politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The wait for another full IndyRef poll goes on – there’s not been one for nearly a fortnight
Over the past few days I’ve been repeatedly asked when the next full IndyRef poll will be published and unfortunately I have no idea. The last full poll was by YouGov when fieldwork finished on August 15th – that’s 13 days ago.
7:43AM edited 7:43AM Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?
" Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
Rumours of a PanelBase on Comedy James Goes Pop - but if it's a Yes poll it may not be published like their one on women and the NHS (women got the answer wrong......)
YES campaigners have been vociferous in telling us of the good reaction they are getting on the doorstep
So Malcolm is right, the rest of us are wrong, the currency issue is a minor technical detail or a complete red herring and the result will be YES 103% / NO -3%.
In today's YouGov, the Scotland sub-sample (caveats) had the SNP outvoting Labour for the first time for quite a while if my memory serves me correctly - could be an outlier of course.
" Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
How do you know what employers want? In your own field (marketing financial services, I suppose) of course, but beyond that?
In today's YouGov, the Scotland sub-sample (caveats) had the SNP outvoting Labour for the first time for quite a while if my memory serves me correctly - could be an outlier of course.
The notorious Scottish subsample - isn't weighted so is essentially meaningless.....
" Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
Too often employers require the candidate has a degree from Oxbridge or the alma mater of whoever makes the decision. The best way to get a job is to know someone who can get you a job, or at least get you an interview. Internships are powerful things.
Funnily enough, none of these factors increases social mobility.
So few polls as there has been only modest movement over the last 18 months.
Which leads on to turn-out. If defeat for YES looks to be a foregone conclusion by polling day, I wonder how many YES supporters will stay home. It seems that YES has always banked on the least likely to vote coming out for them on the day. Only a perverse minority vote for a lost cause - many won't make the effort to be associated with failure. Without the Big Mo, it may prove to be a forlorn hope that these normal Can't Be Arsed supporters will change their habits of a lifetime. (For example, turnout in 2010 across all Glasgow seats ranged from 49% to 61%, mostly in the low 50%'s. A CBA Party stronghold.)
If so, the NO winning margin might be bigger than current polling suggests.
In today's YouGov, the Scotland sub-sample (caveats) had the SNP outvoting Labour for the first time for quite a while if my memory serves me correctly - could be an outlier of course.
The notorious Scottish subsample - isn't weighted so is essentially meaningless.....
These Police Commissioners have not exactly been democracy's high point.
Although this particular example does look to have been a grenade with the pin pulled out. You would have thought Labour would have more nous than to put him forward as their standard bearer.
So few polls as there has been only modest movement over the last 18 months.
Which leads on to turn-out. If defeat for YES looks to be a foregone conclusion by polling day, I wonder how many YES supporters will stay home. It seems that YES has always banked on the least likely to vote coming out for them on the day. Only a perverse minority vote for a lost cause - many won't make the effort to be associated with failure. Without the Big Mo, it may prove to be a forlorn hope that these normal Can't Be Arsed supporters will change their habits of a lifetime. (For example, turnout in 2010 across all Glasgow seats ranged from 49% to 61%, mostly in the low 50%'s. A CBA Party stronghold.)
If so, the NO winning margin might be bigger than current polling suggests.
Fantasy land , every single YES supporter will be out on the day and for sure there will be no sign of NO being a foregone conclusion. Are you really as stupid as your posts suggest. Even the homeless are registering to vote and guess what they don't feel Better Together.
" Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
Too often employers require the candidate has a degree from Oxbridge or the alma mater of whoever makes the decision. The best way to get a job is to know someone who can get you a job, or at least get you an interview. Internships are powerful things.
Funnily enough, none of these factors increases social mobility.
Indeed, so which party to support? Or is it a sad conclusion that none of the UK parties with a prospect of power will do anything other than consolidate their self-interest... Even worse, is this an inevitable consequence of democracy?
" Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
How do you know what employers want? In your own field (marketing financial services, I suppose) of course, but beyond that?
Currently my field is hi-tech global consultancy - providing technical solutions for major clients in energy, chemicals, food, pharmaceuticals and engineering etc. At present we are working with clients in Mexico, Saudi Arabia, China, Angola, Ghana, and Germany.
" Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
Too often employers require the candidate has a degree from Oxbridge or the alma mater of whoever makes the decision. The best way to get a job is to know someone who can get you a job, or at least get you an interview. Internships are powerful things.
Funnily enough, none of these factors increases social mobility.
Indeed, so which party to support? Or is it a sad conclusion that none of the UK parties with a prospect of power will do anything other than consolidate their self-interest... Even worse, is this an inevitable consequence of democracy?
The purpose of democracy is To Kick The Bastards Out.
The problem with democracy is that it is possible to do so too often, thereby creating the "missed bus? there'll be another one alone in a minute" syndrome amongst mandarins and Managing Directors.
If only people operated the way libertarian free-marketeers wish them to (perfect information, head always rules heart) the "invisible hand" would do away with the need for any group of individuals to hold power. For it is the exercise of power which is the true problem, not least because it cloaks itself in (supposedly unwarranted & unwarrantable) privilege.
So few polls as there has been only modest movement over the last 18 months.
Which leads on to turn-out. If defeat for YES looks to be a foregone conclusion by polling day, I wonder how many YES supporters will stay home. It seems that YES has always banked on the least likely to vote coming out for them on the day. Only a perverse minority vote for a lost cause - many won't make the effort to be associated with failure. Without the Big Mo, it may prove to be a forlorn hope that these normal Can't Be Arsed supporters will change their habits of a lifetime. (For example, turnout in 2010 across all Glasgow seats ranged from 49% to 61%, mostly in the low 50%'s. A CBA Party stronghold.)
If so, the NO winning margin might be bigger than current polling suggests.
Fantasy land , every single YES supporter will be out on the day and for sure there will be no sign of NO being a foregone conclusion. Are you really as stupid as your posts suggest. Even the homeless are registering to vote and guess what they don't feel Better Together.
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
These Police Commissioners have not exactly been democracy's high point.
Although this particular example does look to have been a grenade with the pin pulled out. You would have thought Labour would have more nous than to put him forward as their standard bearer.
The main theme of the early news this morning, was 1400 cases of abuse and only 5 arrests - why? So who will instigate an investigation into S Yorks police - Mrs May?
A councillor who promoted Wright's election talked about learning lessons and ensuring that the past was not repeated, but was careful to omit saying anything about the people who were responsible for the past.
MalcolmG The Yes ad just looked like a cheesy BT ad, most of the arguments made there, wealthier than the UK as a whole, get the governments we vote for etc could be applied to an independent Surrey which would never have Labour governments it did not vote for again
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / soveriegn / succesful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
Patrick, you realise that your "readjustment" will kill a lot of people, don't you? The old and/or dim can't do it. But perhaps that is precisely what attracts you to "readjustment"...
Sad old man like No campaign , wishing for a bygone era that unionist troughers will never bring back. We will rid our country of the parasites and run our own affairs.
MalcolmG The Yes ad just looked like a cheesy BT ad, most of the arguments made there, wealthier than the UK as a whole, get the governments we vote for etc could be applied to an independent Surrey which would never have Labour governments it did not vote for again
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
If YES outlined a scenario as you have given - 5 to 15 years of pain for a better future (and who can forecast global events in 15 years time) - do you think that that would be a vote winner?
So few polls as there has been only modest movement over the last 18 months.
Which leads on to turn-out. If defeat for YES looks to be a foregone conclusion by polling day, I wonder how many YES supporters will stay home. It seems that YES has always banked on the least likely to vote coming out for them on the day. Only a perverse minority vote for a lost cause - many won't make the effort to be associated with failure. Without the Big Mo, it may prove to be a forlorn hope that these normal Can't Be Arsed supporters will change their habits of a lifetime. (For example, turnout in 2010 across all Glasgow seats ranged from 49% to 61%, mostly in the low 50%'s. A CBA Party stronghold.)
If so, the NO winning margin might be bigger than current polling suggests.
Fantasy land , every single YES supporter will be out on the day and for sure there will be no sign of NO being a foregone conclusion. Are you really as stupid as your posts suggest. Even the homeless are registering to vote and guess what they don't feel Better Together.
There's your slogan:
Scotland: A Homeland for the Homeless
Just what I would expect from a sad sack unionist parasite like you , keep on blood sucking when you are not hanging about outside Kate Bush's house trying to kid on you are something.
MalcolmG The Yes ad just looked like a cheesy BT ad, most of the arguments made there, wealthier than the UK as a whole, get the governments we vote for etc could be applied to an independent Surrey which would never have Labour governments it did not vote for again
Throughout that emetic Yes ad the hammy actors keep on quoting figures in the pound sterling which rather rubs in Salmond's central failure.
There he goes....telling fibs again....you do wonder why he keeps doing it:
David Cameron will deliver a clear message to the leader of the Scottish independence campaign Alex Salmond today, warning there will not be a currency union under any circumstances if Scots vote Yes in the 18 September referendum. It comes despite Salmond’s claim that the Yes campaign has the edge and that Scotland would keep the pound no matter what.
" Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
Too often employers require the candidate has a degree from Oxbridge or the alma mater of whoever makes the decision. The best way to get a job is to know someone who can get you a job, or at least get you an interview. Internships are powerful things.
Funnily enough, none of these factors increases social mobility.
Indeed, so which party to support? Or is it a sad conclusion that none of the UK parties with a prospect of power will do anything other than consolidate their self-interest... Even worse, is this an inevitable consequence of democracy?
Well, Michael Gove recognised it was a problem, so Conservative. But he did nothing to address it, and David Cameron auctions internships to his rich chums, so not Conservative.
A lot of the time, it may be cock-up as much as conspiracy. A lot of older solicitors, for instance, would have qualified by articles with the council, and evening classes. Now, law is an all-graduate affair, along with most other professions.
Employers need creative thinkers! So schools concentrate on that rather than oppressively correcting spelling or grammar. Then it turns out employers didn't really mean it (or their HR departments did not get the memo) and so the best jobs go to the people who speak grammatically in nice accents.
Personal statements on university applications. Again, sounds fine and fair and progressive but favours the children of the rich and well-connected who are more likely to have done interesting and relevant things.
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
Patrick , you tell it well. The hard bit will be the initial stage when things may be a bit hairy and that will depend on many things , not least how rUK and iScotland decide to work with each other. I think it will be more reasonable on both sides but then I am an optimist and would think both sides will try their best to do what is right for people given our 300 years history and being so entwined. I am not for gloom and doom.
MalcolmG Was neither positive nor negative, just pointing out that the Yes arguments could just as easily be put to Surrey which does not demand independence every time it has a Labour government despite not having any Labour MPs even in 1997 or 2001
" Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
Remember reading a study saying this isn't true, that social mobility is much as it should be. Anyone with experience of how universities and business knows they hire on a meritocratic basis except for affirmative action.
You should read Gregory Clark's The son also rises.
This is an area that needs looking into but the question is why do we discriminate against people for the racial and sexual orientation, and what is the cost to society of affirmative action?
7:43AM edited 7:43AM Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?
There was evidence recently, though, that overall, the financial benefits that are derived from being educated privately are fairly limited.
Public life would still be dominated by the upper middle classes regardless of where they were educated.
" Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
Too often employers require the candidate has a degree from Oxbridge or the alma mater of whoever makes the decision. The best way to get a job is to know someone who can get you a job, or at least get you an interview. Internships are powerful things.
Funnily enough, none of these factors increases social mobility.
Indeed, so which party to support? Or is it a sad conclusion that none of the UK parties with a prospect of power will do anything other than consolidate their self-interest... Even worse, is this an inevitable consequence of democracy?
You may not agree with the precise details of the plans, but at least Gove and IDS tried to take on the vested interests that failed our kids and the poorest in society for the last 30 years and more.
People who live on welfare are acting rationally under the old system - but it was corrosive to their social and psychological well-being. Making sure that they are incentivised to get back into the mainstream is hugely important.
And the old education system has been a disaster for a generation of kids. There is so much wasted talent in the UK that it just horrifies me.
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
. The hard bit will be the initial stage when things may be a bit hairy and that will depend on many things , not least how rUK and iScotland decide to work with each other. .
Indeed! But has the SNP said any of this?
No.
And threatening to renege on debts to a club, you have just opted to leave, if you don't get your own way is not a great start to a new relationship....
Another busy day on Betfair: over £2.2 million now matched on the IndyRef market, but despite constant trading prices have not moved.
Do you have a sense of how much was bet in the last, say, day or week?
Yes. Approx £300,000 has been matched during the last 3 days. That is much more than the total matched on nearly every other current Betfair political market during the entire lifetime each market.
We all know why there are no IndyRef polls being published.
Punters beware!
You mean like the YESNP one on women and the NHS?
There have in fact been two polls among pensioners/over 50s published in the last few days, but I understand why you may not wish to dwell on them.....
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
Indeed. Malcolm's advert was a bit motherhood & apple pie with a dash of magic money tree. The most interesting person was the student - he was making the case that it is just better to be independent & then Scots can make their own decisions.
That seems to me to be the only basis for making a choice: do you think the benefits of being one partner in a stronger unit outweigh the benefits of the ability to select precisely the option that you want to.
As ever, the devil will be in the details. But technical universities seem an obvious route forwards. ----------- I took an interest in part of this when I was in Parliament, exploring the idea of having some courses whose content was strongly influenced by employers. The deal would be:
1. An employer X who consistently finds it hard to get the right sort of British graduates would explain what they needed to university Y. 2. Y would develop a course designed to meet X's needs while retaining sufficient breadth to avoid the student being tied to X (e.g. if it was Microsoft, the course couldn't be just tied to MS software). 3. X would pay some of the fees and offer a 1-year contract to any graduate with a 2-1 result or better.
What would be in it for the student is a guaranteed job offer - no compulsion to take it, but nice to know it's there. X would pay some money but solve his recuitment problem. And the university would attract more students.
The companies I talked to were very interested, as were students. But there was strong resistance from academics, who felt it was a slippery slope towards making universities a tool of industry instead of a tool of knowledge.
Perhaps technical universities as proposed would look on it more positively?
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / soveriegn / succesful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
Patrick, you realise that your "readjustment" will kill a lot of people, don't you? The old and/or dim can't do it. But perhaps that is precisely what attracts you to "readjustment"...
You do realise that you are the *only* person on this website that posts about killing other people? Usually in the form of accusing other people of wanting to do that.
Have you considered talking to someone about that?
People who live on welfare are acting rationally under the old system - but it was corrosive to their social and psychological well-being. Making sure that they are incentivised to get back into the mainstream is hugely important.
Why is this not equally true of pensioners? Neoclassical economics doesn't take account of people's age.
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / soveriegn / succesful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
Patrick, you realise that your "readjustment" will kill a lot of people, don't you? The old and/or dim can't do it. But perhaps that is precisely what attracts you to "readjustment"...
SeanF A few more grammar schools would help, some grammars regularly beat private schools at the top of the league table, Germany has them, even Finland selects at 16
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
. The hard bit will be the initial stage when things may be a bit hairy and that will depend on many things , not least how rUK and iScotland decide to work with each other. .
Indeed! But has the SNP said any of this?
No.
And threatening to renege on debts to a club, you have just opted to leave, if you don't get your own way is not a great start to a new relationship....
Same old broken record, you never actually listen to what is actually being said. You constantly whinge about political posturing. You are either so fixated on your Tory mania or are very stupid/obtuse. Sensible people can filter the obvious posturing by both sides and realise what is happening. It will all change when reality hits, then they actually have to do something. Then lies and half truths will not cut it.
People who live on welfare are acting rationally under the old system - but it was corrosive to their social and psychological well-being. Making sure that they are incentivised to get back into the mainstream is hugely important.
Why is this not equally true of pensioners? Neoclassical economics doesn't take account of people's age.
Because society has chosen that people should have the option to retire at a point in time.
If people want, as individuals, to work part or full time to supplement their income that is entirely up to them.
But where there are pensioners who, for whatever reason, are not participating in society then it is important to try to engage with them. And there are some very good, very innovative organisations that do this.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
Add to that the flight of capital following an independence vote - and then the flight of the tax-paying class following their capital out.
If you are currently a 45% tax payer in Scotland, you can expect a world of pain - as you and the 100,000 others are required to plug the financial gap. Anyone who stays must really love Scotland....
Note also that Cameron can come come up to crawl to selected "Business Leaders" but not to speak to the Scottish people rather says it all. Nice to see they have been collared by the authorities and warned they will be prosecuted if more than £10K is spent on it. Accordingly they have axed the invitations of the minions and cancelled the caviar. Dave will need to make do with pie and chips.
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
Indeed. Malcolm's advert was a bit motherhood & apple pie with a dash of magic money tree. The most interesting person was the student - he was making the case that it is just better to be independent & then Scots can make their own decisions.
That seems to me to be the only basis for making a choice: do you think the benefits of being one partner in a stronger unit outweigh the benefits of the ability to select precisely the option that you want to.
Charles, I think the word you were looking for was aspirational.
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / soveriegn / succesful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
Patrick, you realise that your "readjustment" will kill a lot of people, don't you? The old and/or dim can't do it. But perhaps that is precisely what attracts you to "readjustment"...
Fruitcake ??, why would it kill anyone.
Starvation. Rooflessness. Eating from food banks and dying of food poisoning. It happens - in a small way - already.
Or perhaps you think the reason Thatcher didn't abolish the welfare system was because she was some kind of closet leftie.
Interesting snippet tucked away in the small print (of the paper edition) of the Glasgow Herald - the only Scottish newspaper to increase its circulation is the Sunday Herald, and that is because it has abandoned its pro-union stance.
Note also that Cameron can come come up to crawl to selected "Business Leaders" but not to speak to the Scottish people rather says it all. Nice to see they have been collared by the authorities and warned they will be prosecuted if more than £10K is spent on it. Accordingly they have axed the invitations of the minions and cancelled the caviar. Dave will need to make do with pie and chips.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
Add to that the flight of capital following an independence vote - and then the flight of the tax-paying class following their capital out.
If you are currently a 45% tax payer in Scotland, you can expect a world of pain - as you and the 100,000 others are required to plug the financial gap. Anyone who stays must really love Scotland....
I do and I will be staying like most if not all others. We are not all greedy blood suckers up here, it is not all about money.
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
Indeed. Malcolm's advert was a bit motherhood & apple pie with a dash of magic money tree. The most interesting person was the student - he was making the case that it is just better to be independent & then Scots can make their own decisions.
That seems to me to be the only basis for making a choice: do you think the benefits of being one partner in a stronger unit outweigh the benefits of the ability to select precisely the option that you want to.
Charles, I think the word you were looking for was aspirational.
No - increased social provision is not "aspirational".
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
. The hard bit will be the initial stage when things may be a bit hairy and that will depend on many things , not least how rUK and iScotland decide to work with each other. .
Indeed! But has the SNP said any of this?
No.
And threatening to renege on debts to a club, you have just opted to leave, if you don't get your own way is not a great start to a new relationship....
Same old broken record, you never actually listen to what is actually being said. You constantly whinge about political posturing. You are either so fixated on your Tory mania or are very stupid/obtuse. Sensible people can filter the obvious posturing by both sides and realise what is happening. It will all change when reality hits, then they actually have to do something. Then lies and half truths will not cut it.
I fear Malcolm dear, the posturing, lies and half truths are mainly coming from the mighty Eck - why would Cameron want to make an already virtually impossible sale of a currency Union to the 3:1 opposed RUK electorate even more difficult by repeating the claim AGAIN today - I guess you missed Eck's Faisal Islam car crash on Sky news.....
As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
In Jurassic and Cretaceous times, dinosaurs ruled the world. There was no meritocracy, no space for a nimbler, more intelligent species to develop.
What was needed was a cataclysm.
That is why the generation after the Second World War was the most socially mobile we have ever known.
All organized systems need cataclysms to wipe out the top layer so that those below can grow and develop. This prevents evolutionary cul-de-sacs and dead-ends.
Political parties all try to cement their stranglehold on power, and are the opposite of what is needed.
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / soveriegn / succesful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
Patrick, you realise that your "readjustment" will kill a lot of people, don't you? The old and/or dim can't do it. But perhaps that is precisely what attracts you to "readjustment"...
Fruitcake ??, why would it kill anyone.
Starvation. Rooflessness. Eating from food banks and dying of food poisoning. It happens - in a small way - already.
Or perhaps you think the reason Thatcher didn't abolish the welfare system was because she was some kind of closet leftie.
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
. The hard bit will be the initial stage when things may be a bit hairy and that will depend on many things , not least how rUK and iScotland decide to work with each other. .
Indeed! But has the SNP said any of this?
No.
And threatening to renege on debts to a club, you have just opted to leave, if you don't get your own way is not a great start to a new relationship....
something. Then lies and half truths will not cut it.
I fear Malcolm dear, the posturing, lies and half truths are mainly coming from the mighty Eck - why would Cameron want to make an already virtually impossible sale of a currency Union to the 3:1 opposed RUK electorate even more difficult by repeating the claim AGAIN today - I guess you missed Eck's Faisal Islam car crash on Sky news.....
I will wait for the real thing , rather than your fantasies. What will be will be and whether it is CU or not CU we will do OK. You should not concern yourself given you are a foreigner it is of no concern to you.
Scottish children had always been punished for using Scots idioms and locutions in school.
Standard English was thumped into you. But by the 1980s, publishers wanted literature to reflect the demotic speech of ordinary folk.
"They realised there was a market for work in which we talked about ourselves in our own terms," says Liz Lochhead, one of Scotland's most celebrated poets and playwrights.
"And then with the first failed referendum [on devolution in 1979] there really was, afterwards, a sort of sense of depression, which then expressed itself in a sense of let's get on with it, and... a revival of Scottish identity."
Perhaps technical universities as proposed would look on it more positively?
Didn't they used to be called Polytechnics....
Indeed!
Thought I'd pop by to see what the prospects are for Indy ref - I can't believe after all this time, it's almost finally over! Yippee!
This Rotherham business is appalling - and thanks to those who took the time to read/quote chunks of the report here. Most useful and informed as always. I see that the Guardian deleted over 2000 comments under a related story yesterday afternoon. Good to see some things don't change :^ )
As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
In Jurassic and Cretaceous times, dinosaurs ruled the world. There was no meritocracy, no space for a nimbler, more intelligent species to develop.
What was needed was a cataclysm.
That is why the generation after the Second World War was the most socially mobile we have ever known.
All organized systems need cataclysms to wipe out the top layer so that those below can grow and develop. This prevents evolutionary cul-de-sacs and dead-ends.
Political parties all try to cement their stranglehold on power, and are the opposite of what is needed.
I say, old fruit, that's unfair to dinosaurs! They were extremely intelligent and mobile. The mammals which took over were around for just as long and were no more nimble/intelligent, but yes, they had to wait for the cataclysm.
Incidentally (and relevantly to the topic) you ought to be supporting Yes - the fragmentation of the party system in Scotland is fascinating to behold even as it stands so far.
CBI Scotland scales back annual dinner after watchdog rules it pro-UK campaign event
One of Britain’s largest business groups has been forced to radically scale back its annual dinner in Scotland after the electoral watchdog ruled it is a Unionist campaign event in the independence referendum.
... Relations with the nationalists reached a nadir earlier this year when the organisation, which represents around 1,200 businesses in Scotland, decided to register with the commission as a supporter of the Better Together campaign. This would have allowed it to spend more than £10,000 during the referendum campaign, but it withdrew its registration documents after a series of publicly-funded organisations, including several universities, resigned their membership of the business group.
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
That seems to me to be the only basis for making a choice: do you think the benefits of being one partner in a stronger unit outweigh the benefits of the ability to select precisely the option that you want to.
If only the SNP had framed the debate in that way they could have avoided the elephant traps they repeatedly blundered into - and there might have been an intelligent debate.
Instead we got "It'll be almost exactly the same, except we'll call all the shots and spend more"
That will not go down in history alongside "Give me Liberty or give me death", "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" or "Quit India"!
Andrew Neil (@afneil) 28/08/2014 07:56 Reminded: Rotherham Council took 3 East European children from Ukip foster parents because Ukip agst ‘active promotion of multiculturalism’.
Interesting snippet tucked away in the small print (of the paper edition) of the Glasgow Herald - the only Scottish newspaper to increase its circulation is the Sunday Herald, and that is because it has abandoned its pro-union stance.
" Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
Remember reading a study saying this isn't true, that social mobility is much as it should be. Anyone with experience of how universities and business knows they hire on a meritocratic basis except for affirmative action.
You should read Gregory Clark's The son also rises.
This is an area that needs looking into but the question is why do we discriminate against people for the racial and sexual orientation, and what is the cost to society of affirmative action?
At present we have a student with us completing his Masters who originates from Chennai - we will have to decide in October whether to sponsor him with immigration or not. He came from Sheffield Uni very raw and not really employable and with no initiative. After taking a lot of our expensive time, he has improved but at present the jury is out as his English is just passable and he could not be client facing for that reason, but as we want to open branch in Mumbai, then we may need to think again.
However, we only employ people who are good enough, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race or creed.
NickP.
At one time major UK industrial companies used to sponsor students, with long vacs or even a gap year spent working with them. Now we have a lot fewer industrial majors in the UK, but I believe these sponsorships were quite successful and only sent students to unis whose course standards met their approval.
The problem is that too many Techs were converted to unis, we need some of them to convert back to techs to support the local population who could still live at home and so reduce the costs of post-school education.
Scottish children had always been punished for using Scots idioms and locutions in school.
Standard English was thumped into you. But by the 1980s, publishers wanted literature to reflect the demotic speech of ordinary folk.
"They realised there was a market for work in which we talked about ourselves in our own terms," says Liz Lochhead, one of Scotland's most celebrated poets and playwrights.
"And then with the first failed referendum [on devolution in 1979] there really was, afterwards, a sort of sense of depression, which then expressed itself in a sense of let's get on with it, and... a revival of Scottish identity."
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
That seems to me to be the only basis for making a choice: do you think the benefits of being one partner in a stronger unit outweigh the benefits of the ability to select precisely the option that you want to.
If only the SNP had framed the debate in that way they could have avoided the elephant traps they repeatedly blundered into - and there might have been an intelligent debate.
Instead we got "It'll be almost exactly the same, except we'll call all the shots and spend more"
That will not go down in history alongside "Give me Liberty or give me death", "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" or "Quit India"!
You mean , that is what we English heard , as we were not really listening to what Scotland said as we are smug pompous arses and just laughed it off and said the benefits junkies will vote NO.
As ever, the devil will be in the details. But technical universities seem an obvious route forwards. ----------- I took an interest in part of this when I was in Parliament, exploring the idea of having some courses whose content was strongly influenced by employers. The deal would be:
1. An employer X who consistently finds it hard to get the right sort of British graduates would explain what they needed to university Y. 2. Y would develop a course designed to meet X's needs while retaining sufficient breadth to avoid the student being tied to X (e.g. if it was Microsoft, the course couldn't be just tied to MS software). 3. X would pay some of the fees and offer a 1-year contract to any graduate with a 2-1 result or better.
What would be in it for the student is a guaranteed job offer - no compulsion to take it, but nice to know it's there. X would pay some money but solve his recuitment problem. And the university would attract more students.
The companies I talked to were very interested, as were students. But there was strong resistance from academics, who felt it was a slippery slope towards making universities a tool of industry instead of a tool of knowledge.
Perhaps technical universities as proposed would look on it more positively?
As I have mentioned passim, an SME company of my acquaintance tried doing exactly this in the programming world. UK universities talked to were just not interested, but one in Eastern Europe was. Apparently (and this is second-hand info) the arrangement is working rather well, but the graduates are employed in that country, not the UK.
I have no idea if the problem in the UK was the academics or the business model.
Interesting snippet tucked away in the small print (of the paper edition) of the Glasgow Herald - the only Scottish newspaper to increase its circulation is the Sunday Herald, and that is because it has abandoned its pro-union stance.
Note to newspaper owners: if you want to sell more papers in Scotland, there is one very straightforward route to go, back Yes.
Exactly, TBF they do claim the colour mag has something to do with it, but when one compares that with the Scotsman ...
I really knew the Scotsman had gone too far when (1) it airbrushed that infamous swastika on a photo made very well known by being used on the cover of Tom Devine's modern history of Scotland, and still more (2) when it splashed, as its frontpage story, a poll that was so bad it wasn;t even a voodoo one but just a marketing exercise by a financial services company - you will recall it, it was the one which claimed that 16 and 17 year olds were overwhelmingly no.
Of course a certain poster of this parish promptly recommended that Scotsman story to all of us, despite the fact it took about 4 minutes on the net to debunk it.
Todays argument by the YES camp is that if Cameron wins next time and holds his EU referendum and it ends with us leaving it is so dangerous to Scottish business that it should override everything.
I have to say it's a very powerful argument and one that would weigh very heavily if I had the vote. I would consider it a disaster if the rest of the UK left the EU and it would be a top priority to prevent it happening
I can't grasp the premise behind Gordon Browns, "endless poverty" speech at all. Whilst I agree with him on Salmond's economic plans, no one is being asked to elect Alex Salmond as dictator for life, like a modern Caesar.
Isn't the referendum about the Scottish people having the freedom to elect a government of their choice and to live with the consequences ?
Arguing against SNP policy is totally missing the point.
Todays argument by the YES camp that if Cameron wins next time and holds his EU referendum and it ends with us leaving is more dangerous to Scottish business than anything.
I have to say it's a very powerful argument and one that would weigh very heavily if I had the vote. I would consider it a disaster if the rest of the UK left the EU and it would be a top priority to prevent it happening
Quite so. I see reports that (1) business surveys show Brexit as a much more serious problem for Scotland than indy, and (2) companies are actively planning to pull out of London (e.g. by setting up new offices in Dublin).
Perhaps technical universities as proposed would look on it more positively?
Didn't they used to be called Polytechnics....
Indeed!
Thought I'd pop by to see what the prospects are for Indy ref - I can't believe after all this time, it's almost finally over! Yippee!
This Rotherham business is appalling - and thanks to those who took the time to read/quote chunks of the report here. Most useful and informed as always. I see that the Guardian deleted over 2000 comments under a related story yesterday afternoon. Good to see some things don't change :^ )
Actually we've all been jolly rude about YES because the currency plans are incoherent. And indeed they are. An independent Scotland would intially suffer alot.
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
That seems to me to be the only basis for making a choice: do you think the benefits of being one partner in a stronger unit outweigh the benefits of the ability to select precisely the option that you want to.
If only the SNP had framed the debate in that way they could have avoided the elephant traps they repeatedly blundered into - and there might have been an intelligent debate.
Instead we got "It'll be almost exactly the same, except we'll call all the shots and spend more"
That will not go down in history alongside "Give me Liberty or give me death", "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" or "Quit India"!
You mean , that is what we English heard , as we were not really listening to what Scotland said as we are smug pompous arses and just laughed it off and said the benefits junkies will vote NO.
No, Salmond's 'don't scare the horses" strategy will be pored over for years to come - as either how to lose a referendum, or how to squeak it and face an uncomfortable aftermath.....
And I notice you are resorting to "more Scottish than thou" - a clear sign of nerves...
Interesting snippet tucked away in the small print (of the paper edition) of the Glasgow Herald - the only Scottish newspaper to increase its circulation is the Sunday Herald, and that is because it has abandoned its pro-union stance.
Mr. Roger, those most loudly claiming leaving the EU would be a disaster said much the same about a failure to join the euro, which turned out to be a failure in the same sense as one fails to thrust one's knackers between a lion's jaws.
I can't grasp the premise behind Gordon Browns, "endless poverty" speech at all. Whilst I agree with him on Salmond's economic plans, no one is being asked to elect Alex Salmond as dictator for life, like a modern Caesar.
Isn't the referendum about the Scottish people having the freedom to elect a government of their choice and to live with the consequences ?
Arguing against SNP policy is totally missing the point.
Brown hates Salmond and the SNP and would rather ruin Labour forever rather than accept that some of what he says may be right. The man is not right in the head , his ego has ensured Scottish Labour is dead. It will be interesting to see what the new Scottish Labour party looks like after independence.
Interesting snippet tucked away in the small print (of the paper edition) of the Glasgow Herald - the only Scottish newspaper to increase its circulation is the Sunday Herald, and that is because it has abandoned its pro-union stance.
Note to newspaper owners: if you want to sell more papers in Scotland, there is one very straightforward route to go, back Yes.
SUN , has been very Scottish for the last 3 days , maybe Rupert has seen the numbers. He usually gets in quick when it starts to become very obvious.
Indeed. Even the Daily Record, which used to print SLab press releases unedited, has been remarkably even-handed some days. A bit patchy, but they have seen the writing on the wall. An awful lot of their journos will be very well aware of what is happening in the private polling that is constantly being conducted.
Andrew Neil (@afneil) 28/08/2014 07:56 Reminded: Rotherham Council took 3 East European children from Ukip foster parents because Ukip agst ‘active promotion of multiculturalism’.
Yep, they didn't have any other, more important, child protection issues at the time.
Comments
7:43AM edited 7:43AM
Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?
" Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?"
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
So Malcolm is right, the rest of us are wrong, the currency issue is a minor technical detail or a complete red herring and the result will be YES 103% / NO -3%.
What we can conclude from his decision, is that the price of party loyalty is set at £85k.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28962144
Funnily enough, none of these factors increases social mobility.
Which leads on to turn-out. If defeat for YES looks to be a foregone conclusion by polling day, I wonder how many YES supporters will stay home. It seems that YES has always banked on the least likely to vote coming out for them on the day. Only a perverse minority vote for a lost cause - many won't make the effort to be associated with failure. Without the Big Mo, it may prove to be a forlorn hope that these normal Can't Be Arsed supporters will change their habits of a lifetime. (For example, turnout in 2010 across all Glasgow seats ranged from 49% to 61%, mostly in the low 50%'s. A CBA Party stronghold.)
If so, the NO winning margin might be bigger than current polling suggests.
Yes: 50%
No: 50%
Yes to win by a handful of votes.
Although this particular example does look to have been a grenade with the pin pulled out. You would have thought Labour would have more nous than to put him forward as their standard bearer.
Even the homeless are registering to vote and guess what they don't feel Better Together.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/archie-macpherson-upstages-gordon-brown-4118503
Say No,thanks to the stomach-turning SNP lies.
Hope versus Despair...........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbWnBX6BY5A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yjWWrPQ3Zg
Mr. G, or complacency versus caution. The Romans were very confident before the Battle of Arausio.
The problem with democracy is that it is possible to do so too often, thereby creating the "missed bus? there'll be another one alone in a minute" syndrome amongst mandarins and Managing Directors.
If only people operated the way libertarian free-marketeers wish them to (perfect information, head always rules heart) the "invisible hand" would do away with the need for any group of individuals to hold power. For it is the exercise of power which is the true problem, not least because it cloaks itself in (supposedly unwarranted & unwarrantable) privilege.
Scotland: A Homeland for the Homeless
But...we've been together for 300 years and this decision is a bit more historic. There is, of course, no reason why ultimately Scotland cannot be independent and successful. So perhaps the polls are wrong and the Scots are thinking longer term - and fancy running their own show.
Sure, if it's YES there'll be chaos. Financial services will flee south and there'll be terrible and immediate budget / cashflow / banking dramas. Currency, borrowing, deficits, EU membership - all look to become 'interesting' overnight. There might even be some profound 'caveat emptor' / 'WTF have we done to ourselves' gnashing and wailing for a few years.
But...Scotland would become independent (and really independent if it chooses to have its own currency and stay out of the EU). Financial indpendence might force financial common sense and a return to the Scotland of Adam Smith. The journey through lefty bankruptopia and into 'sound money' would only last for as long as the Scots take to realise a country can only borrow what it can repay.
So...hmmmm....perhaps Malc is right. Take the hit, suffer the short term profound readjustment of attitudes and expectations - but emerge free and sovereign on the other side.
(Just don't think for a minute that the free / sovereign / successful bit can be reached without travelling through the twilight zone on the way there).
A councillor who promoted Wright's election talked about learning lessons and ensuring that the past was not repeated, but was careful to omit saying anything about the people who were responsible for the past.
We will rid our country of the parasites and run our own affairs.
If YES outlined a scenario as you have given - 5 to 15 years of pain for a better future (and who can forecast global events in 15 years time) - do you think that that would be a vote winner?
David Cameron will deliver a clear message to the leader of the Scottish independence campaign Alex Salmond today, warning there will not be a currency union under any circumstances if Scots vote Yes in the 18 September referendum. It comes despite Salmond’s claim that the Yes campaign has the edge and that Scotland would keep the pound no matter what.
http://www.cityam.com/1409188409/cameron-scots-cannot-pilfer-pound
A lot of the time, it may be cock-up as much as conspiracy. A lot of older solicitors, for instance, would have qualified by articles with the council, and evening classes. Now, law is an all-graduate affair, along with most other professions.
Employers need creative thinkers! So schools concentrate on that rather than oppressively correcting spelling or grammar. Then it turns out employers didn't really mean it (or their HR departments did not get the memo) and so the best jobs go to the people who speak grammatically in nice accents.
Personal statements on university applications. Again, sounds fine and fair and progressive but favours the children of the rich and well-connected who are more likely to have done interesting and relevant things.
I am not for gloom and doom.
Also, someone should point out to Salmond the alphabet goes ABCD. Not ABBB. Three plan Bs is almost as worthless as none.
*sighs*
If Yes wins and my bank doesn't move south of the border I'll have to change my accounts. Bah.
You should read Gregory Clark's The son also rises.
This is an area that needs looking into but the question is why do we discriminate against people for the racial and sexual orientation, and what is the cost to society of affirmative action?
Punters beware!
Public life would still be dominated by the upper middle classes regardless of where they were educated.
People who live on welfare are acting rationally under the old system - but it was corrosive to their social and psychological well-being. Making sure that they are incentivised to get back into the mainstream is hugely important.
And the old education system has been a disaster for a generation of kids. There is so much wasted talent in the UK that it just horrifies me.
No.
And threatening to renege on debts to a club, you have just opted to leave, if you don't get your own way is not a great start to a new relationship....
There have in fact been two polls among pensioners/over 50s published in the last few days, but I understand why you may not wish to dwell on them.....
That seems to me to be the only basis for making a choice: do you think the benefits of being one partner in a stronger unit outweigh the benefits of the ability to select precisely the option that you want to.
Labour are making an interesting announcement on this today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28952647
As ever, the devil will be in the details. But technical universities seem an obvious route forwards.
-----------
I took an interest in part of this when I was in Parliament, exploring the idea of having some courses whose content was strongly influenced by employers. The deal would be:
1. An employer X who consistently finds it hard to get the right sort of British graduates would explain what they needed to university Y.
2. Y would develop a course designed to meet X's needs while retaining sufficient breadth to avoid the student being tied to X (e.g. if it was Microsoft, the course couldn't be just tied to MS software).
3. X would pay some of the fees and offer a 1-year contract to any graduate with a 2-1 result or better.
What would be in it for the student is a guaranteed job offer - no compulsion to take it, but nice to know it's there. X would pay some money but solve his recuitment problem. And the university would attract more students.
The companies I talked to were very interested, as were students. But there was strong resistance from academics, who felt it was a slippery slope towards making universities a tool of industry instead of a tool of knowledge.
Perhaps technical universities as proposed would look on it more positively?
Have you considered talking to someone about that?
People who live on welfare are acting rationally under the old system - but it was corrosive to their social and psychological well-being. Making sure that they are incentivised to get back into the mainstream is hugely important.
Why is this not equally true of pensioners? Neoclassical economics doesn't take account of people's age.
Social mobility not collapsed.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-by-edwin-s-rubenstein-193
Cost of affirmative action.
Sensible people can filter the obvious posturing by both sides and realise what is happening. It will all change when reality hits, then they actually have to do something. Then lies and half truths will not cut it.
If people want, as individuals, to work part or full time to supplement their income that is entirely up to them.
But where there are pensioners who, for whatever reason, are not participating in society then it is important to try to engage with them. And there are some very good, very innovative organisations that do this.
If you are currently a 45% tax payer in Scotland, you can expect a world of pain - as you and the 100,000 others are required to plug the financial gap. Anyone who stays must really love Scotland....
Or perhaps you think the reason Thatcher didn't abolish the welfare system was because she was some kind of closet leftie.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/herald-times-group-celebrates-double-success.1409145320
The PM can't speak to everyone directly
The student, possibly yes.
In Jurassic and Cretaceous times, dinosaurs ruled the world. There was no meritocracy, no space for a nimbler, more intelligent species to develop.
What was needed was a cataclysm.
That is why the generation after the Second World War was the most socially mobile we have ever known.
All organized systems need cataclysms to wipe out the top layer so that those below can grow and develop. This prevents evolutionary cul-de-sacs and dead-ends.
Political parties all try to cement their stranglehold on power, and are the opposite of what is needed.
Standard English was thumped into you. But by the 1980s, publishers wanted literature to reflect the demotic speech of ordinary folk.
"They realised there was a market for work in which we talked about ourselves in our own terms," says Liz Lochhead, one of Scotland's most celebrated poets and playwrights.
"And then with the first failed referendum [on devolution in 1979] there really was, afterwards, a sort of sense of depression, which then expressed itself in a sense of let's get on with it, and... a revival of Scottish identity."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-28882770
Thought I'd pop by to see what the prospects are for Indy ref - I can't believe after all this time, it's almost finally over! Yippee!
This Rotherham business is appalling - and thanks to those who took the time to read/quote chunks of the report here. Most useful and informed as always. I see that the Guardian deleted over 2000 comments under a related story yesterday afternoon. Good to see some things don't change :^ )
Incidentally (and relevantly to the topic) you ought to be supporting Yes - the fragmentation of the party system in Scotland is fascinating to behold even as it stands so far.
One of Britain’s largest business groups has been forced to radically scale back its annual dinner in Scotland after the electoral watchdog ruled it is a Unionist campaign event in the independence referendum.
... Relations with the nationalists reached a nadir earlier this year when the organisation, which represents around 1,200 businesses in Scotland, decided to register with the commission as a supporter of the Better Together campaign.
This would have allowed it to spend more than £10,000 during the referendum campaign, but it withdrew its registration documents after a series of publicly-funded organisations, including several universities, resigned their membership of the business group.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11059963/CBI-Scotland-scales-back-annual-dinner-after-watchdog-rules-it-pro-UK-campaign-event.html
Instead we got "It'll be almost exactly the same, except we'll call all the shots and spend more"
That will not go down in history alongside "Give me Liberty or give me death", "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" or "Quit India"!
28/08/2014 07:56
Reminded: Rotherham Council took 3 East European children from Ukip foster parents because Ukip agst ‘active promotion of multiculturalism’.
Note to newspaper owners: if you want to sell more papers in Scotland, there is one very straightforward route to go, back Yes.
At present we have a student with us completing his Masters who originates from Chennai - we will have to decide in October whether to sponsor him with immigration or not. He came from Sheffield Uni very raw and not really employable and with no initiative. After taking a lot of our expensive time, he has improved but at present the jury is out as his English is just passable and he could not be client facing for that reason, but as we want to open branch in Mumbai, then we may need to think again.
However, we only employ people who are good enough, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race or creed.
NickP.
At one time major UK industrial companies used to sponsor students, with long vacs or even a gap year spent working with them. Now we have a lot fewer industrial majors in the UK, but I believe these sponsorships were quite successful and only sent students to unis whose course standards met their approval.
The problem is that too many Techs were converted to unis, we need some of them to convert back to techs to support the local population who could still live at home and so reduce the costs of post-school education.
This also reminds me of the weans getting the tawse for speaking Scots in McIlvanney's fine novel Docherty.
I have no idea if the problem in the UK was the academics or the business model.
I really knew the Scotsman had gone too far when (1) it airbrushed that infamous swastika on a photo made very well known by being used on the cover of Tom Devine's modern history of Scotland, and still more (2) when it splashed, as its frontpage story, a poll that was so bad it wasn;t even a voodoo one but just a marketing exercise by a financial services company - you will recall it, it was the one which claimed that 16 and 17 year olds were overwhelmingly no.
Of course a certain poster of this parish promptly recommended that Scotsman story to all of us, despite the fact it took about 4 minutes on the net to debunk it.
I have to say it's a very powerful argument and one that would weigh very heavily if I had the vote. I would consider it a disaster if the rest of the UK left the EU and it would be a top priority to prevent it happening
Defender Cosmin Moti takes over in goal when keeper sent off saves two penalties and scores his own in shootout to send his team through
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/aug/28/champions-league-defender-saves-penalties-goal?CMP=twt_gu
Isn't the referendum about the Scottish people having the freedom to elect a government of their choice and to live with the consequences ?
Arguing against SNP policy is totally missing the point.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-carmichael-to-quit-if-yes-1-3523006
Good to 'see' you and trust all is well.
Report can be downloaded from: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham
And I notice you are resorting to "more Scottish than thou" - a clear sign of nerves...
Mr. Roger, those most loudly claiming leaving the EU would be a disaster said much the same about a failure to join the euro, which turned out to be a failure in the same sense as one fails to thrust one's knackers between a lion's jaws.
It will be interesting to see what the new Scottish Labour party looks like after independence.
A bit like the BBC in another context.