Given that IndyScot will not initially be in the EU then duty-free should be available on flights to Glasgow and Edinburgh from rUK. Maybe, as well, there'll be big duty free shops on the border at Berwick and Carlisle.
Do you think they could do that fun thing with a passport check point in the middle of the store?
Actually there is an obvious location for a duty-free site. Just north of the M6 at the start of the M74 there is a big retail unit at Gretna on the left hand side just inside the Scottish border. It would make a brilliant duty-free hypermarket. Cheap booze and fags for all our English chums
Given that IndyScot will not initially be in the EU then duty-free should be available on flights to Glasgow and Edinburgh from rUK. Maybe, as well, there'll be big duty free shops on the border at Berwick and Carlisle.
Do you think they could do that fun thing with a passport check point in the middle of the store?
Actually there is an obvious location for a duty-free site. Just north of the M6 at the start of the M74 there is a big retail unit at Gretna on the left hand side just inside the Scottish border. It would make a brilliant duty-free hypermarket. Cheap booze and fags for all our English chums
Gretna Outlet village? Yeah, it's got the chintz of the blacksmiths shop etc nearby and is perfect for a first and last. As long as they don't spoil Carter Bar, which is a beautiful, beautiful border crossing.
Had 3 good mugs of it already this morning, hopefully we will still be able to import it after September.
Likewise I'll need my supply of Scottish Breakfast Tea. If border crossing becomes onerous, we can set up a tea exchange programme Malcolm. Maybe we will become famous as the tea smugglers that began the great rebirth of cross border cooperation!
Given that IndyScot will not initially be in the EU then duty-free should be available on flights to Glasgow and Edinburgh from rUK. Maybe, as well, there'll be big duty free shops on the border at Berwick and Carlisle.
Do you think they could do that fun thing with a passport check point in the middle of the store?
Actually there is an obvious location for a duty-free site. Just north of the M6 at the start of the M74 there is a big retail unit at Gretna on the left hand side just inside the Scottish border. It would make a brilliant duty-free hypermarket. Cheap booze and fags for all our English chums
On the A1 route there's the big Morrisons just north of Berwick. This was set to become the UK's biggest off licence if Scots minimum alcohol pricing had been brought in.
Given that IndyScot will not initially be in the EU then duty-free should be available on flights to Glasgow and Edinburgh from rUK. Maybe, as well, there'll be big duty free shops on the border at Berwick and Carlisle.
Given that IndyScot will not initially be in the EU then duty-free should be available on flights to Glasgow and Edinburgh from rUK. Maybe, as well, there'll be big duty free shops on the border at Berwick and Carlisle.
We could start duty free bus and boat trips as well
Had 3 good mugs of it already this morning, hopefully we will still be able to import it after September.
Likewise I'll need my supply of Scottish Breakfast Tea. If border crossing becomes onerous, we can set up a tea exchange programme Malcolm. Maybe we will become famous as the tea smugglers that began the great rebirth of cross border cooperation!
woolie, we can indeed , meet up on the moors
We will pick a random Cheviot each month for the transfer. I have a safe house just north of Byrness ;-)
Sean T old chap, what is this nonsensical obsession you have with DC resigning when we Scots vote YES in September? DC has little or no influence on the vote. Indeed when he gets involved the YES vote increases and the YESNP are pinning their hopes on the Compouter crossover taking place before September as that will easily push YES across the winning post.
Given that IndyScot will not initially be in the EU then duty-free should be available on flights to Glasgow and Edinburgh from rUK. Maybe, as well, there'll be big duty free shops on the border at Berwick and Carlisle.
Do you think they could do that fun thing with a passport check point in the middle of the store?
Actually there is an obvious location for a duty-free site. Just north of the M6 at the start of the M74 there is a big retail unit at Gretna on the left hand side just inside the Scottish border. It would make a brilliant duty-free hypermarket. Cheap booze and fags for all our English chums
On the A1 route there's the big Morrisons just north of Berwick. This was set to become the UK's biggest off licence if Scots minimum alcohol pricing had been brought in.
No one use the A1 route, it's so last century. A68 is your friend
The latest issue (April 2014) of LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) Industry has an interesting article on the global supply and demand of Natural Gas (Methane) and its local pricing. (Yes I know I should get out more - but energy costs affect us all).
Using sources from the World Bank Commodity Data (Pink Sheet), it compares the prices of Natural Gas since 2007 in Japan, USA and Europe. A further article looks at the effects on its price of shipping LNG around the world.
Since 2007 the price of US Natural Gas has declined from $7 (per MMBtu) to just under $4 in 2013 after a peak of nearly $9 in 2008.
For Europe, at ~$8.5 in 2007, it peaked at ~$13.5 in 2008 dropping to a low of ~$8 in 2010 and rising to $12 in 2013.
Lol - how many pounds do I need to exchange with the vendor to buy things. Thats the exchange rate I referred to. The pound has devalued markedly against things people buy on a regular basis in that the increase in the cost of transport or energy or food is greater than any increase people may have had in the supply of pounds in their pocket.
Aside from the statistics this is the real world, and too many posters want to cling to statistics showing that everything is on the mend when in most people's day to day experience it isn't. As for my assigning too much doom to Scotland voting yes, it doesn't have to be this event to crash the global economy, it could be various other things including the card pyramid collapsing under its own weight. Creating false good and bad sides over Ukraine is a wonderful distraction....
The FTT is an enhanced co-operation thing, isn't it? Doesn't that mean it won't apply to the UK?
Correct, but the tax will apply when at least one member state is participating in it. So if a British broker deals with a German company, the tax is applicable, as far as I can see.
business will flood to Singapore and New York, even though the UK is not part of this agreement.
If the business in question is with a German company, than the tax will still apply if the other side is in New York or Singapore.
The FTT is an enhanced co-operation thing, isn't it? Doesn't that mean it won't apply to the UK?
They want to charge it on trades done in London by banks with either headquarters or significant operations in the Eurozone
In participating countries perhaps - not Luxembourg or the Netherlands, who are opting out. The banks will move their operations to London and Luxembourg.
Get a grip. Of course he would resign. He would have to resign. Morally and politically. Losing the union would an epochal catastrophe.
The closest parallel is Lord North's defeat in a no confidence motion in 1783.
But he had just been trounced at Yorktown. Cameron hasn't been
If only we'd have listened to William Pitt then we could have set up an early system of home rule for the American colonies then, applied it to Ireland and Scotland later, and we wouldn't be having any of these problems now.
And India probably wouldn't be part of the Commonwealth
Why not?
It's only from recollection, but I thought that there was a pretty well established consensus among historians that the British Empire only turned to the East as a focus once America was lost. There's a good case that development of North America would have been a priority for the UK. Counterfactuals are always debatable though
Lol - how many pounds do I need to exchange with the vendor to buy things. Thats the exchange rate I referred to. The pound has devalued markedly against things people buy on a regular basis in that the increase in the cost of transport or energy or food is greater than any increase people may have had in the supply of pounds in their pocket.
Aside from the statistics this is the real world, and too many posters want to cling to statistics showing that everything is on the mend when in most people's day to day experience it isn't. As for my assigning too much doom to Scotland voting yes, it doesn't have to be this event to crash the global economy, it could be various other things including the card pyramid collapsing under its own weight. Creating false good and bad sides over Ukraine is a wonderful distraction....
But for many. Things are on the mend. The simplest test of the number of tradesmen I get in at tea time for a drink after work, how regularly and what they have to say about business convinces me we are in a better place than 12 months ago, but there is water still to tread. Things are, slowly, improving.
I wonder what my fellow Scots PBers think but the impression I now get is that for the IndyRef "don't knows" and waverers, they simply no longer believe a word any London based politician says in relation to the IndyRef. It comes out forcefully in many of the media interviews of the Scottish equivalent of the citizen on the Clapham omnibus.
One thing I do believe is that if there is a YES vote, there is more chance of Scots becoming unified than there is if there is a NO vote, something Margo MacDonald was clearly thinking in her final days and so eloquently stated on her behalf yesterday by her widower Jim Sillars at the Holyrood memorial service.
It's only from recollection, but I thought that there was a pretty well established consensus among historians that the British Empire only turned to the East as a focus once America was lost. There's a good case that development of North America would have been a priority for the UK. Counterfactuals are always debatable though
I don't think this is accurate at all. There was never a plan from the Home Office to conquer India. It happened because EIC officials on the ground kept on manufacturing wars and then called in the British armed forces to get them out of the mess. Given that we already had Bengal and Madras at this point everything had already been set in motion.
I can understand the arguement behing Cameron having to resign in the event of a YES vote, but only if the same arguement effectively applies to Miliband as well.
One thing I do believe is that if there is a YES vote, there is more chance of Scots becoming unified than there is if there is a NO vote, something Margo MacDonald was clearly thinking in her final days and so eloquently stated on her behalf yesterday by her widower Jim Sillars at the Holyrood memorial service.
Why do you want your province to be "unified"? Open and tolerated dissent and division are the hallmarks of a mature, free society.
Mr. Isam, elsewhere there was an interesting discussion about (in the reasonably distant future) what goods we would actually transport to planets, moons and asteroids, because a lot of things could just be sent as information used as blueprints for 3D printing. It could be a game-changer both on this planet and beyond, when we get around to colonising bits of the solar system.
Could create huge problems though, with printed guns, knives, body armour etc.
Given how governments still don't seem to know how the internet and people who use it work I suspect they'll have a hard time adapting to this.
Not sure that is true, We acquired most of our Indian possessions in the Seven years war, 1756-1763, as well as Canada. That was the war where we surpassed the French and put them in second place on the world stage. George Washington amongst other was fighting for Britain against the French in that one (known as the French and Indian War in the USA). It was 20 years later that Britain recognised USA, in 1783, though probably it became inevitable after losing the battle of Saratoga in 1777.
One aspect of the US war of independence is that many of the 13 colonies were radicalised fairly late on; the Southern colonies were pro British in particular. As the campaign went on theses became more pro independence. Like in Scotland the conflict tends to go to the radicals.
Many Loyalists kept their heads down after independence, but many others preferred to remain British, moving to Canada in particular. Notably many of Scottish/Scots-Irish extraction preferred to stay British.
I do not think a Devomax option would have kept the US patriots happy, it would have led to full independence shortly afterwards, as would such a proposal for Scotland. Promoting Devomax would be accepting defeat before a ballot has been made. Unionists should have the courage of their convictions.
Indeed the Seven years war perhaps qualifies as the worlds first global conflict, with fighting across the whole war.
The FTT is an enhanced co-operation thing, isn't it? Doesn't that mean it won't apply to the UK?
Correct, but the tax will apply when at least one member state is participating in it. So if a British broker deals with a German company, the
Why not?
It's only from recollection, but I thought that there was a pretty well established consensus among historians that the British Empire only turned to the East as a focus once America was lost. There's a good case that development of North America would have been a priority for the UK. Counterfactuals are always debatable though
I wonder what my fellow Scots PBers think but the impression I now get is that for the IndyRef "don't knows" and waverers, they simply no longer believe a word any London based politician says in relation to the IndyRef. It comes out forcefully in many of the media interviews of the Scottish equivalent of the citizen on the Clapham omnibus.
One thing I do believe is that if there is a YES vote, there is more chance of Scots becoming unified than there is if there is a NO vote, something Margo MacDonald was clearly thinking in her final days and so eloquently stated on her behalf yesterday by her widower Jim Sillars at the Holyrood memorial service.
Easterross, I totally agree and also given the way things are going find it hard to see it not being YES now. It will be be bad if it is NO given it will be close at worst and so both sides will get further and further apart as the battle for the next referendum goes on.
Proof of concept more than an actual practical idea, but jet fuel nozzles are already being manufactured. Reduced prototyping, and complex shapes being the main industrial uses at the moment.
We could probably have avoided the entire American revolution had a handful of sniffy English generals just acceded to George Washington's reasonable request some years earlier and given him command of a British regiment in the French-Indian wars instead of relegating him to a Colonial regiment.
Had 3 good mugs of it already this morning, hopefully we will still be able to import it after September.
Likewise I'll need my supply of Scottish Breakfast Tea. If border crossing becomes onerous, we can set up a tea exchange programme Malcolm. Maybe we will become famous as the tea smugglers that began the great rebirth of cross border cooperation!
It's only from recollection, but I thought that there was a pretty well established consensus among historians that the British Empire only turned to the East as a focus once America was lost. There's a good case that development of North America would have been a priority for the UK. Counterfactuals are always debatable though
I don't think this is accurate at all. There was never a plan from the Home Office to conquer India. It happened because EIC officials on the ground kept on manufacturing wars and then called in the British armed forces to get them out of the mess. Given that we already had Bengal and Madras at this point everything had already been set in motion.
IIRC the Napoleonic Wars had a hand in it, as the French were keen to use it for advantage and we were keen to stop them. That's why Napoleon went to Egypt.
'No, but you play them up front, everyone else keeps theirs in the attic'
No, the difference is that UKIP confront theirs. Everyone else ignores their own and pretends they have done nothing wrong.
I love it when posters - especially Tories - on here think they can score points about UKIP members who have been suspended or kicked out by the party for stupid comments as it gives me yet another opportunity to point out that this man is still a Tory councillor - apparently with their blessing - whilst his victim felt compelled to resign.
Proof of concept more than an actual practical idea, but jet fuel nozzles are already being manufactured. Reduced prototyping, and complex shapes being the main industrial uses at the moment.
(and F1 car parts, plane parts, entire drones, and a friend designs prototype consumer electronics cases and produces them via 3D printing).
There are many different 3D printing techniques, and even multi-material ones. It's changing manufacturing very, very rapidly. Traditional techniques can still be best for mass-production, but for low-volume parts and rapid prototyping it's the dog's proverbials.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
I think that you and Brogan and Parris are wrong in this. Cammo has specially prepared pants and he has glue on them. He is the sort that would rather die that resign his seat.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Julius Mandrake @juliusmandrake 5m UKIP member calls Muslims animals: he's suspended. Mehdi Hasan calls non-Muslims mentally ill cattle: they applaud him on #bbcqt
SeanT - How about £200 evens that Cameron does not resign in the event of a yes vote.
Now to more serious stuff. I'm sure you're planning to once again sponsor next week's pb drinkies. Your generosity to the downtrodden, friendless denizens of this benighted site has become the stuff of legend throughout the civilized world and may have yet reached Australia.
£100 will certainly go some way to the procurement of Neil's and my first cocktail.
The hit pieces are coming thick and fast and they will have an effect on those who trust media commentators.
It’s the bloggers who are fighting back. Delingpole nails them at Breitbart and that Ruthless Truth guy has a great post about how the LibLabCon are mentally ill in “Far Left Nut Job Seems Normal” at:
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
Get a grip. Of course he would resign. He would have to resign. Morally and politically. Losing the union would an epochal catastrophe.
The Spanish get this - an out vote in Catalonia would impolode the Spanish corpse so they've declared the vote unconstitutional.
Its a bit more complicated than that. First, following Franco's death, the Spanish people overwhelmingly ratified a constitution which provided for a country wide plebiscite - which the people of Catalonia supported. Second, Catalonia is around a third of Spain's economy - Scotland under a tenth of the UK's. The 2008 recession put as big a dent in the economy in absolute terms as Scotland's departure would....we appear to have survived that......
Oh goody! An empire thread. I am not sure there was ever a plan from HMG to create the Empire after the 17th century, it happened through chains of circumstances in different parts of the world often against the express wish of the administration in London. Socrates points out that the final conquest of India happened because local administrators in what were supposed to be trading areas got ideas above their station and got into a whole series of wars, which then had to be won The Wellesley brothers were in this up to their necks but it persisted well into the 19th century (see Anglo-Sikh wars of the 1840s).
The process continued over much of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The annexation of Zululand being , I think, the last example. London didn't want the territory but the local government got themselves into a mess which resulted in the massacre at Isandlwana and after that British Pride could only accept one outcome.
Of course, in the early part of the empire building era the position was complicated by the natural desire to keep the Frogs out, which also led us to taking over territory that wasn't really in our national interest to keep.
In fact for the UK the Empire was not a profitable business. Certain colonies at certain times made money, mostly for private individuals and businesses, but the costs of running and protecting the whole thing fell on the British taxpayer and, by the early 20th century, greatly exceeded the largely untaxed profits made.
It also led to a mis-allocation of resources. By the late 19th century Germany was overtaking the UK as an industrial power because its money was being invested in new ideas and new machinery and an education system to match the needs of an industrial economy. In the UK by contrast money was being invested in protecting the Empire and a futile attempt trying to make money out of it in the long term (see the Dundee Jute industry for a classic example) and building an education system geared on producing paladins to run colonies.
I think it ironic that one of the causes of the Great War was the naval competition between the UK and Germany which came about largely because of Germany's desire for an empire. Yet it was the lack of such an empire that enabled Germany to industrially out-perform the UK in the first place and so enable them to compete.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The polling shows none of the likely Cameron replacements would be as popular as Cameron - for every UKIP returnee coming in through the front door you'll have a couple of others leaving by the back door....
'No, but you play them up front, everyone else keeps theirs in the attic'
No, the difference is that UKIP confront theirs. Everyone else ignores their own and pretends they have done nothing wrong.
I love it when posters - especially Tories - on here think they can score points about UKIP members who have been suspended or kicked out by the party for stupid comments as it gives me yet another opportunity to point out that this man is still a Tory councillor - apparently with their blessing - whilst his victim felt compelled to resign.
Richard, I don't disagree much, although UKIP have their fair share of skeletons. All the mainstream parties suck, it's down to picking the one that will do least harm whilst we wait for the inevitable revolution and rebirth. UKIP could have been the revolution if they hadn't been born of the worst excesses of the Tory party 1975-1997 and had not just become establishment in exile. They offer nothing new (at least that I can ascertain) and are hamstrung by their overriding goal. They are Jimmy Goldsmith with a slightly less arrogant attitude. I'll try and rip the kick out of Miller and Bone etc more often to balance out my chagrin ;-)
The BBC news carried a vox pop with a life long Labour supporter last night who said he was going to vote "yes" because he wanted "to get rid of New Labour" and only independence would give Scottish Labour a chance to get back on track.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Extra couple of percent swing. Doddle. Come on OGH, 12 gains on their own is a reasonable effort, let alone on top of 70 odd. An extra 16% of seats needing to change hands and they haven't got many heartlands to do it in. It is as hard for Labour to take seats in the S, SE and SW as it is for the Tories in the N, NE and NW
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The problem is that UKIP and the Conservatives don't actually agree on that much. Zac Goldsmith, for example, is a windmill loving, gay marriage supporting, MP from a historically liberal (with a small 'l') constituency. If the Conservatives went into an alliance with UKIP, then I suspect Richmond-on-Thames would go yellow.
The big question is: for each vote you gain from UKIP, do you lose more or less than one on the other side?
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The polling shows none of the likely Cameron replacements would be as popular as Cameron - for every UKIP returnee coming in through the front door you'll have a couple of others leaving by the back door....
Have you got a link to the polling of Kippers regarding possible Conservative leaders?
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The polling shows none of the likely Cameron replacements would be as popular as Cameron - for every UKIP returnee coming in through the front door you'll have a couple of others leaving by the back door....
Indeed. Unlike the other leaders Cameron is more popular than his party and for the blues to be down just 2-3% on their GE2010 share at this stage is a good performance.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
But would a more openly eurosceptic Conservative leader lose votes elsewhere? And would he be able to command the parliamentary party with such views, especially with an electoral pact?
It's perfectly possible for any new leader to have similar views on Europe to Cameron, or even be slightly more Europhilic.
Besides, UKIP is about more than being eurosceptic, isn't it? Would a slightly more eurosceptic leader satisfy those other issues that matter to some, if not all, UKIP supporters? Doesn't a large part of UKIP support come from the None-of-the-Above brigade?
It's a difficult one to guess. And without a pact, it will be easy for UKIP to shift to counter any moves made by the Conservative party, which is handcuffed by the fact that they're in power.
But it's all a moot point, because Cameron won't, and shouldn't go ...
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The problem is that UKIP and the Conservatives don't actually agree on that much. Zac Goldsmith, for example, is a windmill loving, gay marriage supporting, MP from a historically liberal (with a small 'l') constituency. If the Conservatives went into an alliance with UKIP, then I suspect Richmond-on-Thames would go yellow.
The big question is: for each vote you gain from UKIP, do you lose more or less than one on the other side?
The Tories are already near their 97-2005 core vote. Unless the core has fragmented, they will lose very little regardless.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The polling shows none of the likely Cameron replacements would be as popular as Cameron - for every UKIP returnee coming in through the front door you'll have a couple of others leaving by the back door....
Indeed. Unlike the other leaders Cameron is more popular than his party and for the blues to be down just 2-3% on their GE2010 share at this stage is a good performance.
On the EU Isam overstates its importance.
I think you are right that the EU is not that important to people, even UKIPpers.. its the immigration part of it
For instance, if a govt was to want out of the EU, so we could make our own decisions on how to run the country, and one of those decisions was to allow mass immigration from anywhere in the world, complete open borders, I wouldn't vote for that party.
But you have to try and understand that its the free movement of people that most anti EU people are annoyed at, and to say "The EU" doesn't matter, is missing the point. It's not the EU, it's one of the rules of the EU that you cant be a member of if you disagree with
The BBC news carried a vox pop with a life long Labour supporter last night who said he was going to vote "yes" because he wanted "to get rid of New Labour" and only independence would give Scottish Labour a chance to get back on track.
I find it odd that anyone would favour permanent constitutional change because of fleeting party political advantage.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The problem is that UKIP and the Conservatives don't actually agree on that much. Zac Goldsmith, for example, is a windmill loving, gay marriage supporting, MP from a historically liberal (with a small 'l') constituency. If the Conservatives went into an alliance with UKIP, then I suspect Richmond-on-Thames would go yellow.
The big question is: for each vote you gain from UKIP, do you lose more or less than one on the other side?
Hard to say, because there's such a huge difference in outlook now between Conservatives in London and other big urban centres and Conservatives in rural areas and small to medium-sized towns. What does Peter Lilley or Nadine Dorries have in common with Anna Soubry, or Jane Ellison?
The Tories are already near their 97-2005 core vote. Unless the core has fragmented, they will lose very little regardless.
Their core vote has fragmented.
The Conservative Party used to be a coalition of all who benefits from stability (i.e. things broadly staying the same): and this meant an alliance of country and capital. (Capital as in money and business.)
However, urban professionals - who have historically been Conservative voters - have increasingly come to support things like windmills and gay marriage and Europe and relatively relaxed rules on immigration. Cameron's detoxification strategy was all about ensuring he shored up his Left Wing.
However, by doing so he created space for a (small 'c') conservative party, which was vocally opposed to gay marriage and windmills and immigration and Europe. And this party also attracts a lot of support from historically left wing voters, who feel their party (Labour) has become out of touch with working people.
If the Conservative Party were to change their approach they would almost certainly gain back some UKIP voters, but they would lose others around the centre.
What's worse is that a vote lost to UKIP is - in the eyes of a sitting MP - much less bad than a vote lost to Labour or the LibDems. Why?
Imagine a seat that was in 2010:
Con 100 LibLab 80 UKIP 10
If the Cons lose 19 votes to UKIP, they still win the seat 81-80. But if they lose just 11 votes to LibLab, then they lose the seat 91-89.
Which is why the Conservative Party is highly unlikely to do a deal with UKIP (pre-election).
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The problem is that UKIP and the Conservatives don't actually agree on that much. Zac Goldsmith, for example, is a windmill loving, gay marriage supporting, MP from a historically liberal (with a small 'l') constituency. If the Conservatives went into an alliance with UKIP, then I suspect Richmond-on-Thames would go yellow.
The big question is: for each vote you gain from UKIP, do you lose more or less than one on the other side?
The Tories are already near their 97-2005 core vote. Unless the core has fragmented, they will lose very little regardless.
It's a different core vote. The Tories have gained from the Lib Dems and lost to UKIP
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The problem is that UKIP and the Conservatives don't actually agree on that much. Zac Goldsmith, for example, is a windmill loving, gay marriage supporting, MP from a historically liberal (with a small 'l') constituency. If the Conservatives went into an alliance with UKIP, then I suspect Richmond-on-Thames would go yellow.
The big question is: for each vote you gain from UKIP, do you lose more or less than one on the other side?
Hard to say, because there's such a huge difference in outlook now between Conservatives in London and other big urban centres and Conservatives in rural areas and small to medium-sized towns. What does Peter Lilley or Nadine Dorries have in common with Anna Soubry, or Jane Ellison?
True, and this is the fundamental problem the conservatives have: their core coalition, of countryside and capital is breaking down.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
*snip*
But it's all a moot point, because Cameron won't, and shouldn't go ...
Exactly, Mr. J. Brogan's original article had all the signs of a journalist having to write something for a deadline, Parris is, not for the first time, talking his own book, and our own Mr. T. is, well, our own Mr. T. (the expression "Big girl's blouse" I have always thought of coming from the North, but it applies equally to Devonians).
As I, and I think most Englishmen, will see it, If the Scots vote for independence that will be their decision and no reason for Cameron to resign. What I would expect to be a resigning matter is if he does an about turn in the subsequent negotiations and, for example, concedes a currency union.
The Tories are already near their 97-2005 core vote. Unless the core has fragmented, they will lose very little regardless.
Their core vote has fragmented.
The Conservative Party used to be a coalition of all who benefits from stability (i.e. things broadly staying the same): and this meant an alliance of country and capital. (Capital as in money and business.)
However, urban professionals - who have historically been Conservative voters - have increasingly come to support things like windmills and gay marriage and Europe and relatively relaxed rules on immigration. Cameron's detoxification strategy was all about ensuring he shored up his Left Wing.
However, by doing so he created space for a (small 'c') conservative party, which was vocally opposed to gay marriage and windmills and immigration and Europe. And this party also attracts a lot of support from historically left wing voters, who feel their party (Labour) has become out of touch with working people.
If the Conservative Party were to change their approach they would almost certainly gain back some UKIP voters, but they would lose others around the centre.
What's worse is that a vote lost to UKIP is - in the eyes of a sitting MP - much less bad than a vote lost to Labour or the LibDems. Why?
Imagine a seat that was in 2010:
Con 100 LibLab 80 UKIP 10
If the Cons lose 19 votes to UKIP, they still win the seat 81-80. But if they lose just 11 votes to LibLab, then they lose the seat 91-89.
Which is why the Conservative Party is highly unlikely to do a deal with UKIP (pre-election).
The unionists are divided. Cameron could probably live with Devomax more than SLAB, but many of them are determined that Salmond should get no 'consolation prizes'
I'm now pretty convinced that Scotland is going to vote yes.
Yesterday I was speaking to a early 70s life long labour voter in the central belt. A year ago he was a certain "no", now he's a very fixed "yes". I asked why the change, he explained at great length it was the farcically bad, patronising nature of the "no" campaign, with their endless scare stories that he said, "no one believes any more".
He also said that it was clear Milliband wasn't going to get over the line, and a "yes" vote was the only way to avoid a new tory government.
If people like this as voting "yes" then they'll win.
I've gone the other way. A few days ago I was almost certain YES would win, as Better Together blundered over the precipice.
Now I think Westminster has woken up to the very real danger, esp Labour, and they will pour money and resources into winning. More importantly, they will cobble together some Devomax offer, if the polls are truly dire, through the summer. Devomax is what the Scots obviously want. The unionists will be forced to offer it, or face the break up of the UK - and the impoverishment of both sides.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The polling shows none of the likely Cameron replacements would be as popular as Cameron - for every UKIP returnee coming in through the front door you'll have a couple of others leaving by the back door....
Have you got a link to the polling of Kippers regarding possible Conservative leaders?
Is Gove less popular than Cameron?
It was one of the weekend polls - iirc EVERYONE was less popular than Cameron - except Boris among Con, where he was marginally ahead.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The polling shows none of the likely Cameron replacements would be as popular as Cameron - for every UKIP returnee coming in through the front door you'll have a couple of others leaving by the back door....
Have you got a link to the polling of Kippers regarding possible Conservative leaders?
Is Gove less popular than Cameron?
It was one of the weekend polls - iirc EVERYONE was less popular than Cameron - except Boris among Con, where he was marginally ahead.
I understand your argument about the impact on Labour, but in terms of "permanent Conservative rule", Wilson is talking rubbish:
On no occasion since 1945 would independence have changed the identity of the winning party and on only two occasions would it have converted a Labour majority into a hung parliament (1964 and October 1974). Without Scotland, Labour would still have won in 1945 (with a majority of 146, down from 143), in 1966 (77, down from 98), in 1997 (139, down from 179), in 2001 (129, down from 167) and in 2005 (43, down from 66).
The truth is somewhere between the two. Quoting election results from the past is ludicrous, since Scotland was vastly more Tory then. So the disappearance of Scotland would have had less of an overall impact on any particular result.
Let us look at the present position.
To win a majority Labour needs to gain about 18.2% of the available non-Labour seats. Without Scotland, Labour would need to gain about 22.2% of the available (rUK) non-Labour seats. That's proportionally about 22% more than at present.
Put another way, Labour would need an extra 1.1% rUK swing, or an extra 2.2% lead in votes.
Not impossible by any means, but a significantly harder task.
I have been travelling a fair bit recently - Japan, Canada and currently in Boston. Very few people realise that there is a referendum, but when they find out and we then discuss it they find it very hard to get their heads round the fact that the UK as they know it is very possibly going to disappear in the very near future. My guess is that this probably reflects thinking inside governments as well. Come 19th September, there is going to be a lot of surprise not only domestically, but also internationally. Those who do not believe that the break-up of a 300 year old country is not a very big deal are going to be in for a very ride awakening when it happens.
I understand your argument about the impact on Labour, but in terms of "permanent Conservative rule", Wilson is talking rubbish:
On no occasion since 1945 would independence have changed the identity of the winning party and on only two occasions would it have converted a Labour majority into a hung parliament (1964 and October 1974). Without Scotland, Labour would still have won in 1945 (with a majority of 146, down from 143), in 1966 (77, down from 98), in 1997 (139, down from 179), in 2001 (129, down from 167) and in 2005 (43, down from 66).
The truth is somewhere between the two. Quoting election results from the past is ludicrous, since Scotland was vastly more Tory then. So the disappearance of Scotland would have had less of an overall impact on any particular result.
Let us look at the present position.
To win a majority Labour needs to gain about 18.2% of the available non-Labour seats. Without Scotland, Labour would need to gain about 22.2% of the available (rUK) non-Labour seats. That's proportionally about 22% more than at present.
Put another way, Labour would need an extra 1.1% rUK swing, or an extra 2.2% lead in votes.
Not impossible by any means, but a significantly harder task.
"Quoting election results from the past is ludicrous, since Scotland was vastly more Tory then."
Very important point. Losing Scotland today would be devastating for Labour.
But independence would not mean permanent majority Tories, since Labour (or whoever the opposition were) would re-align their policies to confront that.
I have been travelling a fair bit recently - Japan, Canada and currently in Boston. Very few people realise that there is a referendum, but when they find out and we then discuss it they find it very hard to get their heads round the fact that the UK as they know it is very possibly going to disappear in the very near future. My guess is that this probably reflects thinking inside governments as well. Come 19th September, there is going to be a lot of surprise not only domestically, but also internationally. Those who do not believe that the break-up of a 300 year old country is not a very big deal are going to be in for a very ride awakening when it happens.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
*snip*
But it's all a moot point, because Cameron won't, and shouldn't go ...
As I, and I think most Englishmen, will see it, If the Scots vote for independence that will be their decision and no reason for Cameron to resign. What I would expect to be a resigning matter is if he does an about turn in the subsequent negotiations and, for example, concedes a currency union.
Exactly - Cameron agreed to a referendum and has delivered one. Were he to concede a currency union on the other hand (and the Scots daft enough to accept it on the likely terms) then that would be a volte-face orders of magnitude greater than what some believe he did or didn't promise over Lisbon.
I have been travelling a fair bit recently - Japan, Canada and currently in Boston. Very few people realise that there is a referendum, but when they find out and we then discuss it they find it very hard to get their heads round the fact that the UK as they know it is very possibly going to disappear in the very near future. My guess is that this probably reflects thinking inside governments as well. Come 19th September, there is going to be a lot of surprise not only domestically, but also internationally. Those who do not believe that the break-up of a 300 year old country is not a very big deal are going to be in for a very ride awakening when it happens.
What's going to happen?
I have no idea. But I don't think there will be a seamless transition in terms of finance, trade, diplomacy and politics from the old order to the new.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The polling shows none of the likely Cameron replacements would be as popular as Cameron - for every UKIP returnee coming in through the front door you'll have a couple of others leaving by the back door....
Have you got a link to the polling of Kippers regarding possible Conservative leaders?
Is Gove less popular than Cameron?
It was one of the weekend polls - iirc EVERYONE was less popular than Cameron - except Boris among Con, where he was marginally ahead.
ah OK, cheers
Lord Ashcroft tried UKIP supporters on a 'Vote UKIP, get Miliband' squeeze question.
"...just one in ten UKIP supporters both agreeing that a vote for the party increased the chances of a Miliband victory and saying this might make a difference to how they ended up casting their ballot.
There were some variations, depending on where they had come from. Slightly more (13%) of those who had switched from the Tories said this, as did 14% of the (rather fewer) who had been attracted from Labour. It was less likely to be a factor among those who had voted UKIP in 2010 (9%), and the (surprisingly numerous) switchers to UKIP from the Lib Dems (8%)."
Those who do not believe that the break-up of a 300 year old country is not a very big deal are going to be in for a very ride awakening when it happens.
Nothing compared to the shock on here that you got a political call right! ;-)
"Those who do not believe that the break-up of a 300 year old country is not a very big deal are going to be in for a very ride awakening when it happens."
Well what is going to happen, Mr. O? A bunch of foreigners who mostly think of a country called England will find out that there is going to be a new country called Scotland as well a the country called England. And?
Thinking off the top of my head, the big beasts in the Labour party from the mid 30s to mid 80s were politicians such as Attlee, Bevin, Bevan, Morrison, Gaitskell, Wilson, Callaghan, Castle, Healey, Benn and Kinnock, not a Scot among them.
I have been travelling a fair bit recently - Japan, Canada and currently in Boston. Very few people realise that there is a referendum, but when they find out and we then discuss it they find it very hard to get their heads round the fact that the UK as they know it is very possibly going to disappear in the very near future. My guess is that this probably reflects thinking inside governments as well. Come 19th September, there is going to be a lot of surprise not only domestically, but also internationally. Those who do not believe that the break-up of a 300 year old country is not a very big deal are going to be in for a very ride awakening when it happens.
OTOH, I think it's way too premature to write off the chances of No, who do after all lead, particularly among older and middle class voters, who have the best record of actually voting.
Both Benedict Brogan and Matthew Parris have now said that Cameron will resign in the event of a YES.
These are not peripheral journos, they are two of the most respected Tory pundits in the press, both very close to the centre of the party.
If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will go.
Easterross may know more about Scotland than me, but I know more about English Toryism and the Cameroons.
He will resign.
If it became known north of the border that a YES vote would lead to DC's resignation then that would be a further boost to YES.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
Please dont take this as me being aggressive, I'm not trying to have a big row etc
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
*snip*
But it's all a moot point, because Cameron won't, and shouldn't go ...
As I, and I think most Englishmen, will see it, If the Scots vote for independence that will be their decision and no reason for Cameron to resign. What I would expect to be a resigning matter is if he does an about turn in the subsequent negotiations and, for example, concedes a currency union.
Exactly - Cameron agreed to a referendum and has delivered one. Were he to concede a currency union on the other hand (and the Scots daft enough to accept it on the likely terms) then that would be a volte-face orders of magnitude greater than what some believe he did or didn't promise over Lisbon.
The day after a referendum everything voltes on its face. The currency union isn't even a manifesto commitment. Most voters won't even know what he said about it. Any half-decent politician could execute the maneuver effortlessly.
In any case it probably won't be his call. If the government has any sense they'll dump the thing on an all-party committee of worthies to prevent the other side from demagoguing whatever compromises they need to make.
Thinking off the top of my head, the big beasts in the Labour party from the mid 30s to mid 80s were politicians such as Attlee, Bevin, Bevan, Morrison, Gaitskell, Castle, Healey, Benn and Kinnock, not a Scot among them.
A remarkable list, not least because you omit two Labour Prime Ministers in the period you have chosen. Are you sure that, say, Castle, was a bigger Labour beast then Wilson?
One thing that is interesting in that chart is that in April 2010, the main parties Tory+Labour had around two-thirds of the vote between them. And the protest parties of LD+UKIP had around a quarter of the voters between them.
Today, four years later, it's ... almost exactly the same. The "main" voter block and the "protest" voter block remain virtually identical.
Thinking off the top of my head, the big beasts in the Labour party from the mid 30s to mid 80s were politicians such as Attlee, Bevin, Bevan, Morrison, Gaitskell, Wilson, Callaghan, Castle, Healey, Benn and Kinnock, not a Scot among them.
Comments
I'm sure we would have some very surly scoundrels within the outfit.
A68 is your friend
The latest issue (April 2014) of LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) Industry has an interesting article on the global supply and demand of Natural Gas (Methane) and its local pricing. (Yes I know I should get out more - but energy costs affect us all).
Using sources from the World Bank Commodity Data (Pink Sheet), it compares the prices of Natural Gas since 2007 in Japan, USA and Europe. A further article looks at the effects on its price of shipping LNG around the world.
Since 2007 the price of US Natural Gas has declined from $7 (per MMBtu) to just under $4 in 2013 after a peak of nearly $9 in 2008.
For Europe, at ~$8.5 in 2007, it peaked at ~$13.5 in 2008 dropping to a low of ~$8 in 2010 and rising to $12 in 2013.
Ref: www.lngindustry.com
Aside from the statistics this is the real world, and too many posters want to cling to statistics showing that everything is on the mend when in most people's day to day experience it isn't. As for my assigning too much doom to Scotland voting yes, it doesn't have to be this event to crash the global economy, it could be various other things including the card pyramid collapsing under its own weight. Creating false good and bad sides over Ukraine is a wonderful distraction....
Was it Labour trying to discredit UKIP or was it UKIP trying to make it look like Labour was discrediting UKIP?
Or neither of the above?
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/ukip-blaming-labour-after-hoax-7035766#.U1t9kUQOk8I.twitter
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/predicting-hamilton-rosberg-tussle.html
“We don’t hold the monopoly on weirdos."
Great line!
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/04/26/we-are-being-smeared-says-ukip-leader-nigel-farage-in-midlands-visit/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-27156775
One thing I do believe is that if there is a YES vote, there is more chance of Scots becoming unified than there is if there is a NO vote, something Margo MacDonald was clearly thinking in her final days and so eloquently stated on her behalf yesterday by her widower Jim Sillars at the Holyrood memorial service.
....
Surprised more isn't being made out of it, truly astounding
Yes
Could create huge problems though, with printed guns, knives, body armour etc.
Given how governments still don't seem to know how the internet and people who use it work I suspect they'll have a hard time adapting to this.
One aspect of the US war of independence is that many of the 13 colonies were radicalised fairly late on; the Southern colonies were pro British in particular. As the campaign went on theses became more pro independence. Like in Scotland the conflict tends to go to the radicals.
Many Loyalists kept their heads down after independence, but many others preferred to remain British, moving to Canada in particular. Notably many of Scottish/Scots-Irish extraction preferred to stay British.
I do not think a Devomax option would have kept the US patriots happy, it would have led to full independence shortly afterwards, as would such a proposal for Scotland. Promoting Devomax would be accepting defeat before a ballot has been made. Unionists should have the courage of their convictions.
Indeed the Seven years war perhaps qualifies as the worlds first global conflict, with fighting across the whole war.
It will be be bad if it is NO given it will be close at worst and so both sides will get further and further apart as the battle for the next referendum goes on.
First they came for the building workers....................................
It seems that the future will be anything but peaceful.
Malthause coming true at last?
http://www.guns.com/2013/11/07/solid-concepts-unveils-first-3d-printed-metal-gun-full-size-45-acp-1911-video/
Proof of concept more than an actual practical idea, but jet fuel nozzles are already being manufactured.
Reduced prototyping, and complex shapes being the main industrial uses at the moment.
Labour want to ensure a NO vote
The betting opportunities would be great if this happens, EU Referendum nailed on!
I love it when posters - especially Tories - on here think they can score points about UKIP members who have been suspended or kicked out by the party for stupid comments as it gives me yet another opportunity to point out that this man is still a Tory councillor - apparently with their blessing - whilst his victim felt compelled to resign.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-18714864
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-27156775
(and F1 car parts, plane parts, entire drones, and a friend designs prototype consumer electronics cases and produces them via 3D printing).
There are many different 3D printing techniques, and even multi-material ones. It's changing manufacturing very, very rapidly. Traditional techniques can still be best for mass-production, but for low-volume parts and rapid prototyping it's the dog's proverbials.
Of course Osbourne may hand him a revolver.
Reduction of wastage in the source material is also a major advantage.
Sean - I've yet to comprehend your "YES is a disaster for LAB" argument. Sure the abolition what is currently a LAB contingent of 41 would make the red task harder in a general election - but not that much harder. Because the overall number of Commons seats would be down by 59 the threshold for a majority would be reduced by 30.
Without Scotland EdM would need to make just 12 additional gains in rUK to win a majority.
UKIP member calls Muslims animals: he's suspended.
Mehdi Hasan calls non-Muslims mentally ill cattle: they applaud him on #bbcqt
Now to more serious stuff. I'm sure you're planning to once again sponsor next week's pb drinkies. Your generosity to the downtrodden, friendless denizens of this benighted site has become the stuff of legend throughout the civilized world and may have yet reached Australia.
£100 will certainly go some way to the procurement of Neil's and my first cocktail.
It’s the bloggers who are fighting back. Delingpole nails them at Breitbart and that Ruthless Truth guy has a great post about how the LibLabCon are mentally ill in “Far Left Nut Job Seems Normal” at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2014/04/far-left-nut-job-considered-normal.html
But don't you think that if Sean is right and Cameron goes in the event of Yes winning, A eurosceptic Conservative leader would win back a lot of UKIP votes, or possibly even form an electoral pact with UKIP?
The current polls would give such an alliance a great chance of a majority
The process continued over much of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The annexation of Zululand being , I think, the last example. London didn't want the territory but the local government got themselves into a mess which resulted in the massacre at Isandlwana and after that British Pride could only accept one outcome.
Of course, in the early part of the empire building era the position was complicated by the natural desire to keep the Frogs out, which also led us to taking over territory that wasn't really in our national interest to keep.
In fact for the UK the Empire was not a profitable business. Certain colonies at certain times made money, mostly for private individuals and businesses, but the costs of running and protecting the whole thing fell on the British taxpayer and, by the early 20th century, greatly exceeded the largely untaxed profits made.
It also led to a mis-allocation of resources. By the late 19th century Germany was overtaking the UK as an industrial power because its money was being invested in new ideas and new machinery and an education system to match the needs of an industrial economy. In the UK by contrast money was being invested in protecting the Empire and a futile attempt trying to make money out of it in the long term (see the Dundee Jute industry for a classic example) and building an education system geared on producing paladins to run colonies.
I think it ironic that one of the causes of the Great War was the naval competition between the UK and Germany which came about largely because of Germany's desire for an empire. Yet it was the lack of such an empire that enabled Germany to industrially out-perform the UK in the first place and so enable them to compete.
I don't disagree much, although UKIP have their fair share of skeletons.
All the mainstream parties suck, it's down to picking the one that will do least harm whilst we wait for the inevitable revolution and rebirth. UKIP could have been the revolution if they hadn't been born of the worst excesses of the Tory party 1975-1997 and had not just become establishment in exile. They offer nothing new (at least that I can ascertain) and are hamstrung by their overriding goal. They are Jimmy Goldsmith with a slightly less arrogant attitude.
I'll try and rip the kick out of Miller and Bone etc more often to balance out my chagrin ;-)
Come on OGH, 12 gains on their own is a reasonable effort, let alone on top of 70 odd. An extra 16% of seats needing to change hands and they haven't got many heartlands to do it in. It is as hard for Labour to take seats in the S, SE and SW as it is for the Tories in the N, NE and NW
The big question is: for each vote you gain from UKIP, do you lose more or less than one on the other side?
Is Gove less popular than Cameron?
On the EU Isam overstates its importance.
It's perfectly possible for any new leader to have similar views on Europe to Cameron, or even be slightly more Europhilic.
Besides, UKIP is about more than being eurosceptic, isn't it? Would a slightly more eurosceptic leader satisfy those other issues that matter to some, if not all, UKIP supporters? Doesn't a large part of UKIP support come from the None-of-the-Above brigade?
It's a difficult one to guess. And without a pact, it will be easy for UKIP to shift to counter any moves made by the Conservative party, which is handcuffed by the fact that they're in power.
But it's all a moot point, because Cameron won't, and shouldn't go ...
For instance, if a govt was to want out of the EU, so we could make our own decisions on how to run the country, and one of those decisions was to allow mass immigration from anywhere in the world, complete open borders, I wouldn't vote for that party.
But you have to try and understand that its the free movement of people that most anti EU people are annoyed at, and to say "The EU" doesn't matter, is missing the point. It's not the EU, it's one of the rules of the EU that you cant be a member of if you disagree with
The Conservative Party used to be a coalition of all who benefits from stability (i.e. things broadly staying the same): and this meant an alliance of country and capital. (Capital as in money and business.)
However, urban professionals - who have historically been Conservative voters - have increasingly come to support things like windmills and gay marriage and Europe and relatively relaxed rules on immigration. Cameron's detoxification strategy was all about ensuring he shored up his Left Wing.
However, by doing so he created space for a (small 'c') conservative party, which was vocally opposed to gay marriage and windmills and immigration and Europe. And this party also attracts a lot of support from historically left wing voters, who feel their party (Labour) has become out of touch with working people.
If the Conservative Party were to change their approach they would almost certainly gain back some UKIP voters, but they would lose others around the centre.
What's worse is that a vote lost to UKIP is - in the eyes of a sitting MP - much less bad than a vote lost to Labour or the LibDems. Why?
Imagine a seat that was in 2010:
Con 100
LibLab 80
UKIP 10
If the Cons lose 19 votes to UKIP, they still win the seat 81-80. But if they lose just 11 votes to LibLab, then they lose the seat 91-89.
Which is why the Conservative Party is highly unlikely to do a deal with UKIP (pre-election).
As I, and I think most Englishmen, will see it, If the Scots vote for independence that will be their decision and no reason for Cameron to resign. What I would expect to be a resigning matter is if he does an about turn in the subsequent negotiations and, for example, concedes a currency union.
Let us look at the present position.
To win a majority Labour needs to gain about 18.2% of the available non-Labour seats.
Without Scotland, Labour would need to gain about 22.2% of the available (rUK) non-Labour seats. That's proportionally about 22% more than at present.
Put another way, Labour would need an extra 1.1% rUK swing, or an extra 2.2% lead in votes.
Not impossible by any means, but a significantly harder task.
Very important point. Losing Scotland today would be devastating for Labour.
But independence would not mean permanent majority Tories, since Labour (or whoever the opposition were) would re-align their policies to confront that.
LOL
Remember the PB golden Rule.
The PB tories are always wrong. The PB tories never learn.
"...just one in ten UKIP supporters both agreeing that a vote for the party increased the chances of a Miliband victory and saying this might make a difference to how they ended up casting their ballot.
There were some variations, depending on where they had come from. Slightly more (13%) of those who had switched from the Tories said this, as did 14% of the (rather fewer) who had been attracted from Labour. It was less likely to be a factor among those who had voted UKIP in 2010 (9%), and the (surprisingly numerous) switchers to UKIP from the Lib Dems (8%)."
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/03/vote-ukip-get/
Well what is going to happen, Mr. O? A bunch of foreigners who mostly think of a country called England will find out that there is going to be a new country called Scotland as well a the country called England. And?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
In any case it probably won't be his call. If the government has any sense they'll dump the thing on an all-party committee of worthies to prevent the other side from demagoguing whatever compromises they need to make.
Today, four years later, it's ... almost exactly the same. The "main" voter block and the "protest" voter block remain virtually identical.
Manny Shinwell?, Jennie Lee?