is that Westminster passes a quick Act immediately after a Yes vote:
- acknowledging the referendum result - authorising ministers to enter into practical negotiations - replacing the Barnett formula witha fixed block grant for the next couple of years - immediately devolving (to extent practical) all Scottish-only matters to Holyrood and authorising UK ministers to use Crown Prerogative where necessary to give Holyrood decisions force of law - confirming the SMPs constituency and representative roles - suspending the right of SMPs to vote on non-devolved matters.
Even something like foreign affairs - given we are talking about 12months of overlap, there is no reason why SMPs should get to set the foreign policy of rUK. In practice, even if rUK went to war, I am sure that (a) plans could be developed that minimised the use of future Scottish assets and (b) Salmond would be unlikely to object during the separation negotiations if such assets (eg air bases) were necessary. No doubt, though, - and reasonably - he would want something in return
Why so complicated? Why not pass a bill before the end of September 2014 removing MPs from Scottish constituencies from the House of Commons?
The Scottish people will have voted to end the Westminster Union. They will have chosen to be represented by their MPs in Holyrood. The Holyrood Parliament will be the de facto ruling body of Scotland, even if the details take a year or so to be completed.
Everything is a lot simpler if the Scottish MPs are simply removed the day after a YES vote in the referendum.
Curtice right now stating the bleeding obvious- "In short, however one looks at this poll, one has, at minimum, to conclude that it offers no evidence that the currency intervention has delivered the No side any immediate boost."
You missed a bit (and a link):
While you've missed the glaringly obvious fact that Curtice is very far from the last word on polling and is only one psephologist. He kept parroting the line that there had been no change in the Independence polling even when it was blatantly obvious there had been and was someone who most certainly did not cover himself in glory for the 2011 scottish elections.
Yet even HE knows that there is no way on earth to read this polling as anything other than bad for the idiots who were cheering on Osbrowne cluelessly.
You and so many other amusing right-wingers have just spent a week almost 24/7 on PB shrieking at the top of your lungs, crapping out every witless westminster bubble commentary from the press and pouring scorn all over the Yes campaign, Salmond and the SNP. And all for nothing.
It was pointless. You completely wasted your time. Something that those of us who are familiar with the scottish tory and PB tory track record on understanding scottish public opinion knew all too well. It's why we were laughing at you then and are laughing at you now.
By all means keep the shrieking going for another week. It will take your mind of so much else that seems to have passed you by politically elsewhere as well.
Mr. Random, you can't possibly expect me to be familiar with such a vulgarly recent incident.
Marcellus was a top chap. (Until Hannibal killed him, obviously). That said, defending a city against a chap with no siege engines (unlike Caesar/Alexander) was not very difficult at the time, especially given the preponderance of Roman numbers/reinforcements available.
I'd give Marcellus more credit for taking Syracuse. Damned shame his instruction about Archimedes being taken alive wasn't followed.
Edited extra bit: the Hundred Years War is another modern example of battlefield victories not equating to triumph in war.
Curtice right now stating the bleeding obvious- "In short, however one looks at this poll, one has, at minimum, to conclude that it offers no evidence that the currency intervention has delivered the No side any immediate boost."
You missed a bit (and a link):
While you've missed the glaringly obvious fact that Curtice is very far from the last word on polling and is only one psephologist, kept parroting the line that there had been no change in the polling even when it was blatantly obvious there had been and was someone who most certainly did not cover himself in glory for the 2011 scottish elections.
Yet even HE knows that there is no way on earth to read this polling as anything other than bad for the idiots who were cheering on OSbrowne cluelessly. You and so many other amusing right-wingers have just spent a week almost 24/7 on PB shrieking at the top of your lungs, crapping out every witless westmisner bubble commentary from the press and pouring scorn all over the Yes campaign, Salmond and the SNP. For nothing.
It was pointless. You wasted yout time. Something that those of us who are familiar with the scottish tories and PB tory track record on understanding scottish public opinion knew all too well. Which is why we were laughing at you then and laughing at you now.
By all means keep the shrieking going for another week .It will take your mind of so much else that seems to have passed you be politically as well.
My advice is to just let them get on with it. Pointing out to complete prats that they are being complete prats is just a waste of your own time. For nothing.
The more they misunderstand, and keep shrieking out their misunderstanding, the better for us. We don't want them to ever understand, cos then they might stand a chance of winning in September.
Curtice right now stating the bleeding obvious- "In short, however one looks at this poll, one has, at minimum, to conclude that it offers no evidence that the currency intervention has delivered the No side any immediate boost."
You missed a bit (and a link):
Still, the poll does raise some questions for the Yes side. In particular, even a majority of Yes voters (59%), let alone of all voters (65%), think that Mr Salmond should spell out his currency Plan B in case a currency union does prove impossible to forge. Moreover, Yes voters are far from agreed on what that alternative should be. While 29% would like Scotland to have its own currency that is pegged to the pound, 23% would like to use the pound unilaterally, and 20% would prefer a fully floating separate currency. Corralling them all around an agreed alternative may not prove easy.
As long as they keep voting yes, it wont really matter!
You see that, I see that, the PB Scottish Conservatives don't. They seem to think that endless technocratic scaremongering is a viable strategy despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Stuart_Dickson You are quite right. RD's statement is bad news for Unionists. I despair of the failure of the Scottish Conservatives to follow the German-Bavarian CSU example and come out from under London control: without a revival of Scottish Conservatism even if "No" carry it this autumn, the Union will remain at risk and must ultimately be lost.
Mr. Divvie, polling now is almost irrelevant. What matters is how people will vote. Salmond has to decide whether he's going to outline plan B for currency, or just keep schtum.
Polling almost irrelevant 7 months before an event? I think you're on the wrong site!
Still, it makes a change from the constant chorus of 'the polls have been static for months, Yes will never win'.
Happy Days, as the prospect of a Yes vote, and full independence loom ever closer. No shared £ of course - as we can see from the other poll, the English won't stand for that.
The Boy Scout can wibble his woggle at the delicious prospect of Labour losing 40+ Scottish based Westminster MPs.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
Where are the positive visions for the Union? Where are the No footsoldiers?
Good question - where is Scottish Labour and why are they too divided to campaign effectively?
It's sad when your opponents start playing the blame game 7 months before the event.
Who am I kidding, it's BRILLIANT!
Surely the low point was when Michael HowardJim Sillars former leader of the Conservative Party SNP denounced George Osborne'sAlex Salmond's currency plan as "stupidity on stilts"?
Mr. Divvie, how were the AV polls 7 months before the vote?
Mr. T, there's something in that. After the horror and outrage at an Englishman not agreeing with everything Salmond says and Scotland wants has receded people in Scotland will have to actually contemplate the ramifications of not having a currency union. Maybe they won't care. Some might well want the euro. But the question is there and the answer is not.
Curtice right now stating the bleeding obvious- "In short, however one looks at this poll, one has, at minimum, to conclude that it offers no evidence that the currency intervention has delivered the No side any immediate boost."
You missed a bit (and a link):
Still, the poll does raise some questions for the Yes side. In particular, even a majority of Yes voters (59%), let alone of all voters (65%), think that Mr Salmond should spell out his currency Plan B in case a currency union does prove impossible to forge. Moreover, Yes voters are far from agreed on what that alternative should be. While 29% would like Scotland to have its own currency that is pegged to the pound, 23% would like to use the pound unilaterally, and 20% would prefer a fully floating separate currency. Corralling them all around an agreed alternative may not prove easy.
As long as they keep voting yes, it wont really matter!
You see that, I see that, the PB Scottish Conservatives don't. They seem to think that endless technocratic scaremongering is a viable strategy despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Shhhhh! George Foulkes made an entire political career out of endless scaremongering. And he has hundreds of acolytes who still bang away on the well-worn path.
The more endless technocratic scaremongering I see from the Unionists the happier I become about Scotland winning in September.
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
Where are the positive visions for the Union? Where are the No footsoldiers?
Good question - where is Scottish Labour and why are they too divided to campaign effectively?
They are hiding as their support of the Tories will mean they will end up sharing the same fate as the Lib Dems
If the Yes vote wins, then what happens with the 2015 GE, are all persons who voted or were registered to vote, disbarred from voting in the GE and are the Scottish Westminster constituencies still valid?
We have debated this before. According to the Scottish Government white paper (the same one that says we will be in the EU, have the £, have a currency union with LOLR, be able to charge English students etc etc) they will be elected as normal. Whether that will be the case or, if so, what voting rights they will have is not something the rUK has commented on yet.
What I cannot see is Miliband as PM based on the votes of MPs from what is soon going to be an independent country. That really would be absurd.
David - what happens to the Scottish-nationality MPs who are in English constituencies? Will they become "foreign" and if so what would their position be?
thanks
Resolving passports and nationality issues after a YES will be a nightmare. Right now a 'Scot' is anyone with a UK passport who lives in Scotland - those are the ones who will get to vote. What becomes of those with Scottish ancestry or birth but who live elsewhere is a bit murky. Maybe all 63 million of us will end up as dual nationals!
Where are the positive visions for the Union? Where are the No footsoldiers?
Good question - where is Scottish Labour and why are they too divided to campaign effectively?
It's sad when your opponents start playing the blame game 7 months before the event.
Who am I kidding, it's BRILLIANT!
Surely the low point was when Michael HowardJim Sillars former leader of the Conservative Party SNP denounced George Osborne'sAlex Salmond's currency plan as "stupidity on stilts"?
Hey, I won a bet with myself on what precisely your response would be! Perhaps you could tentatively enter the heady world of gambling by betting with yourself.
Mr. Eagles, Scotland knew what they were getting with Robinson after his less than glorious reign at Twickenham. Bloody odd decision to hire him.
From the BBC F1 livefeed: "After doing just eight laps on the first day of public testing of the new E22, the Franco-Swiss admitted the team would not even try to find the best handling balance before the first race. 'I don't really care about set-up work,' Grosjean said. 'That's going to be when we are in free practice (in Melbourne). It's just about fixing all the issues and making sure the car is in one piece when we do long runs.'""
Yes it was odd, it would have been like the Romans appointed a Carthiginian as head of their army after the second Punic War.
Why would anyone want a serial loser in charge.
I'm sure the Glazers may be able to provide an answer..
I keep on having nightmares, as a Liverpool fan, we finish fourth this season, and Moyes leads Man U to the Champs League, and thus we end up in the Europa league.
I keep on having nightmares, as a Scottish rugby fan, that we finish sixth this season and with the wooden spoon in the Six Nations and San Marino replace us !!
Curtice right now stating the bleeding obvious- "In short, however one looks at this poll, one has, at minimum, to conclude that it offers no evidence that the currency intervention has delivered the No side any immediate boost."
You missed a bit (and a link):
Still, the poll does raise some questions for the Yes side. In particular, even a majority of Yes voters (59%), let alone of all voters (65%), think that Mr Salmond should spell out his currency Plan B in case a currency union does prove impossible to forge. Moreover, Yes voters are far from agreed on what that alternative should be. While 29% would like Scotland to have its own currency that is pegged to the pound, 23% would like to use the pound unilaterally, and 20% would prefer a fully floating separate currency. Corralling them all around an agreed alternative may not prove easy.
As long as they keep voting yes, it wont really matter!
You see that, I see that, the PB Scottish Conservatives don't. They seem to think that endless technocratic scaremongering is a viable strategy despite clear evidence to the contrary.
So what's Scottish Labour's plan? Oh yes, there isn't one, beyond complaining about Scottish Conservatives.....you don't think Labour has a role to play?
According to the PDF and the image the fieldwork was carried out between 28th January and 6th February, which would be before David Cameron's "love bombing" speech, George Osborne's ruling out of a currency union and Alex Salmond's "rebuttal" of it.
'Different methodology' currently Top of the Discredit Survation Pops.
Which for those us 'allowed' to visit certain scottish blogs knew last night but also knew that
1/ It's an 11 point swing away from No to Yes. Not 4 or 5 or 6. On what far distant planet do you have to live to think that's a vindication of Osbrowne?? As the Bowie 'No speech' would have us believe, the Moon? Venus? Mars?
2/ TNS Poll "Yes voters are more likely to vote than No voters, by 84% to 73%" Don't the shriekers understand yet what that means? Once they work it out and realise how many points Yes could be behind in the polls and still win with that kind of differential turnout then maybe they'll stop making a fool of themselves.
Yeah, the differential thing is interesting. Purely anecdotally, some No voting friends say their main worry is getting their vote out. Trying to burrow into the reasoning for that, I can only conclude that No might inspire dogged loyalty, but very little enthusiasm.
Heard the same myself and since it's backed up by the polling just a bit more than anecdotal.
I said long ago (nor was I alone) that a massively negative campaign would just drive the turnout down for 'better together' and they were in no state whatsoever to compensate for that with the kind of huge GOTV and grass roots effort required. The lions share of resources, infrastructure and enthusiasm for that are fairly obviously on the Yes campaign's side.
I also warned at the time of the ICM poll and OGH saying back Yes that given the past history of those behind the No campaign the thing to watch out for now that the polls were narrowing would be a doubling down on the negativity from No as that's what happened in 2011. Well labour just had their answer to that 'master strategy' and it wasn't even them who initiated it this time. So they can quite happily blame Cammie and Osbrowne for the time being.
But will it stop No and 'better together' from doubling down on the negativity? I just can't see it. They know of little else to do and with cretins like the ultra-Blairite "no-brainer" McTernan back, and giving such 'helpful' advice to the No campaign as he did in 2011, thankfully it's a safe bet they'll just keep right on going and conclude that if only they were just a bit more negative then that will seal the deal for them.
Excellent post Mick and one that every unionist ought to read.
I'd be interested in a thread on the campaign funding situation. My sense is that Yes is better funded and better staffed. I wonder whether funds are coming from across the Atlantic from rich Scots-Americans? Be keen to read up on this.
Stuart_Dickson You are quite right. RD's statement is bad news for Unionists. I despair of the failure of the Scottish Conservatives to follow the German-Bavarian CSU example and come out from under London control: without a revival of Scottish Conservatism even if "No" carry it this autumn, the Union will remain at risk and must ultimately be lost.
Ruth Davidson's election as "Leader" (ahem) of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party was one of the biggest Unionist foot-shooting exercises in the last ten years. And it was all the work of David Cameron. God bless his rosy wee cheeks.
Davidson, Rennie and Lamont are the invisible trio of the IndyRef campaign. And there is a reason their minders have kept them out of the spotlights.
Comments
Alas, I'm busy all morning, so will miss all the fun.
As I pointed out, when I first raised the question, if Survation are weighting by Holyrood vote the new poll may be more reliable - but the hilarity is the rush of Nats scurrying to compare it with a poll they previously discredited.....
Why would anyone want a serial loser in charge.
The logical thing would be to do a deal with Holyrood whereby from May next year until the date of Independence, the 56 regional Scottish MSPs could be delegated by Holyrood to attend Westminster and vote on any UK legislation which needs a Scottish input.
We have too small a base of professional players and presently we are in a trough of international standard players. The only positive is that the junior base is growing, so perhaps some hope for the future.
I'm sure the Glazers may be able to provide an answer..
Interesting. IMO I agree with @SeanT. If they perceive that grown-up discussion about the future of an independent Scotland and its currency is "bullying" I can see how they might lash out. Which they appear to have done here.
They will return to the fold come the actual vote.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing and to what degree the debate becomes ever more poisonous will be interesting with no doubt some repercussions.
If this really is ASalmond's game plan it is a pretty brutal and selfish one.
Edit: And also Tory - Ms Davidson is a List MSP IIRC.
Tsk ....
Ireland left the UK fine - as I understand it, the Irish have fully functioning passports.
Where are the positive visions for the Union?
Where are the No footsoldiers?
From parliament.uk.
I suppose they would bolt on "Or Scotland."
Some wise fellow tipped Scotland to finish 5th or 6th.
Who am I kidding, it's BRILLIANT!
As an example, take the DVLA. It's obvious that detailed driver data will need to be shared between the two countries, maybe permanently, or maybe Scotland will take their own in a year or three.
But that means that detailed driver data for the rest of the UK will be available, and this will probably be much more than our obligations under the Prüm Convention. Likewise, data for Scottish drivers will be available to the rest of the UK.
It's admittedly a small issue, but there are hundreds of such issues that will need sorting, and they all add up.
It will require a maturity on both sides that no amount of chortling, tears of laughter or ROFL'ing will make up for.
Oh yes, it's a story of no importance.....
1/ It's an 11 point swing away from No to Yes. Not 4 or 5 or 6. On what far distant planet do you have to live to think that's a vindication of Osbrowne?? As the Bowie 'No speech' would have us believe, the Moon? Venus? Mars?
2/ TNS Poll "Yes voters are more likely to vote than No voters, by 84% to 73%"
Don't the shriekers understand yet what that means? Once they work it out and realise how many points Yes could be behind in the polls and still win with that kind of differential turnout then maybe they'll stop making a fool of themselves.
I did hear that the reason the BBC refused to have more sophisticated probabilistic-based forecasts was because they assumed the public were too stupid to understand them. You are yet one more data point that proves them right.
Clue: If we had experienced a record dry winter it would not have proved the Met Office forecast right. That's simply not how a probabilistic forecast of this nature works. You cannot make a deterministic forecast of a chaotic system on those timescales.
There will be nothing to stop David Cameron laying a Parliament Act bill before the HoC in October after the summer recess disqualifying all 59 Scottish constituencies as from the Dissolution of the 2010 Parliament. If it is passed as it will be by English, Welsh and Ulster MPs, it becomes the law and Scotland ceases to have Westminster MPs from March 2015. The courts would not have authority to overturn any legislation passed under the Parliament Act. Any attempt in the courts could take longer to be resolved than the independence negotiations.
The logical thing would be to do a deal with Holyrood whereby from May next year until the date of Independence, the 56 regional Scottish MSPs could be delegated by Holyrood to attend Westminster and vote on any UK legislation which needs a Scottish input.
Interesting suggestion, thanks though whether Labour and the LDs would sign up to it I am not sure. I also doubt it would happen in quite that way because the list MSPs are probably not typical of the parliament as a whole (disproportionately Labour IIRC). .
Edit: And also Tory - Ms Davidson is a List MSP IIRC.
Carnyx the reason I suggest the List MSPs is firstly because there are almost exactly the same number as Scottish Westminster MPs (3 fewer) and secondly, they are more representative of the voting intentions of the Scots in 2011 i.e. they saved the bacon of the 3 unionist parties who lost a great many of their constituency seats to the SNP. It also gives the Greens and Margo a say.
In the year 2015-16 it is hard to see Westminster passing much legislation which would actually take effect before Independence, given that most legislation comes into force a year or so after the Royal Assent. As a Scot, if we do vote for Independence, I feel uncomfortable at the prospect of MPs representing Scottish constituencies potentially being on the rUK side of the discussions. They must have a major conflict of interest.
You are confusing the nation that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that presently by various Acts of Union includes Scotland and the geographic Britain and British Isles that also includes the Republic of Ireland.
An independent Scotland would no longer be a member of the first but would be of the second and third.
The remaining elements of the UK may still wish to be called UK as the nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or The United Kingdom of England Wales and Northern Ireland. The former is more likely as Great Britain is a political construct rather than a geographic one.
"You are yet one more data point that proves them right."
on the other hand, hunchman, as a single data point doesn't prove anything either...
"Confidence in the forecast for precipitation across the UK over the next three months is relatively low"
Could, I suppose be argued that they'd have been better off not publishing it at all!
Governments are set on subsidising global warming by throwing money at digging up fossil fuels and no-one wants to spend money on our plans for solar parasols, sulphate aerosol super-guns, or sea-spray ships. They're obsessed with this idea of warming Torbay up so that it lives up to the name "The English Riviera", without realising that if it does warm up to Mediterranean levels the consequent sea level rise will wash all the sand away...
http://wall.alphacoders.com/big.php?i=304129
Looking at their website they are having some events but these seem to be mainly in Glasgow where SLAB are strongest.
I keep on having nightmares, as a Scottish rugby fan, that we finish sixth this season and with the wooden spoon in the Six Nations and San Marino replace us !!
Surely the inability of Scotland to even maintain a decent rugby pitch means that an independent Scotland is doomed!! If they do get independence they will be begging to be taken back after a couple of years.
Still, the poll does raise some questions for the Yes side. In particular, even a majority of Yes voters (59%), let alone of all voters (65%), think that Mr Salmond should spell out his currency Plan B in case a currency union does prove impossible to forge. Moreover, Yes voters are far from agreed on what that alternative should be. While 29% would like Scotland to have its own currency that is pegged to the pound, 23% would like to use the pound unilaterally, and 20% would prefer a fully floating separate currency. Corralling them all around an agreed alternative may not prove easy.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/02/first-post-currency-row-poll-shows-no-boost-for-no/
Hannibal had fewer soldiers of less certain loyalty yet remained in Italy undefeated for a decade. I can see the argument for considering a stalemate result to be a defeat for the aggressor (usually Hannibal), but certainly do not subscribe to it myself. A problem for him was that because Rome was at the peak of its patriotic fervour punching them hard, repeatedly, made them only get stronger (not unlike a non-Newtonian fluid, or Doomsday). He effectively trained almost all of the Roman commanders (with the notable exception, at least in part, of Scipio Africanus) and soon had a cadre of foes who, if not capable of defeating him, were at least capable of not getting massacred every other Tuesday.
Caesar lost at Dyrrhachium. He chose to attack a place defended by newly raised legions with his own loyal veterans and lost. He only won at Pharsalus because the man opposing him was so predictable Caesar knew even before the battle started what his plan would be.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26189448
If any Tory "strategists" (ahem) need me to explain why, I'll be happy to oblige. I have a very reasonable fee rate.
Surely it is necessary before the referendum to set out some ground rules regarding timing and who will qualify to be party to those discussions.
Also if EdM is PM, would he seek to delay those discussions in order to prolong a majority that is dependent on the votes of Scottish MP's?
On the face of it, real wages are still rising more slowly than inflation. But if one strips out public sector workers, whose pay is being kept low deliberately by the government, a much more positive picture seems to be emerging for those workers whose earnings are determined by market forces. Average earnings excluding bonuses for private sector workers rose by 1.5 per cent year on year in the three months to December, significantly faster than the 1.2 per cent seen in November. The ONS also reports that median gross weekly earnings of the 18.8m full-time employees rose 2.8 per cent year on year in the fourth quarter. It’s all rather encouraging.
http://www.cityam.com/article/1392860636/productivity-growing-again-real-pay-rises-could-be-next#sthash.LBW7o6FD.dpuf
Carry on.
Ha ha .... that was a decent rugby pitch at Murrayfield as of old and not the manicured lawn bowls grounds that you soft lads prefer !!
I said long ago (nor was I alone) that a massively negative campaign would just drive the turnout down for 'better together' and they were in no state whatsoever to compensate for that with the kind of huge GOTV and grass roots effort required. The lions share of resources, infrastructure and enthusiasm for that are fairly obviously on the Yes campaign's side.
I also warned at the time of the ICM poll and OGH saying back Yes that given the past history of those behind the No campaign the thing to watch out for now that the polls were narrowing would be a doubling down on the negativity from No as that's what happened in 2011. Well labour just had their answer to that 'master strategy' and it wasn't even them who initiated it this time. So they can quite happily blame Cammie and Osbrowne for the time being.
But will it stop No and 'better together' from doubling down on the negativity? I just can't see it. They know of little else to do and with cretins like the ultra-Blairite "no-brainer" McTernan back, and giving such 'helpful' advice to the No campaign as he did in 2011, thankfully it's a safe bet they'll just keep right on going and conclude that if only they were just a bit more negative then that will seal the deal for them.
Seems to me that the fairest solution is that Westminster passes a quick Act immediately after a Yes vote:
- acknowledging the referendum result
- authorising ministers to enter into practical negotiations
- replacing the Barnett formula witha fixed block grant for the next couple of years
- immediately devolving (to extent practical) all Scottish-only matters to Holyrood and authorising UK ministers to use Crown Prerogative where necessary to give Holyrood decisions force of law
- confirming the SMPs constituency and representative roles
- suspending the right of SMPs to vote on non-devolved matters.
Even something like foreign affairs - given we are talking about 12months of overlap, there is no reason why SMPs should get to set the foreign policy of rUK. In practice, even if rUK went to war, I am sure that (a) plans could be developed that minimised the use of future Scottish assets and (b) Salmond would be unlikely to object during the separation negotiations if such assets (eg air bases) were necessary. No doubt, though, - and reasonably - he would want something in return
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26261696
"UK economic recovery not secure, warns George Osborne"
"You know what?" Said the American. "out of all the battles we fought, you guys never won a single one. Not one!"
"That is true," said the Vietnamese officer. "But it is also irrelevant."
No prizes for guessing which is the Roman and which is Hannibal in this story.
And I have to disagree with you about Nola - the only definition of victory worth a damn is wether you achieved the objective the battle was fought for. At Nola, Hannibal fought with the goal of taking the city and failed, three times. Marcellus fought with the objective of keeping the city and succeeded, three times. Hannibal lost...
The Scottish people will have voted to end the Westminster Union. They will have chosen to be represented by their MPs in Holyrood. The Holyrood Parliament will be the de facto ruling body of Scotland, even if the details take a year or so to be completed.
Everything is a lot simpler if the Scottish MPs are simply removed the day after a YES vote in the referendum.
Yet even HE knows that there is no way on earth to read this polling as anything other than bad for the idiots who were cheering on Osbrowne cluelessly.
You and so many other amusing right-wingers have just spent a week almost 24/7 on PB shrieking at the top of your lungs, crapping out every witless westminster bubble commentary from the press and pouring scorn all over the Yes campaign, Salmond and the SNP. And all for nothing.
It was pointless. You completely wasted your time. Something that those of us who are familiar with the scottish tory and PB tory track record on understanding scottish public opinion knew all too well. It's why we were laughing at you then and are laughing at you now.
By all means keep the shrieking going for another week. It will take your mind of so much else that seems to have passed you by politically elsewhere as well.
Marcellus was a top chap. (Until Hannibal killed him, obviously). That said, defending a city against a chap with no siege engines (unlike Caesar/Alexander) was not very difficult at the time, especially given the preponderance of Roman numbers/reinforcements available.
I'd give Marcellus more credit for taking Syracuse. Damned shame his instruction about Archimedes being taken alive wasn't followed.
Edited extra bit: the Hundred Years War is another modern example of battlefield victories not equating to triumph in war.
And we wonder why No is being pegged back.
The more they misunderstand, and keep shrieking out their misunderstanding, the better for us. We don't want them to ever understand, cos then they might stand a chance of winning in September.
They seem to think that endless technocratic scaremongering is a viable strategy despite clear evidence to the contrary.
You are quite right. RD's statement is bad news for Unionists. I despair of the failure of the Scottish Conservatives to follow the German-Bavarian CSU example and come out from under London control: without a revival of Scottish Conservatism even if "No" carry it this autumn, the Union will remain at risk and must ultimately be lost.
Still, it makes a change from the constant chorus of 'the polls have been static for months, Yes will never win'.
The Boy Scout can wibble his woggle at the delicious prospect of Labour losing 40+ Scottish based Westminster MPs.
As Sean Fear and others tried to explain to you patiently yesterday there is nothing either "flaky" or "fishy" about the unemployment figures.
If they were Farage and Balls would be all over them like a rash - Cue silence.
You noted yourself you were neither an economist or a statistician. Clearly so.
On this issue might I suggest you stop digging into the sink hole you created for yourself otherwise we might assume you were a JCB digger driver.
Mr. T, there's something in that. After the horror and outrage at an Englishman not agreeing with everything Salmond says and Scotland wants has receded people in Scotland will have to actually contemplate the ramifications of not having a currency union. Maybe they won't care. Some might well want the euro. But the question is there and the answer is not.
The more endless technocratic scaremongering I see from the Unionists the happier I become about Scotland winning in September.
As a wise man once said, 'Calm down dear.'
Unless I am missing something?
I'd be interested in a thread on the campaign funding situation. My sense is that Yes is better funded and better staffed. I wonder whether funds are coming from across the Atlantic from rich Scots-Americans? Be keen to read up on this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16537073
Davidson, Rennie and Lamont are the invisible trio of the IndyRef campaign. And there is a reason their minders have kept them out of the spotlights.