Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Roger Helmer: Ukip’s first elected MP?

124»

Comments

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    new thread
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    SeanT said:

    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.
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    "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.
    Flash, I know you are not too bright but where did I show victim mentality. People want a government the voted for , implementing the policies to suit the country, not the current position where we vote one way and get the opposite. We want democracy , I know that will be alien to you but it is a fact.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    fitalass said:

    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.

    Mr. Observer, well, quite.

    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.
    .

    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.

    Err didn't the nats at various stages have either one or no MPs ? Are you saying they should have had no rights to represent a view ? Your problem simply is you can't take a long enough view. If the blues have hit a low point NOTB well times change and things swing back how do you know how things will be in 10, 25 or 50 years time ?. nats are simply desperate to believe their own myths,
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    @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.

    Or just shows that they do not understand the first thing about the UK and the huge democratic deficits that exist.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    JonathanD said:

    JonathanD said:

    JonathanD said:



    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.

    That is only in the mind of silly people like yourself who obviously get their information from London based papers.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Scott_P said:

    malcolmg said:


    Not to England, but good chance to somewhere.

    A true Scot...

    Such a patriot, you are going to run away if you don't like the result?
    F*ck off you Toom Tabard.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    FPT:

    @MalcomG

    "You'll be moving to England then?

    Not to England, but good chance to somewhere"

    I'd recommend Portugal, Mr. G. Aside from Sussex I cannot think of a place I would sooner live than central Portugal near but not on the coast. A nice, but not silly, climate, good country, fine cuisine, excellent booze (though the beer is not up to much), and the locals like us. Well they like the English so, if your accent is not too strong, you should be able to get away with it.
This discussion has been closed.