The lack of a senior or experienced civil service in Scotland in non devolved functions is a good example of how Better Together need to frame the debate.
The Yes campaign have been very good so far at claiming that such points are a part of their own invention, the "too wee, too stupid" argument. So they have so far cast these points as negative criticism of the idea of independence.
What is essential in my view is that Better Together come to the other and correct end of the telescope. These points are not negative but clear and straightforward examples of the benefits that Scotland obtains from being a part of a much larger, more efficient and flexible economic unit.
Everyone contributes of course including Scotland but even from a narrow Scottish perspective we get a very good deal in getting access to all that expertise, international representation, effective military forces, the BBC, internationally recognised regulation, knowhow and administrative experience for the money that we contribute. Why would we want to give up such an advantage?
BT is not doing nearly enough to accentuate the positive and is allowing Yes to frame the debate in a way that inevitably gets peoples' backs up. It is frustrating.
It's a 'dangerous fantasy' to leave the EU, he will claim. Odd choice of words for a chap who argued (when reneging on his manifesto promise to support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty) that it would be better to have an In/Out referendum.
I love this bit:
He will counter UKIP's argument that it is the anti-establishment party, saying: "At long last someone is taking on the Eurosceptic establishment - and it's us.
Is that the Eurosceptic establishment that has handed over more power to Brussels and Luxembourg decade on decade for the last forty years? You have to laugh at the intellectual contortions the pro-EU brigade need to make to come up with their arguments. Every job connected to European trade is "at risk", even when the author of the statistic says that's not true. Companies with one foreign director are "founded by immigrants". The establishment is eurosceptic. They're in cloud cuckoo land.
There is though, Mr Socrates, a constant drip drip drip from certain significant quarters ….. the Mail, the Murdoch press….. about "the wrongs being done to us by Brussels"! Straight bananas is but one example.
It's a bit like "elf n safety"; I would estimate that somewhere around 95% of the loony elf n safety stories are the result of misinterpretation and the rest are the result of some enthusiastic junior who was smartly slapped down before any action was taken.
So on one side we have a few newspapers. On the other side we have the three largest parties, the civil service, the state broadcaster, the main business lobby and all the trade unions.
Mr. Socrates, indeed, that line (from the deputy PM, claiming to be anti-establishment) was amusing. It reminded me of Mandelson's insurgent line, except that a media either compliant or empty-headed actually went along with that.
'At risk' is a beautifully appalling use of language. It's vague enough to be accurate but worrying enough to make people stop and think.
I was 'at risk' of being run over several times on Sunday. I took my life in my hands, but bravely crossed multiple roads anyway.
It's also interesting to note the potential fragmentation of various countries (UK, Venice/Italy, Catalonia/Spain). My fear is that this would enable the EU to easier dominate a larger number of smaller countries.
On that note, I fail to see why Cornwall suddenly has some sort of weird minority status. Why them, and not Yorkshire? Or Lancashire? Or East Anglia? It just feeds fragmentation, special pleading and so forth. We're all Englishmen, for god's sake.
You've got football to look forward to when you get home on the normal TV office workers - ITV4 Europa League Football, coverage of a semi-final first-leg tie ko 8.05 (Radio Times)
On that note, I fail to see why Cornwall suddenly has some sort of weird minority status. Why them, and not Yorkshire? Or Lancashire? Or East Anglia? It just feeds fragmentation, special pleading and so forth. We're all Englishmen, for god's sake.
On that note, I fail to see why Cornwall suddenly has some sort of weird minority status. Why them, and not Yorkshire? Or Lancashire? Or East Anglia? It just feeds fragmentation, special pleading and so forth. We're all Englishmen, for god's sake.
Because they met the guidelines set down by European treaties. Why else? Incidentally, this is just another European rule that we enact faithfully, even as it divides up our nation further, while the French ignore it outright. And then we're seen as being a "bad European" while no-one mentions a thing about France.
"This morning, the Co-operative Party gathered alongside City journalists, residents of Tower Hamlets and representatives of the financial mutual sector to hear Ed Miliband give a speech at the London HQ of the Co-operative Bank.
His speech, broadcast live, set out his vision of real change for Britain’s banks.
Ed opened his speech by praising the Co-op: “You have always understood that ethics of responsibility, co-operation and stewardship must be at the heart of what we do."
Serious question. We know that UKIPpers fear immigration, but do individual UKIPpers fear individual immigrants?
In this mental picture that I have of Godfrey Bloom finding himself in the same room as an immigrant, he wears a certain look on his face. The look a virgin wears as she awaits the Sultan.
Part of his apprehension is from noticing that the bottle of baby oil on the table is almost empty.
Is that roughly what it feels like to be a UKIPper?
Why not tell us? Some of your own posts are very hostile to immigration.
On that note, I fail to see why Cornwall suddenly has some sort of weird minority status. Why them, and not Yorkshire? Or Lancashire? Or East Anglia? It just feeds fragmentation, special pleading and so forth. We're all Englishmen, for god's sake.
No reason why not. We can have multiple identities and many do, whether they exist on an official list or not.
FWIW, the only realistic answer to the WLQ I can see is some form of federalism, for which England is too large a component to operate a parallel parliament and government to that of the UK. Regions or nations such as Cornwall, Yorkshire, East Anglia or The Other Side of The Pennines would be a more natural fit.
Mr. Me, they're entitled to their view, but it's the kind of nonsense I'd expect from a Lancastrian. Cutting England up into little pieces is bloody stupid. We need England to be stronger, not weaker.
The Yougov website gives details of the poll results on questions re the UKIP poster campaign
34% agree posters racist 59% disagree 39% agree offensive 53% disagree 57% agree hard hitting reflection of reality 35% disagree 50% support the message 41% oppose
In general UKIP supporters agree with the message , Conservatives split marginally in favour , Labour and Lib Dem supporters split marginally against ( Lib Dems more so )
As mentioned previously there was also a EU VI question but those figures have not been released .
On that note, I fail to see why Cornwall suddenly has some sort of weird minority status. Why them, and not Yorkshire? Or Lancashire? Or East Anglia? It just feeds fragmentation, special pleading and so forth. We're all Englishmen, for god's sake.
No reason why not. We can have multiple identities and many do, whether they exist on an official list or not.
FWIW, the only realistic answer to the WLQ I can see is some form of federalism, for which England is too large a component to operate a parallel parliament and government to that of the UK. Regions or nations such as Cornwall, Yorkshire, East Anglia or The Other Side of The Pennines would be a more natural fit.
If you have different areas of policy for the UK and national levels, there's absolutely no reason why federalism can't work with England as a whole.
Mr. Herdson, disagree. England's one land. You could argue the toss about whether Scotsmen and Englishmen are countrymen (the Scots will decide that shortly) but an East Anglian or Essex lad or Geordie are all my countrymen, without a doubt. Slicing England up into pieces would be despicable.
Did anyone try to split Scotland into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands? Of course not.
The Yougov website gives details of the poll results on questions re the UKIP poster campaign
34% agree posters racist 59% disagree 39% agree offensive 53% disagree 57% agree hard hitting reflection of reality 35% disagree 50% support the message 41% oppose
In general UKIP supporters agree with the message , Conservatives split marginally in favour , Labour and Lib Dem supporters split marginally against ( Lib Dems more so )
As mentioned previously there was also a EU VI question but those figures have not been released .
I'm surprised so many are offended.
"...the concerns expressed in the posters are shared by a very large section of the electorate; in fact, when asked their views about immigration and the European Union, a staggering 70% of voters tell YouGov that people with low education and skills who are looking for low-paid work should not be allowed into Britain. "
On that note, I fail to see why Cornwall suddenly has some sort of weird minority status. Why them, and not Yorkshire? Or Lancashire? Or East Anglia? It just feeds fragmentation, special pleading and so forth. We're all Englishmen, for god's sake.
No reason why not. We can have multiple identities and many do, whether they exist on an official list or not.
FWIW, the only realistic answer to the WLQ I can see is some form of federalism, for which England is too large a component to operate a parallel parliament and government to that of the UK. Regions or nations such as Cornwall, Yorkshire, East Anglia or The Other Side of The Pennines would be a more natural fit.
If you have different areas of policy for the UK and national levels, there's absolutely no reason why federalism can't work with England as a whole.
On a theoretical level, no. On a practical level, the idea of an English parliament with 500 MPs or so would just look too much like the existing Westminster and would be a rival rather than a complement to it, particularly when it had a different political leadership. If Boris, as political head of a city of 8 million and commanding relatively few real powers, is seen as a rival to Cameron, how much more so would the political leader of 50 million be, when overseeing very real powers (if devolved as per Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland)?
In any case, I think that too much power is centralised in London and it would be a good thing for the regions to take more responsibility for their own affairs. I accept that not all regions have the same strength of identity but that's not all that necessary.
Mr. Divvie, you can't advocate separation then complain when others consider the same. I'm a unionist and would prefer Scotland, Shetland et al. to remain with us.
Mr. Herdson, you'd be setting up seven or so rival parliaments, which would foster bickering, division and, eventually, could bring about the splintering of England. Just look what's happened with the Scottish Parliament. It's a mad idea.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, that's a witty response and a great way to evade a perfectly good question.
The lack of a senior or experienced civil service in Scotland in non devolved functions is a good example of how Better Together need to frame the debate.
The Yes campaign have been very good so far at claiming that such points are a part of their own invention, the "too wee, too stupid" argument. So they have so far cast these points as negative criticism of the idea of independence.
What is essential in my view is that Better Together come to the other and correct end of the telescope. These points are not negative but clear and straightforward examples of the benefits that Scotland obtains from being a part of a much larger, more efficient and flexible economic unit.
Everyone contributes of course including Scotland but even from a narrow Scottish perspective we get a very good deal in getting access to all that expertise, international representation, effective military forces, the BBC, internationally recognised regulation, knowhow and administrative experience for the money that we contribute. Why would we want to give up such an advantage?
BT is not doing nearly enough to accentuate the positive and is allowing Yes to frame the debate in a way that inevitably gets peoples' backs up. It is frustrating.
David, more tired scare stories about how our civil servants are indeed also crap and will only be fit to fill the black holes that unionists continue to find on a daily basis will definitely encourage people to change their mind and vote NO. What is it about the brain washing of unionists that makes them blind to reality. Do you actually know anyone who gives a fig about the civil service or spends a second worrying about their quality versus the dope-a-rope equivalents in London.
PS , you may enjoy tugging your forelock and blessing London for helping us stupid country hicks, unfortunately it is not something many people share as a trait.
Mr. Divvie, you can't advocate separation then complain when others consider the same. I'm a unionist and would prefer Scotland, Shetland et al. to remain with us.
Mr. Herdson, you'd be setting up seven or so rival parliaments, which would foster bickering, division and, eventually, could bring about the splintering of England. Just look what's happened with the Scottish Parliament. It's a mad idea.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, that's a witty response and a great way to evade a perfectly good question.
Mr Dancer, you can't comfortably accept the suggestion of separation within one historical nation then get a massive feather up your arse when others suggest the same for your own. Well, you can, but it looks a little, ah, inconsistent.
Think Britain should govern itself? Then the Deputy Prime Minister thinks you're an isolationist and a xenophobe.
Disagree? Vote UKIP.
What about the voters who do think they're isolationists & xenophobes?
Looking at the YouGov poll. I wonder if the more rabid anti-UKIP Labour/LD/Con supporters will drive their UKIP-sympathetic colleagues to change their voting intention to UKIP.
Mr. Divvie, you can't advocate separation then complain when others consider the same. I'm a unionist and would prefer Scotland, Shetland et al. to remain with us.
Mr. Herdson, you'd be setting up seven or so rival parliaments, which would foster bickering, division and, eventually, could bring about the splintering of England. Just look what's happened with the Scottish Parliament. It's a mad idea.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, that's a witty response and a great way to evade a perfectly good question.
The main issue with splitting parliaments to too regional a level is that eventually you have to have fiscal transfers of taxes between regions. Effectively (at least to start), you would have taxes from the South East going north.
So how exactly that works, with a different tax powers, and without building resentment is a bit of a dogs dinner. It works on a national level because everyone is equal and we all have more or less common national bond.
LOL, Is that the same DWP that has wasted billions trying to put a computer system in to handle benefits payments. You could not make it up the unionists get ever more desperate.
Regardless of that Scotland will need to rapidly spend money on new computer systems if the vote is Yes. And 18 months is not very long when implementing any large computer system.
Edit to say its well known in technical circles why the DWP system is a grade a disaster, I very much doubt new Scottish systems will be very different (the real faults are baked into the nature of the project)
There are plenty of existing systems that can be used , despite the daydreams of unionists , Scotland actually has a few computers and actually pays out benefits currently. Only fools would believe that everything will disappear on independence. Hopefully we will avoid outsourcing to the inept companies that the Tories use and thus reduce their pals salaries.
Oh dear. Best not wind up one of your largest IT providers, Malky.
'The Rt Hon Alex Salmond, MSP, First Minister of Scotland, said:
“Capgemini’s announcement of up to 500 new jobs in Inverness is wonderful news for the Highlands and for Scotland. It represents a huge investment not only in the future of our economy, but particularly in the future of our young people.'
LOL, Is that the same DWP that has wasted billions trying to put a computer system in to handle benefits payments. You could not make it up the unionists get ever more desperate.
Regardless of that Scotland will need to rapidly spend money on new computer systems if the vote is Yes. And 18 months is not very long when implementing any large computer system.
trams.
The fantasy that everything can remain the same apart from the bits that the SNP want to change is no more than that. Nothing is impossible but only an idiot would believe this is going to be easy.
David , what planet do you live on , we could go to the dole queue and pick anyone at random and they would do as good a job as a Tories chum(p). How do all those countries around the world manage without that titan the DWP. You must be having a laugh. You show your complete stupidity by including the health service which has been autonomous since the beginning and has no need of help from the English version.
Malcolm. We are not talking about the political leadership which is almost irrelevant for this purpose but the senior civil service. Because the UK has been (arguably excessively) centralised for a long time there is no relevant experience of running non devolved functions north of the Border. None.
Any country that has evolved its own systems over a period of time will of course have such expertise and Scotland would no doubt acquire it in time. But that time and expertise would be very expensive.
So far as the NHS is concerned whilst there is a management system in place in Scotland it is a lot more integrated on specialist functions and research than you seem to think. The efficiencies of being part of a larger system with significant resources to throw at new problems would be lost.
David, as they run the devolved functions perfectly well , and arguably better than UK civil service it should be no hardship to run similar functions that are not devolved. It is not rocket science.
I'm sure there will be some teething problems, but given the opportunity to start with a blankish sheet of paper, there should be the chance to build something effective. If Salmond and the team are thoughtful about how they do it.
Mr. Divvie, if Scotland becomes independent it's not my country, and not my problem. You can't complain if your arguments of separation and splitting are so persuasive even more people want it than you thought.
Did anyone try to split Scotland into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands? Of course not.
Your Unionist mates are never done flying a 'Shetland, Orkney & Borders should remain in the UK' kite.
Especially as it wouldn't be the UK anyway, which would have disappeared. But England, W & NI. One could just as logically invite the Isle of Wight to become part of Scotland.
Mr. Divvie, you can't advocate separation then complain when others consider the same. I'm a unionist and would prefer Scotland, Shetland et al. to remain with us.
Mr. Herdson, you'd be setting up seven or so rival parliaments, which would foster bickering, division and, eventually, could bring about the splintering of England. Just look what's happened with the Scottish Parliament. It's a mad idea.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, that's a witty response and a great way to evade a perfectly good question.
I'd argue that it's the imbalance between Westminster and Holyrood, and the fact that Westminster is both the British and the English parliament (and Whitehall likewise for the government) that is more the root of the propelling of Scotland towards independence.
Were Scotland an equal part within the Union, alongside London, Yorkshire, East Anglia and so on, it would be more likely to keep its exceptionalism within manageable bounds.
Federalism works well in most countries of the UK's size. The devolution cat is already out of the bag and as it won't go back in, either we muddle along as now, which has generated all sorts of unhealthy resentments, we rebalance with some form of full-English devolution, or via sub-English devolution. You think there'd be more bickering and division with the latter; I, the former. All options bring risks but then so does doing nothing.
Mr. Herdson, Yorkshire's part of England, and England is the counterpart to Scotland.
England isn't like most other countries. The last federal approach we had was with the four kingdoms that were three-quarters conquered by the Vikings. Moving that way now would just lead to devolution, division and the end of England as a single country.
People were saying Scottish devolution would kill the SNP stone dead. How did that work out? Sowing division cannot keep England together, it'll erode the national identity and bolster regional ones, leading to bickering, discord and rivalry. It's a crazy idea.
Did anyone try to split Scotland into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands? Of course not.
Your Unionist mates are never done flying a 'Shetland, Orkney & Borders should remain in the UK' kite.
Especially as it wouldn't be the UK anyway, which would have disappeared. But England, W & NI. One could just as logically invite the Isle of Wight to become part of Scotland.
Carnyx, I think of you as being the smart nationalist. Please tell me you don't really believe this tripe. The United Kingdom was formed from the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland. The fact that part of the Kingdom of Great Britain leaves wouldn't end the UK any more than when part of the Kingdom of Ireland left. If Scotland gets independence, it wouldn't happen from a repeal of the Act of Union 1707. It would be from a new Act that gets passed releasing Scotland as a sovereign state, while the UK would still continue to exist.
David, as they run the devolved functions perfectly well , and arguably better than UK civil service it should be no hardship to run similar functions that are not devolved. It is not rocket science.
And with your classical education you know all about Rocket Science..
Iain McNicol’s sham plan to cut Labour’s ties to the Co-op by moving £1.2 million of debt to the Unity Trust bank doesn’t really cut any ties at all. As Faisal Islam reports, as a condition of the banking licence granted to Unity Trust the bank is “controlled” by… the Co-Op. This means the Co-Op appoints the Unity Trust chairman and has the right to appoint a majority of its board members, indeed the Co-Op’s risk and financial control directors sit on the Unity Trust board. They’re just rearranging the deckchairs…
Dear Mr Farage I am writing to you to in the hope of convincing you that a British person could be your secretary and to express my interest in the position.
I believe I would be an excellent fit, given that I have considerable experience both in staying up quite late and attending to emails, even though I am not German. I would also be able to brief you for the next day and, better still, brief you from the perspective of a British person. That is, a fourth-generation British person, which I am sincerely hoping is British enough. What if you made us all count back and we found we were all immigrants somewhere along the line? If I am successful in this application and if my job description allows, I would advise you to steer clear of that discussion as it will probably only end in tears.
Mr. Divvie, you can't advocate separation then complain when others consider the same. I'm a unionist and would prefer Scotland, Shetland et al. to remain with us.
Mr. Herdson, you'd be setting up seven or so rival parliaments, which would foster bickering, division and, eventually, could bring about the splintering of England. Just look what's happened with the Scottish Parliament. It's a mad idea.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, that's a witty response and a great way to evade a perfectly good question.
I'd argue that it's the imbalance between Westminster and Holyrood, and the fact that Westminster is both the British and the English parliament (and Whitehall likewise for the government) that is more the root of the propelling of Scotland towards independence.
Were Scotland an equal part within the Union, alongside London, Yorkshire, East Anglia and so on, it would be more likely to keep its exceptionalism within manageable bounds.
Federalism works well in most countries of the UK's size. The devolution cat is already out of the bag and as it won't go back in, either we muddle along as now, which has generated all sorts of unhealthy resentments, we rebalance with some form of full-English devolution, or via sub-English devolution. You think there'd be more bickering and division with the latter; I, the former. All options bring risks but then so does doing nothing.
I'd rather let Scotland go then break up England and end up with the sort of paralysed federal mess that Germany has, which prevents the country from ever acting in a concerted way internationally.
Iain McNicol’s sham plan to cut Labour’s ties to the Co-op by moving £1.2 million of debt to the Unity Trust bank doesn’t really cut any ties at all. As Faisal Islam reports, as a condition of the banking licence granted to Unity Trust the bank is “controlled” by… the Co-Op. This means the Co-Op appoints the Unity Trust chairman and has the right to appoint a majority of its board members, indeed the Co-Op’s risk and financial control directors sit on the Unity Trust board. They’re just rearranging the deckchairs…
Mr. Divvie, you can't advocate separation then complain when others consider the same. I'm a unionist and would prefer Scotland, Shetland et al. to remain with us.
Mr. Herdson, you'd be setting up seven or so rival parliaments, which would foster bickering, division and, eventually, could bring about the splintering of England. Just look what's happened with the Scottish Parliament. It's a mad idea.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, that's a witty response and a great way to evade a perfectly good question.
I'd argue that it's the imbalance between Westminster and Holyrood, and the fact that Westminster is both the British and the English parliament (and Whitehall likewise for the government) that is more the root of the propelling of Scotland towards independence.
Were Scotland an equal part within the Union, alongside London, Yorkshire, East Anglia and so on, it would be more likely to keep its exceptionalism within manageable bounds.
Federalism works well in most countries of the UK's size. The devolution cat is already out of the bag and as it won't go back in, either we muddle along as now, which has generated all sorts of unhealthy resentments, we rebalance with some form of full-English devolution, or via sub-English devolution. You think there'd be more bickering and division with the latter; I, the former. All options bring risks but then so does doing nothing.
I'd rather let Scotland go then break up England and end up with the sort of paralysed federal mess that Germany has, which prevents the country from ever acting in a concerted way internationally.
History shows that it's a good thing when Germany doesn't act in a concerted way internationally.
Mr. Divvie, you can't advocate separation then complain when others consider the same. I'm a unionist and would prefer Scotland, Shetland et al. to remain with us.
Mr. Herdson, you'd be setting up seven or so rival parliaments, which would foster bickering, division and, eventually, could bring about the splintering of England. Just look what's happened with the Scottish Parliament. It's a mad idea.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, that's a witty response and a great way to evade a perfectly good question.
I'd argue that it's the imbalance between Westminster and Holyrood, and the fact that Westminster is both the British and the English parliament (and Whitehall likewise for the government) that is more the root of the propelling of Scotland towards independence.
Were Scotland an equal part within the Union, alongside London, Yorkshire, East Anglia and so on, it would be more likely to keep its exceptionalism within manageable bounds.
Federalism works well in most countries of the UK's size. The devolution cat is already out of the bag and as it won't go back in, either we muddle along as now, which has generated all sorts of unhealthy resentments, we rebalance with some form of full-English devolution, or via sub-English devolution. You think there'd be more bickering and division with the latter; I, the former. All options bring risks but then so does doing nothing.
I'd rather let Scotland go then break up England and end up with the sort of paralysed federal mess that Germany has, which prevents the country from ever acting in a concerted way internationally.
There are any number of inappropriate responses to that, but without going for cheap shots, Germany's getting by reasonably well despite all that paralysis, isn't it?
Anyway, I'm off out cycling now, to enjoy the wonderful Yorkshire countryside which will be seen world-wide when The Tour arrives in July (and which is only coming because the county's representatives realised the vision and marketed it effectively; something devolution could do for all the regions).
Iain McNicol’s sham plan to cut Labour’s ties to the Co-op by moving £1.2 million of debt to the Unity Trust bank doesn’t really cut any ties at all. As Faisal Islam reports, as a condition of the banking licence granted to Unity Trust the bank is “controlled” by… the Co-Op. This means the Co-Op appoints the Unity Trust chairman and has the right to appoint a majority of its board members, indeed the Co-Op’s risk and financial control directors sit on the Unity Trust board. They’re just rearranging the deckchairs…
It is Co-op *Bank* that is withdrawing the loan from Labour (I suspect that they were pushed, but as a courtesy were allowed to present it as their idea). Co-op Bank only owns 27% of Unity Trust, and I understand that it is currently trying to sell the stake (the unions have a right of first refusal)
Did anyone try to split Scotland into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands? Of course not.
Your Unionist mates are never done flying a 'Shetland, Orkney & Borders should remain in the UK' kite.
Especially as it wouldn't be the UK anyway, which would have disappeared. But England, W & NI. One could just as logically invite the Isle of Wight to become part of Scotland.
Carnyx, I think of you as being the smart nationalist. Please tell me you don't really believe this tripe. The United Kingdom was formed from the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland. The fact that part of the Kingdom of Great Britain leaves wouldn't end the UK any more than when part of the Kingdom of Ireland left. If Scotland gets independence, it wouldn't happen from a repeal of the Act of Union 1707. It would be from a new Act that gets passed releasing Scotland as a sovereign state, while the UK would still continue to exist.
I can see where you are coming from, but it is important to bear in mind that that is value laden terminology. To state that the UK will still persist under that name implies that it is the continuing state and Scotland will be a de novo state. Hence best to avoid using that term for now. EWNI is neutral and not value laden in that sense (though I accept that it can be seen as value laden in the sense that it is seen by some as a downgrade.)
Mr. Divvie, you can't advocate separation then complain when others consider the same. I'm a unionist and would prefer Scotland, Shetland et al. to remain with us.
Mr. Herdson, you'd be setting up seven or so rival parliaments, which would foster bickering, division and, eventually, could bring about the splintering of England. Just look what's happened with the Scottish Parliament. It's a mad idea.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, that's a witty response and a great way to evade a perfectly good question.
I'd argue that it's the imbalance between Westminster and Holyrood, and the fact that Westminster is both the British and the English parliament (and Whitehall likewise for the government) that is more the root of the propelling of Scotland towards independence.
Were Scotland an equal part within the Union, alongside London, Yorkshire, East Anglia and so on, it would be more likely to keep its exceptionalism within manageable bounds.
Federalism works well in most countries of the UK's size. The devolution cat is already out of the bag and as it won't go back in, either we muddle along as now, which has generated all sorts of unhealthy resentments, we rebalance with some form of full-English devolution, or via sub-English devolution. You think there'd be more bickering and division with the latter; I, the former. All options bring risks but then so does doing nothing.
I'd rather let Scotland go then break up England and end up with the sort of paralysed federal mess that Germany has, which prevents the country from ever acting in a concerted way internationally.
There are any number of inappropriate responses to that, but without going for cheap shots, Germany's getting by reasonably well despite all that paralysis, isn't it?
It's currently got very slow growth because it can't provide a strong response to the Eurozone crisis. And it has to sit by while powerful neighbours aggressively expand, as it isn't politically capable of taking a robust stand. The world would be far poorer without a Britain that it a strong presence internationally.
If you have different areas of policy for the UK and national levels, there's absolutely no reason why federalism can't work with England as a whole.
On a theoretical level, no. On a practical level, the idea of an English parliament with 500 MPs or so would just look too much like the existing Westminster and would be a rival rather than a complement to it, particularly when it had a different political leadership. If Boris, as political head of a city of 8 million and commanding relatively few real powers, is seen as a rival to Cameron, how much more so would the political leader of 50 million be, when overseeing very real powers (if devolved as per Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland)?
In any case, I think that too much power is centralised in London and it would be a good thing for the regions to take more responsibility for their own affairs. I accept that not all regions have the same strength of identity but that's not all that necessary.
Agree with all of that. (Come to that, it's good to see a consensus between David Herdson and John Prescott.) That said, the NE voters were unpersuaded - I think the problem was that they saw it as an EXTRA layer of government rater than genuinely devolved government.
You can tell it's a bad YouGov morning from the PB Tories that have shown up. Today we have pathetic smear attempts on The Axe, the Coop and Farage's dad. You can set your watch by YouGov.
Are we talking about the 5% lead for Labour? If so, it's about par for the course isn't is, leaving the Budget Bounce aside, which has now clearly worn off.
That said, the Budget Bounce is relevant, not for any lasting effect - there hasn't been one - but what it shows about how readily votes might shift in response to events: something highly relevant to an election campaign. There are a lot of undecided and persuadables out there.
I agree with that too, though I also think it shows the limits (perhaps "some" rather than "a lot"). The Government had a really good run of economic headlines and excellent media coverage of the Budget, and they got a temporary bounce of maybe 3 points, almost none of it from Labour voters but sucking back some of the UKIP froth. I could see a successful Tory election campaign (not a given, but let's assume it) getting a +3 points, getting them close to parity in votes. It's hard to see it doing a +10 points to get back to the 2010 vote lead, let alone a +15 to hit overall majority territory.
Iain McNicol’s sham plan to cut Labour’s ties to the Co-op by moving £1.2 million of debt to the Unity Trust bank doesn’t really cut any ties at all. As Faisal Islam reports, as a condition of the banking licence granted to Unity Trust the bank is “controlled” by… the Co-Op. This means the Co-Op appoints the Unity Trust chairman and has the right to appoint a majority of its board members, indeed the Co-Op’s risk and financial control directors sit on the Unity Trust board. They’re just rearranging the deckchairs…
It is Co-op *Bank* that is withdrawing the loan from Labour (I suspect that they were pushed, but as a courtesy were allowed to present it as their idea). Co-op Bank only owns 27% of Unity Trust, and I understand that it is currently trying to sell the stake (the unions have a right of first refusal)
2010 LD > Lab switchers from the Labour perspective:
"...Greg’s always trying to pull Ed’s people back towards that swath of former Labour voters the party lost under Blair.
While every-one else is banging on about how to hang on to former Lib Dems, Greg’s popping up and saying, “Fine, but remember that if we want to win, there’s a few blue-collar, small-c conservatives we’re going to need to pull across as well.”’"
Mr. Divvie, you can't advocate separation then complain when others consider the same. I'm a unionist and would prefer Scotland, Shetland et al. to remain with us.
Mr. Herdson, you'd be setting up seven or so rival parliaments, which would foster bickering, division and, eventually, could bring about the splintering of England. Just look what's happened with the Scottish Parliament. It's a mad idea.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, that's a witty response and a great way to evade a perfectly good question.
I'd argue that it's the imbalance between Westminster and Holyrood, and the fact that Westminster is both the British and the English parliament (and Whitehall likewise for the government) that is more the root of the propelling of Scotland towards independence.
Were Scotland an equal part within the Union, alongside London, Yorkshire, East Anglia and so on, it would be more likely to keep its exceptionalism within manageable bounds.
Federalism works well in most countries of the UK's size. The devolution cat is already out of the bag and as it won't go back in, either we muddle along as now, which has generated all sorts of unhealthy resentments, we rebalance with some form of full-English devolution, or via sub-English devolution. You think there'd be more bickering and division with the latter; I, the former. All options bring risks but then so does doing nothing.
I'd rather let Scotland go then break up England and end up with the sort of paralysed federal mess that Germany has, which prevents the country from ever acting in a concerted way internationally.
There are any number of inappropriate responses to that, but without going for cheap shots, Germany's getting by reasonably well despite all that paralysis, isn't it?
It's currently got very slow growth because it can't provide a strong response to the Eurozone crisis. And it has to sit by while powerful neighbours aggressively expand, as it isn't politically capable of taking a robust stand. The world would be far poorer without a Britain that it a strong presence internationally.
That's more to do with it's historical legacy than its federal structure; the US hasn't been prevented from acting assertively as and when it saw fit, despite its own federalism.
Did anyone try to split Scotland into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands? Of course not.
Your Unionist mates are never done flying a 'Shetland, Orkney & Borders should remain in the UK' kite.
Especially as it wouldn't be the UK anyway, which would have disappeared. But England, W & NI. One could just as logically invite the Isle of Wight to become part of Scotland.
Carnyx, I think of you as being the smart nationalist. Please tell me you don't really believe this tripe. The United Kingdom was formed from the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland. The fact that part of the Kingdom of Great Britain leaves wouldn't end the UK any more than when part of the Kingdom of Ireland left. If Scotland gets independence, it wouldn't happen from a repeal of the Act of Union 1707. It would be from a new Act that gets passed releasing Scotland as a sovereign state, while the UK would still continue to exist.
I can see where you are coming from, but it is important to bear in mind that that is value laden terminology. To state that the UK will still persist under that name implies that it is the continuing state and Scotland will be a de novo state. Hence best to avoid using that term for now. EWNI is neutral and not value laden in that sense (though I accept that it can be seen as value laden in the sense that it is seen by some as a downgrade.)
But that's exactly what would happen. We have a direct example in the creation of the Irish Free State. The UK continued (with exactly the same name, until they chose to alter it six years later), and was the successor state under international law, while Ireland became a new state in international law. This isn't a matter of terminology, it's a legal thing. All the existing treaties would continue to be held by the UK, and Scotland would have to create new ones.
Iain McNicol’s sham plan to cut Labour’s ties to the Co-op by moving £1.2 million of debt to the Unity Trust bank doesn’t really cut any ties at all. As Faisal Islam reports, as a condition of the banking licence granted to Unity Trust the bank is “controlled” by… the Co-Op. This means the Co-Op appoints the Unity Trust chairman and has the right to appoint a majority of its board members, indeed the Co-Op’s risk and financial control directors sit on the Unity Trust board. They’re just rearranging the deckchairs…
It is Co-op *Bank* that is withdrawing the loan from Labour (I suspect that they were pushed, but as a courtesy were allowed to present it as their idea). Co-op Bank only owns 27% of Unity Trust, and I understand that it is currently trying to sell the stake (the unions have a right of first refusal)
Thanks for that. What happens to the banking licence (if what Guido reports is correct) if the Co-op removes the remaining shares?
Still, it's nowhere near the clean break that was being made out this morning.
So, Ed's breaking the Labour Party's ties and reliance on the Unions by establishing a banking relationship with a Union owned and controlled bank. Interesting.
What happened to the much lauded post Falkirk reforms to cut undue Union influence?
Mr. Divvie, you can't advocate separation then complain when others consider the same. I'm a unionist and would prefer Scotland, Shetland et al. to remain with us.
Mr. Herdson, you'd be setting up seven or so rival parliaments, which would foster bickering, division and, eventually, could bring about the splintering of England. Just look what's happened with the Scottish Parliament. It's a mad idea.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, that's a witty response and a great way to evade a perfectly good question.
I'd argue that it's the imbalance between Westminster and Holyrood, and the fact that Westminster is both the British and the English parliament (and Whitehall likewise for the government) that is more the root of the propelling of Scotland towards independence.
Were Scotland an equal part within the Union, alongside London, Yorkshire, East Anglia and so on, it would be more likely to keep its exceptionalism within manageable bounds.
Federalism works well in most countries of the UK's size. The devolution cat is already out of the bag and as it won't go back in, either we muddle along as now, which has generated all sorts of unhealthy resentments, we rebalance with some form of full-English devolution, or via sub-English devolution. You think there'd be more bickering and division with the latter; I, the former. All options bring risks but then so does doing nothing.
In a federalist model I dare say the Labour voting zones would quickly lose their taste for Socialism once they had lost the subsidies from Tory areas which currently make their delusions possible.
If you have different areas of policy for the UK and national levels, there's absolutely no reason why federalism can't work with England as a whole.
On a theoretical level, no. On a practical level, the idea of an English parliament with 500 MPs or so would just look too much like the existing Westminster and would be a rival rather than a complement to it, particularly when it had a different political leadership. If Boris, as political head of a city of 8 million and commanding relatively few real powers, is seen as a rival to Cameron, how much more so would the political leader of 50 million be, when overseeing very real powers (if devolved as per Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland)?
In any case, I think that too much power is centralised in London and it would be a good thing for the regions to take more responsibility for their own affairs. I accept that not all regions have the same strength of identity but that's not all that necessary.
Agree with all of that. (Come to that, it's good to see a consensus between David Herdson and John Prescott.) That said, the NE voters were unpersuaded - I think the problem was that they saw it as an EXTRA layer of government rater than genuinely devolved government.
Prescott's plans were cart-before-horse, which is why they were rejected: there was a referendum based on a new body with no defined powers. Had a mirror of Wales or Scotland been on offer, there might have been a different response. Indeed, I went to a 'Yorkshire Says No' event at about the time of the vote in the North East when Yorkshire was next on Prezza's list and the speaker (against) specifically said that there'd be a much stronger case for it if it were to have much stronger powers.
Iain McNicol’s sham plan to cut Labour’s ties to the Co-op by moving £1.2 million of debt to the Unity Trust bank doesn’t really cut any ties at all. As Faisal Islam reports, as a condition of the banking licence granted to Unity Trust the bank is “controlled” by… the Co-Op. This means the Co-Op appoints the Unity Trust chairman and has the right to appoint a majority of its board members, indeed the Co-Op’s risk and financial control directors sit on the Unity Trust board. They’re just rearranging the deckchairs…
It is Co-op *Bank* that is withdrawing the loan from Labour (I suspect that they were pushed, but as a courtesy were allowed to present it as their idea). Co-op Bank only owns 27% of Unity Trust, and I understand that it is currently trying to sell the stake (the unions have a right of first refusal)
Thanks for that. What happens to the banking licence (if what Guido reports is correct) if the Co-op removes the remaining shares?
Still, it's nowhere near the clean break that was being made out this morning.
So, Ed's breaking the Labour Party's ties and reliance on the Unions by establishing a banking relationship with a Union owned and controlled bank. Interesting.
I assume the point is not so much that Co-operative and an inherently left-wing enterprise was a bad partner, but rather than the Co-operative as a multi-billion pound loss-making institution formerly (partly) headed by Flowers was a bad partner for a party wanting to show economic credibility (with the added "bonus" that any attention drawn to the link cast light on the Labour Party's finances in general, which is never good for any party).
Many thanks for your magisterial series of articles. I haven't commented only because there is so much to digest. However, I've followed a few of the bets you've highlighted - excellent stuff!
Ladbrokes tends to be a decent guide to the market in the absence of Betfair. Most political arbs I've done have had Ladbrokes profiting at the expense of Hills or some such. In short Shadsy knows his stuff and isn't afraid to take a view - he also contributes to the site, these are probably the reasons Mike chooses him rather than a UKIP conspiracy >?
Did anyone try to split Scotland into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands? Of course not.
Your Unionist mates are never done flying a 'Shetland, Orkney & Borders should remain in the UK' kite.
Especially as it wouldn't be the UK anyway, which would have disappeared. But England, W & NI. One could just as logically invite the Isle of Wight to become part of Scotland.
Carnyx, I think of you as being the smart nationalist. Please tell me you don't really believe this tripe. The United Kingdom was formed from the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland. The fact that part of the Kingdom of Great Britain leaves wouldn't end the UK any more than when part of the Kingdom of Ireland left. If Scotland gets independence, it wouldn't happen from a repeal of the Act of Union 1707. It would be from a new Act that gets passed releasing Scotland as a sovereign state, while the UK would still continue to exist.
I can see where you are coming from, but it is important to bear in mind that that is value laden terminology. To state that the UK will still persist under that name implies that it is the continuing state and Scotland will be a de novo state. Hence best to avoid using that term for now. EWNI is neutral and not value laden in that sense (though I accept that it can be seen as value laden in the sense that it is seen by some as a downgrade.)
Just to be clear, the UK (or rUK) *will* be the continuing state. I don't think anyone credible is really disputing that. Otherwise, for instance, the rUK would be out of the EU, NATO, UN, etc. Which is just silly.
That said, the NE voters were unpersuaded - I think the problem was that they saw it as an EXTRA layer of government rater than genuinely devolved government.
As one account I read had it the NE assembly involved moving power upwards to the regional assembly from the local councils, rather than downwards from Whitehall to the region.
That's centralisation, rather than devolution. That, and the obvious fact that Labour were only interested in creating a regional assembly where they thought they would be in control - rather than to regions in the south - would be big reasons why that supposed devolution was fortunate to be rejected.
That said, the NE voters were unpersuaded - I think the problem was that they saw it as an EXTRA layer of government rater than genuinely devolved government.
As one account I read had it the NE assembly involved moving power upwards to the regional assembly from the local councils, rather than downwards from Whitehall to the region.
That's centralisation, rather than devolution. That, and the obvious fact that Labour were only interested in creating a regional assembly where they thought they would be in control - rather than to regions in the south - would be big reasons why that supposed devolution was fortunate to be rejected.
They were also NOT, as I recall going to abolish any existing tier of local government.
Ladbrokes tends to be a decent guide to the market in the absence of Betfair. Most political arbs I've done have had Ladbrokes profiting at the expense of Hills or some such. In short Shadsy knows his stuff and isn't afraid to take a view - he also contributes to the site, these are probably the reasons Mike chooses him rather than a UKIP conspiracy >?
Nah
Its a betting site not a Ladbrokes advert
Anyone talking about the betting market should be dealing in best prices in the market, not one company. I appreciate Shadsy posts here, but that shouldn't lead to misleading information.
Mike is very anti UKIP, look at yesterdays gaffe as a prime example... desperate for any bad news for us.
"The Deputy Prime Minister will brand members of Ukip “populists and xenophobes” in a speech at the launch of the Lib Dem campaign for the May 22 poll."
Do the "Better Together " people really believe IDS is the best person to deliver this message?Are they seeking poll crossover before they wake up? It makes you wonder if they do actually want to win.Being lectured to by an English Tory must be bad enough but by one of the most hated English Tories questions what exactly are they trying to achieve.Expect Yes to go up a couple of ticks.
Well I was one of those who voted 'Yes' in the North East referendum, and I still support greater regional autonomy. A Federal structure for EWNI? Definitely. Give it a few years to bed down, and then we can "Do a Crimea" in the 'Commonwealth of Northumbria' and have a referendum to join the Republic of Scotland. Bring in on!
Do the "Better Together " people really believe IDS is the best person to deliver this message?Are they seeking poll crossover before they wake up? It makes you wonder if they do actually want to win.Being lectured to by an English Tory must be bad enough but by one of the most hated English Tories questions what exactly are they trying to achieve.Expect Yes to go up a couple of ticks.
Forgot to add - we didn't get the assembly, but we DID lose a layer of local government, when Durham County Council became a Unitary, as did Northumberland. In fact, the whole of NE England now has single tier local government.
Do the "Better Together " people really believe IDS is the best person to deliver this message?Are they seeking poll crossover before they wake up? It makes you wonder if they do actually want to win.Being lectured to by an English Tory must be bad enough but by one of the most hated English Tories questions what exactly are they trying to achieve.Expect Yes to go up a couple of ticks.
I would suggest that it's not good territory for the 'no' side even if it wasnt being fronted by someone who is surely extremely unpopular in Scotland.
Do the "Better Together " people really believe IDS is the best person to deliver this message?Are they seeking poll crossover before they wake up? It makes you wonder if they do actually want to win.Being lectured to by an English Tory must be bad enough but by one of the most hated English Tories questions what exactly are they trying to achieve.Expect Yes to go up a couple of ticks.
"The Deputy Prime Minister will brand members of Ukip “populists and xenophobes” in a speech at the launch of the Lib Dem campaign for the May 22 poll."
Iain McNicol’s sham plan to cut Labour’s ties to the Co-op by moving £1.2 million of debt to the Unity Trust bank doesn’t really cut any ties at all. As Faisal Islam reports, as a condition of the banking licence granted to Unity Trust the bank is “controlled” by… the Co-Op. This means the Co-Op appoints the Unity Trust chairman and has the right to appoint a majority of its board members, indeed the Co-Op’s risk and financial control directors sit on the Unity Trust board. They’re just rearranging the deckchairs…
Guido once again proving that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The trade union movement and the co-operative movement may have similar outlooks but they are different.
I'd rather let Scotland go then break up England and end up with the sort of paralysed federal mess that Germany has, which prevents the country from ever acting in a concerted way internationally.
Germany did act in a concerted way internationally, in 1939-45. I'm not sure there is a consensus that it was a good idea. Even with less drastic examples, there's a lot to be said for a system that restrains countries from acting too energetically on their own.
I would suggest that it's not good territory for the 'no' side even if it wasnt being fronted by someone who is surely extremely unpopular in Scotland.
If Scots really are so feeble-minded and vacuous that they will be influenced by whether they happen to dislike the messenger, then so be it (personally I don't expect that they are). That doesn't make the message any less valid, nor does it mean that the message should be suppressed. It would be a breach of duty for ministers not to point out the practical implications of independence in their respective fields.
If Scots really are so feeble-minded and vacuous that they will be influenced by whether they happen to dislike the messenger, then so be it (personally I don't expect that they are).
Of course they are, we all are, if you have a message to get across dont give it to someone incredibly unpopular to deliver, it's politics 101.
If Scots really are so feeble-minded and vacuous that they will be influenced by whether they happen to dislike the messenger, then so be it (personally I don't expect that they are).
Of course they are, we all are, if you have a message to get across dont give it to someone incredibly unpopular to deliver, it's politics 101.
He is Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It is his responsibility.
Anyway, the SNP complaint is that he's not more active in delivering the message:
[Nicola Sturgeon] said Duncan Smith is afraid to come to Scotland to launch the analysis paper in person - and is using Carmichael as a "human shield".
"... there's a lot to be said for a system that restrains countries from acting too energetically on their own."
Indeed there is, Mr. Palmer, the UK has such a system and has had for centuries. Its is called Parliament. Generally it works well in this regard, of course if a Prime Minister deliberately misleads it then it might be fooled into voting for what the PM wants, but I don't think that is likely to happen again.
If Scots really are so feeble-minded and vacuous that they will be influenced by whether they happen to dislike the messenger, then so be it (personally I don't expect that they are).
Of course they are, we all are, if you have a message to get across dont give it to someone incredibly unpopular to deliver, it's politics 101.
There's no doubt that you're feeble-minded and vacuous, there's ample proof of that. However you're mistaken in thinking the same of the Scottish electorate.
Do the "Better Together " people really believe IDS is the best person to deliver this message?Are they seeking poll crossover before they wake up? It makes you wonder if they do actually want to win.Being lectured to by an English Tory must be bad enough but by one of the most hated English Tories questions what exactly are they trying to achieve.Expect Yes to go up a couple of ticks.
IDS is Scottish. Born in Edinburgh to a distinguished Scottish father. Try to get something right for a change.
Ooh, that'll make all the difference. Perhaps he can pop round to his old stamping ground of Easterhouse for a little face-to-face action on the manifest benefits of remaining in the UK. Oh, that's right, the day trips are only about talking at folk, not to them.
I would suggest that it's not good territory for the 'no' side even if it wasnt being fronted by someone who is surely extremely unpopular in Scotland.
If Scots really are so feeble-minded and vacuous that they will be influenced by whether they happen to dislike the messenger, then so be it (personally I don't expect that they are). That doesn't make the message any less valid, nor does it mean that the message should be suppressed. It would be a breach of duty for ministers not to point out the practical implications of independence in their respective fields.
He's more than a messenger. This independence vote involves a lot, maybe predominant, amounts, of psychology---things to do with cultural identity. He's a representative of what a lot of people on both sides of the border see as the sum of awful modern Tory attitudes. I should probably go for a walk or at least count slowly to ten, but I'll just say that using him emphasizes the gap between "them" and "us". It's like using a steel bristle brush to rub an itch.
So the Labour party is transferring its' loans to a trade union dominated bank for "commercial reasons"?
This trade union dominated bank is currently only allowed to have a banking licence because it is under the wise and benevolent control of the Co-Op bank?
And the Co-Op want to sell their shares in that bank with the Unions having first refusal leaving it entirely under the control of the Unions (assuming it can keep its banking licence)?
So we are likely to be left with the Labour party funded by a bank entirely controlled by their largest contributors so that they are dependent on them not only for income but also loans to fund elections?
And Ed Miliband, who wants to reform the relationship with the Union movement so they have less say over Labour policy, is ok with this?
I've just spent 5 minutes trying to find Ladbroke's London councils markets. I have given up. What a **** website.
I did see the Tower Hamlets Mayoral market though. Surely Rahman at 6/4 is great value? He got over 50% of the vote last time.
Mike has pointed out that the easiest way is to click on the magnifying glass symbol at the top of the homepage and type a word relating to the market you are after
I tried to find what you were looking the old way and gave up after 5 mins.. quite tiresome I agree
He's a representative of what a lot of people on both sides of the border see as the sum of awful modern Tory attitudes.
Oh, absolutely. He's the embodiment of the modern Tory push to really understand the root causes of poverty and help people who have been trapped and abandoned by the benefits system - which led to a staggering 25% of the working age population of Labour-fiefdom Glasgow being on out-of-work benefits. And that was in 2007, at the height of the economic boom, when money was pouring into the Treasury, when Labour had been in power for a full decade, with devolution, with a Scottish Chancellor and a raft of Scottish ministers, so there was absolutely no excuse or possibility of blaming the evil Tories.
So, yes, terrible modern Tory attitudes, actually wanting to do something about this.
So we are likely to be left with the Labour party funded by a bank entirely controlled by their largest contributors so that they are dependent on them not only for income but also loans to fund elections?
And Ed Miliband, who wants to reform the relationship with the Union movement so they have less say over Labour policy, is ok with this?
Wow. This man never ceases to amaze me.
Worry not. We can take great comfort from the top quality banking supervision of the last Govt. of which Ed was a Minister....
The one that allowed a boom and bust that very nearly broke the world economy.
Comments
'Today we have pathetic smear attempts on The Axe, the Coop and Farage's dad.
You can set your watch by YouGov.'
The Co-op bank smeared itself,just unfortunate that it was Ed's model bank.
The Yes campaign have been very good so far at claiming that such points are a part of their own invention, the "too wee, too stupid" argument. So they have so far cast these points as negative criticism of the idea of independence.
What is essential in my view is that Better Together come to the other and correct end of the telescope. These points are not negative but clear and straightforward examples of the benefits that Scotland obtains from being a part of a much larger, more efficient and flexible economic unit.
Everyone contributes of course including Scotland but even from a narrow Scottish perspective we get a very good deal in getting access to all that expertise, international representation, effective military forces, the BBC, internationally recognised regulation, knowhow and administrative experience for the money that we contribute. Why would we want to give up such an advantage?
BT is not doing nearly enough to accentuate the positive and is allowing Yes to frame the debate in a way that inevitably gets peoples' backs up. It is frustrating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Alliance#Members
http://www.yorkshirefirst.org.uk/
"This morning, the Co-operative Party gathered alongside City journalists, residents of Tower Hamlets and representatives of the financial mutual sector to hear Ed Miliband give a speech at the London HQ of the Co-operative Bank.
His speech, broadcast live, set out his vision of real change for Britain’s banks.
Ed opened his speech by praising the Co-op: “You have always understood that ethics of responsibility, co-operation and stewardship must be at the heart of what we do."
If the French are keen on the SNP, perhaps we should encourage the Bretons to join the Britons.
FWIW, the only realistic answer to the WLQ I can see is some form of federalism, for which England is too large a component to operate a parallel parliament and government to that of the UK. Regions or nations such as Cornwall, Yorkshire, East Anglia or The Other Side of The Pennines would be a more natural fit.
Think Britain should govern itself? Then the Deputy Prime Minister thinks you're an isolationist and a xenophobe.
Disagree? Vote UKIP.
34% agree posters racist 59% disagree
39% agree offensive 53% disagree
57% agree hard hitting reflection of reality 35% disagree
50% support the message 41% oppose
In general UKIP supporters agree with the message , Conservatives split marginally in favour , Labour and Lib Dem supporters split marginally against ( Lib Dems more so )
As mentioned previously there was also a EU VI question but those figures have not been released .
Did anyone try to split Scotland into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands? Of course not.
What about the voters who do think they're isolationists & xenophobes?
"...the concerns expressed in the posters are shared by a very large section of the electorate; in fact, when asked their views about immigration and the European Union, a staggering 70% of voters tell YouGov that people with low education and skills who are looking for low-paid work should not be allowed into Britain. "
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/23/attacking-ukip-racist-campaign-counter-productive-immigration
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_national_billboard_campaign
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/24/voters-new-ukip-adverts-are-not-racist/
In any case, I think that too much power is centralised in London and it would be a good thing for the regions to take more responsibility for their own affairs. I accept that not all regions have the same strength of identity but that's not all that necessary.
Mr. Herdson, you'd be setting up seven or so rival parliaments, which would foster bickering, division and, eventually, could bring about the splintering of England. Just look what's happened with the Scottish Parliament. It's a mad idea.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, that's a witty response and a great way to evade a perfectly good question.
PS , you may enjoy tugging your forelock and blessing London for helping us stupid country hicks, unfortunately it is not something many people share as a trait.
Well, you can, but it looks a little, ah, inconsistent.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/3jirmp3lvi/YG-Archive-140423-UKIP-Posters.pdf
So how exactly that works, with a different tax powers, and without building resentment is a bit of a dogs dinner. It works on a national level because everyone is equal and we all have more or less common national bond.
'The Rt Hon Alex Salmond, MSP, First Minister of Scotland, said:
“Capgemini’s announcement of up to 500 new jobs in Inverness is wonderful news for the Highlands and for Scotland. It represents a huge investment not only in the future of our economy, but particularly in the future of our young people.'
http://www.uk.capgemini.com/news/uk-news/capgemini-to-create-up-to-500-new-high-tech-jobs-in-the-scottish-highlands
Public speeches aren't the right format for detail
Spot on, Mr. Slackbladder.
Plenty of cultural and other links between Bretagne and the Irish, Welsh, etc.
Were Scotland an equal part within the Union, alongside London, Yorkshire, East Anglia and so on, it would be more likely to keep its exceptionalism within manageable bounds.
Federalism works well in most countries of the UK's size. The devolution cat is already out of the bag and as it won't go back in, either we muddle along as now, which has generated all sorts of unhealthy resentments, we rebalance with some form of full-English devolution, or via sub-English devolution. You think there'd be more bickering and division with the latter; I, the former. All options bring risks but then so does doing nothing.
England isn't like most other countries. The last federal approach we had was with the four kingdoms that were three-quarters conquered by the Vikings. Moving that way now would just lead to devolution, division and the end of England as a single country.
People were saying Scottish devolution would kill the SNP stone dead. How did that work out? Sowing division cannot keep England together, it'll erode the national identity and bolster regional ones, leading to bickering, discord and rivalry. It's a crazy idea.
@CCHQPress: .@grantshapps "These proposals would hand the trade unions even more control over Ed Miliband and the Labour Party" http://t.co/ODCTHsuQzw
Wow. Simply wow.
Anyway, I'm off out cycling now, to enjoy the wonderful Yorkshire countryside which will be seen world-wide when The Tour arrives in July (and which is only coming because the county's representatives realised the vision and marketed it effectively; something devolution could do for all the regions).
Another way of telling the betting news would be to say
"UKIP to win most votes moves into Evens in the bet365 Euro elections market"
But I think it's obvious that Mike Smithson is to UKIP what Dan Hodges is to Ed Miliband
Still, at least this thread is based on truth, however partial
Guido is being misleading.
It is Co-op *Bank* that is withdrawing the loan from Labour (I suspect that they were pushed, but as a courtesy were allowed to present it as their idea). Co-op Bank only owns 27% of Unity Trust, and I understand that it is currently trying to sell the stake (the unions have a right of first refusal)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/14/unity-trust-coop-bank-ownership-overhaul
It is Co-op *Bank* that is withdrawing the loan from Labour (I suspect that they were pushed, but as a courtesy were allowed to present it as their idea). Co-op Bank only owns 27% of Unity Trust, and I understand that it is currently trying to sell the stake (the unions have a right of first refusal)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/14/unity-trust-coop-bank-ownership-overhaul
Thanks for that. What happens to the banking licence (if what Guido reports is correct) if the Co-op removes the remaining shares?
Still, it's nowhere near the clean break that was being made out this morning.
They were 11/10 yesterday, were cut to 10/11 and are now EVS
The true story would be to look at the shortest and largest prices across the market.
Mike has picked Ladbrokes, who are shortest Labour and biggest UKIP (Shock)
Most people in betting would look at oddschecker and see that UKIP are 5/4 (Lads) and Labour are 6/5 (Hills)
UKIP odds on with Hills (10/11) Labour aren't odds on anywhere
But Mike has a narrative to press
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/uk-european-election/most-votes
"...Greg’s always trying to pull Ed’s people back towards that swath of former Labour voters the party lost under Blair.
While every-one else is banging on about how to hang on to former Lib Dems, Greg’s popping up and saying, “Fine, but remember that if we want to win, there’s a few blue-collar, small-c conservatives we’re going to need to pull across as well.”’"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9191741/meet-team-miliband/
I talked about it for ages when it was 4/6 now its 2/5... Didn't back it as funds were tight...
Hope someone got the value
Still, it's nowhere near the clean break that was being made out this morning.
So, Ed's breaking the Labour Party's ties and reliance on the Unions by establishing a banking relationship with a Union owned and controlled bank. Interesting.
What happened to the much lauded post Falkirk reforms to cut undue Union influence?
And now, I really am off for a ride.
I assume the point is not so much that Co-operative and an inherently left-wing enterprise was a bad partner, but rather than the Co-operative as a multi-billion pound loss-making institution formerly (partly) headed by Flowers was a bad partner for a party wanting to show economic credibility (with the added "bonus" that any attention drawn to the link cast light on the Labour Party's finances in general, which is never good for any party).
That's centralisation, rather than devolution. That, and the obvious fact that Labour were only interested in creating a regional assembly where they thought they would be in control - rather than to regions in the south - would be big reasons why that supposed devolution was fortunate to be rejected.
Its a betting site not a Ladbrokes advert
Anyone talking about the betting market should be dealing in best prices in the market, not one company. I appreciate Shadsy posts here, but that shouldn't lead to misleading information.
Mike is very anti UKIP, look at yesterdays gaffe as a prime example... desperate for any bad news for us.
The public back #UKIPbillboards. It's #UKIP's people's army vs the establishment http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/24/voters-new-ukip-adverts-are-not-racist/ … …
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/472099/Frantic-Lib-Dem-leader-Nick-Clegg-fights-to-halt-Ukip-s-poll-surge
Is that going to help Mr Thornton win back the LD > UKIP swing voters?
http://survation.com/still-a-3-way-marginal-new-polling-in-eastleigh-constituency-survation-for-alan-bown/
It makes you wonder if they do actually want to win.Being lectured to by an English Tory must be bad enough but by one of the most hated English Tories questions what exactly are they trying to achieve.Expect Yes to go up a couple of ticks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/24/scottish-independence-ids-benefits-pensions_n_5203690.html
(Served with the Scots Guards too)
Guido once again proving that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The trade union movement and the co-operative movement may have similar outlooks but they are different.
Anyway, the SNP complaint is that he's not more active in delivering the message:
[Nicola Sturgeon] said Duncan Smith is afraid to come to Scotland to launch the analysis paper in person - and is using Carmichael as a "human shield".
So they'd whinge either way.
Indeed there is, Mr. Palmer, the UK has such a system and has had for centuries. Its is called Parliament. Generally it works well in this regard, of course if a Prime Minister deliberately misleads it then it might be fooled into voting for what the PM wants, but I don't think that is likely to happen again.
I did see the Tower Hamlets Mayoral market though. Surely Rahman at 6/4 is great value? He got over 50% of the vote last time.
Perhaps he can pop round to his old stamping ground of Easterhouse for a little face-to-face action on the manifest benefits of remaining in the UK. Oh, that's right, the day trips are only about talking at folk, not to them.
This trade union dominated bank is currently only allowed to have a banking licence because it is under the wise and benevolent control of the Co-Op bank?
And the Co-Op want to sell their shares in that bank with the Unions having first refusal leaving it entirely under the control of the Unions (assuming it can keep its banking licence)?
So we are likely to be left with the Labour party funded by a bank entirely controlled by their largest contributors so that they are dependent on them not only for income but also loans to fund elections?
And Ed Miliband, who wants to reform the relationship with the Union movement so they have less say over Labour policy, is ok with this?
Wow. This man never ceases to amaze me.
I tried to find what you were looking the old way and gave up after 5 mins.. quite tiresome I agree
Here it is though
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/British/2014-Local-Elections/Politics-N-1z131s4Z1z0plwdZ1z141ne/
So, yes, terrible modern Tory attitudes, actually wanting to do something about this.
The one that allowed a boom and bust that very nearly broke the world economy.
*screams silently...*