I wouldn't underestimate just how acrimonious this Indy Ref is already becoming among some fellow Scots on either side of the campaign up here. What ever the result, the Nats have really managed to split the Scots nation right across the political spectrum in their quest for Independence without a vote yet being cast. So yes, its a mess that will have created a lot of bitterness on both sides, and that is going to linger long after the result is declared.
Very interesting piece from Jon Snow. If I was up in Scotland I have to say I would find it difficult to resist voting Yes. It is a chance to start again and to create something new. I also agree with Snow that the political repercussions across the current UK in the event of a Yes are unknowable, but likely to be profound. He is also right that the separation is likely to be acrimonious. That will be exacerbated by the reality of a Yes, which will still see Westminster dictating Scotland's economic and fiscal direction, so ensuring that the brave new world the SNP is promising will be undeliverable. What a mess!
"He is also right that the separation is likely to be acrimonious. That will be exacerbated by the reality of a Yes, which will still see Westminster dictating Scotland's economic and fiscal direction, so ensuring that the brave new world the SNP is promising will be undeliverable. What a mess!"
Of course, its gong to be a mess. A dreadfully acrimonious split and the Scots are going to have a massive chip on their shoulder for a century or more. That is inevitable because the Yes vote will have been engineered, as you have pointed out many times, by Project Fib.
In many ways its like the Euro, a project rushed to satisfy the vanity of ageing politicians desperate to achieve a goal before they leave the stage. So many lies have been told, so many expectations raised that the reality is going to be a massive disappointment. However, the job of whoever is in charge at Westminster will be to get the best deal for England. Given that it will be either Cameron or Milliband in the chair I think we can be sure of the worst possible outcome, for both sides.
Hurst you have to be kidding. You are supposed to be intelligent but post the above rubbish. Get a grip "project fib", do you think we are all stupid and only you super intelligent southerners understand such things. Pathetic to hear such uninformed biased tripe from you.
Very interesting piece from Jon Snow. If I was up in Scotland I have to say I would find it difficult to resist voting Yes. It is a chance to start again and to create something new. I also agree with Snow that the political repercussions across the current UK in the event of a Yes are unknowable, but likely to be profound. He is also right that the separation is likely to be acrimonious. That will be exacerbated by the reality of a Yes, which will still see Westminster dictating Scotland's economic and fiscal direction, so ensuring that the brave new world the SNP is promising will be undeliverable. What a mess!
I agree. One of the most powerful ideas of the zeitgeist we live in today is that if you have a choice between doing the same old thing again or doing something new, you should always do the new thing, even if it involves taking a big risk. Apply that to the Scottish referendum and you get a Yes vote.
that would paint No as English and yes as Scottish
Hence the SNP's enthusiasm for such a debate.....Has Salmond agreed to debate Darling yet?
Why would he debate with Darling, Denis Canavan is Darling's equivalent in YES and Darling is scared to face the ex Labour MP , who unlike Darling did not fiddle expenses.
So Salmond won't debate then.....its beneath him.....
"And when negotiating the divorce - assuming he has not resigned - he must do it in the name not of England, but the reduced UK, including Wales and Northern Ireland. "
Mr. Observer,
He can do it in the name if he likes, but he, whoever he (or indeed she) is, must do it in the interests of England. The relative population size and the economic realities permit no other sensible option.
I find Jon Snow's opinion that the quality of the debate in the Scottish Indy referendum has been high quite bizarre. It has been truly terrible, and from both sides.....
The worst case scenario, which seems increasingly likely to me, is that there is a sullen and reluctant no by the narrowest of margins resolving nothing going forward.
This blog that Carlotta posted the other day was good I thought.
The difficulty is that most of the positives for the Union are near the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and a bit more difficult to communicate in a snappy slogan.
It was a load of southern bollocks by a dyed in the wool unionist. A flight of fancy where anything but the truth will do and just replace it with jingoistic crap.
Blog from Jon Snow after his and C4 News' visit to Scotland.
'Having just spent a week in first the Western Isles, and second in Glasgow, hatred of Westminster is by far the most dominant factor in people who told me they were voting yes to Scottish independence. The theme was constantly repeated to me. For some, voting Yes is a long deep seated desire for an independent Scotland. But for far more it seems to be a relatively recent desire to have nothing to do with what so many spoke of as “the sleaze, dishonesty, and self-serving London-centric politics of Westminster”.
I have come away from Scotland deeply impressed by the high quality of debate, and the relatively low quality of many of the arguments put forward by the No campaign. I’m equally impressed by the range and quality of people who constantly surprised me by their commitment – often recently determined, to vote yes. My sense too is that where the vote on Scottish independence is concerned, Westminster politicians just don’t get it.'
Couldn't put it better myself. It is 1998 all over again. Nothing David Cameron can do to stop it.
Do you agree with Snow that the fate of the Union lies in Labour's hands?
Carlotta, I have been saying for around a year it will be working class traditional Scots Labour voters who will hand victory to the YES side. They may routinely elect their MPs and MSPs but they don't much care for them and feel they are just as remote as their Tory opposite numbers.
I'm surprised there's still talk of Labour "coming through the middle" in Newark.
The latest polling averages have Labour up about 5 points on 2010, so applying that to Newark you get 22% + 5% = 27%, not enough to win even in a three-way contest.
Mr. G, really? Given Salmond led the party that won a majority whose raison d'etre is to have a vote to get independence I must say that your comparison of Salmond and Cameron for Yes and No (respectively) is just not valid.
As for 'You guys' (the English), I think you're right. The English don't know as much about the debate as the Scots, which makes it all the more transparently silly buggers that Salmond wants to debate an evil Englishman instead of someone who actually has a vote.
MD, By your reckoning then the party leaders or one of them, from the unionists should be the NO leader. Instead it is an expense fiddling Labour back bencher. His equivalent in YES is the ex Labour MP Dennis Canavan. If you believe YES must be led by the party leader supporting YES then realistically you must believe the same for NO, you have 3 to pick from ( 6 if you want to include the Scottish regional puppet leaders ).
I wouldn't underestimate just how acrimonious this Indy Ref is already becoming among some fellow Scots on either side of the campaign up here. What ever the result, the Nats have really managed to split the Scots nation right across the political spectrum in their quest for Independence without a vote yet being cast. So yes, its a mess that will have created a lot of bitterness on both sides, and that is going to linger long after the result is declared.
Very interesting piece from Jon Snow. If I was up in Scotland I have to say I would find it difficult to resist voting Yes. It is a chance to start again and to create something new. I also agree with Snow that the political repercussions across the current UK in the event of a Yes are unknowable, but likely to be profound. He is also right that the separation is likely to be acrimonious. That will be exacerbated by the reality of a Yes, which will still see Westminster dictating Scotland's economic and fiscal direction, so ensuring that the brave new world the SNP is promising will be undeliverable. What a mess!
You mean the Tories , who have never been voted for , have managed to alienate Scotland. The lack of democracy is the cause and that democratic deficit can only be solved by getting away from the dead hand of Westminster. Westminster rightly looks after the majority population and ignores and damages Scotland as our vote does not matter. Otherwise how can a party with ONE MP be ruling Scotland.
Nah, they let virtually anyone in. Contrary to popular belief the Freemasonry of England is not, on the whole, a particularly exclusive organisation, in fact its probably one of the few where you can find quite literally a duke and a dustman sitting down to dinner on equal terms.
One of the founding principals of Freemasonry is indeed that social status in the outside world is left behind at the door of the lodge. However speaking as a lapsed Scottish Freemason, the lodge to which one belongs is often an indication of one's perceived social status. The smaller the number of the lodge, the grander its standing in the hierarchy.
Nah, they let virtually anyone in. Contrary to popular belief the Freemasonry of England is not, on the whole, a particularly exclusive organisation, in fact its probably one of the few where you can find quite literally a duke and a dustman sitting down to dinner on equal terms.
One of the founding principals of Freemasonry is indeed that social status in the outside world is left behind at the door of the lodge. However speaking as a lapsed Scottish Freemason, the lodge to which one belongs is often an indication of one's perceived social status. The smaller the number of the lodge, the grander its standing in the hierarchy.
Easterross, in Scotland one must be in Lodge No. 0. the oldest lodge in the world.
indeed Malcolm, Kilwinning St John. I belong to No VI, Old Inverness Kilwinning St John, which as you will know was a signatory to the founding of the Grand Lodge of Scotland.
I find Jon Snow's opinion that the quality of the debate in the Scottish Indy referendum has been high quite bizarre. It has been truly terrible, and from both sides.....
The worst case scenario, which seems increasingly likely to me, is that there is a sullen and reluctant no by the narrowest of margins resolving nothing going forward.
This blog that Carlotta posted the other day was good I thought.
The difficulty is that most of the positives for the Union are near the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and a bit more difficult to communicate in a snappy slogan.
It was a load of southern bollocks by a dyed in the wool unionist. A flight of fancy where anything but the truth will do and just replace it with jingoistic crap.
Nah, they let virtually anyone in. Contrary to popular belief the Freemasonry of England is not, on the whole, a particularly exclusive organisation, in fact its probably one of the few where you can find quite literally a duke and a dustman sitting down to dinner on equal terms.
One of the founding principals of Freemasonry is indeed that social status in the outside world is left behind at the door of the lodge. However speaking as a lapsed Scottish Freemason, the lodge to which one belongs is often an indication of one's perceived social status. The smaller the number of the lodge, the grander its standing in the hierarchy.
Nah, they let virtually anyone in. Contrary to popular belief the Freemasonry of England is not, on the whole, a particularly exclusive organisation, in fact its probably one of the few where you can find quite literally a duke and a dustman sitting down to dinner on equal terms.
One of the founding principals of Freemasonry is indeed that social status in the outside world is left behind at the door of the lodge. However speaking as a lapsed Scottish Freemason, the lodge to which one belongs is often an indication of one's perceived social status. The smaller the number of the lodge, the grander its standing in the hierarchy.
Easterross, in Scotland one must be in Lodge No. 0. the oldest lodge in the world.
indeed Malcolm, Kilwinning St John. I belong to No VI, Old Inverness Kilwinning St John, which as you will know was a signatory to the founding of the Grand Lodge of Scotland.
Easterross, Have you ever visited the Mother Lodge, excellent museum.
that would paint No as English and yes as Scottish
Hence the SNP's enthusiasm for such a debate.....Has Salmond agreed to debate Darling yet?
Why would he debate with Darling, Denis Canavan is Darling's equivalent in YES and Darling is scared to face the ex Labour MP , who unlike Darling did not fiddle expenses.
So Salmond won't debate then.....its beneath him.....
Salmond will debate Darling at some point (if the latter is still in situ), no point in jumping to the snapping of Unionist fingers before the campaign proper has even begun, or giving up on re-emphasising how remote and out of touch from Scotland our 'own' PM is. That's politics.
Be honest, are you filled with joy at the thought of Darling fighting your corner in such a debate?
"He is also right that the separation is likely to be acrimonious. That will be exacerbated by the reality of a Yes, which will still see Westminster dictating Scotland's economic and fiscal direction, so ensuring that the brave new world the SNP is promising will be undeliverable. What a mess!"
Of course, its gong to be a mess. A dreadfully acrimonious split and the Scots are going to have a massive chip on their shoulder for a century or more. That is inevitable because the Yes vote will have been engineered, as you have pointed out many times, by Project Fib.
In many ways its like the Euro, a project rushed to satisfy the vanity of ageing politicians desperate to achieve a goal before they leave the stage. So many lies have been told, so many expectations raised that the reality is going to be a massive disappointment. However, the job of whoever is in charge at Westminster will be to get the best deal for England. Given that it will be either Cameron or Milliband in the chair I think we can be sure of the worst possible outcome, for both sides.
Hurst you have to be kidding. You are supposed to be intelligent but post the above rubbish. Get a grip "project fib", do you think we are all stupid and only you super intelligent southerners understand such things. Pathetic to hear such uninformed biased tripe from you.
Mr. G., I apologise for having offended you. The "Project Fib" label was one of Mr. Observer's and I used it as I was replying to him as a sort of shorthand. That said I am sure that you will admit that claims have been made in support of the Yes side that may not bear close scrutiny. I do think that from that disappointment is inevitable and blame will have to be apportioned. Said blame will from your side of the border be loaded on the English, and Mr Brooke has been eloquent on this site in showing where that leads.
So, yes if I were a Scot I would vote Yes enthusiastically but I would be realistic about the likely result. The divorce will be acrimonious and Scotland will not enter the Promised Land of freedom and prosperity, probably quite the reverse.
Blog from Jon Snow after his and C4 News' visit to Scotland.
'Having just spent a week in first the Western Isles, and second in Glasgow, hatred of Westminster is by far the most dominant factor in people who told me they were voting yes to Scottish independence. The theme was constantly repeated to me. For some, voting Yes is a long deep seated desire for an independent Scotland. But for far more it seems to be a relatively recent desire to have nothing to do with what so many spoke of as “the sleaze, dishonesty, and self-serving London-centric politics of Westminster”.
I have come away from Scotland deeply impressed by the high quality of debate, and the relatively low quality of many of the arguments put forward by the No campaign. I’m equally impressed by the range and quality of people who constantly surprised me by their commitment – often recently determined, to vote yes. My sense too is that where the vote on Scottish independence is concerned, Westminster politicians just don’t get it.'
Couldn't put it better myself. It is 1998 all over again. Nothing David Cameron can do to stop it.
Do you agree with Snow that the fate of the Union lies in Labour's hands?
Carlotta, I have been saying for around a year it will be working class traditional Scots Labour voters who will hand victory to the YES side. They may routinely elect their MPs and MSPs but they don't much care for them and feel they are just as remote as their Tory opposite numbers.
The polling certainly shows these are the people yet to decide and least persuaded of the Unionist parties....
Maybe Ed will hold a shadow cabinet meeting in Scotland again.....
Morris, the nearer we get to the Indy Ref, the more I am finally coming around to the view that Devolution has in fact done what it was intended to do in the longer term when it was sold to us back in the 90's. And the clearest example of this, is the fact that the youngest voters who have been brought up under Devolution have shown that its making them more inclined to vote no rather than yes as was expected not so long ago when the SNP pushed for a drop in the voting age in the Indy Ref.
Turnout is going to be high in this Indy Ref, and I suspect that the result will show that the polls were underestimating the No vote rather than the Yes vote in the end. And because of a mistaken belief that its somehow going to be the nationalists that are more motivated than anyone else to turn out and cast their vote. And the biggest loser in the end will be Salmond and the SNP for kicking off this whole drawn out fight among fellow Scots.
I'm surprised there's still talk of Labour "coming through the middle" in Newark.
The latest polling averages have Labour up about 5 points on 2010, so applying that to Newark you get 22% + 5% = 27%, not enough to win even in a three-way contest.
The one advantage for the Tories here is that the anti-Tory vote will be split and unfocussed in a way that we haven't seen for years. All disaffected Tory votes will surely go to UKIP; but I can't envisage many Labour supporters voting tactically for UKIP so will probably stick with Labour. The Lib Dems - once the go-to anti-Tory repository - won't be supported by either. Therefore the Tories might just sneak it.
So the electoral comission states that being an MP is incompatible with being an MEP. Anyone know what that means, and where the relevant statute is?
It means that you cannot simultaneously hold the office of Member of the European Parliament and Member of the Westminster Parliament. Article 7(b) Council Regulation 2002/772/EC amended the 1976 "Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage" to provide, with minor saving provisions, that:
From the European Parliament elections in 2004, the office of member of the European Parliament shall be incompatible with that of member of a national parliament.
Council regulations have direct effect in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972.
"And when negotiating the divorce - assuming he has not resigned - he must do it in the name not of England, but the reduced UK, including Wales and Northern Ireland. "
Mr. Observer,
He can do it in the name if he likes, but he, whoever he (or indeed she) is, must do it in the interests of England. The relative population size and the economic realities permit no other sensible option.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
On the other hand the more I look at the impact on the Scottish financial sector the more I'm coming round to the view it will be gutted.iScotland can't support the balance sheet, most of the customers live in another country ( I'll be moving all my pensions if it goes Indy ) but more importantly the greedy bastards known as the City of London have a one in a lifetime chance to boost their bonuses and nobble the competition. The script sort of writes itself.
I find Jon Snow's opinion that the quality of the debate in the Scottish Indy referendum has been high quite bizarre. It has been truly terrible, and from both sides.....
The worst case scenario, which seems increasingly likely to me, is that there is a sullen and reluctant no by the narrowest of margins resolving nothing going forward.
This blog that Carlotta posted the other day was good I thought.
The difficulty is that most of the positives for the Union are near the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and a bit more difficult to communicate in a snappy slogan.
It was a load of southern bollocks by a dyed in the wool unionist. A flight of fancy where anything but the truth will do and just replace it with jingoistic crap.
That's not an entirely convincing argument Malcolm!
I find Jon Snow's opinion that the quality of the debate in the Scottish Indy referendum has been high quite bizarre. It has been truly terrible, and from both sides.....
The worst case scenario, which seems increasingly likely to me, is that there is a sullen and reluctant no by the narrowest of margins resolving nothing going forward.
This blog that Carlotta posted the other day was good I thought.
The difficulty is that most of the positives for the Union are near the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and a bit more difficult to communicate in a snappy slogan.
It was a load of southern bollocks by a dyed in the wool unionist. A flight of fancy where anything but the truth will do and just replace it with jingoistic crap.
Impressive forensic analysis!
Any particular bollock you would like to refute?
Adam Tomkins, the author of that piece, is an interesting guy. A highly regarded academic who unusually for a dyed in the wool, jingoistic, Unionist is also a republican!
I think Jon Snow as trying to explain that while the level of debate in the IndyRef is piss poor among all politicians, at grassroots level, ordinary Scots are discussing the issues in a grown-up, civilised way which is why we are all pissed off with the political class.
No matter in what sort of location or company I find myself, my fellow Scots are discussin the IndyRef. It is rapidly becoming the main topic of conversation.
As for the UK, among others, I said in 1998 when YES YES won the Holyrood referendum that Blair had pressed the starter button for independence. As I continue to say, other than the Queen, Armed Forces and taxation, we Scots now have nothing current in common with the rest of the Uk and for the overwhelming majority of Scots, everything which dominates and determines their everyday lives is decided in Edinburgh or nearer to home, not Westminster.
If I weren't a Tory to the soles of my feet, I would certainly be voting YES in September.
that would paint No as English and yes as Scottish
Hence the SNP's enthusiasm for such a debate.....Has Salmond agreed to debate Darling yet?
Why would he debate with Darling, Denis Canavan is Darling's equivalent in YES and Darling is scared to face the ex Labour MP , who unlike Darling did not fiddle expenses.
So Salmond won't debate then.....its beneath him.....
no point in jumping to the snapping of Unionist fingers before the campaign proper has even begun,
Ahem........Which party calls weekly for a debate with Cameron?
I'm surprised there's still talk of Labour "coming through the middle" in Newark.
The latest polling averages have Labour up about 5 points on 2010, so applying that to Newark you get 22% + 5% = 27%, not enough to win even in a three-way contest.
I agree it's a stretch, but they start with 20% LibDems to their 22%, which should be extremely squeezable in this situation, beyond the polling gain they're getting nationally.
The problem with this scenario is more that the kind of conditions that allow UKIP to take enough votes off Con also probably take a chunk of 2010 LibDems Labour needs, and shave a bit off the Lab vote, too.
I find Jon Snow's opinion that the quality of the debate in the Scottish Indy referendum has been high quite bizarre. It has been truly terrible, and from both sides.....
The worst case scenario, which seems increasingly likely to me, is that there is a sullen and reluctant no by the narrowest of margins resolving nothing going forward.
This blog that Carlotta posted the other day was good I thought.
The difficulty is that most of the positives for the Union are near the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and a bit more difficult to communicate in a snappy slogan.
It was a load of southern bollocks by a dyed in the wool unionist. A flight of fancy where anything but the truth will do and just replace it with jingoistic crap.
An example of the high quality of debate coming from the separatists which Jon Snow noted during his Scottish trip.
Nah, they let virtually anyone in. Contrary to popular belief the Freemasonry of England is not, on the whole, a particularly exclusive organisation, in fact its probably one of the few where you can find quite literally a duke and a dustman sitting down to dinner on equal terms.
One of the founding principals of Freemasonry is indeed that social status in the outside world is left behind at the door of the lodge. However speaking as a lapsed Scottish Freemason, the lodge to which one belongs is often an indication of one's perceived social status. The smaller the number of the lodge, the grander its standing in the hierarchy.
Nah, they let virtually anyone in. Contrary to popular belief the Freemasonry of England is not, on the whole, a particularly exclusive organisation, in fact its probably one of the few where you can find quite literally a duke and a dustman sitting down to dinner on equal terms.
One of the founding principals of Freemasonry is indeed that social status in the outside world is left behind at the door of the lodge. However speaking as a lapsed Scottish Freemason, the lodge to which one belongs is often an indication of one's perceived social status. The smaller the number of the lodge, the grander its standing in the hierarchy.
Easterross, in Scotland one must be in Lodge No. 0. the oldest lodge in the world.
indeed Malcolm, Kilwinning St John. I belong to No VI, Old Inverness Kilwinning St John, which as you will know was a signatory to the founding of the Grand Lodge of Scotland.
Easterross , You mean Mother Kilwinning, the heid Lodge of Scotland
It would be fair to say that the currency issue is by far the most important one for an independent Scotland. I do not know if the following is accurate, but if it is it is clear that in the very best case scenario an independent Scotland is going to have to cede all fiscal and economic control to Westminster:
Fully 70% of Scottish exports are sold to the rest of the UK. Just pause there for a moment: Scotland trades more with the rest of the UK than with the whole of the rest of the world put together. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is worth four times her trade with the EU. In the last decade the value of Scottish trade with the rest of the UK has increased by 62% (whereas the value of Scottish trade with the EU has increased in the same period by a mere 1%). Given the eye-watering scale to which the Scottish economy depends on doing business with the rest of the UK, why would any sane person wish to erect an international frontier between Scotland and the rest of the UK? Why turn this trade from domestic to international, with all the added costs and disincentives that would apply? A “border effect” would inhibit and diminish Scottish trade considerably. Compare, for example, the US and Canada where, despite commonalities of language, free trade agreements and the relative openness of the border, it remains the case that Canadian Provinces do twenty times as much trade with each other as they do over the border in the US. The border between Canada and the US has been estimated to reduce trade by 40%. Migration within Canada is fully 100 times greater than migration from the US to Canada. Here, it has been estimated that the “border effect” could cost each Scottish household £2000 annually. There are 360,000 jobs in Scotland created by companies in the rest of the UK. A further 240,000 Scottish jobs depend on exports to the rest of the UK. That’s 600,000 jobs. As many as 200,000 jobs in Scotland depend on the financial services industry. Fully 90% of Scottish companies’ financial services business is with the rest of the UK. Nine out of ten pensions sold from Scotland are to customers in England, and eight out of ten mortgages lent from Scotland are to borrowers in England. This economic activity requires a single domestic market with a single currency in a single regulatory regime.
"He is also right that the separation is likely to be acrimonious. That will be exacerbated by the reality of a Yes, which will still see Westminster dictating Scotland's economic and fiscal direction, so ensuring that the brave new world the SNP is promising will be undeliverable. What a mess!"
Of course, its gong to be a mess. A dreadfully acrimonious split and the Scots are going to have a massive chip on their shoulder for a century or more. That is inevitable because the Yes vote will have been engineered, as you have pointed out many times, by Project Fib.
In many ways its like the Euro, a project rushed to satisfy the vanity of ageing politicians desperate to achieve a goal before they leave the stage. So many lies have been told, so many expectations raised that the reality is going to be a massive disappointment. However, the job of whoever is in charge at Westminster will be to get the best deal for England. Given that it will be either Cameron or Milliband in the chair I think we can be sure of the worst possible outcome, for both sides.
Hurst you have to be kidding. You are supposed to be intelligent but post the above rubbish. Get a grip "project fib", do you think we are all stupid and only you super intelligent southerners understand such things. Pathetic to hear such uninformed biased tripe from you.
Mr. G., I apologise for having offended you. The "Project Fib" label was one of Mr. Observer's and I used it as I was replying to him as a sort of shorthand. That said I am sure that you will admit that claims have been made in support of the Yes side that may not bear close scrutiny. I do think that from that disappointment is inevitable and blame will have to be apportioned. Said blame will from your side of the border be loaded on the English, and Mr Brooke has been eloquent on this site in showing where that leads.
So, yes if I were a Scot I would vote Yes enthusiastically but I would be realistic about the likely result. The divorce will be acrimonious and Scotland will not enter the Promised Land of freedom and prosperity, probably quite the reverse.
Hurst , you are forgiven. Sure there is a lot of hot air , but most people understand it will not be all milk and honey. However the chance to have a government we voted for is impossible to pass over, NO will be a disaster for Scotland, it would be finished.
that would paint No as English and yes as Scottish
Hence the SNP's enthusiasm for such a debate.....Has Salmond agreed to debate Darling yet?
Why would he debate with Darling, Denis Canavan is Darling's equivalent in YES and Darling is scared to face the ex Labour MP , who unlike Darling did not fiddle expenses.
So Salmond won't debate then.....its beneath him.....
no point in jumping to the snapping of Unionist fingers before the campaign proper has even begun,
Ahem........Which party calls weekly for a debate with Cameron?
'That's politics' again, and it's the whole Yes movement asking for it in the face of a Bettertogether campaign that appears remarkably unwilling to debate in general. Nice body swerve on the 'confidence in Al' question btw.
Morris, the nearer we get to the Indy Ref, the more I am finally coming around to the view that Devolution has in fact done what it was intended to do in the longer term when it was sold to us back in the 90's. And the clearest example of this, is the fact that the youngest voters who have been brought up under Devolution have shown that its making them more inclined to vote no rather than yes as was expected not so long ago when the SNP pushed for a drop in the voting age in the Indy Ref.
Turnout is going to be high in this Indy Ref, and I suspect that the result will show that the polls were underestimating the No vote rather than the Yes vote in the end. And because of a mistaken belief that its somehow going to be the nationalists that are more motivated than anyone else to turn out and cast their vote. And the biggest loser in the end will be Salmond and the SNP for kicking off this whole drawn out fight among fellow Scots.
Labour were so bloody stupid to go for devolution to try and give themselves a permanent fiefdom. Regional assemblies in England would be even worse.
That's an interesting view (and, it should be said, one subject to testing in September, which is to your credit).
But your comments rather raise the question of what you think would have happened if we had not had devolution in the late 90s? Does one assume that Scotland would have been ruled for at least the first Cameron administration by a Tory party with very few, perhaps no, Scottish-constituency MPs and - on that scenario - no MSPs at all? And what would have happened?
Morris, the nearer we get to the Indy Ref, the more I am finally coming around to the view that Devolution has in fact done what it was intended to do in the longer term when it was sold to us back in the 90's. And the clearest example of this, is the fact that the youngest voters who have been brought up under Devolution have shown that its making them more inclined to vote no rather than yes as was expected not so long ago when the SNP pushed for a drop in the voting age in the Indy Ref.
Turnout is going to be high in this Indy Ref, and I suspect that the result will show that the polls were underestimating the No vote rather than the Yes vote in the end. And because of a mistaken belief that its somehow going to be the nationalists that are more motivated than anyone else to turn out and cast their vote. And the biggest loser in the end will be Salmond and the SNP for kicking off this whole drawn out fight among fellow Scots.
Labour were so bloody stupid to go for devolution to try and give themselves a permanent fiefdom. Regional assemblies in England would be even worse.
More rubbish, I presume you are basing that on Aberdeenshire schools where they allow anyone from 12 years old to take part in their ballots. Look beyond your nose and you will see it is different elsewhere in the country where people are actually given facts and a proper vote is taken.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
"And when negotiating the divorce - assuming he has not resigned - he must do it in the name not of England, but the reduced UK, including Wales and Northern Ireland. "
Mr. Observer,
He can do it in the name if he likes, but he, whoever he (or indeed she) is, must do it in the interests of England. The relative population size and the economic realities permit no other sensible option.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
On the other hand the more I look at the impact on the Scottish financial sector the more I'm coming round to the view it will be gutted.iScotland can't support the balance sheet, most of the customers live in another country ( I'll be moving all my pensions if it goes Indy ) but more importantly the greedy bastards known as the City of London have a one in a lifetime chance to boost their bonuses and nobble the competition. The script sort of writes itself.
Mr. Brooke, As so often I agree with you. The only real lever that iScotland has to pull is Faslane and that really isn't as strong as some might think. As I have said before negotiations could be done a dusted before May 2015, but only if we had a PM with a backbone.
I find Jon Snow's opinion that the quality of the debate in the Scottish Indy referendum has been high quite bizarre. It has been truly terrible, and from both sides.....
The worst case scenario, which seems increasingly likely to me, is that there is a sullen and reluctant no by the narrowest of margins resolving nothing going forward.
This blog that Carlotta posted the other day was good I thought.
The difficulty is that most of the positives for the Union are near the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and a bit more difficult to communicate in a snappy slogan.
It was a load of southern bollocks by a dyed in the wool unionist. A flight of fancy where anything but the truth will do and just replace it with jingoistic crap.
That's not an entirely convincing argument Malcolm!
SO , but true, thew man is so biased it is not true.
It comes to something when it takes an alcoholic bipolar thriller writer like me to administer a dose of sober reality, but the indy referendum is far from lost for unionists, and very far from won by Gnats.
The latest indyref poll is from YouGov, and it gives No a 14 point lead, and a 58/42 lead when Don't Knows are excluded.
This is almost exactly the same lead No enjoyed (on average) throughout 2012.
Despite my occasional outrageous lapses into indyref hysteria, I sometimes wonder if all this sound and fury we have experienced in recent months will, in the end, prove to have moved the polls barely a jot, and No will win 58/42, or thereabouts, as polls indicated would happen three years ago.
If this happens, I will toast the Celtic God of bitterly ironic futility with a glass of usquebae.
I pretty much agree with this. There's a very big gap for the Yes side to make up. I don't think there is much of a floating vote left to target. I suspect as well that the polls are significantly overstating undecided voters.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
Doing some 'research' for a blog ranting about historical revisionism and discovered the name of the last King of Yorkshire. Anyone fancy a guess?
Nigel?
Surely there never was a proper king of Yorkshire. A "shire" is a division of a larger entity. Thus, it is part of a bigger whole. There were kings of Northumbria, but that encompassed a territory much bigger than Yorkshire and went well into modern day Scotland.
I think that my style of mockery is just a little more light-touch than yours ;-)
The 'South East' - East Anglia, Kent, Essex, Outer London GDP all much of a muchness compared to 'The north' really. Surrey above average but not by alot.
It comes to something when it takes an alcoholic bipolar thriller writer like me to administer a dose of sober reality, but the indy referendum is far from lost for unionists, and very far from won by Gnats.
The latest indyref poll is from YouGov, and it gives No a 14 point lead, and a 58/42 lead when Don't Knows are excluded.
This is almost exactly the same lead No enjoyed (on average) throughout 2012.
Despite my occasional outrageous lapses into indyref hysteria, I sometimes wonder if all this sound and fury we have experienced in recent months will, in the end, prove to have moved the polls barely a jot, and No will win 58/42, or thereabouts, as polls indicated would happen three years ago.
If this happens, I will toast the Celtic God of bitterly ironic futility with a glass of usquebae.
Nice of you to pick the most NO centric poll to prove your point.
"He is also right that the separation is likely to be acrimonious. That will be exacerbated by the reality of a Yes, which will still see Westminster dictating Scotland's economic and fiscal direction, so ensuring that the brave new world the SNP is promising will be undeliverable. What a mess!"
Of course, its gong to be a mess. A dreadfully acrimonious split and the Scots are going to have a massive chip on their shoulder for a century or more. That is inevitable because the Yes vote will have been engineered, as you have pointed out many times, by Project Fib.
In many ways its like the Euro, a project rushed to satisfy the vanity of ageing politicians desperate to achieve a goal before they leave the stage. So many lies have been told, so many expectations raised that the reality is going to be a massive disappointment. However, the job of whoever is in charge at Westminster will be to get the best deal for England. Given that it will be either Cameron or Milliband in the chair I think we can be sure of the worst possible outcome, for both sides.
Hurst you have to be kidding. You are supposed to be intelligent but post the above rubbish. Get a grip "project fib", do you think we are all stupid and only you super intelligent southerners understand such things. Pathetic to hear such uninformed biased tripe from you.
Mr. G., I apologise for having offended you. The "Project Fib" label was one of Mr. Observer's and I used it as I was replying to him as a sort of shorthand. That said I am sure that you will admit that claims have been made in support of the Yes side that may not bear close scrutiny. I do think that from that disappointment is inevitable and blame will have to be apportioned. Said blame will from your side of the border be loaded on the English, and Mr Brooke has been eloquent on this site in showing where that leads.
So, yes if I were a Scot I would vote Yes enthusiastically but I would be realistic about the likely result. The divorce will be acrimonious and Scotland will not enter the Promised Land of freedom and prosperity, probably quite the reverse.
NO will be a disaster for Scotland, it would be finished.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
And Trident?
What about it? Are the SNP going to try and seize them?
Whatever happens, separation will be rapid. There is no benefit to EWNI in a drawn out process
Morris, the nearer we get to the Indy Ref, the more I am finally coming around to the view that Devolution has in fact done what it was intended to do in the longer term when it was sold to us back in the 90's. And the clearest example of this, is the fact that the youngest voters who have been brought up under Devolution have shown that its making them more inclined to vote no rather than yes as was expected not so long ago when the SNP pushed for a drop in the voting age in the Indy Ref.
Turnout is going to be high in this Indy Ref, and I suspect that the result will show that the polls were underestimating the No vote rather than the Yes vote in the end. And because of a mistaken belief that its somehow going to be the nationalists that are more motivated than anyone else to turn out and cast their vote. And the biggest loser in the end will be Salmond and the SNP for kicking off this whole drawn out fight among fellow Scots.
Labour were so bloody stupid to go for devolution to try and give themselves a permanent fiefdom. Regional assemblies in England would be even worse.
That's an interesting view (and, it should be said, one subject to testing in September, which is to your credit).
But your comments rather raise the question of what you think would have happened if we had not had devolution in the late 90s? Does one assume that Scotland would have been ruled for at least the first Cameron administration by a Tory party with very few, perhaps no, Scottish-constituency MPs and - on that scenario - no MSPs at all? And what would have happened?
NI has had no representation with either the conservatives or labour for about 30 years. And yet roads get built, pensions paid and hospitals will treat you. There has been no Tory in Liverpool for quite some time and yet life goes on. The problem with the Balkanisation strategy is you can always carve out a smaller enclave.
It comes to something when it takes an alcoholic bipolar thriller writer like me to administer a dose of sober reality, but the indy referendum is far from lost for unionists, and very far from won by Gnats.
The latest indyref poll is from YouGov, and it gives No a 14 point lead, and a 58/42 lead when Don't Knows are excluded.
This is almost exactly the same lead No enjoyed (on average) throughout 2012.
Despite my occasional outrageous lapses into indyref hysteria, I sometimes wonder if all this sound and fury we have experienced in recent months will, in the end, prove to have moved the polls barely a jot, and No will win 58/42, or thereabouts, as polls indicated would happen three years ago.
If this happens, I will toast the Celtic God of bitterly ironic futility with a glass of usquebae.
Nice of you to pick the most NO centric poll to prove your point.
I'm sure the converts to Yougov indy polls won't be the same people decrying Yougov's 'bias' towards Labour.
"And when negotiating the divorce - assuming he has not resigned - he must do it in the name not of England, but the reduced UK, including Wales and Northern Ireland. "
Mr. Observer,
He can do it in the name if he likes, but he, whoever he (or indeed she) is, must do it in the interests of England. The relative population size and the economic realities permit no other sensible option.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
On the other hand the more I look at the impact on the Scottish financial sector the more I'm coming round to the view it will be gutted.iScotland can't support the balance sheet, most of the customers live in another country ( I'll be moving all my pensions if it goes Indy ) but more importantly the greedy bastards known as the City of London have a one in a lifetime chance to boost their bonuses and nobble the competition. The script sort of writes itself.
Mr. Brooke, As so often I agree with you. The only real lever that iScotland has to pull is Faslane and that really isn't as strong as some might think. As I have said before negotiations could be done a dusted before May 2015, but only if we had a PM with a backbone.
Sadly I must agree, invertebrate Cameron as so often will duff up a strong hand.
The 'South East' - East Anglia, Kent, Essex, Outer London GDP all much of a muchness compared to 'The north' really. Surrey above average but not by alot.
It should really take account house prices at the very least since that is such a huge component living expenses.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
And Trident?
Whatever happens, separation will be rapid. There is no benefit to EWNI in a drawn out process
Quite the reverse - just further uncertainty. I suspect the timetable will be driven by the 92% of the UK that wishes to remain, not the 8% that wishes to leave....
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
And Trident?
What about it? Are the SNP going to try and seize them?
Whatever happens, separation will be rapid. There is no benefit to EWNI in a drawn out process
I believe it was Hammond who said it could take decades to negotiate and plan relocation of Trident? I wouldn't argue that he isn't talking out of his ass, but he's supposed to be one of your guys.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
And Trident?
What about it? Are the SNP going to try and seize them?
Whatever happens, separation will be rapid. There is no benefit to EWNI in a drawn out process
I believe it was Hammond who said it could take decades to negotiate and plan relocation of Trident? I wouldn't argue that he isn't talking out of his ass, but he's supposed to be one of your guys.
Maybe he did but why wouldn't the UK just base subs in the USA until a base is built ? You guys get no nukes and we continue as normal until one is put up in Devon.
@SeanT "Distance (I am in Fremantle, western Australia) has maybe lent me a bit of calm perspective. Right now I expect NO to win, but there is - cliche of cliches - no room for complacency."
Yup, when you are abroad and you think about where you come from it does seem bizarre that it could all change in the very near future, especially when you have had conversations with incredulous non-Brits about what is going on. The almost universal reaction I have had in such conversations this year in places as diverse as Germany, Japan, the US and Canada is disbelief that the whole thing is happening. In a way, I guess, that tells us something very positive about the UK as a political entity.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
And Trident?
What about it? Are the SNP going to try and seize them?
Whatever happens, separation will be rapid. There is no benefit to EWNI in a drawn out process
I believe it was Hammond who said it could take decades to negotiate and plan relocation of Trident? I wouldn't argue that he isn't talking out of his ass, but he's supposed to be one of your guys.
Maybe he did but why wouldn't the UK just base subs in the USA until a base is built ? You guys get no nukes and we continue as normal until one is put up in Devon.
That's a very sensible idea since in practice the whole thing depends on US cooperation anyhow, and in practice the UK is unlikely to nuke anybody from them without US permission. Taking it to an even more sensible level, they could not put anything up in Devon and let the US build, operate and pay for any subs they thought they needed to deter the Russians or whatever.
On a completely separate note I am due to fly to Hong Kong tomorrow on a BA Airbus 380. It'll be a BA first for me; though not in First, sadly.
I did the A380 London Dubai Emirates Biz Class three weeks ago. Very disappointing. I expected casinos in the air and three storeys of gymnasia.
It's just like any other podule-standard Business Class. And Emirates food sucks (though, oddly, they have the best liquor).
I did Emirates biz to New Zealand last year. There was far more space than you get in a BA cabin and, as you say, the food and drink is a lot better; though the service is nowhere near as good. They have that bar thing at the back of the plane, but it's not really that great. In the end a long flight is a long flight and something to be got through.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
And Trident?
What about it? Are the SNP going to try and seize them?
Whatever happens, separation will be rapid. There is no benefit to EWNI in a drawn out process
I believe it was Hammond who said it could take decades to negotiate and plan relocation of Trident? I wouldn't argue that he isn't talking out of his ass, but he's supposed to be one of your guys.
Maybe he did but why wouldn't the UK just base subs in the USA until a base is built ? You guys get no nukes and we continue as normal until one is put up in Devon.
You mean Hammond is fibbing about Faslane, and HMG is fibbing about making no post-Yes plans? I don't believe it!
Wouldn't France be more convenient, or is the idea too abhorrent?
I'm surprised there's still talk of Labour "coming through the middle" in Newark.
The latest polling averages have Labour up about 5 points on 2010, so applying that to Newark you get 22% + 5% = 27%, not enough to win even in a three-way contest.
I agree it's a stretch, but they start with 20% LibDems to their 22%, which should be extremely squeezable in this situation, beyond the polling gain they're getting nationally.
The problem with this scenario is more that the kind of conditions that allow UKIP to take enough votes off Con also probably take a chunk of 2010 LibDems Labour needs, and shave a bit off the Lab vote, too.
Yes but LD votes in a place like Newark won't be the same sort of fodder for Labour that they would be in Islington, Manchester, Newcastle, etc. They're more likely to the type of LD voters who will split between other parties as their second choice. So if the LD vote drops from 20% to say 8%, Lab might pick up 5%, UKIP 4%, Tories 3%.
I think Jon Snow as trying to explain that while the level of debate in the IndyRef is piss poor among all politicians, at grassroots level, ordinary Scots are discussing the issues in a grown-up, civilised way which is why we are all pissed off with the political class.
No matter in what sort of location or company I find myself, my fellow Scots are discussin the IndyRef. It is rapidly becoming the main topic of conversation.
As for the UK, among others, I said in 1998 when YES YES won the Holyrood referendum that Blair had pressed the starter button for independence. As I continue to say, other than the Queen, Armed Forces and taxation, we Scots now have nothing current in common with the rest of the Uk and for the overwhelming majority of Scots, everything which dominates and determines their everyday lives is decided in Edinburgh or nearer to home, not Westminster.
If I weren't a Tory to the soles of my feet, I would certainly be voting YES in September.
Apologies, Easterross, I have not read Jon Snow's piece. I would certainly agree that it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with anyone in Scotland without the referendum coming up and the general response is frustration with all of our political class.
@malcolmg I have commented on here repeatedly that the Yes campaign is bigger and frankly better than the SNP itself, which is a major reason why current BT tactics are winning less than they think.
@SouthamObserver Those statistics are a little dry but bring home the risks being run by Scotland more sharply than anything else I have seen. The experience on the border between Canada and the US was particularly telling. There are other examples such as in Czechoslovakia about the collapse of internal trade when a country splits.
My own view is that an independent Scotland would lose a large chunk of its financial services industry and suffer a serious reduction in the "exports" it sells to the rUK. This would be a very difficult transition and probably result in a lower standard of living afterwards than would otherwise have been the case.
This would not be fatal, however, and it is possible that other markets might be found. If we had a separate currency and the right to fix our own interest rates (on which the EU may have a large say) it is possible that Scotland could become competitive again. I just don't understand why we would want to give up the benefits we get right now.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
And Trident?
What about it? Are the SNP going to try and seize them?
Whatever happens, separation will be rapid. There is no benefit to EWNI in a drawn out process
I believe it was Hammond who said it could take decades to negotiate and plan relocation of Trident? I wouldn't argue that he isn't talking out of his ass, but he's supposed to be one of your guys.
Maybe he did but why wouldn't the UK just base subs in the USA until a base is built ? You guys get no nukes and we continue as normal until one is put up in Devon.
That's very undramatic. The SNP seem to think that something magical will happen if the click their heels together three times and shout 'Trident'. Not sure what but this is the brave new world we would enter if they had their way.
On a completely separate note I am due to fly to Hong Kong tomorrow on a BA Airbus 380. It'll be a BA first for me; though not in First, sadly.
Haven't been on the BA380, but it's a great aircraft - if anything too quiet as normally in audible conversations are no longer......don't sit too near the back - it gets choppy at times.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
And Trident?
What about it? Are the SNP going to try and seize them?
Whatever happens, separation will be rapid. There is no benefit to EWNI in a drawn out process
I believe it was Hammond who said it could take decades to negotiate and plan relocation of Trident? I wouldn't argue that he isn't talking out of his ass, but he's supposed to be one of your guys.
Maybe he did but why wouldn't the UK just base subs in the USA until a base is built ? You guys get no nukes and we continue as normal until one is put up in Devon.
You mean Hammond is fibbing about Faslane, and HMG is fibbing about making no post-Yes plans? I don't believe it!
Wouldn't France be more convenient, or is the idea too abhorrent?
France doesn't use the same subs and nukes as us, the US does.
As for fibbing I'd be surprised if it took as long as Hammond said, so economic with the verite springs to mind.
However compared to the great Fibmeister of Bute House he's but an amateur.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
"And when negotiating the divorce - assuming he has not resigned - he must do it in the name not of England, but the reduced UK, including Wales and Northern Ireland. "
Mr. Observer,
He can do it in the name if he likes, but he, whoever he (or indeed she) is, must do it in the interests of England. The relative population size and the economic realities permit no other sensible option.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
On the other hand the more I look at the impact on the Scottish financial sector the more I'm coming round to the view it will be gutted.iScotland can't support the balance sheet, most of the customers live in another country ( I'll be moving all my pensions if it goes Indy ) but more importantly the greedy bastards known as the City of London have a one in a lifetime chance to boost their bonuses and nobble the competition. The script sort of writes itself.
Mr. Brooke, As so often I agree with you. The only real lever that iScotland has to pull is Faslane and that really isn't as strong as some might think. As I have said before negotiations could be done a dusted before May 2015, but only if we had a PM with a backbone.
Trident is irrelevant because no Scottish government could keep it and avoid falling - certainly in the current Parliament. Ms Lamont and Scottish Labour would be out for revenge and all of a sudden would rediscover their principles - and there are enough Greens, independents, newly non-UK LDs, and others to ensure a majority against any deal to keep Trident.
On a completely separate note I am due to fly to Hong Kong tomorrow on a BA Airbus 380. It'll be a BA first for me; though not in First, sadly.
I did the A380 London Dubai Emirates Biz Class three weeks ago. Very disappointing. I expected casinos in the air and three storeys of gymnasia.
It's just like any other podule-standard Business Class. And Emirates food sucks (though, oddly, they have the best liquor).
I did Emirates biz to New Zealand last year. There was far more space than you get in a BA cabin and, as you say, the food and drink is a lot better; though the service is nowhere near as good. They have that bar thing at the back of the plane, but it's not really that great. In the end a long flight is a long flight and something to be got through.
Much nicer for me was the next fight, the Emirates Biz Class Boeing 777 (I think) from Dubai to Perth. Because the Business cabin was empty.
Just two passengers with about seven crew members. Bliss. They filled me to the brim with Veuve Clicquot and everyone had a nice sleep. Perfetto.
You can't beat an empty flight - no matter what class you are in. I guess this is why people use private jets. Guaranteed serenity.
We had the same a few years back during the BA strikes. We were booked on a flight due to be affected and BA had given everyone the opportunity to transfer to American Airlines. We decided to hang on - on the basis that all US airlines are utterly crap and not worth it except in total extremis - and then the strike vote was declared illegal so the flight was reinstated just 24 hours or so before it was due to take off. We were the only two in Premium Economy to Chicago and were given all the biz class perks, though they would not let us go forward. But it did not matter; it was the space that was the thing. As you say, the emptiness is just great. Space on a plane is so relaxing.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
"And when negotiating the divorce - assuming he has not resigned - he must do it in the name not of England, but the reduced UK, including Wales and Northern Ireland. "
Mr. Observer,
He can do it in the name if he likes, but he, whoever he (or indeed she) is, must do it in the interests of England. The relative population size and the economic realities permit no other sensible option.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
On the other hand the more I look at the impact on the Scottish financial sector the more I'm coming round to the view it will be gutted.iScotland can't support the balance sheet, most of the customers live in another country ( I'll be moving all my pensions if it goes Indy ) but more importantly the greedy bastards known as the City of London have a one in a lifetime chance to boost their bonuses and nobble the competition. The script sort of writes itself.
Mr. Brooke, As so often I agree with you. The only real lever that iScotland has to pull is Faslane and that really isn't as strong as some might think. As I have said before negotiations could be done a dusted before May 2015, but only if we had a PM with a backbone.
Trident is irrelevant because no Scottish government could keep it and avoid falling
Which I think Downing St recognises - hence the speed with which they rubbished the bonkers MoD idea about a "Sovereign Base"....
Morris, the nearer we get to the Indy Ref, the more I am finally coming around to the view that Devolution has in fact done what it was intended to do in the longer term when it was sold to us back in the 90's. And the clearest example of this, is the fact that the youngest voters who have been brought up under Devolution have shown that its making them more inclined to vote no rather than yes as was expected not so long ago when the SNP pushed for a drop in the voting age in the Indy Ref.
Turnout is going to be high in this Indy Ref, and I suspect that the result will show that the polls were underestimating the No vote rather than the Yes vote in the end. And because of a mistaken belief that its somehow going to be the nationalists that are more motivated than anyone else to turn out and cast their vote. And the biggest loser in the end will be Salmond and the SNP for kicking off this whole drawn out fight among fellow Scots.
Labour were so bloody stupid to go for devolution to try and give themselves a permanent fiefdom. Regional assemblies in England would be even worse.
That's an interesting view (and, it should be said, one subject to testing in September, which is to your credit).
But your comments rather raise the question of what you think would have happened if we had not had devolution in the late 90s? Does one assume that Scotland would have been ruled for at least the first Cameron administration by a Tory party with very few, perhaps no, Scottish-constituency MPs and - on that scenario - no MSPs at all? And what would have happened?
NI has had no representation with either the conservatives or labour for about 30 years. And yet roads get built, pensions paid and hospitals will treat you. There has been no Tory in Liverpool for quite some time and yet life goes on. The problem with the Balkanisation strategy is you can always carve out a smaller enclave.
Point taken. But in response I'd plead the difference that in Scotland the Tories stand for election, in NI they don't. Ditto Labour, SNP (well, of course), and LDs (not sure about UKIP). It's one thing to rule a province which didn't actually vote you out, but another to rule a kingdom which positively rejected all Tory candidate MPs (the odd Mr Mundell excepted). And without devolution, there wouldn't even be the MSPs.
In any case, it is a common complaint here - SeanT did it again IIRC a couple of hours back - that Messrs Blair and Dewar let the devolution cat out of the bag. What I want to know is what would have happened if they had not done that.
In any case, it is a common complaint here - SeanT did it again IIRC a couple of hours back - that Messrs Blair and Dewar let the devolution cat out of the bag. What I want to know is what would have happened if they had not done that.
You can't beat an empty flight - no matter what class you are in. I guess this is why people use private jets. Guaranteed serenity.
Yes - my trick is is to choose unpopular airlines: the difference in safety rates is between microscopic and negligible, so why not go for the ones that others avoid? I flew Aeromexico and had three seats to myself in tourist class, and Aeroflot was pretty good too.
My granddad used to fly on Friday the 13th if he could, for the same reason.
It comes to something when it takes an alcoholic bipolar thriller writer like me to administer a dose of sober reality, but the indy referendum is far from lost for unionists, and very far from won by Gnats.
This is almost exactly the same lead No enjoyed (on average) throughout 2012.
Despite If this happens, I will toast the Celtic God of bitterly ironic futility with a glass of usquebae.
Nice of you to pick the most NO centric poll to prove your point.
"He is also right that the separation is likely to be acrimonious. That will be exacerbated by the reality of a Yes, which will still see Westminster dictating Scotland's economic and fiscal direction, so ensuring that the brave new
Of course, its gong to be a mess. A dreadfully acrimonious split and the
In many ways its like the Euro, a project rushed to satisfy the vanity of ageing politicians desperate to achieve a goal before they leave the stage. So many lies have been told, so many expectations raised that the reality is going to be a massive disappointment. However, the job of whoever is in charge at Westminster will be to get the best deal for England. Given that it will be either Cameron or Milliband in the chair I think we can be sure of the worst possible outcome, for both sides.
Hurst you have to be kidding. You are supposed to be intelligent but post the above rubbish. Get a grip "project fib", do you think we are all stupid and only you super intelligent southerners understand such things. Pathetic to hear such uninformed biased tripe from you.
Mr. G., I
So, yes if I were a Scot I would vote Yes enthusiastically but I would be realistic about the likely result. The divorce will be acrimonious and Scotland will not enter the Promised Land of freedom and prosperity, probably quite the reverse.
Hurst , you are forgiven. Sure there is a lot of hot air , but most people understand it will not be all milk and honey. However the chance to have a government we voted for is impossible to pass over, NO will be a disaster for Scotland, it would be finished.
Any disaster for Scotland will be of it's own making. To move forward it needs to shrug off this victim mentality.
We would be millionaires if it wasn't for Westminster said no real millionaire ever.
In any case, it is a common complaint here - SeanT did it again IIRC a couple of hours back - that Messrs Blair and Dewar let the devolution cat out of the bag. What I want to know is what would have happened if they had not done that.
The cat would still be in the bag?
Well, one might suggest that having devolution was not merely a stance for the SNP to move towards a referendum, but also a vent for pressure.
Imagine the feelings if Scotland had been directly ruled in every aspect, including those now devolved, by Tories in the Scottish Office for the entire period since 1984, except for the Blair-Brown years. You'll recall that they were scraping the barrel for reasonably competent SoS and ministers who were actually in Scottish seats, and that's before the final collapse of Tory representation. And not to have devolution has the precondition that Mr Blair had refused devolution, which would lead to a major split within the Labour party.
How long it would have taken the SNP to break through the FPTP barrier to a majority of SNP MPs is not at all clear, but it would have been helped by the [edit: sequential] combination of Tory rule and an anti-devo Blairite Labour government. In which case Mr Cameron or an earlier Tory [edit: PM not MP!] could have been faced with a majority of SNP MPs in Scottish seats, all demanding an indy referendum.
Just saying, like, that Mr Blair might have kept the UK going rather longer than some on PB give him credit for. On the other hand, one huge factor is that the Scots have been governing themselves to a considerable degree for some years now, which is a big bonus for the pro-indy side.
I'm surprised there's still talk of Labour "coming through the middle" in Newark.
The latest polling averages have Labour up about 5 points on 2010, so applying that to Newark you get 22% + 5% = 27%, not enough to win even in a three-way contest.
I agree it's a stretch, but they start with 20% LibDems to their 22%, which should be extremely squeezable in this situation, beyond the polling gain they're getting nationally.
The problem with this scenario is more that the kind of conditions that allow UKIP to take enough votes off Con also probably take a chunk of 2010 LibDems Labour needs, and shave a bit off the Lab vote, too.
Yes but LD votes in a place like Newark won't be the same sort of fodder for Labour that they would be in Islington, Manchester, Newcastle, etc. They're more likely to the type of LD voters who will split between other parties as their second choice. So if the LD vote drops from 20% to say 8%, Lab might pick up 5%, UKIP 4%, Tories 3%.
It looked, purely from the figures, as I've no local knowledge, that the LD votes recently came from Labour.
You can't beat an empty flight - no matter what class you are in. I guess this is why people use private jets. Guaranteed serenity.
Yes - my trick is is to choose unpopular airlines: the difference in safety rates is between microscopic and negligible, so why not go for the ones that others avoid? I flew Aeromexico and had three seats to myself in tourist class, and Aeroflot was pretty good too.
My granddad used to fly on Friday the 13th if he could, for the same reason.
I'd agree with that, except there are limits. Not many planes crash, but those that do tend to belong to third rate airlines and wild horses wouldn't get me on Aeroflot or any of the Indian airline companies again. When the cabin crew are more pissed than the passengers one has to ask why and what state the driver is in and when the safety leaflet is for a different type of aircraft one has to wonder about the airline's staff's attention to detail.
Mind you, the Turks and Caicos Island Airways' passenger safety briefing took some beating, "That is the emergency exit. If we land in the water don't open it".
" When the cabin crew are more pissed than the passengers one has to ask why and what state the driver is in and when the safety leaflet is for a different type of aircraft one has to wonder about the airline's staff's attention to detail." Hurst Llama
Pilots on long distance flights spend several days at the destination before making a return flight. With nothing to do except socialise with the crew and drink, alcoholism is an occupational hazard. It applies as much to the bigger airlines as the smaller airlines.
Morris, the nearer we get to the Indy Ref, the more I am finally coming around to the view that Devolution has in fact done what it was intended to do in the longer term when it was sold to urn out and cast their vote. And the biggest loser in the end will be Salmond and the SNP for kicking off this whole drawn out fight among fellow Scots.
Labour were so bloody stupid to go for devolution to try and give themselves a permanent fiefdom. Regional assemblies in England would be even worse.
That's an interesting view (and, it should be said, one subject to testing in September, which is to your credit).
But your comments rather raise the question of what you think would have happened if we had not had devolution in the late 90s? Does one assume that Scotland would have been ruled for at least the first Cameron administration by a Tory party with very few, perhaps no, Scottish-constituency MPs and - on that scenario - no MSPs at all? And what would have happened?
NI has had no representation with either the conservatives or labour for about 30 years. And yet life goes on. The problem with the Balkanisation strategy is you can always carve out a smaller enclave.
Point taken. But in response I'd plead the difference that in Scotland the Tories stand for election, in NI they don't. Ditto Labour, SNP (well, of course), and LDs (not sure about UKIP). It's one thing to rule a province which didn't actually vote you out, but another to rule a kingdom which positively rejected all Tory candidate MPs (the odd Mr Mundell excepted). And without devolution, there wouldn't even be the MSPs.
In any case, it is a common complaint here - SeanT did it again IIRC a couple of hours back - that Messrs Blair and Dewar let the devolution cat out of the bag. What I want to know is what would have happened if they had not done that.
From memory the SNP have never had an MP for the Orkneys and Shetlands. Presumably you'll be happy when they leave Scotland.
As for the rest of your post the Tories routinely get one in six scottish votes, are their seats not legitimate ? Labour has low representation in Surrey and the Tories in Sunderland should a Tory or Labour government have no writ in these areas when the locals vote the other way ? And what are your views on Europe, would a right of centre EuroParlt have no legitimacy in Scotland ( for which it will pass laws ) or have you only eyes for London ?
In other news, there was someone in the gym today with a tattoo on his upper arm commemorating the Jarrow March. He was in his 20s. I don't recall ever seeing a political tattoo before outside northern Ireland.
Worth reading for this sentence: "“Maybe I’m a more defiantly loyal supporter of Nick Clegg than Nick Clegg is of himself,” he says ingeniously, though not necessarily ingenuously."
Pilots on long distance flights spend several days at the destination before making a return flight. With nothing to do except socialise with the crew and drink, alcoholism is an occupational hazard. It applies as much to the bigger airlines as the smaller airlines.
I know all that but in my travelling days I never came across drunk BA crew, well not when they were on duty. Arrogant, obnoxious and spiteful, yes but not pissed.
Helmer isnt standing according to UKIPers on Twitter!
Apparantly it is going to be young anglo-indian female UKIP staffer Lizzy Vaid. (of The Sun's revenge porn attack fame)
Think about it, Farage has said he is going to kill off the 'racist;' meme the MSM are beating UKIP with, by having ethnic minority candidates.
1) Helmer - Elderly, white male with (alleged) homophobic views, ie every hack's cliched UKIPer
or
2) Vaid - young (27), female, half indian, (and stunningly pretty). She will be able to demolish every UKIP steriotype the media have been using. And she has a serious axe to grind with the mysogynists in The Sun and Times; which will get her the floating female vote in Newark.
UKIP have a press conferance on wednesday to announce PPC
With Vaid, UKIP will wallk Newark, If nothing else Farage is as clever as a fox
Helmer isnt standing according to UKIPers on Twitter!
Apparantly it is going to be young anglo-indian female UKIP staffer Lizzy Vaid. (of The Sun's revenge porn attack fame)
Think about it, Farage has said he is going to kill off the 'racist;' meme the MSM are beating UKIP with, by having ethnic minority candidates.
1) Helmer - Elderly, white male with (alleged) homophobic views, ie every hack's cliched UKIPer
or
2) Vaid - young (27), female, half indian, (and stunningly pretty). She will be able to demolish every UKIP steriotype the media have been using. And she has a serious axe to grind with the mysogynists in The Sun and Times; which will get her the floating female vote in Newark.
UKIP have a press conferance on wednesday to announce PPC
With Vaid, UKIP will wallk Newark, If nothing else Farage is as clever as a fox
If that's right, I don't agree that "UKIP will walk Newark", for the simple fact that either way Farage is walking a tightrope. With regards Vaid, this may make the UKIP "core vote" question how far they are committed to certain ideals - or simply how motivated the voter is to turn up. That's a negative effect, though I doubt it is true to any great extent. On the other hand, with regards to the non-core vote required to win the seat, the choice of Vaid would be a prima facie plus, subject to it looking like a sham/token gesture.
Overall I think Helmer is not the right man to win the seat outright, because he'll struggle to engage outside a certain remit. In that respect, Vaid would be more of a gamble.
"He is also right that the separation is likely to be acrimonious. That will be exacerbated by the reality of a Yes, which will still see Westminster dictating Scotland's economic and fiscal direction, so ensuring that the brave new world the SNP is promising will be undeliverable. What a mess!"
Of course, its gong to be a mess. A dreadfully acrimonious split and the Scots are going to have a massive chip on their shoulder for a century or more. That is inevitable because the Yes vote will have been engineered, as you have pointed out many times, by Project Fib.
In many ways its like the Euro, a project rushed to satisfy the vanity of ageing politicians desperate to achieve a goal before they leave the stage. So many lies have been told, so many expectations raised that the reality is going to be a massive disappointment. However, the job of whoever is in charge at Westminster will be to get the best deal for England. Given that it will be either Cameron or Milliband in the chair I think we can be sure of the worst possible outcome, for both sides.
Hurst you have to be kidding. You are supposed to be intelligent but post the above rubbish. Get a grip "project fib", do you think we are all stupid and only you super intelligent southerners understand such things. Pathetic to hear such uninformed biased tripe from you.
Mr. G., I apologise for having offended you. The "Project Fib" label was one of Mr. Observer's and I used it as I was replying to him as a sort of shorthand. That said I am sure that you will admit that claims have been made in support of the Yes side that may not bear close scrutiny. I do think that from that disappointment is inevitable and blame will have to be apportioned. Said blame will from your side of the border be loaded on the English, and Mr Brooke has been eloquent on this site in showing where that leads.
So, yes if I were a Scot I would vote Yes enthusiastically but I would be realistic about the likely result. The divorce will be acrimonious and Scotland will not enter the Promised Land of freedom and prosperity, probably quite the reverse.
NO will be a disaster for Scotland, it would be finished.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
And Trident?
What about it? Are the SNP going to try and seize them?
Whatever happens, separation will be rapid. There is no benefit to EWNI in a drawn out process
I believe it was Hammond who said it could take decades to negotiate and plan relocation of Trident? I wouldn't argue that he isn't talking out of his ass, but he's supposed to be one of your guys.
Maybe he did but why wouldn't the UK just base subs in the USA until a base is built ? You guys get no nukes and we continue as normal until one is put up in Devon.
Nice dream Alan, but I doubt very much it will ever be reality. The yanks would not do it for free , it would cost a fortune.
Morris, the nearer we get to the Indy Ref, the more I am finally coming around to the view that Devolution has in fact done what it was intended to do in the longer term when it was sold to urn out and cast their vote. And the biggest loser in the end will be Salmond and the SNP for kicking off this whole drawn out fight among fellow Scots.
Labour were so bloody stupid to go for devolution to try and give themselves a permanent fiefdom. Regional assemblies in England would be even worse.
That's an interesting view (and, it should be said, one subject to testing in September, which is to your credit).
But your comments rather raise the question of what you think would have happened if we had not had devolution in the late 90s? Does one assume that Scotland would have been ruled for at least the first Cameron administration by a Tory party with very few, perhaps no, Scottish-constituency MPs and - on that scenario - no MSPs at all? And what would have happened?
NI has had no representation with either the conservatives or labour for about 30 years. And yet life goes on. The problem with the Balkanisation strategy is you can always carve out a smaller enclave.
Point taken. But in response I'd plead the difference that in Scotland the Tories stand for election, in NI they don't. Ditto Labour, SNP (well, of course), and LDs (not sure about UKIP). It's one thing to rule a province which didn't actually vote you out, but another to rule a kingdom which positively rejected all Tory candidate MPs (the odd Mr Mundell excepted). And without devolution, there wouldn't even be the MSPs.
In any case, it is a common complaint here - SeanT did it again IIRC a couple of hours back - that Messrs Blair and Dewar let the devolution cat out of the bag. What I want to know is what would have happened if they had not done that.
From memory the SNP have never had an MP for the Orkneys and Shetlands. Presumably you'll be happy when they leave Scotland.
As for the rest of your post the Tories routinely get one in six scottish votes, are their seats not legitimate ? Labour has low representation in Surrey and the Tories in Sunderland should a Tory or Labour government have no writ in these areas when the locals vote the other way ? And what are your views on Europe, would a right of centre EuroParlt have no legitimacy in Scotland ( for which it will pass laws ) or have you only eyes for London ?
Alan, you surely do not believe all the rubbish about the Hebrides, they are going nowhere, there is not and never has been any support to leave Scotland.
I don't think there will be that much negotiation to do Mr L. Most of the things the Nats think will hurt the rest of us won't. I think I read Plan B on Nukes is a US base until we set up a new one.
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, wit
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
And Trident?
What about it? Are the SNP going to try and seize them?
Whatever happens, separation will be rapid. There is no benefit to EWNI in a drawn out process
I believe it was Hammond who said it could take decades to negotiate and plan relocation of Trident? I wouldn't argue that he isn't talking out of his ass, but he's supposed to be one of your guys.
Maybe he did but why wouldn't the UK just base subs in the USA until a base is built ? You guys get no nukes and we continue as normal until one is put up in Devon.
Nice dream Alan, but I doubt very much it will ever be reality. The yanks would not do it for free , it would cost a fortune.
malc, I'm afraid you nats get hung up on thinking we're afraid to spend money. We're a big country. Even if Scotalnd welched on it's share of the national debt it's an inconvenience not a problem for us. Willetts is currently pissing away £90bn on Uni fees and no-ones even batting an eye-lid.
Morris, the nearer we get to the Indy Ref, the more I am finally coming around to the view that Devolution has in fact done what it was intended to do in the longer term when it was sold to urn out and cast their vote. And the biggest loser in the end will be Salmond and the SNP for kicking off this whole drawn out fight among fellow Scots.
Labour were so bloody stupid to go for devolution to try and give themselves a permanent fiefdom. Regional assemblies in England would be even worse.
That's an interesting view (and, it should be said, one subject to testing in September, which is to your credit).
But your comments rather raise the question of what you think would have happened if we had not had devolution in the late 90s? Does one assume that Scotland would have been ruled for at least the first Cameron administration by a Tory party with very few, perhaps no, Scottish-constituency MPs and - on that scenario - no MSPs at all? And what would have happened?
NI has had no representation with either the conservatives or labour for about 30 years. And yet life goes on. The problem with the Balkanisation strategy is you can always carve out a smaller enclave.
Point taken. But in response I'd plead the difference that in Scotland the Tories stand for election, in NI they don't. Ditto Labour, SNP (well, of course), and LDs (not sure about UKIP). It's one thing to rule a province which didn't actually vote you out, but another to rule a kingdom which positively rejected all Tory candidate MPs (the odd Mr Mundell excepted). And without devolution, there wouldn't even be the MSPs.
In any case, it is a common complaint here - SeanT did it again IIRC a couple of hours back - that Messrs Blair and Dewar let the devolution cat out of the bag. What I want to know is what would have happened if they had not done that.
From memory the SNP have never had an MP for the Orkneys and Shetlands. Presumably you'll be happy when they leave Scotland.
As for the rest of your post the Tories routinely get one in six scottish votes, are their seats not legitimate ? Labour has low representation in Surrey and the Tories in Sunderland should a Tory or Labour government have no writ in these areas when the locals vote the other way ? And what are your views on Europe, would a right of centre EuroParlt have no legitimacy in Scotland ( for which it will pass laws ) or have you only eyes for London ?
Alan, what are you on today. ONE MP out of 59 yet in power , democracy in action.
Comments
Mr. Observer,
He can do it in the name if he likes, but he, whoever he (or indeed she) is, must do it in the interests of England. The relative population size and the economic realities permit no other sensible option.
The latest polling averages have Labour up about 5 points on 2010, so applying that to Newark you get 22% + 5% = 27%, not enough to win even in a three-way contest.
If you believe YES must be led by the party leader supporting YES then realistically you must believe the same for NO, you have 3 to pick from ( 6 if you want to include the Scottish regional puppet leaders ).
Westminster rightly looks after the majority population and ignores and damages Scotland as our vote does not matter. Otherwise how can a party with ONE MP be ruling Scotland.
Any particular bollock you would like to refute?
Be honest, are you filled with joy at the thought of Darling fighting your corner in such a debate?
So, yes if I were a Scot I would vote Yes enthusiastically but I would be realistic about the likely result. The divorce will be acrimonious and Scotland will not enter the Promised Land of freedom and prosperity, probably quite the reverse.
Maybe Ed will hold a shadow cabinet meeting in Scotland again.....
Turnout is going to be high in this Indy Ref, and I suspect that the result will show that the polls were underestimating the No vote rather than the Yes vote in the end. And because of a mistaken belief that its somehow going to be the nationalists that are more motivated than anyone else to turn out and cast their vote. And the biggest loser in the end will be Salmond and the SNP for kicking off this whole drawn out fight among fellow Scots.
On the other hand the more I look at the impact on the Scottish financial sector the more I'm coming round to the view it will be gutted.iScotland can't support the balance sheet, most of the customers live in another country ( I'll be moving all my pensions if it goes Indy ) but more importantly the greedy bastards known as the City of London have a one in a lifetime chance to boost their bonuses and nobble the competition. The script sort of writes itself.
No matter in what sort of location or company I find myself, my fellow Scots are discussin the IndyRef. It is rapidly becoming the main topic of conversation.
As for the UK, among others, I said in 1998 when YES YES won the Holyrood referendum that Blair had pressed the starter button for independence. As I continue to say, other than the Queen, Armed Forces and taxation, we Scots now have nothing current in common with the rest of the Uk and for the overwhelming majority of Scots, everything which dominates and determines their everyday lives is decided in Edinburgh or nearer to home, not Westminster.
If I weren't a Tory to the soles of my feet, I would certainly be voting YES in September.
The problem with this scenario is more that the kind of conditions that allow UKIP to take enough votes off Con also probably take a chunk of 2010 LibDems Labour needs, and shave a bit off the Lab vote, too.
Easterross , You mean Mother Kilwinning, the heid Lodge of Scotland
Fully 70% of Scottish exports are sold to the rest of the UK. Just pause there for a moment: Scotland trades more with the rest of the UK than with the whole of the rest of the world put together. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is worth four times her trade with the EU. In the last decade the value of Scottish trade with the rest of the UK has increased by 62% (whereas the value of Scottish trade with the EU has increased in the same period by a mere 1%). Given the eye-watering scale to which the Scottish economy depends on doing business with the rest of the UK, why would any sane person wish to erect an international frontier between Scotland and the rest of the UK? Why turn this trade from domestic to international, with all the added costs and disincentives that would apply? A “border effect” would inhibit and diminish Scottish trade considerably. Compare, for example, the US and Canada where, despite commonalities of language, free trade agreements and the relative openness of the border, it remains the case that Canadian Provinces do twenty times as much trade with each other as they do over the border in the US. The border between Canada and the US has been estimated to reduce trade by 40%. Migration within Canada is fully 100 times greater than migration from the US to Canada. Here, it has been estimated that the “border effect” could cost each Scottish household £2000 annually.
There are 360,000 jobs in Scotland created by companies in the rest of the UK. A further 240,000 Scottish jobs depend on exports to the rest of the UK. That’s 600,000 jobs. As many as 200,000 jobs in Scotland depend on the financial services industry. Fully 90% of Scottish companies’ financial services business is with the rest of the UK. Nine out of ten pensions sold from Scotland are to customers in England, and eight out of ten mortgages lent from Scotland are to borrowers in England. This economic activity requires a single domestic market with a single currency in a single regulatory regime.
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/two-positive-cases/
Ukip: the Asian and ex-Labour voters who could help party break mould
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/04/ukip-asian-labour-voters
But your comments rather raise the question of what you think would have happened if we had not had devolution in the late 90s? Does one assume that Scotland would have been ruled for at least the first Cameron administration by a Tory party with very few, perhaps no, Scottish-constituency MPs and - on that scenario - no MSPs at all? And what would have happened?
I have a suspicion that Cameron will go for a snap separation if Independence goes through, without any of the protracted 18 month negotiation nonsense that Salmond has come out with. The division of assets will be nominally fair and based on geography and population but not 'helpful' to the Scottish cause. The SNP will simply be told what the deal is, shown the door and told to get on with it. No point in the rest of the UK facing anymore uncertainty and delay
Any of the more involved negotiations will simply wait for when Scotland applies to join the EU, NATO, IMF, OECD, UN etc.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/02/article-2617938-1D85574A00000578-913_634x397.jpg
The 'South East' - East Anglia, Kent, Essex, Outer London GDP all much of a muchness compared to 'The north' really. Surrey above average but not by alot.
Whatever happens, separation will be rapid. There is no benefit to EWNI in a drawn out process
Probably.
Yup, when you are abroad and you think about where you come from it does seem bizarre that it could all change in the very near future, especially when you have had conversations with incredulous non-Brits about what is going on. The almost universal reaction I have had in such conversations this year in places as diverse as Germany, Japan, the US and Canada is disbelief that the whole thing is happening. In a way, I guess, that tells us something very positive about the UK as a political entity.
Wouldn't France be more convenient, or is the idea too abhorrent?
@malcolmg I have commented on here repeatedly that the Yes campaign is bigger and frankly better than the SNP itself, which is a major reason why current BT tactics are winning less than they think.
@SouthamObserver Those statistics are a little dry but bring home the risks being run by Scotland more sharply than anything else I have seen. The experience on the border between Canada and the US was particularly telling. There are other examples such as in Czechoslovakia about the collapse of internal trade when a country splits.
My own view is that an independent Scotland would lose a large chunk of its financial services industry and suffer a serious reduction in the "exports" it sells to the rUK. This would be a very difficult transition and probably result in a lower standard of living afterwards than would otherwise have been the case.
This would not be fatal, however, and it is possible that other markets might be found. If we had a separate currency and the right to fix our own interest rates (on which the EU may have a large say) it is possible that Scotland could become competitive again. I just don't understand why we would want to give up the benefits we get right now.
As for fibbing I'd be surprised if it took as long as Hammond said, so economic with the verite springs to mind.
However compared to the great Fibmeister of Bute House he's but an amateur.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/stupid-quotes-nutty-members-ukip-3493021#.U2U4TT0gXUw.twitter
In any case, it is a common complaint here - SeanT did it again IIRC a couple of hours back - that Messrs Blair and Dewar let the devolution cat out of the bag. What I want to know is what would have happened if they had not done that.
The debates were a big success in engaging the public.I cannot see Dave getting away with this.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/05/it-would-be-better-to-hold-no-television-debates-between-the-party-leaders.html
My granddad used to fly on Friday the 13th if he could, for the same reason.
We would be millionaires if it wasn't for Westminster said no real millionaire ever.
Imagine the feelings if Scotland had been directly ruled in every aspect, including those now devolved, by Tories in the Scottish Office for the entire period since 1984, except for the Blair-Brown years. You'll recall that they were scraping the barrel for reasonably competent SoS and ministers who were actually in Scottish seats, and that's before the final collapse of Tory representation. And not to have devolution has the precondition that Mr Blair had refused devolution, which would lead to a major split within the Labour party.
How long it would have taken the SNP to break through the FPTP barrier to a majority of SNP MPs is not at all clear, but it would have been helped by the [edit: sequential] combination of Tory rule and an anti-devo Blairite Labour government. In which case Mr Cameron or an earlier Tory [edit: PM not MP!] could have been faced with a majority of SNP MPs in Scottish seats, all demanding an indy referendum.
Just saying, like, that Mr Blair might have kept the UK going rather longer than some on PB give him credit for. On the other hand, one huge factor is that the Scots have been governing themselves to a considerable degree for some years now, which is a big bonus for the pro-indy side.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/bob-frost-a71269
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000712.php
Mind you, the Turks and Caicos Island Airways' passenger safety briefing took some beating, "That is the emergency exit. If we land in the water don't open it".
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 14m
Election TV debates are a 'ghastly circus' and should not be repeated, @AndrewGimson argues, convincingly http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/05/it-would-be-better-to-hold-no-television-debates-between-the-party-leaders.html …
http://viz.co.uk/free-comics/classic-strips/082-weve-got-a-puritan
" When the cabin crew are more pissed than the passengers one has to ask why and what state the driver is in and when the safety leaflet is for a different type of aircraft one has to wonder about the airline's staff's attention to detail." Hurst Llama
Pilots on long distance flights spend several days at the destination before making a return flight. With nothing to do except socialise with the crew and drink, alcoholism is an occupational hazard. It applies as much to the bigger airlines as the smaller airlines.
Farage did well to get him debating without realising it, but what struck me most was how handsome Ed looked.. not a competitive heat I guess!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n-xvUX5S0U
As for the rest of your post the Tories routinely get one in six scottish votes, are their seats not legitimate ? Labour has low representation in Surrey and the Tories in Sunderland should a Tory or Labour government have no writ in these areas when the locals vote the other way ? And what are your views on Europe, would a right of centre EuroParlt have no legitimacy in Scotland ( for which it will pass laws ) or have you only eyes for London ?
Miss Fitalass, I hope you're right, but fear you may not be. Time will tell.
Mr. Isam, you have gone stark raving mad.
In other news, there was someone in the gym today with a tattoo on his upper arm commemorating the Jarrow March. He was in his 20s. I don't recall ever seeing a political tattoo before outside northern Ireland.
"“Maybe I’m a more defiantly loyal supporter of Nick Clegg than Nick Clegg is of himself,” he says ingeniously, though not necessarily ingenuously."
Like.
Apparantly it is going to be young anglo-indian female UKIP staffer Lizzy Vaid. (of The Sun's revenge porn attack fame)
Think about it, Farage has said he is going to kill off the 'racist;' meme the MSM are beating UKIP with, by having ethnic minority candidates.
1) Helmer - Elderly, white male with (alleged) homophobic views, ie every hack's cliched UKIPer
or
2) Vaid - young (27), female, half indian, (and stunningly pretty). She will be able to demolish every UKIP steriotype the media have been using. And she has a serious axe to grind with the mysogynists in The Sun and Times; which will get her the floating female vote in Newark.
UKIP have a press conferance on wednesday to announce PPC
With Vaid, UKIP will wallk Newark, If nothing else Farage is as clever as a fox
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27284489
No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report
Hmm. That would be quite clever. Even if Vaid lost, it would, as you say, help to blunt some lines the media have been running against UKIP.
Overall I think Helmer is not the right man to win the seat outright, because he'll struggle to engage outside a certain remit. In that respect, Vaid would be more of a gamble.
Anti-gay #NCGOP candidate outed as former female impersonator ‘Miss Mona Sinclair’ http://ow.ly/3k0Fhc #NCpol pic.twitter.com/Bty9UmZmtR
That's a new one on me.Anyone else know any anti-gay female impersonators standing anywhere?
Such a patriot, you are going to run away if you don't like the result?
Not sure if this would be a good move for UKIP. Could go either way.