politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Salmond’s ICM victory in the 2nd IndyRef debate triggers a 2.5% move to YES on Betfair
Three weeks ago during the first Salmond-Darling TV encounter the first indications that NO was having the best of it came on the Betfair betting exchange where full data on trading is made available instantly and where you are able to track it.
Any reasonable reading of the ICM poll would conclude it shows that the shouting match made almost no difference to voting intentions, even though Salmond won by being more assured and louder than Darling.
That said, I would not be at all surprised if the totally unrepresentative ICM sample is actually the most accurate reflection of where things are. The next few proper polls will be fascinating. My guess is that they will show a sharp swing to Yes.
Any reasonable reading of the ICM poll would conclude it shows that the shouting match made almost no difference to voting intentions, even though Salmond won by being more assured and louder than Darling. .
The Herald, concurs:
Salmond lands all the best punches in 'stairheid rammy'
It's the final round. Mr Salmond has been pummelled on the ropes. Could he come back and deliver the knockout blow that would change Scottish political history? That only happens in Hollywood.
But the Yes campaign desperately needed a good combative debating performance from Mr Salmond. They got that. The Guardian ICM instant poll gave Mr Salmond the victory 71% to 29%. Whether it will do them any good with the voters in the longer term is another question.
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
Prof Stiglitz said: “As an outsider, I’ve looked at the debate, particularly from the No side. I’ve been a lite bit shocked how much of it is based on fear, trying to get anxiety levels up and how little of it has been based on vision.
“There is a vision on the Yes side that I see – what would an independent Scotland be like, what could it do that it can’t do now?”
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
Aye I bet it was a right F-ing lolathon for the Yessers.
All it proved to me was that STV know how to run an indy ref debate and the BBC don't.
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
All it proved to me was that STV know how to run an indy ref debate and the BBC don't.
At the start of last night's debate I thought the chairman was better than last time, but he proved to be worse than useless.
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
All it proved to me was that STV know how to run an indy ref debate and the BBC don't.
At the start of last night's debate I thought the chairman was better than last time, but he proved to be worse than useless.
Yup - I agree, I can't see how anyone could disagree with us.
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
All it proved to me was that STV know how to run an indy ref debate and the BBC don't.
At the start of last night's debate I thought the chairman was better than last time, but he proved to be worse than useless.
The BBC made a huge mistake is using a BBC Scotland politics person to be chairman. It required a neutral person who could command respect from the combatants (like Paxman) and who would enforce discipline to prevent the shouting brawl that it became. Also the chairman needed the ability to cut the microphone of any debater who overstepped the rules.
The constant talking over each other and the complete failure of the moderator to do anything about it was very frustrating. At the end of the day nothing new came out of it. It appears plan B is to use the pound without a currency union, something that would be absolutely disastrous for our financial services industry. Salmond did not really explain what the problem is supposed to be on the NHS and why English privatisation would have any effect in Scotland. Salmond was by far the better debater on the night but I don't think many votes will have shifted.
"...fiscal autonomy is the best thing that could happen to Scotland.
If you doubt me, consider the spectacle we’ve just seen: two socialists, in the country that gave us Adam Smith, arguing about which of them could spend more taxpayers’ money."
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
All it proved to me was that STV know how to run an indy ref debate and the BBC don't.
At the start of last night's debate I thought the chairman was better than last time, but he proved to be worse than useless.
Yup - I agree, I can't see how anyone could disagree with us.
Doubtless both Darling and Salmond did their homework and decided that more people see talking over a moderator as a sign of mannishness than take it as boorishness. And there, perhaps, we see what's wrong with both Scotland and rUK...
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
All it proved to me was that STV know how to run an indy ref debate and the BBC don't.
At the start of last night's debate I thought the chairman was better than last time, but he proved to be worse than useless.
Yup - I agree, I can't see how anyone could disagree with us.
Doubtless both Darling and Salmond did their homework and decided that more people see talking over a moderator as a sign of mannishness than take it as boorishness. And there, perhaps, we see what's wrong with both Scotland and rUK...
Scottish politics does seem to prefer aggression over reasoned debate.
The more Salmond spoke and interrupted , the more irritated I became, in the end I just stopped listening as I think most sensible Scots would have done. Nothing was learned from this debate.
" For we’ve always been pessimists, us French, even in the past half century or so, when our nation boasted the best health-care system in the world; the most modern infrastructure (from high-speed trains to abundant nuclear-powered electricity); a remarkable state education system; and a way of life envied by all. Faut pas se plaindre (“Mustn’t grumble”) was the best you could draw out of a family of Beaujolais wine-growers enjoying a seven-course meal, or a tableful of academics knocking back a few kirs at Café de Flore while watching the world go by on Boulevard Saint Germain.
Of late, however, this way of life has been coming off the rails – literally. Lack of maintenance funds has led to trains crashing; the education system has dropped in Pisa ratings; and the professors’ best students leave the country to find jobs, while the rest of France’s youth faces structural unemployment of 30 to 40 per cent.
But you try telling us that the policies outlined by Valls are the only ones capable of fixing the situation. You try pointing out that the country, for decades, has been running an unsustainable deficit. You would think that at least the young, who will pick up the tab for this extravagance, would sympathise. Far from it. French students have demonstrated against a (modest) rise in retirement age, even though they today face smaller pensions and a more difficult life as the system comes to the end of its tether. They also oppose reforms designed to make the employment market fluid, even though they are the ones being kept on the dole as a result.
The truth is that a majority of young French people still dream of becoming civil servants, because it guarantees them a secure job. Entrepreneurship, mistrusted by the Right and vilified by the Left, scares them; and anyway, they think (and probably rightly so) that if they do take a risk, and it pays off, the taxman will relieve them of all the reward.
So we are left with a situation in which people want nothing to change, and are prepared to vote on the political extremes to get it. The real fight for these young voters’ hearts will not be between Valls and Montebourg, but between Montebourg and Marine Le Pen, of the Front National – who secured 35 per cent of the 18-24 year-old vote at the European elections. Such is the price of inaction. "
I only dipped into the debate for a few seconds at a time but it reminded me of the Jeremy Kyle show. Raised voices and constant interrupting. All that was missing were the tattoos and the bleeping.
"...fiscal autonomy is the best thing that could happen to Scotland.
If you doubt me, consider the spectacle we’ve just seen: two socialists, in the country that gave us Adam Smith, arguing about which of them could spend more taxpayers’ money."
Devo max and an end to the West Lothian Question if the Scots vote no.
English and Scottish political culture couldn't be more different, you just need to read about the English civil war and the division between parliament and the coventators even whilst they were still allies.
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
I would not be at all surprised if the totally unrepresentative ICM sample is actually the most accurate reflection of where things are. The next few proper polls will be fascinating. My guess is that they will show a sharp swing to Yes.
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
How do you know what Hannibal was like? I read a bit of Livy for "A" level and didn't trust the b*gg*r an inch...
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
Those smug and oversimplifying quips show the abysmal level to which the debate fell.
I would not be at all surprised if the totally unrepresentative ICM sample is actually the most accurate reflection of where things are. The next few proper polls will be fascinating. My guess is that they will show a sharp swing to Yes.
You HOPE, Mr Romney...
No, I hope not. As with Romney I would very much like to be wrong. I'd hate to see the cynicism of Project Fib rewarded and my country torn apart. But disillusionment with Westminster is all-pervasive across the UK and the Scots have the opportunity to do something about it. I think they will - even though they are being sold what amounts to a false prospectus.
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
How do you know what Hannibal was like? I read a bit of Livy for "A" level and didn't trust the b*gg*r an inch...
I know what he was like, by looking at his military campaigns.
He defeated a couple of inept Romans at Cannae, and managed to spin it as the greatest military feat in history, but as soon as he took on a half way decent General at Zama, he was soundly defeated, that ultimately led to the end of Carthage.
This is probably the definitive book on Hannibal, available for £1.98 on the kindle store
I only saw snippets in between ads during The 100. I think I made the right call watching that, to be honest.
I saw the '...why are not already better together?' nonsense. He might as well have asked "Why are the English bastards?" for all it added to the wider debate.
Too much talking over one another, and I think it spoke well of the General Election debates which had rather more rigorous rules.
Also, Salmond admitted it would take more than the 5-6 years or so he wanted to give the UK to move nukes to do so, and said he wouldn't increase that time. Negotiation tactic perhaps, but irritating any non-Scots watching guaranteed.
'our nation boasted the best health-care system in the world; the most modern infrastructure (from high-speed trains to abundant nuclear-powered electricity); a remarkable state education system; and a way of life envied by all.'
If the French genuinely believed that they had a remarkable state education system, all that confirms is that they are delusional. The French education system has been a bit of a joke for years. It essentially consists (and has consisted for a long time) of young civil servants with a degree in the relevant field turning up, talking for an hour, and vanishing again. It does nothing to inspire and nothing to encourage originality. Those friends of mine who went through the state education system in France hated it - one of them even went so far as to say that it was worse than useless.
There could be an argument - one I have a lot of sympathy with at times - that in Britain we go too far the other way, and prize active learning over good learning, and pastoral care over teaching skills and subject knowledge. But the fact of the matter is that our education system, whatever its faults, does at least fire the imagination of some of the children we are teaching and encourage them to go out and do things. We also have surely one of the most impressive cultural scenes in the world, especially given our relatively small population, which I think is partly due to our school systems. By contrast, name ten world famous current French artists, musicians or writers. This from the country that gave us most European art and culture for five centuries.
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
Darling was clearly affected by the vociferous level of support Salmond received in the hall. It was extraordinary how often the moderator managed to pick out Yes supporters to comment. I am sure he did not do it on purpose, so either it was a case of ComRes getting the balance wrong, a lot of instant conversions or No supporters being less willing to make their points. I suspect the latter and a touch of the former.
France needs a Thatcher. There seems to be consensus across the French body politic that a big state and a big deficit to fund an unaffordable welfare set-up is the way to go. France has been borrowing from the future for a very long time. But now the future has arrived and the bills are due. The 'can't go on so won't go on' mantra is biting that little bit earlier in France than it will here.
It bodes ill. The whole national psyche is anti-business, anti-supply-side reform, collectivist, corporatist, socialist, smug de-haut-en-bas paternalist - 'succeed and we'll screw you'. They need a wholesale cultural change and there appears to be no party, no individual to lead such a movement.
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
Darling was clearly affected by the vociferous level of support Salmond received in the hall. It was extraordinary how often the moderator managed to pick out Yes supporters to comment. I am sure he did not do it on purpose, so either it was a case of ComRes getting the balance wrong, a lot of instant conversions or No supporters being less willing to make their points. I suspect the latter and a touch of the former.
I think it could be more that the Nats are more motivated and vociferous than Unionists.
Also, Salmond admitted it would take more than the 5-6 years or so he wanted to give the UK to move nukes to do so, and said he wouldn't increase that time. Negotiation tactic perhaps, but irritating any non-Scots watching guaranteed.
A recent poll shows 1) rUK is happy to have them back (nearly half, and nearly three times the alternatives of scrapping Trident or doing a deal with the Scots and 2) Scotland is far keener on a deal to leave them in Scotland - by a factor of 2, than rUK is to leave them there.......
The "debate" and the audience reaction just confirmed the general impression of belligerence on the Yes side. It was no way to win over swithering don't knows. If anything it has strengthened the No side whatever the ICM voting data or the opinions of media pundits.
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
How do you know what Hannibal was like? I read a bit of Livy for "A" level and didn't trust the b*gg*r an inch...
I know what he was like, by looking at his military campaigns.
He defeated a couple of inept Romans at Cannae, and managed to spin it as the greatest military feat in history, but as soon as he took on a half way decent General at Zama, he was soundly defeated, that ultimately led to the end of Carthage.
This is probably the definitive book on Hannibal, available for £1.98 on the kindle store
Either the Americans need a sense of humour, or someone at the UK Embassy is proving David Cameron's maxim about twitter
The UK's special relationship with the US endured a minor social media inspired blip yesterday when the British Embassy was forced to apologise for apparently celebrating the 200th anniversary of the burning of the White House
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
How do you know what Hannibal was like? I read a bit of Livy for "A" level and didn't trust the b*gg*r an inch...
I know what he was like, by looking at his military campaigns.
He defeated a couple of inept Romans at Cannae, and managed to spin it as the greatest military feat in history, but as soon as he took on a half way decent General at Zama, he was soundly defeated, that ultimately led to the end of Carthage.
This is probably the definitive book on Hannibal, available for £1.98 on the kindle store
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
Darling was clearly affected by the vociferous level of support Salmond received in the hall. It was extraordinary how often the moderator managed to pick out Yes supporters to comment. I am sure he did not do it on purpose, so either it was a case of ComRes getting the balance wrong, a lot of instant conversions or No supporters being less willing to make their points. I suspect the latter and a touch of the former.
I think it could be more that the Nats are more motivated and vociferous than Unionists.
It's exactly that. The No side is undoubtedly less vociferous and motivated. Given that and given the support Salmond was receiving last night it's no great surprise the moderator struggled to pick out No supporters for comments. That was my precise point.
Generic football team supporters' forum after losing big match:
The ref was crap, the opposition style of play was awful & they were dirty, their fans drowned us out, they fiddled with the pitch etc.
We'll be getting told Eck was ineligible next.
On a non partisan note, the Kelvingrove was looking great, though I'm sure some will call that a Union dividend.
Well I can understand how the Nats have a spring in their step, but you're celebrating a score draw. Typically this should have been 2-0, the half time talk got your man back on form, but from all the previous match forecasts he didn't deliver.
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
Darling was clearly affected by the vociferous level of support Salmond received in the hall. It was extraordinary how often the moderator managed to pick out Yes supporters to comment. I am sure he did not do it on purpose, so either it was a case of ComRes getting the balance wrong, a lot of instant conversions or No supporters being less willing to make their points. I suspect the latter and a touch of the former.
I think it could be more that the Nats are more motivated and vociferous than Unionists.
It's exactly that. The No side is undoubtedly less vociferous and motivated. Given that and given the support Salmond was receiving last night it's no great surprise the moderator struggled to pick out No supporters for comments. That was my precise point.
But as Shadsy pointed out last week, Ron Paul's supporters are pretty vociferous and motivated but that doesn't necessarily translate to winning the election/primary.
Mr. Abroad, to be fair to Mr. Eagles the book he links to is an absolute cracker. I believe Dodge describes Hannibal as a 'Mars amongst men' at one point.
On the audience being packed with Yes supporters, or sheer chance meaning more got picked, that'll decrease the willingness of party leaders in the General Election debate to tolerate a slackening of the rules in that regard. It also nicely highlights how stupid and fickle a debate can be, and how it can be influenced by a small number of individuals (cf the worm, which is the work of Satan).
"Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities""
There lies Darlings problem and the chink of light for YES.
Having to defend this totally loathsome Tory government at Westminster
When it comes to loathsome the 1997-2010 Labour Govt's takes some beating, illegal wars ledsing toi hundreds of thousands of deaths, dissembling about financial matters leading to the worst crash in living memory. Labour and the SNP are two peas in the same pod when it comes to spending money we haven't got. Good luck to the Scots if they get Salmond. they're going to need it.
TSE Yes, I saw that, could have been more tactful at the Embassy, though of course DC was burned in response to the US invasion of Canada and burning of Toronto
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
Darling was clearly affected by the vociferous level of support Salmond received in the hall. It was extraordinary how often the moderator managed to pick out Yes supporters to comment. I am sure he did not do it on purpose, so either it was a case of ComRes getting the balance wrong, a lot of instant conversions or No supporters being less willing to make their points. I suspect the latter and a touch of the former.
I think it could be more that the Nats are more motivated and vociferous than Unionists.
It's exactly that. The No side is undoubtedly less vociferous and motivated. Given that and given the support Salmond was receiving last night it's no great surprise the moderator struggled to pick out No supporters for comments. That was my precise point.
But as Shadsy pointed out last week, Ron Paul's supporters are pretty vociferous and motivated but that doesn't necessarily translate to winning the election/primary.
True. I think Yes will win because it's Scotland's chance to stick two fingers up at Westminster, just as most voters across the whole UK wish to do. I believe that when they do they'll find out they've actually put their faith in something just as cynical and self-serving, but then it will all be done.
Good points from OGH and the details of the ICM poll show 96% of those voting Yes before the debate are still voting Yes after and 95% of those voting No before the debate are still voting No after it while 63% of undecideds before the debate are still undecided after. Salmond clearly recovered lost ground after this debate, but I doubt a 1-1 score over the 2 debates will make much difference on long-term voting intention, but we will see
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
Darling was clearly affected by the vociferous level of support Salmond received in the hall. It was extraordinary how often the moderator managed to pick out Yes supporters to comment. I am sure he did not do it on purpose, so either it was a case of ComRes getting the balance wrong, a lot of instant conversions or No supporters being less willing to make their points. I suspect the latter and a touch of the former.
I think it could be more that the Nats are more motivated and vociferous than Unionists.
It's exactly that. The No side is undoubtedly less vociferous and motivated. Given that and given the support Salmond was receiving last night it's no great surprise the moderator struggled to pick out No supporters for comments. That was my precise point.
But as Shadsy pointed out last week, Ron Paul's supporters are pretty vociferous and motivated but that doesn't necessarily translate to winning the election/primary.
True. I think Yes will win because it's Scotland's chance to stick two fingers up at Westminster, just as most voters across the whole UK wish to do. I believe that when they do they'll find out they've actually put their faith in something just as cynical and self-serving, but then it will all be done.
We're going to find out in a little over three weeks.
Whatever the outcome, it is going to be an exciting time.
Time for a federal UK.
I'd like to see Governors.
I quite like the title of Governor of England, or Governor of Yorkshire.
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
All it proved to me was that STV know how to run an indy ref debate and the BBC don't.
At the start of last night's debate I thought the chairman was better than last time, but he proved to be worse than useless.
The BBC made a huge mistake is using a BBC Scotland politics person to be chairman. It required a neutral person who could command respect from the combatants (like Paxman) and who would enforce discipline to prevent the shouting brawl that it became. Also the chairman needed the ability to cut the microphone of any debater who overstepped the rules.
Thick British Nationalist thinks they should have imported a smart arse from London because those dumb peasants up north don't know how to hold a debate. How the donkeys laughed.
Campaign sources say this will be the last leaders' debate between Salmond and Darling, with Sky and Channel 4 News, the broadcasters still bidding for a live debate, now planning debates involving campaign deputies and other party leaders in Scotland instead.
"Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities""
There lies Darlings problem and the chink of light for YES.
Having to defend this totally loathsome Tory government at Westminster
When it comes to loathsome the 1997-2010 Labour Govt's takes some beating, illegal wars ledsing toi hundreds of thousands of deaths, dissembling about financial matters leading to the worst crash in living memory. Labour and the SNP are two peas in the same pod when it comes to spending money we haven't got. Good luck to the Scots if they get Salmond. they're going to need it.
Err, the crash started in the States (under Bush fils) and spread out from there. The idea that it was caused by the Brown Government is just right-wing wishful thinking.
On the TURNIP scale last night, Darling turned out to be the equivalent of 5 Hectares and easily won TURNIP of the campaign. How could he not have gone off script , after getting mauled on currency and being presented with 3 plan B's, old turnip head just kept reading his script. One trick pony does not begin to describe it.
I think, in the end, it will come down to the fact that the current generation will not want to sacrifice itself fiscally for an independent Scotland and the supposed greater good of generations to come.
Call me old fashioned but when you put a tax on on the very poorest for having a spare bedroom yet appoint this man 'WASTE TSAR' I feel a bit queasy
"Sir Philip Green is the multi-billionaire 'King of the High Street' who commutes to work by private jet from the tax haven of Monaco.
Sir Philip, who left school at 15 to go into business, lives in London hotels during the week.
But his business empire is mostly owned in the name of his wife Tina (pictured together above), who lives in the tax haven, where Sir Philip spends his weekends. The couple moved there in 1998.
In the past, he has joked that the vast sums paid into his wife's bank account are 'housekeeping money'.
This set-up will have saved himself £125million in tax, experts have claimed.
He remains a UK taxpayer because he spends more than 90 days a year here running his businesses but he ensured that when he bought Bhs in 2000 and Arcadia in 2002, the transactions were in his wife's name.
Mrs Green has long been Monaco based with their children Brandon and Chloe, meaning she escapes the tax rules for citizens living in the UK."
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
Aye I bet it was a right F-ing lolathon for the Yessers.
All it proved to me was that STV know how to run an indy ref debate and the BBC don't.
Briskin, sour grapes because your patsy got a doing perhaps. Man up and admit Darling is crap, YES took it on the chin when Alex was below par. Typical unionist lickspittle though , it was the wrong kind of hall that made Darling a useless turnip.
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
All it proved to me was that STV know how to run an indy ref debate and the BBC don't.
At the start of last night's debate I thought the chairman was better than last time, but he proved to be worse than useless.
" For we’ve always been pessimists, us French, even in the past half century or so, when our nation boasted the best health-care system in the world; the most modern infrastructure (from high-speed trains to abundant nuclear-powered electricity); a remarkable state education system; and a way of life envied by all. Faut pas se plaindre (“Mustn’t grumble”) was the best you could draw out of a family of Beaujolais wine-growers enjoying a seven-course meal, or a tableful of academics knocking back a few kirs at Café de Flore while watching the world go by on Boulevard Saint Germain.
Of late, however, this way of life has been coming off the rails – literally. Lack of maintenance funds has led to trains crashing; the education system has dropped in Pisa ratings; and the professors’ best students leave the country to find jobs, while the rest of France’s youth faces structural unemployment of 30 to 40 per cent.
But you try telling us that the policies outlined by Valls are the only ones capable of fixing the situation. You try pointing out that the country, for decades, has been running an unsustainable deficit. You would think that at least the young, who will pick up the tab for this extravagance, would sympathise. Far from it. French students have demonstrated against a (modest) rise in retirement age, even though they today face smaller pensions and a more difficult life as the system comes to the end of its tether. They also oppose reforms designed to make the employment market fluid, even though they are the ones being kept on the dole as a result.
The truth is that a majority of young French people still dream of becoming civil servants, because it guarantees them a secure job. Entrepreneurship, mistrusted by the Right and vilified by the Left, scares them; and anyway, they think (and probably rightly so) that if they do take a risk, and it pays off, the taxman will relieve them of all the reward.
So we are left with a situation in which people want nothing to change, and are prepared to vote on the political extremes to get it. The real fight for these young voters’ hearts will not be between Valls and Montebourg, but between Montebourg and Marine Le Pen, of the Front National – who secured 35 per cent of the 18-24 year-old vote at the European elections. Such is the price of inaction. "
The constant talking over each other and the complete failure of the moderator to do anything about it was very frustrating. At the end of the day nothing new came out of it. It appears plan B is to use the pound without a currency union, something that would be absolutely disastrous for our financial services industry. Salmond did not really explain what the problem is supposed to be on the NHS and why English privatisation would have any effect in Scotland. Salmond was by far the better debater on the night but I don't think many votes will have shifted.
Tories try to pretend their puppet did not lose and it will be all right on the night.
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
All it proved to me was that STV know how to run an indy ref debate and the BBC don't.
At the start of last night's debate I thought the chairman was better than last time, but he proved to be worse than useless.
Yup - I agree, I can't see how anyone could disagree with us.
Doubtless both Darling and Salmond did their homework and decided that more people see talking over a moderator as a sign of mannishness than take it as boorishness. And there, perhaps, we see what's wrong with both Scotland and rUK...
Scottish politics does seem to prefer aggression over reasoned debate.
You mistake passion for aggression, it is just that you lot are such jessies.
Best quotes of the night: Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?" Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
Those smug and oversimplifying quips show the abysmal level to which the debate fell.
Poor diddums, the truth hurts, not happy that you are shown up as cruel self seeking greedy barstewards.
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
Darling was clearly affected by the vociferous level of support Salmond received in the hall. It was extraordinary how often the moderator managed to pick out Yes supporters to comment. I am sure he did not do it on purpose, so either it was a case of ComRes getting the balance wrong, a lot of instant conversions or No supporters being less willing to make their points. I suspect the latter and a touch of the former.
I think it could be more that the Nats are more motivated and vociferous than Unionists.
It's exactly that. The No side is undoubtedly less vociferous and motivated. Given that and given the support Salmond was receiving last night it's no great surprise the moderator struggled to pick out No supporters for comments. That was my precise point.
But as Shadsy pointed out last week, Ron Paul's supporters are pretty vociferous and motivated but that doesn't necessarily translate to winning the election/primary.
True. I think Yes will win because it's Scotland's chance to stick two fingers up at Westminster, just as most voters across the whole UK wish to do. I believe that when they do they'll find out they've actually put their faith in something just as cynical and self-serving, but then it will all be done.
We're going to find out in a little over three weeks.
Whatever the outcome, it is going to be an exciting time.
Time for a federal UK.
I'd like to see Governors.
I quite like the title of Governor of England, or Governor of Yorkshire.
Although I'll be very sad to see my country disappear, there will be the opportunity to build a new one. I imagine that the usual self-interest will prevail though, with short-term partisan choices trumping any desire for a consensus-based long-term settlement.
There's also a part of me looking forward to the divorce negotiations!
Doubtless both Darling and Salmond did their homework and decided that more people see talking over a moderator as a sign of mannishness than take it as boorishness. And there, perhaps, we see what's wrong with both Scotland and rUK...
Yep. The popularity of the tabloids in their current form is another sypmtom of the same thing.
I think the unanimous view of the media that Salmond won will produce a Yes bump in the next poll or two, as the last debate produced for No. But we're starting to discover (cf Clegg, Romney) that debate bumps wear off.
The "debate" and the audience reaction just confirmed the general impression of belligerence on the Yes side. It was no way to win over swithering don't knows. If anything it has strengthened the No side whatever the ICM voting data or the opinions of media pundits.
Mr. Abroad, to be fair to Mr. Eagles the book he links to is an absolute cracker. I believe Dodge describes Hannibal as a 'Mars amongst men' at one point.
On the audience being packed with Yes supporters, or sheer chance meaning more got picked, that'll decrease the willingness of party leaders in the General Election debate to tolerate a slackening of the rules in that regard. It also nicely highlights how stupid and fickle a debate can be, and how it can be influenced by a small number of individuals (cf the worm, which is the work of Satan).
MD, poor form, you are saying Ipsos-Mori rigged the audience then. Audience was carefully picked by a neutral polling company yet on here all they can say is that is was rigged. Dear Dear
Having finally watched the debate, if we are going to have Prime Ministerial debates next year, can we please make sure the audiences are seen but not heard.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
Darling was clearly affected by the vociferous level of support Salmond received in the hall. It was extraordinary how often the moderator managed to pick out Yes supporters to comment. I am sure he did not do it on purpose, so either it was a case of ComRes getting the balance wrong, a lot of instant conversions or No supporters being less willing to make their points. I suspect the latter and a touch of the former.
I think it could be more that the Nats are more motivated and vociferous than Unionists.
It's exactly that. The No side is undoubtedly less vociferous and motivated. Given that and given the support Salmond was receiving last night it's no great surprise the moderator struggled to pick out No supporters for comments. That was my precise point.
But as Shadsy pointed out last week, Ron Paul's supporters are pretty vociferous and motivated but that doesn't necessarily translate to winning the election/primary.
True. I think Yes will win because it's Scotland's chance to stick two fingers up at Westminster, just as most voters across the whole UK wish to do. I believe that when they do they'll find out they've actually put their faith in something just as cynical and self-serving, but then it will all be done.
We're going to find out in a little over three weeks.
Whatever the outcome, it is going to be an exciting time.
Time for a federal UK.
I'd like to see Governors.
I quite like the title of Governor of England, or Governor of Yorkshire.
Although I'll be very sad to see my country disappear, there will be the opportunity to build a new one. I imagine that the usual self-interest will prevail though, with short-term partisan choices trumping any desire for a consensus-based long-term settlement.
There's also a part of me looking forward to the divorce negotiations!
Well I hope you're wrong on the first point but if you're not, divorce negotiations will be fun.
Mr. Jessop, that's the likeliest option, but it could be Alonso going elsewhere. In 2016 the Mercedes and Red Bull teams *might* both have free seats, I think (Vettel and Hamilton's contracts, as it stands, expire that year, I think).
Mr. G, if audience members are picked at random, it's entirely possible one side will get more supporters picked.
Also, the "If we're better together, why aren't we already better together?" nonsense was pointless. Did it raise an issue of economic, health, education, defence or foreign affairs importance? It was a waste of a question.
Mr. Eagles, interesting certainly, not sure I'd say fun.
Mr. Eagles, anyone who tries carving up England deserves to be carved up himself.
Time for an English Parliament.
Some years ago, I reviewed a book by a Welsh Conservative AM called David Melding that advocated that very solution. However, he also noted several objections to it, in particular the 'Prussian' problem that England would be about twice as large as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together in terms of size, wealth, population etc., and bringing that into balance would be difficult.
I personally don't see any objection to an England split five or six ways (nine is totally absurd, particularly the 9 the EU came up with). You could resurrect the late Saxon kingdoms - Northumbria (north of a line from the Humber to the Mersey) Mercia (south of that line down to the Thames) East Anglia (not difficult to figure out) Wessex (west of the Itchen but including Hampshire) Kent and Sussex as one and London as a special case (which it is already, really). Of course, they would still be big, more or less artificial constructs - but then so is England itself, or Scotland (or Wales, where even today the language known as 'Welsh' hides half a dozen distinct dialects).
On the other hand if England is put in as one federal unit, even if London is hived off, it's going to be very hard indeed to come up with any sort of meaningfully balanced constitution. The American model of equal senators simply won't work where there are only four or five states unless Wales and Northern Ireland have about one senator per head (maybe in Wales, we could include the sheep for an expansion of the head count - I've met sheep that are far more intelligent than Alun Davies and are far more independently minded as well). But at the same time, I can't think of any other potential way of making such a system work.
On another note, this was always going to be the end point of Blair and Brown's disastrous ego trip (which is all devolution really amounts to) which was put in place to win votes in Scotland and Wales with no thought for the damage that was being done to the constitutional settlement or for the likely long term consequences. The reason why the SNP took power easily and convincingly, leading to this divisive, bitter and likely damaging referendum is actually quite simple. The moment that those politicians of substance in the Labour party who did believe in devolution died or retired, and the younger generation realised Blair had been uncharacteristically truthful in describing these places as parish councils, the quality of Labour politicians in these places would drop dramatically as they went off to shin up the greasy pole. Meanwhile the Nats, who were less interested in Westminster's gravy train as they had no prospect of power there, would put their big hitters in - Salmond, who left Westminster for Holyrood twice, is the classic example. The end result was always going to be that in the end the Nats would gain ascendancy and push for further devolution, putting English noses further out of joint and leading, without further changes, to the inevitable breakup of the UK.
As we say in teaching, there are unplanned lessons. There are good lessons. There are no good unplanned lessons.
Mr. G, if audience members are picked at random, it's entirely possible one side will get more supporters picked.
Also, the "If we're better together, why aren't we already better together?" nonsense was pointless. Did it raise an issue of economic, health, education, defence or foreign affairs importance? It was a waste of a question.
Mr. Eagles, interesting certainly, not sure I'd say fun.
Fun = Profitable for some legal establishments I know.
As someone who knows the Financial Services Industry and media rights quite well, it will be very fun.
"...fiscal autonomy is the best thing that could happen to Scotland.
If you doubt me, consider the spectacle we’ve just seen: two socialists, in the country that gave us Adam Smith, arguing about which of them could spend more taxpayers’ money."
Devo max and an end to the West Lothian Question if the Scots vote no.
English and Scottish political culture couldn't be more different, you just need to read about the English civil war and the division between parliament and the coventators even whilst they were still allies.
English CW? Civil Wars of Britain and Ireland, please! The Scots kicked it off ...
Any reasonable reading of the ICM poll would conclude it shows that the shouting match made almost no difference to voting intentions, even though Salmond won by being more assured and louder than Darling. .
The Herald, concurs:
Salmond lands all the best punches in 'stairheid rammy'
It's the final round. Mr Salmond has been pummelled on the ropes. Could he come back and deliver the knockout blow that would change Scottish political history? That only happens in Hollywood.
But the Yes campaign desperately needed a good combative debating performance from Mr Salmond. They got that. The Guardian ICM instant poll gave Mr Salmond the victory 71% to 29%. Whether it will do them any good with the voters in the longer term is another question.
Mr. Abroad, to be fair to Mr. Eagles the book he links to is an absolute cracker. I believe Dodge describes Hannibal as a 'Mars amongst men' at one point.
On the audience being packed with Yes supporters, or sheer chance meaning more got picked, that'll decrease the willingness of party leaders in the General Election debate to tolerate a slackening of the rules in that regard. It also nicely highlights how stupid and fickle a debate can be, and how it can be influenced by a small number of individuals (cf the worm, which is the work of Satan).
MD, poor form, you are saying Ipsos-Mori rigged the audience then. Audience was carefully picked by a neutral polling company yet on here all they can say is that is was rigged. Dear Dear
It was ComRes. I do believe a few in the Yes camp were talking about rigged audiences before and after Debate 1 - see Scot Goes Pop.
Last night's audience was not rigged. But the moderator can only take comments from those who wish to make them. Given the vociferous support Salmond got it's hardly surprising that raised No hands were few and far between.
Mr. G, if audience members are picked at random, it's entirely possible one side will get more supporters picked.
Also, the "If we're better together, why aren't we already better together?" nonsense was pointless. Did it raise an issue of economic, health, education, defence or foreign affairs importance? It was a waste of a question.
Mr. Eagles, interesting certainly, not sure I'd say fun.
Fun = Profitable for some legal establishments I know.
As someone who knows the Financial Services Industry and media rights quite well, it will be very fun.
One side impact I've heard rumoured is that if Scotland leave its been perceived that the accent may not be considered trustworthy.
So any call centres based in Scotland to emphasis their trustworthiness will rapidly move elsewhere....
Sky News - The Dirty Dozen seats that UKIP internal polling thinks they can win
Great Grimsby, Boston & Skegness, Great Yarmouth, Forest of Dean, Aylesbury, Thurrock, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, North Thanet, South Thanet, Eastleigh, Portsmouth South, East Worthing & Shoreham
Disagree on carving up England, though. That's a recipe for the disintegration not merely of the UK, but of England itself.
Possibly, but remember it has been done several times before without such a disaster occurring (there were separate judicial systems in Wales and Yorkshire in the eighteenth century which only reported to London indirectly).
The other logical possibility would be to devolve more power to county councils - but I really can't see that happening, because some of them (e.g. Rutland or Herefordshire) would be far too small to survive as autonomous entities (indeed, Wales is merging its 'principal areas' back together because they are so small). Lancashire or the divers parts of Yorkshire or indeed Kent would be OK.
The constant talking over each other and the complete failure of the moderator to do anything about it was very frustrating. At the end of the day nothing new came out of it. It appears plan B is to use the pound without a currency union, something that would be absolutely disastrous for our financial services industry. Salmond did not really explain what the problem is supposed to be on the NHS and why English privatisation would have any effect in Scotland. Salmond was by far the better debater on the night but I don't think many votes will have shifted.
Tories try to pretend their puppet did not lose and it will be all right on the night.
Thats such a pathetic made up claim that even you do not believe it. When this is the level of argument you are reduced to then its pretty clear that NO are on a loser.
As for the debate, its broadly meaningless. Since its nothing to do with who will be PM or FM of Scotland the beauty pagent element of it of no account. And now Mr Smithson tells us that the opinion of who gets the sash and tiara is meaningless. A sad unedifying shambles.
Until a week ago, I lived in the Forest of Dean. If UKIP genuinely thinks they can win the Forest of Dean, their pollsters are on weed. They might just push Labour into third, but that would be the worst of it. The Conservatives are too active, too well funded and their candidate, despite some stupid things he has done, is too personally popular and treads the constituency too well (and is pretty right-wing) for that to be realistic.
I'm guessing a few people around Newent and Coleford are complaining about the FoDDC's inept housing policy and that's inflated the numbers - but there are too many loyal Tory voters in the leafy glades to make a real difference.
Mr. G, if audience members are picked at random, it's entirely possible one side will get more supporters picked.
Also, the "If we're better together, why aren't we already better together?" nonsense was pointless. Did it raise an issue of economic, health, education, defence or foreign affairs importance? It was a waste of a question.
Mr. Eagles, interesting certainly, not sure I'd say fun.
Fun = Profitable for some legal establishments I know.
As someone who knows the Financial Services Industry and media rights quite well, it will be very fun.
One side impact I've heard rumoured is that if Scotland leave its been perceived that the accent may not be considered trustworthy.
So any call centres based in Scotland to emphasis their trustworthiness will rapidly move elsewhere....
It's not a matter of trustworthiness, it will be perceived to be a foreign call centre, and a lot of companies make big play of not having foreign call centres.
Comments
Mail:
Aggressive Salmond crushes Darling in second independence debate throwing future of the union into doubt
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734085/Independence-debate-round-two-Salmond-admits-plan-B-pound-jumps-admission-Darling-independent-Scotland-sterling.html#ixzz3BTB1cTQu
Indy:
Scottish independence TV debate: Pumped-up Salmond bounces back in bruising second round
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-tv-debate-alex-salmond-seizes-control-of-second-debate-with-alistair-darling-9690145.html
Grauniad:
Scottish independence: Salmond scores victory over Darling in fractious debate
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/25/scottish-independence-debate-alex-salmond-alistair-darling
Herald:
Voters hoping for more light than heat will be disappointed
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/voters-hoping-for-more-light-than-heat-will-be-disappointed.25148933
That said, I would not be at all surprised if the totally unrepresentative ICM sample is actually the most accurate reflection of where things are. The next few proper polls will be fascinating. My guess is that they will show a sharp swing to Yes.
Salmond lands all the best punches in 'stairheid rammy'
It's the final round. Mr Salmond has been pummelled on the ropes. Could he come back and deliver the knockout blow that would change Scottish political history? That only happens in Hollywood.
But the Yes campaign desperately needed a good combative debating performance from Mr Salmond. They got that. The Guardian ICM instant poll gave Mr Salmond the victory 71% to 29%. Whether it will do them any good with the voters in the longer term is another question.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-lands-all-the-best-punches-in-stairheid-rammy.25148920
Audience member: "If we are Better Together, why are we not already Better Together?"
Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities"
Prof Stiglitz said: “As an outsider, I’ve looked at the debate, particularly from the No side. I’ve been a lite bit shocked how much of it is based on fear, trying to get anxiety levels up and how little of it has been based on vision.
“There is a vision on the Yes side that I see – what would an independent Scotland be like, what could it do that it can’t do now?”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-stiglitz-attacks-no-camp-1-3520079
All it proved to me was that STV know how to run an indy ref debate and the BBC don't.
"...fiscal autonomy is the best thing that could happen to Scotland.
If you doubt me, consider the spectacle we’ve just seen: two socialists, in the country that gave us Adam Smith, arguing about which of them could spend more taxpayers’ money."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100284006/salmond-won-the-debate-but-it-will-make-little-difference/
" For we’ve always been pessimists, us French, even in the past half century or so, when our nation boasted the best health-care system in the world; the most modern infrastructure (from high-speed trains to abundant nuclear-powered electricity); a remarkable state education system; and a way of life envied by all. Faut pas se plaindre (“Mustn’t grumble”) was the best you could draw out of a family of Beaujolais wine-growers enjoying a seven-course meal, or a tableful of academics knocking back a few kirs at Café de Flore while watching the world go by on Boulevard Saint Germain.
Of late, however, this way of life has been coming off the rails – literally. Lack of maintenance funds has led to trains crashing; the education system has dropped in Pisa ratings; and the professors’ best students leave the country to find jobs, while the rest of France’s youth faces structural unemployment of 30 to 40 per cent.
But you try telling us that the policies outlined by Valls are the only ones capable of fixing the situation. You try pointing out that the country, for decades, has been running an unsustainable deficit. You would think that at least the young, who will pick up the tab for this extravagance, would sympathise. Far from it. French students have demonstrated against a (modest) rise in retirement age, even though they today face smaller pensions and a more difficult life as the system comes to the end of its tether. They also oppose reforms designed to make the employment market fluid, even though they are the ones being kept on the dole as a result.
The truth is that a majority of young French people still dream of becoming civil servants, because it guarantees them a secure job. Entrepreneurship, mistrusted by the Right and vilified by the Left, scares them; and anyway, they think (and probably rightly so) that if they do take a risk, and it pays off, the taxman will relieve them of all the reward.
So we are left with a situation in which people want nothing to change, and are prepared to vote on the political extremes to get it. The real fight for these young voters’ hearts will not be between Valls and Montebourg, but between Montebourg and Marine Le Pen, of the Front National – who secured 35 per cent of the 18-24 year-old vote at the European elections. Such is the price of inaction. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11055300/So-when-will-the-centime-finally-drop.html
English and Scottish political culture couldn't be more different, you just need to read about the English civil war and the division between parliament and the coventators even whilst they were still allies.
It wasn't really edifying at all.
Salmond was Scipio Africanus, whereas Darling was like Hannibal.
He defeated a couple of inept Romans at Cannae, and managed to spin it as the greatest military feat in history, but as soon as he took on a half way decent General at Zama, he was soundly defeated, that ultimately led to the end of Carthage.
This is probably the definitive book on Hannibal, available for £1.98 on the kindle store
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hannibal-History-Carthaginians-Detailed-Account-ebook/dp/B007H1UHYE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409037321&sr=8-1&keywords=theodore+dodge+hannibal
I only saw snippets in between ads during The 100. I think I made the right call watching that, to be honest.
I saw the '...why are not already better together?' nonsense. He might as well have asked "Why are the English bastards?" for all it added to the wider debate.
Too much talking over one another, and I think it spoke well of the General Election debates which had rather more rigorous rules.
Also, Salmond admitted it would take more than the 5-6 years or so he wanted to give the UK to move nukes to do so, and said he wouldn't increase that time. Negotiation tactic perhaps, but irritating any non-Scots watching guaranteed.
'our nation boasted the best health-care system in the world; the most modern infrastructure (from high-speed trains to abundant nuclear-powered electricity); a remarkable state education system; and a way of life envied by all.'
If the French genuinely believed that they had a remarkable state education system, all that confirms is that they are delusional. The French education system has been a bit of a joke for years. It essentially consists (and has consisted for a long time) of young civil servants with a degree in the relevant field turning up, talking for an hour, and vanishing again. It does nothing to inspire and nothing to encourage originality. Those friends of mine who went through the state education system in France hated it - one of them even went so far as to say that it was worse than useless.
There could be an argument - one I have a lot of sympathy with at times - that in Britain we go too far the other way, and prize active learning over good learning, and pastoral care over teaching skills and subject knowledge. But the fact of the matter is that our education system, whatever its faults, does at least fire the imagination of some of the children we are teaching and encourage them to go out and do things. We also have surely one of the most impressive cultural scenes in the world, especially given our relatively small population, which I think is partly due to our school systems. By contrast, name ten world famous current French artists, musicians or writers. This from the country that gave us most European art and culture for five centuries.
Somewhere, there must be a balance.
France needs a Thatcher. There seems to be consensus across the French body politic that a big state and a big deficit to fund an unaffordable welfare set-up is the way to go. France has been borrowing from the future for a very long time. But now the future has arrived and the bills are due. The 'can't go on so won't go on' mantra is biting that little bit earlier in France than it will here.
It bodes ill. The whole national psyche is anti-business, anti-supply-side reform, collectivist, corporatist, socialist, smug de-haut-en-bas paternalist - 'succeed and we'll screw you'. They need a wholesale cultural change and there appears to be no party, no individual to lead such a movement.
I bet the Germans are deeply worried.
The ref was crap, the opposition style of play was awful & they were dirty, their fans drowned us out, they fiddled with the pitch etc.
We'll be getting told Eck was ineligible next.
On a non partisan note, the Kelvingrove was looking great, though I'm sure some will call that a Union dividend.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bv7TXkACEAAdPhv.png:large
That's even worse than that business about Anne of Cleves, a pot of honey and Katherine Howard last night...
The UK's special relationship with the US endured a minor social media inspired blip yesterday when the British Embassy was forced to apologise for apparently celebrating the 200th anniversary of the burning of the White House
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/special-relationship-endures-minor-social-media-blip-after-british-embassy-appears-to-celebrate-the-burning-down-of-the-white-house-9689385.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_fiction
"Salmond: "When times are hard, we don't take it out on people with disabilities""
There lies Darlings problem and the chink of light for YES.
Having to defend this totally loathsome Tory government at Westminster
Anyone would think they want to sell newspapers....
First Minister Alex Salmond has apologised for misleading parliament over the position of a leading academic on the independence referendum.
Mr Salmond said referendum expert Dr Matt Qvortrup had endorsed the SNP government's plans for a two-question vote on Scotland's future.
He later corrected his comments, saying he had used information at Holyrood which was "wrong".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15482260
But the BBC have obviously got it wrong as we are forever being assured that Salmond didn't want a two question referendum.....
On the audience being packed with Yes supporters, or sheer chance meaning more got picked, that'll decrease the willingness of party leaders in the General Election debate to tolerate a slackening of the rules in that regard. It also nicely highlights how stupid and fickle a debate can be, and how it can be influenced by a small number of individuals (cf the worm, which is the work of Satan).
Labour and the SNP are two peas in the same pod when it comes to spending money we haven't got. Good luck to the Scots if they get Salmond. they're going to need it.
Whatever the outcome, it is going to be an exciting time.
Time for a federal UK.
I'd like to see Governors.
I quite like the title of Governor of England, or Governor of Yorkshire.
How the donkeys laughed.
STV, which hosted the first Salmond versus Darling contest on 5 August, has announced it will stage a further major debate on 2 September, expected to involve three pro-independence and three pro-UK figures, lead for yes by Scotland's deputy first minister Nicola Sturgeon and for no by Johann Lamont, Scottish Labour leader.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/25/scottish-independence-debate-alex-salmond-alistair-darling?commentpage=5
Time for an English Parliament.
How could he not have gone off script , after getting mauled on currency and being presented with 3 plan B's, old turnip head just kept reading his script. One trick pony does not begin to describe it.
"When it comes to loathsome the Labour....."
Call me old fashioned but when you put a tax on on the very poorest for having a spare bedroom yet appoint this man 'WASTE TSAR' I feel a bit queasy
"Sir Philip Green is the multi-billionaire 'King of the High Street' who commutes to work by private jet from the tax haven of Monaco.
Sir Philip, who left school at 15 to go into business, lives in London hotels during the week.
But his business empire is mostly owned in the name of his wife Tina (pictured together above), who lives in the tax haven, where Sir Philip spends his weekends. The couple moved there in 1998.
In the past, he has joked that the vast sums paid into his wife's bank account are 'housekeeping money'.
This set-up will have saved himself £125million in tax, experts have claimed.
He remains a UK taxpayer because he spends more than 90 days a year here running his businesses but he ensured that when he bought Bhs in 2000 and Arcadia in 2002, the transactions were in his wife's name.
Mrs Green has long been Monaco based with their children Brandon and Chloe, meaning she escapes the tax rules for citizens living in the UK."
I always said that I a federalist anyway.
I have seen internal UKIP polling which shows the party will be targeting 12 key seats ahead of the next election...More on Sky News shortly
Perhaps he wasn’t quite the idiot lots of us thought him!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/28928608
Lol!
There's also a part of me looking forward to the divorce negotiations!
I think the unanimous view of the media that Salmond won will produce a Yes bump in the next poll or two, as the last debate produced for No. But we're starting to discover (cf Clegg, Romney) that debate bumps wear off.
So don't come on here with your bleeding heart
An interesting article on an all-female unit of the Peshmerga fighting in Iraq:
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/news-features/life-in-the-allfemale-peshmerga-unit-in-iraqi-kurdistan-20140815-3dqs6.html
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/time-to-ruminate/
Annoyingly, it's so early the driver markets aren't up.
Wow. It's worse than Premier League football managers...
Dear Dear
Also, the "If we're better together, why aren't we already better together?" nonsense was pointless. Did it raise an issue of economic, health, education, defence or foreign affairs importance? It was a waste of a question.
Mr. Eagles, interesting certainly, not sure I'd say fun.
I personally don't see any objection to an England split five or six ways (nine is totally absurd, particularly the 9 the EU came up with). You could resurrect the late Saxon kingdoms - Northumbria (north of a line from the Humber to the Mersey) Mercia (south of that line down to the Thames) East Anglia (not difficult to figure out) Wessex (west of the Itchen but including Hampshire) Kent and Sussex as one and London as a special case (which it is already, really). Of course, they would still be big, more or less artificial constructs - but then so is England itself, or Scotland (or Wales, where even today the language known as 'Welsh' hides half a dozen distinct dialects).
On the other hand if England is put in as one federal unit, even if London is hived off, it's going to be very hard indeed to come up with any sort of meaningfully balanced constitution. The American model of equal senators simply won't work where there are only four or five states unless Wales and Northern Ireland have about one senator per head (maybe in Wales, we could include the sheep for an expansion of the head count - I've met sheep that are far more intelligent than Alun Davies and are far more independently minded as well). But at the same time, I can't think of any other potential way of making such a system work.
As we say in teaching, there are unplanned lessons. There are good lessons. There are no good unplanned lessons.
As someone who knows the Financial Services Industry and media rights quite well, it will be very fun.
Last night's audience was not rigged. But the moderator can only take comments from those who wish to make them. Given the vociferous support Salmond got it's hardly surprising that raised No hands were few and far between.
Disagree on carving up England, though. That's a recipe for the disintegration not merely of the UK, but of England itself.
So any call centres based in Scotland to emphasis their trustworthiness will rapidly move elsewhere....
Great Grimsby, Boston & Skegness, Great Yarmouth, Forest of Dean, Aylesbury, Thurrock, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, North Thanet, South Thanet, Eastleigh, Portsmouth South, East Worthing & Shoreham
Those are seats with Tory majs of 10k plus and UKIP miles behind.
Thurrock
Castle point
North Thanet
Basildon & South East Thurrock
Great Grimsby
Great Yarmouth
And which other 5 ?
The other logical possibility would be to devolve more power to county councils - but I really can't see that happening, because some of them (e.g. Rutland or Herefordshire) would be far too small to survive as autonomous entities (indeed, Wales is merging its 'principal areas' back together because they are so small). Lancashire or the divers parts of Yorkshire or indeed Kent would be OK.
As for the debate, its broadly meaningless. Since its nothing to do with who will be PM or FM of Scotland the beauty pagent element of it of no account. And now Mr Smithson tells us that the opinion of who gets the sash and tiara is meaningless. A sad unedifying shambles.
Until a week ago, I lived in the Forest of Dean. If UKIP genuinely thinks they can win the Forest of Dean, their pollsters are on weed. They might just push Labour into third, but that would be the worst of it. The Conservatives are too active, too well funded and their candidate, despite some stupid things he has done, is too personally popular and treads the constituency too well (and is pretty right-wing) for that to be realistic.
I'm guessing a few people around Newent and Coleford are complaining about the FoDDC's inept housing policy and that's inflated the numbers - but there are too many loyal Tory voters in the leafy glades to make a real difference.