Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The way opinion is moving in Scotland the value IndyRef bet

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited March 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The way opinion is moving in Scotland the value IndyRef bet is now on YES

There has been a clear tightening in the polls and if this continues I can see the YES price moving in with NO moving out. The prices, seen in the chart, are quite generous and my guess is that they will move.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Sorry to be OT, but we must be sure that overtaxation does not frighten these people away to a more friendly tax climate.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581188/Revealed-How-people-living-just-10-mega-rich-London-constituencies-pay-10-entire-countrys-tax.html
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    edited March 2014
    Financier said:

    Sorry to be OT, but we must be sure that overtaxation does not frighten these people away to a more friendly tax climate.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581188/Revealed-How-people-living-just-10-mega-rich-London-constituencies-pay-10-entire-countrys-tax.html

    Is it just me, or does everyone else recoil in utter horror at the shocking inaccuracies in the map shown as part of that article?
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited March 2014
    Financier said:

    Sorry to be OT, but we must be sure that overtaxation does not frighten these people away to a more friendly tax climate.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581188/Revealed-How-people-living-just-10-mega-rich-London-constituencies-pay-10-entire-countrys-tax.html

    Why don't they simply declare Independence from the rest of the UK? So many rich Russkies, particularly in the Surrey bit, that Vlad could give them a hand - 'Havlottia' would be a good name.

    (Agree with Lennon - odd that the map is squished on the lower left, to squash in Walton and Esher. 20 miles becomes 5).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Who knows? I would be cautious pinning too much on Panelbase who have conducted polls in the past which have attracted criticism - wait to see the full tables - John Curtice:

    Cautious heads will warn that one swallow does not make a summer. They will note that the poll was largely conducted before the publication of the latest Scottish Government and Expenditure Revenue statistics that showed a weakening of Scotland’s fiscal position, as well as after many a company spoke in their annual reports of the possible risks of independence. The gender gap (at 46% the proportion of women backing independence is almost as high as the 48% figure for men) is unusually small. Nevertheless for the time being at least the poll is bound to provide a boost to the Yes side’s morale.

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/03/panelbase-now-also-show-yes-vote-up/
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited March 2014
    Financier said:

    Sorry to be OT, but we must be sure that overtaxation does not frighten these people away to a more friendly tax climate.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581188/Revealed-How-people-living-just-10-mega-rich-London-constituencies-pay-10-entire-countrys-tax.html

    Only 6 or 7 times the average seems like a surprisingly small spread, especially given:
    1) Poor people can't afford to live there.
    2) Old people who don't need to work in London would get more for their money retiring somewhere else.
    2) Slow boundary changes and non-enfranchisement of foreign nationals probably means they have higher populations than most constituencies.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    #Bingogate

    David Cameron was just gifted another opportunity in a live TV press conference to confirm that yes, the Tories have indeed CUT TAXES for people.

    Grant Schapps must be kicking himself.

    Oh, wait...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    FPT:

    The British public see this year's budget as the fairest since 2010 – and nine of its policies are supported by a majority


    The penultimate budget of this parliament has won broad approval from the press, and Labour’s biggest criticism focused more on what wasn’t in it than what was – indeed, Ed Balls agreed with much of it.......

    The standout policies have cross party appeal. 90% of Labour voters support raising the point at which the 40% tax rate comes into effect; 52% favour increasing the personal tax allowance to £1,500; 66% agree with increasing the amount of money people can save tax-free in an ISA; and 54% support making it easier for pensioners to take part of their pension as a lump sum.

    The only policy opposed by the majority of Labour voters (51%) is the cap on the welfare bill, which Labour have actually agreed to support..

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/03/21/budget-2014-fairest-since-2010/
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    edited March 2014

    Financier said:

    Sorry to be OT, but we must be sure that overtaxation does not frighten these people away to a more friendly tax climate.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581188/Revealed-How-people-living-just-10-mega-rich-London-constituencies-pay-10-entire-countrys-tax.html

    Why don't they simply declare Independence from the rest of the UK?

    (Agree with Lennon - odd that the map is squished on the lower left, to squash in Walton and Esher. 20 miles becomes 5).
    It's way worse than just that - they appear to have coloured London Borough's instead of actual constituencies, so for example, the London Borough of Barnet is labelled as 'Hampstead and Kilburn'!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @politicshome: .@David_Cameron - "I think bingo wasn’t taxed fairly and I’m very pleased that we’ve managed to cut the tax on bingo"
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @Avery

    Debt £800bn in 2010
    Will be ~£1.4bn next year.

    And no amount of your inept spin or yellow boxes looking at your preferred measures of net debt and debt as a proportion of GDP will alter that I'm afraid. Don't call me a liar again.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/david-cameron-rebuked-for-telling-porkies-about-the-national-debt/
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    OT, a really good thing on housing at ConHome.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/03/how-thatcher-sold-council-houses-and-created-a-new-generation-of-property-owners.html
    Thatcher was worried that Conservative voters who had paid in full for their houses would be annoyed if council tenants were able to buy at a discount: “What will they say on my Wates estates?” she asked. But she was prevailed upon [by Edward Heath] to swallow this objection.
    ...
    Private builders have not stepped in to replace what the state used to do. The planning system has remained essentially socialist, which means there is an acute shortage of land in the parts of the country where the largest numbers of people actually want to live.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Scott_P said:

    #Bingogate

    David Cameron was just gifted another opportunity in a live TV press conference to confirm that yes, the Tories have indeed CUT TAXES for people.

    Grant Schapps must be kicking himself.

    Oh, wait...

    To clarify, for the umpteenth time, did you think the bingo tweet was a good move? I only ask because you haven't actually expressed an opinion of your own.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Who knows? I would be cautious pinning too much on Panelbase who have conducted polls in the past which have attracted criticism - wait to see the full tables - John Curtice:

    Cautious heads will warn that one swallow does not make a summer. They will note that the poll was largely conducted before the publication of the latest Scottish Government and Expenditure Revenue statistics that showed a weakening of Scotland’s fiscal position, as well as after many a company spoke in their annual reports of the possible risks of independence. The gender gap (at 46% the proportion of women backing independence is almost as high as the 48% figure for men) is unusually small. Nevertheless for the time being at least the poll is bound to provide a boost to the Yes side’s morale.

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/03/panelbase-now-also-show-yes-vote-up/

    On the other hand if you did not have a blind hatred of Scotland being an independent country you could look at his other paragraph
    But it is entirely consistent with the increase registered in the last two to three months by the polls as a whole. On average, the 14 polls conducted since Christmas have put the Yes vote on 42% (once Don’t Knows are excluded), up three points on the equivalent statistic for all of the polls conducted in the second half of last year. There can now be little doubt that the No side’s lead has narrowed – and equally that last month’s currency intervention has so far failed to reverse that trend.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789

    @Avery

    Debt £800bn in 2010
    Will be ~£1.4tn next year.

    And no amount of your inept spin or yellow boxes looking at your preferred measures of net debt and debt as a proportion of GDP will alter that I'm afraid. Don't call me a liar again.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/david-cameron-rebuked-for-telling-porkies-about-the-national-debt/
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited March 2014
    The rights and wrongs of bingogate or whatever its called aren't for me to judge, but I do keep having visions of Grant Schapps bouncing into the Tory conference singing "Saturdays Kids" by The Jam!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKcNSrB_kqg
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    FPT.
    Avery, explain how he reduced it whilst borrowing more than additional £100B per annum. Did we pay back more than that each year. Methinks you are using weasely Tory words and being very very economical with the truth.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    edited March 2014
    Soory Mike , I do not see where you get a clear tightening in the polls from . you are relying on just 2 polls Panelbase and Survation where the "tightening" was down to a major change in methodology . Better to wait for up to date data from more established pollsters ,
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    BobaFett said:

    Scott_P said:

    #Bingogate

    David Cameron was just gifted another opportunity in a live TV press conference to confirm that yes, the Tories have indeed CUT TAXES for people.

    Grant Schapps must be kicking himself.

    Oh, wait...

    To clarify, for the umpteenth time, did you think the bingo tweet was a good move? I only ask because you haven't actually expressed an opinion of your own.
    He has no opinion of his own , just posts other people's drivel.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    malcolmg said:

    AveryLP said:

    @BobaFett

    ...

    Here are the correct figures on Public Sector Net Debt as published this morning in the ONS's (much improved) Public Sector Finances Bulletin:

    Public Net Debt
    Sector as
    Net Debt %
    £ billion GDP
    ---------------------------
    2005 475.0 36.2
    2006 509.2 36.7
    2007 645.8 44.1
    2008 2,137.3 149.8
    2009 2,245.5 154.6


    2010 2 249.8 148.7

    2011 2 224.4 143.1
    2012 2 187.8 137.6
    2013 2 204.1 133.0
    ---------------------------
    Source: ONS PSF Bulletin
    21 March 2014

    You will see from the table that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling increased debt from £475 billion to £2,250 billion in five years. In other words Labour increased net debt four and three quarters times over their last term of government. As a proportion of GDP net debt rose from 36.2% to 154.6%.

    And these figures do not include the £200 billion of Quantitative Easing undertaken by the BoE and guaranteed by the taxpayer under Labour.

    George by contrast has reduced debt over his first three years, albeit by a small amount, £45.7 billion. The ratio of PSND to GDP has also fallen from a peak of 154.6% under Brown/Darling to 133% under Osborne.

    Avery, explain how he reduced it whilst borrowing more than additional £100B per annum. Did we pay back more than that each year. Methinks you are using weasely Tory words and being very very economical with the truth.
    Malc, you drunk Ayrshire terrier, I am not being economical with the truth. I am quoting the relevant figures from today's ONS PSF Bulletin, Table PSF1.

    Under George, Public Sector Net Debt excluding financial interventions (the effects of the bank bailouts) rose from £984 billion (65% GDP) in 2010 to £1254.7 billion (75.7%) at end 2013. This is £280.7 billion of additional borrowing.

    This extra borrowing has been offset by £316.4 billion of debt reduction due (mainly) to changes in the net debts of the intervened banks.

    This month's PSF Bulletin reconciles PSND to PSND ex in Table PSF11B. Between end 2012 Q2 and end 2013 Q4 (the range of dates in the table). the net debts of the intervened banks fell from £965.4 billion to £904.2 billion. This is broadly the trend across the whole term.

    Effectively total net debt is falling due to the net debt of the public sector banks falling in greater volume than other government debt is rising. Not an ideal way to reduce debt and not sustainable over the long term, but a debt reduction nonetheless.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    Who knows? I would be cautious pinning too much on Panelbase who have conducted polls in the past which have attracted criticism - wait to see the full tables - John Curtice:

    Cautious heads will warn that one swallow does not make a summer. They will note that the poll was largely conducted before the publication of the latest Scottish Government and Expenditure Revenue statistics that showed a weakening of Scotland’s fiscal position, as well as after many a company spoke in their annual reports of the possible risks of independence. The gender gap (at 46% the proportion of women backing independence is almost as high as the 48% figure for men) is unusually small. Nevertheless for the time being at least the poll is bound to provide a boost to the Yes side’s morale.

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/03/panelbase-now-also-show-yes-vote-up/

    On the other hand if you did not have a blind hatred of Scotland being an independent country
    Why do you persist in these lies Malcolm?

    You are the one with "blind hatred" of those who ask questions of the very dodgy prospectus the SNP are offering.......

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    edited March 2014

    Soory Mike , I do not see where you get a clear tightening in the polls from . you are relying on just 2 polls Panelbase and Survation where the "tightening" was down to a major change in methodology . Better to wait for up to date data from more established pollsters ,

    He actually looks at them
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited March 2014
    BobaFett said:


    @Avery
    Don't call me a liar again.


    Did he?




  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    The work experience person who did that Mail story clearly failed geography.

    Esher and Walton are not in Greater London.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    malcolmg said:

    Soory Mike , I do not see where you get a clear tightening in the polls from . you are relying on just 2 polls SNPbase and Survation where the "tightening" was down to a major change in methodology . Better to wait for up to date data from more established pollsters ,

    He actually looks at them
    So do I .
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    malcolmg said:

    BobaFett said:

    Scott_P said:

    #Bingogate

    David Cameron was just gifted another opportunity in a live TV press conference to confirm that yes, the Tories have indeed CUT TAXES for people.

    Grant Schapps must be kicking himself.

    Oh, wait...

    To clarify, for the umpteenth time, did you think the bingo tweet was a good move? I only ask because you haven't actually expressed an opinion of your own.
    He has no opinion of his own , just posts other people's drivel.
    I have noticed that too @malcolmmg - I don't always agree with your opinion but at least you have one.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    BobaFett said:

    The work experience person who did that Mail story clearly failed geography.

    Esher and Walton are not in Greater London.

    As JohnO can testify Esher and Walton is in Bournemouth.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Scott_P said:

    @politicshome: .@David_Cameron - "I think bingo wasn’t taxed fairly and I’m very pleased that we’ve managed to cut the tax on bingo"

    And your view on the Schapps tweet is???
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The Panelbase tables are up. In this case the initial questions were simple classification ones.

    http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/NewsnetScotlandPollv3.pdf

    Interestingly this shows yes ahead (net) among 16-34 and 35-55 (+8) but not 55+ (-27)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    The news that the grandest of grandee Conservative MP's, Sir Peter Tapsell, is to retire brings with it the most dire of consequences.

    We must now face the prospect that post the 2015 general election the quite spectacularly awful Gerald Kaufman will become Father of the House of Commons. Yes he of the expenses scandal £9k tv and £1800 rug (No Mike, not that sort of rug) and sundry other public largesse.

    Bugger ....
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,549
    Budget polling.

    In general events take time to seep into voters awareness. IIRC there is normally a lag of around a week.

    But the major change in polls is not caused by events, but message and general impression. Both take time to change and also have to be grounded in reality.

    There is now a clear idealogical break between the coalition parties and labour. Personal freedom v nanny state. The pensions and annuity discussion is illustrative of this.

    Expect this message to be reinforced in months to come.

    The polls will change as the message gets through. But it takes time.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Neil said:

    BobaFett said:

    The work experience person who did that Mail story clearly failed geography.

    Esher and Walton are not in Greater London.

    As JohnO can testify Esher and Walton is in Bournemouth.
    :)
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    There is now a clear idealogical break between the coalition parties and labour. Personal freedom v nanny state.

    lol

    http://theweek.com/article/index/253058/why-david-camerons-crusade-against-porn-is-the-nanny-state-at-its-worst
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    BobaFett said:

    @Avery

    Debt £800bn in 2010
    Will be ~£1.4bn next year.

    And no amount of your inept spin or yellow boxes looking at your preferred measures of net debt and debt as a proportion of GDP will alter that I'm afraid. Don't call me a liar again.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/david-cameron-rebuked-for-telling-porkies-about-the-national-debt/

    There is nothing in the Spectator blog article which validates your argument.

    The chart published by the Spectator represents and is clearly labelled "Public Sector Net Debt excluding financial interventions" which is a subset of Public Sector Net Debt.

    The interchange of letters between Rachel Reeves and Sir Andrew Dilnot, referred to in the Spectator blog, solely concerns the difference between flow messages of borrowing and stock measures of debt, and, the benefit of clarity and transparency which derives from politicians using the different terms correctly.

    We are not muddling borrowing and debt in our posts. We are talking only of the stock measure, debt.

    I did not claim you were deliberately lying, just that you were wrong.

    As you give some the impression of being an intelligent man, I may need to change my position if you persist in making inaccurate claims.

    At present you just benefit from a quickly diminishing extent of doubt.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    SeanT said:

    If there is value in a YES bet, then there must be value in a Tory majority, as YES will overturn everything, and mutilate Labour. We will then be voting for the Divorce Parliament. The Tories will look like better divorce lawyers, to anxious English voters.

    Intriguingly it might also be one way for Boris to become PM. YES Wins > Cameron or Miliband become PM > but only for a year, until the Scots MPs leave > a new election is called, Miliband CANNOT win, without his Scots MPs > nonetheless the shocked Tories ditch referendum-loser Cameron (if they haven't done this already) and install Boris to cheer everyone up > Boris wins as Prime Minister of England (and other bits) in 2016.

    Doddle.

    Miliband or Johnson? Tricky. They're both plums.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    I see some people's masks are slipping today.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    SeanT said:

    If there is value in a YES bet, then there must be value in a Tory majority, as YES will overturn everything, and mutilate Labour. We will then be voting for the Divorce Parliament. The Tories will look like better divorce lawyers, to anxious English voters.

    Intriguingly it might also be one way for Boris to become PM. YES Wins > Cameron or Miliband become PM > but only for a year, until the Scots MPs leave > a new election is called, Miliband CANNOT win, without his Scots MPs > nonetheless the shocked Tories ditch referendum-loser Cameron (if they haven't done this already) and install Boris to cheer everyone up > Boris wins as Prime Minister of England (and other bits) in 2016.

    Doddle.

    That's a good theory but does it stack up mathematically (in betting terms). Isn't it easier just to pile in on Yes, which is overpriced, then trade off it, if required?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Interestingly Panelbase have published the results of Qs 1-4 and 11, omitting 5-10. Question 11 refers to "this partnership" effect on the Labour Party, strongly suggesting it was covered in 5-10. I wonder why these results have not (yet?) been published......
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Lol.

    The SNP propaganda machine must immediately take action in the estates of Westerhailes, Castlemilk & Easterhouse to counter the effects of this potential game changer.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    AveryLP said:

    malcolmg said:

    AveryLP said:

    @BobaFett

    ...

    Here are the correct figures on Public Sector Net Debt as published this morning in the ONS's (much improved) Public Sector Finances Bulletin:

    Public Net Debt
    Sector as
    Net Debt %
    £ billion GDP
    ---------------------------
    2005 475.0 36.2
    2006 509.2 36.7
    2007 645.8 44.1
    2008 2,137.3 149.8
    2009 2,245.5 154.6


    2010 2 249.8 148.7

    2011 2 224.4 143.1
    2012 2 187.8 137.6
    2013 2 204.1 133.0
    ---------------------------
    Source: ONS PSF Bulletin
    21 March 2014


    Avery, explain how he reduced it whilst borrowing more than additional £100B per annum. Did we pay back more than that each year. Methinks you are using weasely Tory words and being very very economical with the truth.
    Malc, you drunk Ayrshire terrier, I am not being economical with the truth. I am quoting the relevant figures from today's ONS PSF Bulletin, Table PSF1.

    Under George, Public Sector Net Debt excluding financial interventions (the effects of the bank bailouts) rose from £984 billion (65% GDP) in 2010 to £1254.7 billion (75.7%) at end 2013. This is £280.7 billion of additional borrowing.

    This extra borrowing has been offset by £316.4 billion of debt reduction due (mainly) to changes in the net debts of the intervened banks.

    This month's PSF Bulletin reconciles PSND to PSND ex in Table PSF11B. Between end 2012 Q2 and end 2013 Q4 (the range of dates in the table). the net debts of the intervened banks fell from £965.4 billion to £904.2 billion. This is broadly the trend across the whole term.

    Effectively total net debt is falling due to the net debt of the public sector banks falling in greater volume than other government debt is rising. Not an ideal way to reduce debt and not sustainable over the long term, but a debt reduction nonetheless.
    Even sober I can see financial sleight of hand in there. Deducting some dodgy numbers related to intervened banks confirms your whole crock of bovine ordure is still steaming.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Where do they find these stooges.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    BobaFett said:
    I am quickly reaching the conclusion that you are a shilling short, ___afett.

    Read my previous reply to you and my post to malcolmg. It is all clearly stated.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Lol.

    The SNP propaganda machine must immediately take action in the estates of Westerhailes, Castlemilk & Easterhouse to counter the effects of this potential game changer.

    Maybe Eddie Izard could be Fortnum's new spokesperson?

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    malcolmg said:

    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Where do they find these stooges.
    In hampers.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    malcolmg said:

    AveryLP said:

    malcolmg said:

    AveryLP said:

    @BobaFett

    ...

    Here are the correct figures on Public Sector Net Debt as published this morning in the ONS's (much improved) Public Sector Finances Bulletin:

    Public Net Debt
    Sector as
    Net Debt %
    £ billion GDP
    ---------------------------
    2005 475.0 36.2
    2006 509.2 36.7
    2007 645.8 44.1
    2008 2,137.3 149.8
    2009 2,245.5 154.6


    2010 2 249.8 148.7

    2011 2 224.4 143.1
    2012 2 187.8 137.6
    2013 2 204.1 133.0
    ---------------------------
    Source: ONS PSF Bulletin
    21 March 2014


    Avery, explain how he reduced it whilst borrowing more than additional £100B per annum. Did we pay back more than that each year. Methinks you are using weasely Tory words and being very very economical with the truth.
    Malc, you drunk Ayrshire terrier, I am not being economical with the truth. I am quoting the relevant figures from today's ONS PSF Bulletin, Table PSF1.

    Under George, Public Sector Net Debt excluding financial interventions (the effects of the bank bailouts) rose from £984 billion (65% GDP) in 2010 to £1254.7 billion (75.7%) at end 2013. This is £280.7 billion of additional borrowing.

    This extra borrowing has been offset by £316.4 billion of debt reduction due (mainly) to changes in the net debts of the intervened banks.

    This month's PSF Bulletin reconciles PSND to PSND ex in Table PSF11B. Between end 2012 Q2 and end 2013 Q4 (the range of dates in the table). the net debts of the intervened banks fell from £965.4 billion to £904.2 billion. This is broadly the trend across the whole term.

    Effectively total net debt is falling due to the net debt of the public sector banks falling in greater volume than other government debt is rising. Not an ideal way to reduce debt and not sustainable over the long term, but a debt reduction nonetheless.
    Even sober I can see financial sleight of hand in there. Deducting some dodgy numbers related to intervened banks confirms your whole crock of bovine ordure is still steaming.
    Indeed. We have been treated to a double helping today @malcolmmg
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    malcolmg said:

    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Where do they find these stooges.
    That 'stooge' ultimately works for Wittington Investments.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Lol.

    The SNP propaganda machine must immediately take action in the estates of Westerhailes, Castlemilk & Easterhouse to counter the effects of this potential game changer.

    Are you denying these fine people the opportunity to purchase, in their own currency, their weekly ration of patum peperium?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    SeanT said:

    It also amazes me that lefties on here (like NPXMP) are so complacent, when you look at the polls in Scotland.

    Even if there is only a 30% chance of YES winning that is a 30% chance of Labour ceasing to exist, as we know it, within six months.

    The Tories will rumble on if YES wins (albeit with emotional scars) - they are already the English party. Labour will be existentially threatened.

    And yet people like Palmer come on here and glibly chortle away about Labour's "resilience" in the polls, as if this threat does not exist.

    It is remarkable.

    On current figures if Scotland goes then LAB loses 41 seats and CON 1. So a net -40.

    This means that LAB would need a majority of 20+ to be certain of continuing in power post March 2016.

    As to a 2016 general election that could be difficult because of the fixed term parliament act.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    edited March 2014

    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Lol.

    The SNP propaganda machine must immediately take action in the estates of Westerhailes, Castlemilk & Easterhouse to counter the effects of this potential game changer.

    You could not make it up. Bit like Anus and his pledge today on best education for all whilst sending his child to Hutchie's. Labour conference has been a hoot so far. Looks like less attendees than the Tories though BBC are hiding it well.

    ps "Johann Lamont, the embodiment of social justice", says Sarwar.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Lol.

    The SNP propaganda machine must immediately take action in the estates of Westerhailes, Castlemilk & Easterhouse to counter the effects of this potential game changer.

    Are you denying these fine people the opportunity to purchase, in their own currency, their weekly ration of patum peperium?
    You can get it in Jenners nae probs ...

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    AveryLP said:

    BobaFett said:
    I am quickly reaching the conclusion that you are a shilling short, ___afett.

    Read my previous reply to you and my post to malcolmg. It is all clearly stated.
    Avery, I am still counting my fingers to make sure they are all still there.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    SeanT said:

    BobaFett said:

    SeanT said:

    If there is value in a YES bet, then there must be value in a Tory majority, as YES will overturn everything, and mutilate Labour. We will then be voting for the Divorce Parliament. The Tories will look like better divorce lawyers, to anxious English voters.

    Intriguingly it might also be one way for Boris to become PM. YES Wins > Cameron or Miliband become PM > but only for a year, until the Scots MPs leave > a new election is called, Miliband CANNOT win, without his Scots MPs > nonetheless the shocked Tories ditch referendum-loser Cameron (if they haven't done this already) and install Boris to cheer everyone up > Boris wins as Prime Minister of England (and other bits) in 2016.

    Doddle.

    That's a good theory but does it stack up mathematically (in betting terms). Isn't it easier just to pile in on Yes, which is overpriced, then trade off it, if required?

    Yes, of course. I was just idly hypothesising that the bookies might not have properly factored in an indyref YES, and its consequences, when offering odds against a Tory Maj.

    But yes, the logical step is to load everything on Salmond.
    If Yes wins then Miliband gets in for a year, you have lost your Tory Maj Bet

    It might be worth shopping around the bookies to see if you can slip in a "Indy Yes" and "Tory Maj" double

    7/2*4/1=21.5/1

    They might say its related but some might not

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited March 2014
    SeanT said:

    If there is value in a YES bet, then there must be value in a Tory majority, as YES will overturn everything, and mutilate Labour. We will then be voting for the Divorce Parliament. The Tories will look like better divorce lawyers, to anxious English voters.

    Clearly it would be a roll of the dice that improved the prospects for Con Maj relative to where they are now, but some of that is already priced in. Say 15% chance if no, 25% chance if yes, so 20% if independence is a 50/50 shot.

    Arguably the long-term damage would be serious for Labour, but the current shadow cabinet isn't particularly Scottish-heavy and the "better divorce lawyers" thing isn't the only possible outcome. Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future. Or UK-loving voters might be narked off at Cameron for breaking the UK and go UKIP. It's quite hard to guess how it would pan out, and I don't think it's really been polled.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    edited March 2014
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Lol.

    The SNP propaganda machine must immediately take action in the estates of Westerhailes, Castlemilk & Easterhouse to counter the effects of this potential game changer.

    Are you denying these fine people the opportunity to purchase, in their own currency, their weekly ration of patum peperium?
    Gentleman's Relish in the Hailes consists of salt'n'sauce wie yer sossidge supper (also available to the burds).
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @BobaFett

    I take your point about the current government just about doubling the national debt in five years. Given the trajectory of the borrowing when they took office I find it difficult to work out what any government could have done that would have lead to a significantly better result. However, as you see fit to criticise, I expect you do know what they should have done. So, please, why not tell us.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    edited March 2014

    SeanT said:

    If there is value in a YES bet, then there must be value in a Tory majority, as YES will overturn everything, and mutilate Labour. We will then be voting for the Divorce Parliament. The Tories will look like better divorce lawyers, to anxious English voters.

    Clearly it would be a roll of the dice that improved the prospects for Con Maj relative to where they are now, but some of that is already priced in. Say 15% chance if no, 25% chance if yes, so 20% if independence is a 50/50 shot.

    Arguably the long-term damage would be serious for Labour, but the current shadow cabinet isn't particularly Scottish-heavy and the "better divorce lawyers" thing isn't the only possible outcome. Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future. Or UK-loving voters might be narked off at Cameron for breaking the UK and go UKIP. It's quite hard to guess how it would pan out, and I don't think it's really been polled.
    "Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future." - serious question: please: not sure what you mean, surely they'd be voting Labour or LD already if of that cast of mind? Do you mean the risk of deportation if/when EWNI leaves the EU? Or what?

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,461
    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Lol.

    The SNP propaganda machine must immediately take action in the estates of Westerhailes, Castlemilk & Easterhouse to counter the effects of this potential game changer.

    Foie gras will be impounded at the Berwick Border crossing. A new generation of "pate reivers" is born. Pele towers will once again be occupied by nervous southerners, looking out for violent Dundonian smugglers of Sevruga, etc etc.

    Yes, you have a point. Not sure this will swing it.
    Sir, you are a genius. ;-)

    Even if you were born in Devon.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    New Ladbrokes market - East Dunbartonshire (Lib Dem Maj, Jo Swinson MP = 2,184)

    Lab 1/2
    LD 6/4
    SNP 50/1
    Con 100/1
    UKIP 100/1

    Note: this seat is held by the SNP at the Scottish Parliament (SNP Maj over Lab = 1,802).

    Although I think that LAB ought to be FAV for this seat, I think that the LD price is way too short (they came in a very poor 4th place in 2011, with 7.7% of the vote) and the SNP price is way too long.

    The CON price of 100/1 is interesting, because the Tories actually held this seat as recently as 1987. Is there any other seat in GB where the Tories are priced this long in a seat they held as recently as the 1980s?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Neil said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Where do they find these stooges.
    In hampers.
    More like pampers, what a tube.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Look at what labour are trying to sell in Scotland today, would make you spew.

    ‘Together we can’ sets out who we are and what we believe.

    This is the positive constitutional, economic and social alternative.

    Real values, real people, real choices and real ideas to change the lives of people in Scotland. It will guide us, not just to the 18th of September but guide us back into government in 2015 and 2016.

    It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party.

    The real choice in this referendum is not people seeking liberation from London, but those who want liberation from inequality no matter if they live in Perth or Penrith.

    The separation people are calling for is not from the rest of the UK but separation from poverty.

    And the real divide is not people fighting with their neighbours, but people fighting to get by and get on.

    Together we can build a better Scotland and a better United Kingdom

    Together we can grow and care. Together we can achieve, prosper and succeed. Together we will.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    malcolmg said:

    AveryLP said:

    BobaFett said:
    I am quickly reaching the conclusion that you are a shilling short, ___afett.

    Read my previous reply to you and my post to malcolmg. It is all clearly stated.
    Avery, I am still counting my fingers to make sure they are all still there.
    Take your time, malc.

    I wouldn't want disturb Archimedes at his circles.
  • SeanT said:

    It also amazes me that lefties on here (like NPXMP) are so complacent, when you look at the polls in Scotland.

    Even if there is only a 30% chance of YES winning that is a 30% chance of Labour ceasing to exist, as we know it, within six months.

    The Tories will rumble on if YES wins (albeit with emotional scars) - they are already the English party. Labour will be existentially threatened.

    And yet people like Palmer come on here and glibly chortle away about Labour's "resilience" in the polls, as if this threat does not exist.

    It is remarkable.

    On current figures if Scotland goes then LAB loses 41 seats and CON 1. So a net -40.

    This means that LAB would need a majority of 20+ to be certain of continuing in power post March 2016.

    As to a 2016 general election that could be difficult because of the fixed term parliament act.

    A majority of 39 needed, surely?

    Eg Lab wins 335 seats, others win 315; majority = 20.

    Lab loses 40 seats, others lose 1 - Lab now has 295 seats versus 314 (ignoring the other Scotch seats).

    Whereas

    Labour has 345 seats, others have 306: Lab majority 40 seats.

    Lab loses 40 Scotch seats, others lose 1 - Lab now has 305 seats, others have 305 seats.


  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    malcolmg said:

    Who knows? I would be cautious pinning too much on Panelbase who have conducted polls in the past which have attracted criticism - wait to see the full tables - John Curtice:

    Cautious heads will warn that one swallow does not make a summer. They will note that the poll was largely conducted before the publication of the latest Scottish Government and Expenditure Revenue statistics that showed a weakening of Scotland’s fiscal position, as well as after many a company spoke in their annual reports of the possible risks of independence. The gender gap (at 46% the proportion of women backing independence is almost as high as the 48% figure for men) is unusually small. Nevertheless for the time being at least the poll is bound to provide a boost to the Yes side’s morale.

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/03/panelbase-now-also-show-yes-vote-up/

    On the other hand if you did not have a blind hatred of Scotland being an independent country you could look at his other paragraph
    But it is entirely consistent with the increase registered in the last two to three months by the polls as a whole. On average, the 14 polls conducted since Christmas have put the Yes vote on 42% (once Don’t Knows are excluded), up three points on the equivalent statistic for all of the polls conducted in the second half of last year. There can now be little doubt that the No side’s lead has narrowed – and equally that last month’s currency intervention has so far failed to reverse that trend.
    It is like talking to a brick wall Malcolm. They see what they want to see. That actually works out in our favour, so I would just let them get on with it. The only people they are deceiving are themselves.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Carnyx said:


    "Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future." - serious question: please: not sure what you mean, surely they'd be voting Labour or LD already? Do you mean the risk of deportation when EWNI leaves the EU?

    OK, so say you're an English businessman, running a company which has a factory in Scotland. The "no" campaign has just spent a couple of months talking up the possibility that Scotland is going to end up with its own currency, with floating exchange rates against the pound, which will make it harder for you to do business because your costs will vary unpredictably. Post-referendum, Labour pivot to "OK, maybe we can work something out on the currency" while the Tories want to stand firm. Even if you weren't traditionally a Labour supporter, you'd rather have them in power, to minimize the disruption to your business.

    There would be similar stories to tell for all kinds of other connections - family, study, etc etc etc.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    malcolmg said:


    ps "Johann Lamont, the embodiment of social justice", says Sarwar.

    Jeez.

    I suppose 'Look, with Labour even someone like Johann Lamont can rise to the dizzy heights of leader of the Labour Party in Scotland' has a certain ring to it.


  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    edited March 2014
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    It also amazes me that lefties on here (like NPXMP) are so complacent, when you look at the polls in Scotland.

    Even if there is only a 30% chance of YES winning that is a 30% chance of Labour ceasing to exist, as we know it, within six months.

    The Tories will rumble on if YES wins (albeit with emotional scars) - they are already the English party. Labour will be existentially threatened.

    And yet people like Palmer come on here and glibly chortle away about Labour's "resilience" in the polls, as if this threat does not exist.

    It is remarkable.

    On current figures if Scotland goes then LAB loses 41 seats and CON 1. So a net -40.

    This means that LAB would need a majority of 20+ to be certain of continuing in power post March 2016.

    As to a 2016 general election that could be difficult because of the fixed term parliament act.

    There would HAVE to be a GE in 2016 with the Scots MPs gone, the government elected in 2015 would have no mandate to continue to 2020, it would be constitutionally ludicrous - and wildly unpopular if anyone tried it. Presumably there must be lawyers working on this eventuality now.

    But my point is wider than the mere loss of MPs. Scotland is Labour's heartland (and, with Keir Hardie its birthplace). What happens when you tear that away? And all the Scots Lab politicians from Murphy to Alexander - to Brown and the rest- would be excluded from Westminster. They would be foreigners in England. Traumatic.

    No, they wouldn't necessarily be furriners, to be fair, even ignoring the potential extension of the point that Irish are by law Not Foreigners. They'd be able to apply on the basis of residency for EWNI passports and so could still be candidates for southern seats, get peerages in the HoL etc. no problem. Either that or you're talking about depriving Mr Gove, for one, of his seat just because he's Scottish. But that is a way down the line.

    But, rather more relevantly and immediately, your point also affects the LDs too.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779
    malcolmg said:

    Look at what labour are trying to sell in Scotland today, would make you spew.

    ‘Together we can’ sets out who we are and what we believe.

    This is the positive constitutional, economic and social alternative.

    Real values, real people, real choices and real ideas to change the lives of people in Scotland. It will guide us, not just to the 18th of September but guide us back into government in 2015 and 2016.

    It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party.

    The real choice in this referendum is not people seeking liberation from London, but those who want liberation from inequality no matter if they live in Perth or Penrith.

    The separation people are calling for is not from the rest of the UK but separation from poverty.

    And the real divide is not people fighting with their neighbours, but people fighting to get by and get on.

    Together we can build a better Scotland and a better United Kingdom

    Together we can grow and care. Together we can achieve, prosper and succeed. Together we will.

    Are labour promising fluffy bunnies and rainbows for all as well...

    Turgid stuff I agree.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Tim Shipman (Mail) @ShippersUnbound

    Oddest blog of the year. Newsnight's new lefty economist says he was once a fan of Oswald Mosley:

    http://duncanseconomicblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/my-teenage-mistakes/
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    malcolmg said:

    Neil said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    Where do they find these stooges.
    In hampers.
    More like pampers, what a tube.
    Interesting you use the word "tube".. my dad jokingly called a pupil at his school that, having heard it on Alan Brazils talksport show, & was suspended for calling the (Nigerian refugee) a "Jew"

    He compounded the error by saying that if he was going to racially abuse this child, which of course he would never dream of, "Jew" would hardly seem the most likely insult, to which he was asked "Why not? . Why cant Black Nigerians be Jews??" etc etc

    And so began the hatred of politically correct idiots...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337

    Carnyx said:


    "Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future." - serious question: please: not sure what you mean, surely they'd be voting Labour or LD already? Do you mean the risk of deportation when EWNI leaves the EU?

    OK, so say you're an English businessman, running a company which has a factory in Scotland. The "no" campaign has just spent a couple of months talking up the possibility that Scotland is going to end up with its own currency, with floating exchange rates against the pound, which will make it harder for you to do business because your costs will vary unpredictably. Post-referendum, Labour pivot to "OK, maybe we can work something out on the currency" while the Tories want to stand firm. Even if you weren't traditionally a Labour supporter, you'd rather have them in power, to minimize the disruption to your business.

    There would be similar stories to tell for all kinds of other connections - family, study, etc etc etc.
    Ah! Thank you.

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited March 2014

    Soory Mike , I do not see where you get a clear tightening in the polls from . you are relying on just 2 polls Panelbase and Survation where the "tightening" was down to a major change in methodology . Better to wait for up to date data from more established pollsters ,

    Yawn.

    I hope that you hold sway and influence within your party, because if you do the Lib Dems are travelling blind into this referendum campaign. Long may that continue.

    By the way, Panelbase are based in Hexham, Northumberland, England, and are a respected member of the British Polling Council. Here are the people that work there:

    http://www.panelbase.com/about/

    So, it is unclear why you slander them as being biased towards one political party. You might as well accuse ICM of being puppets of the Lib Dems. You'd have as much basis for doing so, ie. none.

    Furthermore, the Yes campaign is much, much more than simply the SNP. Unless you want the No campaign to be solely identified with the Tories?
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @Hurst

    Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target.
    He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.

    I would have invested in more capital spending projects to create jobs and get the economy moving earlier. I would only have borrowed more for capital investment. It may well have paid off.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:


    It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party..

    It was doing ok until that bit......

    Make no mistake, if any politician can be said to "lose" the Union, it is the leader of the Labour Party...

    Scottish Labour voters have the smallest "no" lead (+29, vs Con +78, LibD, +43) of the Unionist parties, and the greatest number of don't knows - twice the others at 17....and the lowest certainty to vote.....
  • I have always felt that Labour was quite happy for the Tories to win elections, because deep down, they know they need healthy public finances so they can debauch them. You can't really debauch an empty treasury; you need the Tories to come in and refill it for you after you've wrecked everything.

    In the same way as Labour needs the Tories to win, the Scotch nat nutters know at bottom what side their bread's buttered and they're not going to vote to split up with all that English money. They don't want to win, they just want a chance to tell us how sincerely and bitterly they hate us. And then keep taking the money.

    It's the fact that almost everyone wants No to win that means it will.

    Unfortunately.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    SeanT said:

    Carnyx said:

    SeanT said:

    If there is value in a YES bet, then there must be value in a Tory majority, as YES will overturn everything, and mutilate Labour. We will then be voting for the Divorce Parliament. The Tories will look like better divorce lawyers, to anxious English voters.

    Clearly it would be a roll of the dice that improved the prospects for Con Maj relative to where they are now, but some of that is already priced in. Say 15% chance if no, 25% chance if yes, so 20% if independence is a 50/50 shot.

    Arguably the long-term damage would be serious for Labour, but the current shadow cabinet isn't particularly Scottish-heavy and the "better divorce lawyers" thing isn't the only possible outcome. Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future. Or UK-loving voters might be narked off at Cameron for breaking the UK and go UKIP. It's quite hard to guess how it would pan out, and I don't think it's really been polled.
    "Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future." - serious question: please: not sure what you mean, surely they'd be voting Labour or LD already if of that cast of mind? Do you mean the risk of deportation if/when EWNI leaves the EU? Or what?

    Yes, that is one of EiT's more ridiculous remarks. TORIES ENSLAVE EXPATRIATE GLASWEGIANS IN HUGE WORKHOUSES.
    No, more things like TORIES ARE A PITA ABOUT THE CURRENCY or whatever.

    Also the potential for Brexit will become a bigger concern for non-ideological people, because:
    1) Once you see a referendum breaking up one union it'll look more credible that it could break up another.
    2) Once you have Scotland in the EU (eventually) and rUK out, border controls and migration restrictions and other inconveniences start to look quite plausible.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    SeanT said:

    It also amazes me that lefties on here (like NPXMP) are so complacent, when you look at the polls in Scotland.

    Even if there is only a 30% chance of YES winning that is a 30% chance of Labour ceasing to exist, as we know it, within six months.

    The Tories will rumble on if YES wins (albeit with emotional scars) - they are already the English party. Labour will be existentially threatened.

    And yet people like Palmer come on here and glibly chortle away about Labour's "resilience" in the polls, as if this threat does not exist.

    It is remarkable.

    On current figures if Scotland goes then LAB loses 41 seats and CON 1. So a net -40.

    This means that LAB would need a majority of 20+ to be certain of continuing in power post March 2016.

    As to a 2016 general election that could be difficult because of the fixed term parliament act.

    A majority of 39 needed, surely?

    Eg Lab wins 335 seats, others win 315; majority = 20.

    Lab loses 40 seats, others lose 1 - Lab now has 295 seats versus 314 (ignoring the other Scotch seats).

    Whereas

    Labour has 345 seats, others have 306: Lab majority 40 seats.

    Lab loses 40 Scotch seats, others lose 1 - Lab now has 305 seats, others have 305 seats.


    The overall number of seats would decline from 650 to 591 without Scotland. So you'd need 296 for a majority.

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    SeanT said:

    malcolmg said:

    Who knows? I would be cautious pinning too much on Panelbase who have conducted polls in the past which have attracted criticism - wait to see the full tables - John Curtice:

    Cautious heads will warn that one swallow does not make a summer. They will note that the poll was largely conducted before the publication of the latest Scottish Government and Expenditure Revenue statistics that showed a weakening of Scotland’s fiscal position, as well as after many a company spoke in their annual reports of the possible risks of independence. The gender gap (at 46% the proportion of women backing independence is almost as high as the 48% figure for men) is unusually small. Nevertheless for the time being at least the poll is bound to provide a boost to the Yes side’s morale.

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/03/panelbase-now-also-show-yes-vote-up/

    On the other hand if you did not have a blind hatred of Scotland being an independent country you could look at his other paragraph
    But it is entirely consistent with the increase registered in the last two to three months by the polls as a whole. On average, the 14 polls conducted since Christmas have put the Yes vote on 42% (once Don’t Knows are excluded), up three points on the equivalent statistic for all of the polls conducted in the second half of last year. There can now be little doubt that the No side’s lead has narrowed – and equally that last month’s currency intervention has so far failed to reverse that trend.
    It is like talking to a brick wall Malcolm. They see what they want to see. That actually works out in our favour, so I would just let them get on with it. The only people they are deceiving are themselves.
    For a shocking bit of unionist complacency, check this sentence by Matthew Parris, from a couple of weeks ago:

    "That defeat [of YES] is not in question. The “YES” campaign has struggled to reach 30 per cent in polls..."

    Er, what? Has he actually read any polls? Absurdly misinformed. Indeed it might have given me an idea for a Telegraph blog.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4019902.ece


    Sean, I have seen some astonishing statements made about the level of Yes support. Media in the USA (and presumably the rest of the world) relies heavily on Reuters articles, and funnily enough Reuters comes out with some of the most factually-inaccurate material I have seen during the referendum campaign.

    You'd expect Parris to actually do his own homework.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    edited March 2014

    SeanT said:

    Carnyx said:

    SeanT said:

    If there is value in a YES bet, then there must be value in a Tory majority, as YES will overturn everything, and mutilate Labour. We will then be voting for the Divorce Parliament. The Tories will look like better divorce lawyers, to anxious English voters.

    Clearly it would be a roll of the dice that improved the prospects for Con Maj relative to where they are now, but some of that is already priced in. Say 15% chance if no, 25% chance if yes, so 20% if independence is a 50/50 shot.

    Arguably the long-term damage would be serious for Labour, but the current shadow cabinet isn't particularly Scottish-heavy and the "better divorce lawyers" thing isn't the only possible outcome. Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future. Or UK-loving voters might be narked off at Cameron for breaking the UK and go UKIP. It's quite hard to guess how it would pan out, and I don't think it's really been polled.
    "Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future." - serious question: please: not sure what you mean, surely they'd be voting Labour or LD already if of that cast of mind? Do you mean the risk of deportation if/when EWNI leaves the EU? Or what?

    Yes, that is one of EiT's more ridiculous remarks. TORIES ENSLAVE EXPATRIATE GLASWEGIANS IN HUGE WORKHOUSES.
    No, more things like TORIES ARE A PITA ABOUT THE CURRENCY or whatever.

    Also the potential for Brexit will become a bigger concern for non-ideological people, because:
    1) Once you see a referendum breaking up one union it'll look more credible that it could break up another.
    2) Once you have Scotland in the EU (eventually) and rUK out, border controls and migration restrictions and other inconveniences start to look quite plausible.
    And 3) the Scots are actually in favour of the EU both relatively and (on some polling IIRC) absolutely, so an EWNIexit Yes vote is actually more likely than a Brexit when 'Br' means UK sensu 1707 plus bits. That would concentrate minds.

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    malcolmg said:


    It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party..

    Make no mistake, if any politician can be said to "lose" the Union, it is the leader of the Labour Party...
    If the Union is "lost" then historians will doubtless lay most of the blame at the feet of Thatcher, Blair and Cameron. I'd propose that several other UK PMs also made key strategic errors, not least Attlee. I very much doubt that the name Ed Miliband would even be mentioned.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779

    SeanT said:

    Carnyx said:

    SeanT said:

    If there is value in a YES bet, then there must be value in a Tory majority, as YES will overturn everything, and mutilate Labour. We will then be voting for the Divorce Parliament. The Tories will look like better divorce lawyers, to anxious English voters.

    Clearly it would be a roll of the dice that improved the prospects for Con Maj relative to where they are now, but some of that is already priced in. Say 15% chance if no, 25% chance if yes, so 20% if independence is a 50/50 shot.

    Arguably the long-term damage would be serious for Labour, but the current shadow cabinet isn't particularly Scottish-heavy and the "better divorce lawyers" thing isn't the only possible outcome. Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future. Or UK-loving voters might be narked off at Cameron for breaking the UK and go UKIP. It's quite hard to guess how it would pan out, and I don't think it's really been polled.
    "Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future." - serious question: please: not sure what you mean, surely they'd be voting Labour or LD already if of that cast of mind? Do you mean the risk of deportation if/when EWNI leaves the EU? Or what?

    Yes, that is one of EiT's more ridiculous remarks. TORIES ENSLAVE EXPATRIATE GLASWEGIANS IN HUGE WORKHOUSES.
    No, more things like TORIES ARE A PITA ABOUT THE CURRENCY or whatever.

    Also the potential for Brexit will become a bigger concern for non-ideological people, because:
    1) Once you see a referendum breaking up one union it'll look more credible that it could break up another.
    2) Once you have Scotland in the EU (eventually) and rUK out, border controls and migration restrictions and other inconveniences start to look quite plausible.
    One persons PITA is another one's 'standing up for the best deal for the UK people'. A currency union is only one of many factors, and it may be logical, and I expect it will happen, but it will only happen if the deal/settlement is equitable for both sides.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Yes, showing borough boundaries and not constituency boundaries.
    Lennon said:

    Financier said:

    Sorry to be OT, but we must be sure that overtaxation does not frighten these people away to a more friendly tax climate.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581188/Revealed-How-people-living-just-10-mega-rich-London-constituencies-pay-10-entire-countrys-tax.html

    Is it just me, or does everyone else recoil in utter horror at the shocking inaccuracies in the map shown as part of that article?
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    BobaFett said:

    @Hurst

    Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target.
    He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.

    I would have invested in more capital spending projects to create jobs and get the economy moving earlier. I would only have borrowed more for capital investment. It may well have paid off.

    Thanks. So your solution to avoid borrowing more was to borrow even more. Now that the Multiverse idea has gained some credibility perhaps there is an Earth on which borrowing more equals borrowing less but I am not sure its the one we are living on.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    SeanT said:

    Carnyx said:


    "Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future." - serious question: please: not sure what you mean, surely they'd be voting Labour or LD already? Do you mean the risk of deportation when EWNI leaves the EU?

    OK, so say you're an English businessman, running a company which has a factory in Scotland. The "no" campaign has just spent a couple of months talking up the possibility that Scotland is going to end up with its own currency, with floating exchange rates against the pound, which will make it harder for you to do business because your costs will vary unpredictably. Post-referendum, Labour pivot to "OK, maybe we can work something out on the currency" while the Tories want to stand firm. Even if you weren't traditionally a Labour supporter, you'd rather have them in power, to minimize the disruption to your business.

    There would be similar stories to tell for all kinds of other connections - family, study, etc etc etc.
    Eeesh. Ridiculously attenuated. Moreover, as I say, it can be argued the other way: the electoral mood down south will favour the English party that wants to drive the hardest bargain with Scotland - the polls show this ("no currency union with Scotland"). This is just normal national self interest (for the same reason, Scots will vote en masse for the SNP in 2015, if they have just voted YES, further damaging Labour).

    Even lefties will look nervously at Labour-with-all-its-Scots-MPs and say "I don't trust them to look after my interests as an Englishwoman" - and tack right. I think this will outweigh the approximately eight and a half voters in England who might fit your currency-worrier niche.
    I agree it can be argued the other way - like I say on balance I think it's most likely to help Con, but that's not the only plausible outcome. It's an unusual way to end a country with a lot of possible voter reactions, there's not a lot of precedent to go on.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited March 2014
    Moderator, why was Mark Senior allowed to edit his post nearly an hour after he made it? All other posters are given 6 minutes.

    MarkSenior Posts: 1,525
    2:30PM edited 3:26PM
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    Moderator, why was Mark Senior allowed to edit his post nearly an hour after he made it? All other posters are given 6 minutes.

    MarkSenior Posts: 1,525
    2:30PM edited 3:26PM

    LOL! Ain't life unfair!
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789

    BobaFett said:

    @Hurst

    Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target.
    He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.

    I would have invested in more capital spending projects to create jobs and get the economy moving earlier. I would only have borrowed more for capital investment. It may well have paid off.

    Thanks. So your solution to avoid borrowing more was to borrow even more. Now that the Multiverse idea has gained some credibility perhaps there is an Earth on which borrowing more equals borrowing less but I am not sure its the one we are living on.
    If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?

    In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest.
    The trick is choosing the right projects.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    That's going to have them worried in Motherwell.
    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    SeanT said:

    Carnyx said:

    SeanT said:

    If there is value in a YES bet, then there must be value in a Tory majority, as YES will overturn everything, and mutilate Labour. We will then be voting for the Divorce Parliament. The Tories will look like better divorce lawyers, to anxious English voters.

    Clearly it would be a roll of the dice that improved the prospects for Con Maj relative to where they are now, but some of that is already priced in. Say 15% chance if no, 25% chance if yes, so 20% if independence is a 50/50 shot.

    Arguably the long-term damage would be serious for Labour, but the current shadow cabinet isn't particularly Scottish-heavy and the "better divorce lawyers" thing isn't the only possible outcome. Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future. Or UK-loving voters might be narked off at Cameron for breaking the UK and go UKIP. It's quite hard to guess how it would pan out, and I don't think it's really been polled.
    "Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future." - serious question: please: not sure what you mean, surely they'd be voting Labour or LD already if of that cast of mind? Do you mean the risk of deportation if/when EWNI leaves the EU? Or what?

    Yes, that is one of EiT's more ridiculous remarks. TORIES ENSLAVE EXPATRIATE GLASWEGIANS IN HUGE WORKHOUSES.
    No, more things like TORIES ARE A PITA ABOUT THE CURRENCY or whatever.

    Also the potential for Brexit will become a bigger concern for non-ideological people, because:
    1) Once you see a referendum breaking up one union it'll look more credible that it could break up another.
    2) Once you have Scotland in the EU (eventually) and rUK out, border controls and migration restrictions and other inconveniences start to look quite plausible.
    One persons PITA is another one's 'standing up for the best deal for the UK people'. A currency union is only one of many factors, and it may be logical, and I expect it will happen, but it will only happen if the deal/settlement is equitable for both sides.
    I agree. But a lot of people in England will have some kind of personal or business connection with Scotland that's potentially going to get somehow monkeyed around with by the new arrangement the politicians come up with, and we shouldn't assume they'll all see the negotiations as zero-sum.

    PS. I think in reality the contrast between the parties on this issue will be a little bit blurred, as they'll want handle it with a boringly consensual cross-party arrangement.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited March 2014
    BobaFett said:

    If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?

    In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest.
    The trick is choosing the right projects.

    Ah, you're getting towards tim's position: Osborne should have slashed welfare and used the savings to increase spending on infrastructure projects, within the same overall borrowing envelope.

    Quite possibly right, but I don't recall anyone from the left complaining that Osborne was too generous on benefits in 2010-2012.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:


    It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party..

    It was doing ok until that bit......

    Make no mistake, if any politician can be said to "lose" the Union, it is the leader of the Labour Party...

    Scottish Labour voters have the smallest "no" lead (+29, vs Con +78, LibD, +43) of the Unionist parties, and the greatest number of don't knows - twice the others at 17....and the lowest certainty to vote.....
    The donkey is on stage now stating that as his father was in the navy and stationed in Scotland 70 years ago we should vote NO, Cameron is a towering genius compared to this clown.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited March 2014

    Moderator, why was Mark Senior allowed to edit his post nearly an hour after he made it? All other posters are given 6 minutes.

    MarkSenior Posts: 1,525
    2:30PM edited 3:26PM

    Either
    a) Unionists have special editing privileges denied separatists, or
    b) The Moderator did it......


  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    edited March 2014

    Moderator, why was Mark Senior allowed to edit his post nearly an hour after he made it? All other posters are given 6 minutes.

    MarkSenior Posts: 1,525
    2:30PM edited 3:26PM

    Stuart, typical unionist , caught red handed
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Moderator, why was Mark Senior allowed to edit his post nearly an hour after he made it? All other posters are given 6 minutes.

    MarkSenior Posts: 1,525
    2:30PM edited 3:26PM

    LOL! Ain't life unfair!
    That really is taking Scoth Whine to a new level...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    BobaFett said:

    If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?

    In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest.
    The trick is choosing the right projects.

    Ah, you're getting towards tim's position: Osborne should have slashed welfare and used the savings to increase spending on infrastructure projects.
    Especially child benefit for "middle earners" (sic) on £60k.......

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    That's going to have them worried in Motherwell.

    Scott_P said:

    @MarkKleinmanSky: Exclusive: CEO of upmarket grocer Fortnum & Mason tells me a vote for Scottish independence would be "a disaster". http://t.co/5oPy6qO66z

    I know someone in the army whose mother was worried about him having to eat rations on manoeuvre, so arranged for Fortnum to deliver a hamper to his foxhole...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:


    It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party..

    It was doing ok until that bit......

    Make no mistake, if any politician can be said to "lose" the Union, it is the leader of the Labour Party...

    Scottish Labour voters have the smallest "no" lead (+29, vs Con +78, LibD, +43) of the Unionist parties, and the greatest number of don't knows - twice the others at 17....and the lowest certainty to vote.....
    Cameron is a towering genius compared to this clown.
    Nice to find something we agree upon!

    No doubt normal service will be resumed shortly......

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    Charles said:

    Moderator, why was Mark Senior allowed to edit his post nearly an hour after he made it? All other posters are given 6 minutes.

    MarkSenior Posts: 1,525
    2:30PM edited 3:26PM

    LOL! Ain't life unfair!
    That really is taking Scoth Whine to a new level...
    A Unionist who doesn't believe in fair play. What's new?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    You don't say, I would never have guessed that , could even have been one and the same person.
  • PBModeratorPBModerator Posts: 665
    edited March 2014

    Moderator, why was Mark Senior allowed to edit his post nearly an hour after he made it? All other posters are given 6 minutes.

    MarkSenior Posts: 1,525
    2:30PM edited 3:26PM

    He didn't.

    We did as we felt it impugned the integrity of the pollster.

    All posters should be aware it is fine to criticise the methodology of pollsters but not their integrity as Mike has said in the past.

This discussion has been closed.