These are interesting numbers. Expected earnings (employment rate x average wage) by ethnicity.
Men:
Indian: £16,700 White Other: £15,600 White British: £15,200 Black African: £12,300 Black Caribbean: £12,200 Chinese: £11,400 Pakistani: £9,800 Bangladeshi: £8,400
Women:
Black Caribbean: £10,800 Indian: £10,200 Chinese: £10,100 White Other: £9,000 Black African: £7,900 White British: £7,800 Bangladeshi: £3,000 Pakistani: £2,600
"by ethnicity"
Always the most important thing for you Socrates, eh
"These are uncomfortable facts - better imply the person presenting them is racist."
You could work for Rotherham Council.
Interesting that the gender ratio for White British is almost the same as the highest/lowest ethnicity ratio for Men.
I was also surprised by Black Caribbean women topping the list. Possibly it's because they have the highest rates of single mothers, so a greater share need to work? Just a theory.
The numbers for Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are tremendously low, however. Dan Hodges asked this week why British Muslims hadn't integrated like other groups - well I think this is a big part of the answer. The vast majority of women from this background stay at home in traditional roles, get little exposure to wider British society, and bring up their kids in the culture of their country of origin. A large number of them are also first generation, given that 50% of the men marry women from the country of family origin.
Fascinating.
Any more stats "by ethnicity" you've got at your fingertips, Socrates?
Give over, Hugh.
Socrates can speak for himself but, if you disagree, try to engage with him rather than trying to non-so-subtly smear him.
He can't. The numbers themselves are hard facts. Just like the left-wing councillors in Rotherham couldn't argue with the facts on the ground there. They can't deal with reality so they try to smear the messenger pointing it out. It's intellectual bankruptcy.
This idea of a "Labour government dependent on Scottish MPs" is probably never going to arise, because the SNP are probably going to have a near-clean sweep of the Scottish seats in the event of a "Yes" vote. I'd imagine even most Scots who voted "No" would pretty quickly convert to the mindset of "well, if this is going to happen, we'd better atleast have the people who'll get the best deal for Scotland in the negotiations for us".
Agreed. Scots would want the best deal for Scotland, and I think Unionist voters wouldn't bother to turn out. Why vote for ghost parties that are destined to disappear in two year's time?
" has countries lasting for enormous lengths of time (which tends not to happen very much"
That's an interesting point that I has never even crossed my mind. In Europe how many countries can claim continuous existence as a unified state with more or less the same borders for a thousand years. England certainly, but after that I am struggling. Denmark, perhaps. Maybe you could make a case for Sweden? None of the big ones certainly; France, Germany, Italy, and Spain were all much later inventions. In fact going world wide its very hard to think of more than just Japan and China (and I am not too sure about the latter).
Hmm, Scotland is a better candidate than England (and before you mention 1707 you do know what the Treaty said, and you do call England an "unified state ... thousand years"). Berwick affects both equally but Wales is a lot bigger than the Shetlands and both were absorbed in that timescale!
Sweden has been very variable - used to own much of the Baltic, lost Norway a century ago. Denmark also very variable on that timescale, was it not?
Carnyx, the reason I didn't include Scotland was partially the fact that it has not functioned as an independent state for rather a long time (that is what all the present fuss is about after all) and partially that I was sure that it was such a state a thousand years ago. No disrespect, intended.
Sweden added territories and lost them again but its basic borders, ignoring the "colonies" have been very stable for a long time. Whether for the full thousand years I don't know. Ditto Denmark.
Egypt - obviously part of the Ottoman Empire for many years, but I understand it was pretty much run independently from Constantinople
20) I cannot see Labour accepting that under any circumstances.
It would taint Miliband even before his election to the extent he could lose the election and if after being elected he is only clinging to power because of his Scottish MPs chances are when they depart the remaining UK in large part would be baying for a No Confidence vote in him and his party which if delivered by the rest of Parliament would leave him seriously damaged for a subsequent election
The other consideration is how will Scotland react to independence. Could the Scots vote in considerably more SNP MPs to emphasise their backing of their new government in the wake of a Yes vote. It could be Miliband's Scottish temporary forces will be considerably less than previous Scottish Labour factions in Westminster?
He may well resist any attempts to delay the election but in doing so he will damage himself quite severely.
As for the comparison with Brown, that is a false comparison to a greater extent. Brown had been clearly beaten on votes and seats by Cameron and that fact would never change. In this case as a result of the Scottish influence Labour could start their term with more votes and more seats but end up with fewer votes and fewer seats and likely be forced to hold another election.
What's the point of holding an election knowing you are likely going to have another one in two years?
Not only that but if the Tories remain in power for another 12 months there is much risk for them. The negotiation with Scotland will not be easy and the English voters will expect Cameron to play hardball something he is not good at especially against someone as slippery as Salmond. Such negotiations could put considerable pressure on the cohesiveness of the Tory Party and on what's left of Cameron's reputation.
In addition Osborne would have to reveal his post election economic plan for the next term before the election or delay it 12 months. Either way that would put strain on the Treasury and give Labour a considerable heads up.
Not only that but what does Cameron do about his other referendum pledge? He would have to start negotiations with Brussels surely and that could split the Tory party in half on its own?
What of the Coalition? It would be difficult enough for Cameron to manage the Scottish negotiations and the Brussels negotiations but with Nick Clegg sitting on his shoulder?
It may serve Miliband to do the sensible thing offer to delay the election for a seat at the Scottish independence negotiating table and some other concessions regarding the Union breakup leaving Cameron with the problem of what to do.
If anything it may be Cameron who might not want to stay on, His chances in 2015 may prove to be far better than in 2016.
Both Labour and Tories need to think long term about how to act in the event of a Yes. For instance, the idea from some Tory backbenchers to delay the general election looks insane. I certainly can't see how Cameron could hang on in such a situation. For Labour, the idea of them forming a majority government reliant on the votes of Scottish MPs is similarly ridiculous. Both parties could do themselves massive long term damage if they tried either of those things.
A government of national unity might be the only option.
Under no circumstances would it be acceptable to have MPs for a foreign state shaping our government.
Care - timing getting a bit astray maybe? Not to mention confusing the existing UK Parliament at Westminster with a reconvened English Parliament?
In the event of a Yes: if your 'our' means the UK, then they wouldn't BE MPs for a foreign state before independence - and likewise there will be no MPs for EWNI. And till independence happens, the Scots are guaranteed representation in the UK Parliament. Vide Treaty of Union, and common decency and democracy.
Exactly the same could be argued, in fact, about English MPs shaping Scottish government (e.g. through the Barnett formula, so it's not just the Scottish Parliament).
Dundee was in Scotland this morning. Have i missed a cataclysmic event?
The bits of Scotland you recognise will always be such. There may be additional provinces that you find yourself owning. If for example G Brown was to be located in Kent at the point of independence then I'm sure we'd happily agree to Kent being a part of your nation rather than have the ghastly possibility that we own that awful man.
20) I cannot see Labour accepting that under any circumstances.
What's the point of holding an election knowing you are likely going to have another one in two years?
I can't see our parties looking that far ahead. Labour will be confident they can do enough in those years that even with another one they will do better.
Finally they're waking up to the problem I've highlighted, most recently here yesterday.
"So which bits of your manifesto, Mr Miliband, are you going to push through before your Scots MPs are culled, and you lose your majority/plurality in the House?"
"Umm..."
I really doubt Miliband would be that stupid. And if there was a yes vote, how many MPs would Labour likely get in Scotland? How about 59 SNP?
Quite. However, even if Labour were to get say 25 MPs for Scots constituencies, do the MPs actually have to resign when indy day comes? Can they be made to do so if they don't want?
I thought MPs were elected for the full term of a parliament irrespective of the constituency so unless a GE is called after indy day, there is no way of prising them out (even should the party leader wish them to). So if there is no GE then Labour MPs can stay on for the full term?
If that is a problem then extending the term for one year sorts that neatly.
Three must be a similar situation with peers.
What happened when Ireland left?
Peers of Ireland were not automatically members of the HoL anyway, I think they elected a representative number. I think that was allowed to continue until the last Irish representative peer died. Any Irish peer holding a British peerage and British citizenship was presumably allowed to continue in membership, which is I presume what will happen to Scottish peers (life peers are all Peers of the United Kingdon).
I imagine the "Act for the Expulsion of the Kingdom of the Scots from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will deal with the matter of Scotland no longer sending MPs to Westminster.
Wouldn't be amusing (if hardly a series of events I wish to occur) if Scotland voted Yes but then the Tories also had a revival of sorts in 2015, up to 2, possibly even 3 MPs in Scotland? Curse those mixed messages.
" has countries lasting for enormous lengths of time (which tends not to happen very much"
That's an interesting point that I has never even crossed my mind. In Europe how many countries can claim continuous existence as a unified state with more or less the same borders for a thousand years. England certainly, but after that I am struggling. Denmark, perhaps. Maybe you could make a case for Sweden? None of the big ones certainly; France, Germany, Italy, and Spain were all much later inventions. In fact going world wide its very hard to think of more than just Japan and China (and I am not too sure about the latter).
China is running at close to 1,000 years with its current boundaries (defined by Kubla Khan).
Obviously there was Han civilisation before that, but I'm not sure that anyone united the current landmass.
" has countries lasting for enormous lengths of time (which tends not to happen very much"
That's an interesting point that I has never even crossed my mind. In Europe how many countries can claim continuous existence as a unified state with more or less the same borders for a thousand years. England certainly, but after that I am struggling. Denmark, perhaps. Maybe you could make a case for Sweden? None of the big ones certainly; France, Germany, Italy, and Spain were all much later inventions. In fact going world wide its very hard to think of more than just Japan and China (and I am not too sure about the latter).
Hmm, Scotland is a better candidate than England (and before you mention 1707 you do know what the Treaty said, and you do call England an "unified state ... thousand years"). Berwick affects both equally but Wales is a lot bigger than the Shetlands and both were absorbed in that timescale!
Sweden has been very variable - used to own much of the Baltic, lost Norway a century ago. Denmark also very variable on that timescale, was it not?
Carnyx, the reason I didn't include Scotland was partially the fact that it has not functioned as an independent state for rather a long time (that is what all the present fuss is about after all) and partially that I was sure that it was such a state a thousand years ago. No disrespect, intended.
Sweden added territories and lost them again but its basic borders, ignoring the "colonies" have been very stable for a long time. Whether for the full thousand years I don't know. Ditto Denmark.
the unity of Denmark is usually credited to Harold Bluetooth* c 950 so over a thousand years. However a substantial proportion of Denmark (Scania) was lost to Sweden in 1658. Sweden itself was probably not unified until the twelfth century and Finland, an integral part of the Swedish Realm, was lost to Imperial Russia in the early years of the nineteenth century.
* yes the communications protocol is named after him and the Bluetooth logo is an HB bind-rune.
Finally they're waking up to the problem I've highlighted, most recently here yesterday.
"So which bits of your manifesto, Mr Miliband, are you going to push through before your Scots MPs are culled, and you lose your majority/plurality in the House?"
"Umm..."
I really doubt Miliband would be that stupid. And if there was a yes vote, how many MPs would Labour likely get in Scotland? How about 59 SNP?
Quite. However, even if Labour were to get say 25 MPs for Scots constituencies, do the MPs actually have to resign when indy day comes? Can they be made to do so if they don't want?
I thought MPs were elected for the full term of a parliament irrespective of the constituency so unless a GE is called after indy day, there is no way of prising them out (even should the party leader wish them to). So if there is no GE then Labour MPs can stay on for the full term?
If that is a problem then extending the term for one year sorts that neatly.
Three must be a similar situation with peers.
What happened when Ireland left?
Peers of Ireland were not automatically members of the HoL anyway, I think they elected a representative number. I think that was allowed to continue until the last Irish representative peer died. Any Irish peer holding a British peerage and British citizenship was presumably allowed to continue in membership, which is I presume what will happen to Scottish peers (life peers are all Peers of the United Kingdon).
I imagine the "Act for the Expulsion of the Kingdom of the Scots from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will deal with the matter of Scotland no longer sending MPs to Westminster.
Thanks re Ireland - very educational. And such a loophole re the MPs could indeed be sorted.
@RobWilson_RDG: I understand #Speaker has told No10 that he is withdrawing his letter to Her Majesty re apptmt of Carol Mills. The plot thickens.
The Speaker has lost the plot, He thought he could do what he wanted. He has now found out that Parliament won't have it. He is seriously damaged by this and lost his authority, Its a matter of time how long he manages to hold on.
This idea of a "Labour government dependent on Scottish MPs" is probably never going to arise, because the SNP are probably going to have a near-clean sweep of the Scottish seats in the event of a "Yes" vote. I'd imagine even most Scots who voted "No" would pretty quickly convert to the mindset of "well, if this is going to happen, we'd better atleast have the people who'll get the best deal for Scotland in the negotiations for us".
Agreed. Scots would want the best deal for Scotland, and I think Unionist voters wouldn't bother to turn out. Why vote for ghost parties that are destined to disappear in two year's time?
Nonsense Sean. We would move very quickly to implement the Murdo Fraser plan and create a separate Scottish Tory Party. Personally if we vote YES in a fortnight, I think David Cameron should move a Parliament Act bill to suspend Scotland's 59 constituencies from next year's Westminster election and do a deal with the Scottish Parliament whereby until Independence Day in March 2016, Scotland's role in UK legislation would be represented by the 56 Regional List MSPs.
Many of us will be working hard to ensure the SNP doesn't win the 2016 Scottish election so we get away from the current feeling of a One Party state under the SNP far worse than ever under Scottish Labour.
Finally they're waking up to the problem I've highlighted, most recently here yesterday.
"So which bits of your manifesto, Mr Miliband, are you going to push through before your Scots MPs are culled, and you lose your majority/plurality in the House?"
"Umm..."
I really doubt Miliband would be that stupid. And if there was a yes vote, how many MPs would Labour likely get in Scotland? How about 59 SNP?
I said here two or three years ago than we should all start thinking about the profound implications of a Yes vote.
Clean SNP sweep? Who knows, but one or two Labour MPs north of the border have already indicated they'll throw in the towel if Yes wins, which is helpful. If your thesis is right, then it's time to start heavily laying a Labour majority, surely...
And if the SNP don't sweep all before them, then we could be facing a Miliband government reliant on the political equivalent of Dead Men Walking. Then what?
This idea of a "Labour government dependent on Scottish MPs" is probably never going to arise, because the SNP are probably going to have a near-clean sweep of the Scottish seats in the event of a "Yes" vote. I'd imagine even most Scots who voted "No" would pretty quickly convert to the mindset of "well, if this is going to happen, we'd better atleast have the people who'll get the best deal for Scotland in the negotiations for us".
Agreed. Scots would want the best deal for Scotland, and I think Unionist voters wouldn't bother to turn out. Why vote for ghost parties that are destined to disappear in two year's time?
Nonsense Sean. We would move very quickly to implement the Murdo Fraser plan and create a separate Scottish Tory Party. Personally if we vote YES in a fortnight, I think David Cameron should move a Parliament Act bill to suspend Scotland's 59 constituencies from next year's Westminster election and do a deal with the Scottish Parliament whereby until Independence Day in March 2016, Scotland's role in UK legislation would be represented by the 56 Regional List MSPs.
Many of us will be working hard to ensure the SNP doesn't win the 2016 Scottish election so we get away from the current feeling of a One Party state under the SNP far worse than ever under Scottish Labour.
Mr Easterross, such a proposal is alas dubious, given the Caucus Race system set up by Labour: "Everyone has won, and everyone shall have a prize", said the Dodo. The success of the SNP in the FPTP constituency seats automatically meant a disproportionate number of Unionist MSPs in the List seats. Ergo List MSPs are by definition not representative.
Portugal must beat most other countries for consistent borders.
Malta? Wales?
Wales was unified only shortly before it was conquered by England, and it was an integral part of the Kingdom of England "England and Wales" until devolution. Parts of some marcher lordships were added to English counties (ie transferred from Wales to England). And Monmouthshire only became part of Wales in the 1970s.
Both Labour and Tories need to think long term about how to act in the event of a Yes. For instance, the idea from some Tory backbenchers to delay the general election looks insane. I certainly can't see how Cameron could hang on in such a situation. For Labour, the idea of them forming a majority government reliant on the votes of Scottish MPs is similarly ridiculous. Both parties could do themselves massive long term damage if they tried either of those things.
A government of national unity might be the only option.
Under no circumstances would it be acceptable to have MPs for a foreign state shaping our government.
Care - timing getting a bit astray maybe? Not to mention confusing the existing UK Parliament at Westminster with a reconvened English Parliament?
In the event of a Yes: if your 'our' means the UK, then they wouldn't BE MPs for a foreign state before independence - and likewise there will be no MPs for EWNI. And till independence happens, the Scots are guaranteed representation in the UK Parliament. Vide Treaty of Union, and common decency and democracy.
Exactly the same could be argued, in fact, about English MPs shaping Scottish government (e.g. through the Barnett formula, so it's not just the Scottish Parliament).
Happy to concede 'Care'
It wouldn't be an English Parliament - rUK for want of a better phrase. I rather think that they are foreign MPs if they're in the process of devolving. Government is about making decisions for the future after all.
If the Scots vote Yes then all Scottish MPs should absent themselves from the House of Commons, and certainly not stand for re-election. It would be intolerable for a minority to decide something and then have power over the majority. If the UK populace as a whole gets a vote in Scottish independence then it's different. As it stands if they vote to exclude themselves then that's precisely what the outcome should be.
Finally they're waking up to the problem I've highlighted, most recently here yesterday.
"So which bits of your manifesto, Mr Miliband, are you going to push through before your Scots MPs are culled, and you lose your majority/plurality in the House?"
"Umm..."
I really doubt Miliband would be that stupid. And if there was a yes vote, how many MPs would Labour likely get in Scotland? How about 59 SNP?
I said here two or three years ago than we should all start thinking about the profound implications of a Yes vote.
Clean SNP sweep? Who knows, but one or two Labour MPs north of the border have already indicated they'll throw in the towel if Yes wins, which is helpful. If your thesis is right, then it's time to start heavily laying a Labour majority, surely...
And if the SNP don't sweep all before them, then we could be facing a Miliband government reliant on the political equivalent of Dead Men Walking. Then what?
Constitutional Doomsday...
I don't think Ed is that dumb. Actually Easteross has made the point that Lab/Con/LD would form their own Scottish parties completely free of Westminster. I expect they would sit as MPs rather like the Northern Ireland ones do. They vote in parliament but aren't part of the government.
It would be suicidal for Miliband to try and form a government off the back of Scottish MPs whilst having to negotiate with Salmond. And for what? To be booted out of office come a general election in 2016/17?
Brian Souter is going down like a bucket of cold sick according to twitter after he appeared on a debate about Scottish independence on TV in Scotland.
Evening all. Re No 4 Ruth Davidson clearly said on the basis of current polling it is unlikely the Conservatives will get a majority next year.
Well I think we've always known the best we can hope for another hung parliament nexy uear with Con largest party and most seats, so now cat's been let out of the bag here.
I hope Scotland stays with us. But why would they? It's a perfectly viable nation state, it is ready. Malcolm's point this morning was strong: if the Scots vote No they will be the first country in the history of the Commonwealth to actively choose to be controlled by Westminster. Why on Earth would they?
Finally they're waking up to the problem I've highlighted, most recently here yesterday.
"So which bits of your manifesto, Mr Miliband, are you going to push through before your Scots MPs are culled, and you lose your majority/plurality in the House?"
"Umm..."
I really doubt Miliband would be that stupid. And if there was a yes vote, how many MPs would Labour likely get in Scotland? How about 59 SNP?
I said here two or three years ago than we should all start thinking about the profound implications of a Yes vote.
Clean SNP sweep? Who knows, but one or two Labour MPs north of the border have already indicated they'll throw in the towel if Yes wins, which is helpful. If your thesis is right, then it's time to start heavily laying a Labour majority, surely...
And if the SNP don't sweep all before them, then we could be facing a Miliband government reliant on the political equivalent of Dead Men Walking. Then what?
Constitutional Doomsday...
I don't think Ed is that dumb. Actually Easteross has made the point that Lab/Con/LD would form their own Scottish parties completely free of Westminster. I expect they would sit as MPs rather like the Northern Ireland ones do. They vote in parliament but aren't part of the government.
It would be suicidal for Miliband to try and form a government off the back of Scottish MPs whilst having to negotiate with Salmond. And for what? To be booted out of office come a general election in 2016/17?
I hope Scotland stays with us. But why would they? It's a perfectly viable nation state, it is ready. Malcolm's point this morning was strong: if the Scots vote No they will be the first country in the history of the Commonwealth to actively choose to be controlled by Westminster. Why on Earth would they?
20) I cannot see Labour accepting that under any circumstances.
What's the point of holding an election knowing you are likely going to have another one in two years?
I can't see our parties looking that far ahead. Labour will be confident they can do enough in those years that even with another one they will do better.
Then you are severely underestimating Labour's political ability or the depth of our economic woes. Labour will have little wiggle room economically when they take power. They won't be able to do much immediately. They would also immediately be immersed into the negotiations with Scotland with all the noise around that (which for Labour will likely attract allegations of conflicts of interest). The Tories would be muttering about the EU, Immigration would not go away. UKIP would be trying to infiltrate all Labour's WWC heartlands highlighting every contentious decision or idea. There would be the possibility of interest rates beginning to rise. 2016 and 2017 could be quite difficult years for any Government, which is fine if you are talking about a 5 year Parliament but with an election in year two? It would be extremely difficult.
In the event of a Scottish yes if it were me I'd seriously consider making a proposal to delay the election if I were Miliband. I'd certainly walk through it with my advisers.
Both Labour and Tories need to think long term about how to act in the event of a Yes. For instance, the idea from some Tory backbenchers to delay the general election looks insane. I certainly can't see how Cameron could hang on in such a situation. For Labour, the idea of them forming a majority government reliant on the votes of Scottish MPs is similarly ridiculous. Both parties could do themselves massive long term damage if they tried either of those things.
A government of national unity might be the only option.
Under no circumstances would it be acceptable to have MPs for a foreign state shaping our government.
Care - timing getting a bit astray maybe? Not to mention confusing the existing UK Parliament at Westminster with a reconvened English Parliament?
In the event of a Yes: if your 'our' means the UK, then they wouldn't BE MPs for a foreign state before independence - and likewise there will be no MPs for EWNI. And till independence happens, the Scots are guaranteed representation in the UK Parliament. Vide Treaty of Union, and common decency and democracy.
Exactly the same could be argued, in fact, about English MPs shaping Scottish government (e.g. through the Barnett formula, so it's not just the Scottish Parliament).
Happy to concede 'Care'
It wouldn't be an English Parliament - rUK for want of a better phrase. I rather think that they are foreign MPs if they're in the process of devolving. Government is about making decisions for the future after all.
If the Scots vote Yes then all Scottish MPs should absent themselves from the House of Commons, and certainly not stand for re-election. It would be intolerable for a minority to decide something and then have power over the majority. If the UK populace as a whole gets a vote in Scottish independence then it's different. As it stands if they vote to exclude themselves then that's precisely what the outcome should be.
Hmm, seemingly arguing for converting the UK Pmt to an EWNI one immediately on a Yes vote and not just waiting till Indy Day (yes, slip on my part re 'England', thanks).
Trouble I have with that is that Scotland at once is given the status of a colony - admittedly a temporary one on the way out. Taxation, wars, etc., can be imposed, but no representation is given. (Which also rather implies a clear commitment to independence from both sides by a specific date.)
On the other hand it might be possible to come to a special agreement to avoid these problems.
It would also minimise damage to Labour and LDs in England through being split across the border, which is another interesting point (obviously a minimal issue for Tories and not at all for SNP).
Portugal must beat most other countries for consistent borders.
Malta? Wales?
Wales was unified only shortly before it was conquered by England, and it was an integral part of the Kingdom of England "England and Wales" until devolution. Parts of some marcher lordships were added to English counties (ie transferred from Wales to England). And Monmouthshire only became part of Wales in the 1970s.
So what you're saying is that the entity known as Wales wasn't really an entity until recently and even if it was then there have been some border changes? I concede
I hope Scotland stays with us. But why would they? It's a perfectly viable nation state, it is ready. Malcolm's point this morning was strong: if the Scots vote No they will be the first country in the history of the Commonwealth to actively choose to be controlled by Westminster. Why on Earth would they?
This idea of a "Labour government dependent on Scottish MPs" is probably never going to arise, because the SNP are probably going to have a near-clean sweep of the Scottish seats in the event of a "Yes" vote. I'd imagine even most Scots who voted "No" would pretty quickly convert to the mindset of "well, if this is going to happen, we'd better atleast have the people who'll get the best deal for Scotland in the negotiations for us".
Agreed. Scots would want the best deal for Scotland, and I think Unionist voters wouldn't bother to turn out. Why vote for ghost parties that are destined to disappear in two year's time?
Nonsense Sean. We would move very quickly to implement the Murdo Fraser plan and create a separate Scottish Tory Party. Personally if we vote YES in a fortnight, I think David Cameron should move a Parliament Act bill to suspend Scotland's 59 constituencies from next year's Westminster election and do a deal with the Scottish Parliament whereby until Independence Day in March 2016, Scotland's role in UK legislation would be represented by the 56 Regional List MSPs.
Many of us will be working hard to ensure the SNP doesn't win the 2016 Scottish election so we get away from the current feeling of a One Party state under the SNP far worse than ever under Scottish Labour.
All that would be needed would be a bill to disenfranchise Scottish MPs from voting on any matter other than ones directly related to Scotland; disqualification must include matters of confidence and supply at UK level. An important consideration would be that independence would probably not take place by March 2016 - the issues will turn out to be very complex and the negotiations will be rancourous.
Portugal must beat most other countries for consistent borders.
Malta? Wales?
Wales was unified only shortly before it was conquered by England, and it was an integral part of the Kingdom of England "England and Wales" until devolution. Parts of some marcher lordships were added to English counties (ie transferred from Wales to England). And Monmouthshire only became part of Wales in the 1970s.
I believe that Monmouth officially remained at war until the seventies as the declaration of war 75 years ago was in the name of Monmouth, but it was missed out in the peace accords.
I hope Scotland stays with us. But why would they? It's a perfectly viable nation state, it is ready. Malcolm's point this morning was strong: if the Scots vote No they will be the first country in the history of the Commonwealth to actively choose to be controlled by Westminster. Why on Earth would they?
Hello Mr. Han Dodges..... I'm onto you!
That would spell certain disaster for Ed Miliband.
I hope Scotland stays with us. But why would they? It's a perfectly viable nation state, it is ready. Malcolm's point this morning was strong: if the Scots vote No they will be the first country in the history of the Commonwealth to actively choose to be controlled by Westminster. Why on Earth would they?
People have voted for Westminter rule. Northern Ireland, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands et al have had referenda that favoured being part of the UK, or ruled by the UK.
Finally they're waking up to the problem I've highlighted, most recently here yesterday.
"So which bits of your manifesto, Mr Miliband, are you going to push through before your Scots MPs are culled, and you lose your majority/plurality in the House?"
"Umm..."
I really doubt Miliband would be that stupid. And if there was a yes vote, how many MPs would Labour likely get in Scotland? How about 59 SNP?
I said here two or three years ago than we should all start thinking about the profound implications of a Yes vote.
Clean SNP sweep? Who knows, but one or two Labour MPs north of the border have already indicated they'll throw in the towel if Yes wins, which is helpful. If your thesis is right, then it's time to start heavily laying a Labour majority, surely...
And if the SNP don't sweep all before them, then we could be facing a Miliband government reliant on the political equivalent of Dead Men Walking. Then what?
Constitutional Doomsday...
I don't think Ed is that dumb. Actually Easteross has made the point that Lab/Con/LD would form their own Scottish parties completely free of Westminster. I expect they would sit as MPs rather like the Northern Ireland ones do. They vote in parliament but aren't part of the government.
It would be suicidal for Miliband to try and form a government off the back of Scottish MPs whilst having to negotiate with Salmond. And for what? To be booted out of office come a general election in 2016/17?
I hope Scotland stays with us. But why would they? It's a perfectly viable nation state, it is ready. Malcolm's point this morning was strong: if the Scots vote No they will be the first country in the history of the Commonwealth to actively choose to be controlled by Westminster. Why on Earth would they?
Hello Mr. Han Dodges..... I'm onto you!
That would spell certain disaster for Ed Miliband.
It's a shame there aren't many more Star Wars fans on here....*titters*
The last Panelbase was only 52-48 to No, even worse than yougov and Survation, had Yes got a lead the Yes campaign would surely publish it asap. Could it be a small swing back to No has emerged, which is why it is yet to be published?
It wouldn't be an English Parliament - rUK for want of a better phrase. I rather think that they are foreign MPs if they're in the process of devolving. Government is about making decisions for the future after all.
If the Scots vote Yes then all Scottish MPs should absent themselves from the House of Commons, and certainly not stand for re-election. It would be intolerable for a minority to decide something and then have power over the majority. If the UK populace as a whole gets a vote in Scottish independence then it's different. As it stands if they vote to exclude themselves then that's precisely what the outcome should be.
Hmm, seemingly arguing for converting the UK Pmt to an EWNI one immediately on a Yes vote and not just waiting till Indy Day (yes, slip on my part re 'England', thanks).
Trouble I have with that is that Scotland at once is given the status of a colony - admittedly a temporary one on the way out. Taxation, wars, etc., can be imposed, but no representation is given. (Which also rather implies a clear commitment to independence from both sides by a specific date.)
On the other hand it might be possible to come to a special agreement to avoid these problems.
It would also minimise damage to Labour and LDs in England through being split across the border, which is another interesting point (obviously a minimal issue for Tories and not at all for SNP).
Given Scotland already has a sitting Government all it has to do is refuse to adopt anything it doesn't like. What's Westminster going to do? Send the troops in?
It is the opposite that is the driver for removing Scottish representation. Basically there is no point the Scottish MPs being there because all decisions from the day after Scotland voted yes would be made in Edinburgh. There is no way Salmond having won independence would allow Westminster to dictate anything.
The only thing those MPs could do is influence matters that do not effect Scotland (i.e. shore up a Labour Government for two years or interfere with a Tory government for two years). From the moment Scotland vote yes the Scottish MPs should be withdrawn because effectively they will no longer be representing their constituencies whatever the constitutional niceties say. They will just be interfering in matters that are none of their business!
20) I cannot see Labour accepting that under any circumstances.
What's the point of holding an election knowing you are likely going to have another one in two years?
I can't see our parties looking that far ahead. Labour will be confident they can do enough in those years that even with another one they will do better.
Then you are severely underestimating Labour's political ability or the depth of our economic woes. Labour will have little wiggle room economically when they take power.
Oh I get it, and I think they do too - I just think they believe enough in themselves that they will come up with something in those years, anything, and hope for further Tory woes, that another election would work in their favour.
It wouldn't be an English Parliament - rUK for want of a better phrase. I rather think that they are foreign MPs if they're in the process of devolving. Government is about making decisions for the future after all.
If the Scots vote Yes then all Scottish MPs should absent themselves from the House of Commons, and certainly not stand for re-election. It would be intolerable for a minority to decide something and then have power over the majority. If the UK populace as a whole gets a vote in Scottish independence then it's different. As it stands if they vote to exclude themselves then that's precisely what the outcome should be.
Hmm, seemingly arguing for converting the UK Pmt to an EWNI one immediately on a Yes vote and not just waiting till Indy Day (yes, slip on my part re 'England', thanks).
Trouble I have with that is that Scotland at once is given the status of a colony - admittedly a temporary one on the way out. Taxation, wars, etc., can be imposed, but no representation is given. (Which also rather implies a clear commitment to independence from both sides by a specific date.)
On the other hand it might be possible to come to a special agreement to avoid these problems.
It would also minimise damage to Labour and LDs in England through being split across the border, which is another interesting point (obviously a minimal issue for Tories and not at all for SNP).
Given Scotland already has a sitting Government all it has to do is refuse to adopt anything it doesn't like. What's Westminster going to do send the troops in?
It is the opposite that is the driver for removing Scottish representation. Basically there is no point the Scottish MPs being there because all decisions from the day after Scotland voted yes would be made in Edinburgh. There is no way Salmond having won independence would allow Westminster to dictate anything.
The only thing those MPs could do is influence matters that do not effect Scotland (i.e. shore up a Labour Government for two years or interfere with a Tory government for two years. From the moment Scotland vote yes the Scottish MPs should be withdrawn because effectively they will no longer be representing their constituencies whatever the constitutional niceties say. They will just be interfering in matters that are none of their business!
I don't disagree with much of what you say, but the matters of Westminster would still be their business, in part. Westminster could for instance still keep all the tax and refuse to send it north - no need for tanks (not that it has many left). Ergo need for some agreement/guarantee.
There are 2 Panelbase polls, if it is for the Yes campaign then Panelbase already produced a Yes lead in a poll for the SNP in 2013, so that would not be as dramatic as it seems. Panelbase for the Sunday Times tends more towards the poll average, so that would have more impact
Are the Tories now so toxic that they cannot govern the UK ? Or is it just a problem related to Scotland, which won't accept being ruled by Tories in London ? Cameron has indicated that if Scotland votes NO, he would support the Scottish parliament being given many more powers, so that they are much more independent of Westminster. Miliband has also indicated that Labour would support further devolution.
As for the Guardian article that Cameron could delay the general election because of a YES vote, I believe that this would not be possible. The rules as far as I understand it, only allow the PM to extend parliamentary time in the event of war or some catastrophic event affecting the UK. I don't think the Scots voting for independence would be considerd an event, where the PM could postpone an election. I remember this being raised with a constituitional expert and they said that legally a PM could not postpone the election. The Tories don't have a majority anyway and I think all other parties would vote against. There is no chance of the HOL voting to postpone the election either.
Brian Souter is going down like a bucket of cold sick according to twitter after he appeared on a debate about Scottish independence on TV in Scotland.
Who let him loose on the public?! Silly, silly SNP. Take his money and then *hide* him!
Given Scotland already has a sitting Government all it has to do is refuse to adopt anything it doesn't like. What's Westminster going to do send the troops in?
It is the opposite that is the driver for removing Scottish representation. Basically there is no point the Scottish MPs being there because all decisions from the day after Scotland voted yes would be made in Edinburgh. There is no way Salmond having won independence would allow Westminster to dictate anything.
The only thing those MPs could do is influence matters that do not effect Scotland (i.e. shore up a Labour Government for two years or interfere with a Tory government for two years. From the moment Scotland vote yes the Scottish MPs should be withdrawn because effectively they will no longer be representing their constituencies whatever the constitutional niceties say. They will just be interfering in matters that are none of their business!
I don't disagree with much of what you say, but the matters of Westminster would still be their business, in part. Westminster could for instance still keep all the tax and refuse to send it north - no need for tanks (not that it has many left). Ergo need for some agreement/guarantee.
No you are not getting this. Any agreements that will need to be made will not be between the British Government and mainly Labour Scottish MP's in Westminster. It will be direct liaison between the British Government and the SNP Government in Edinburgh. Salmond is not going to let mainly Scottish Labour MP's (let alone English MP's) vote on Scottish matters or interfere in the transition period prior to independence. Scottish MP's will effectively become superfluous to Scottish politics immediately after a Yes vote.
Comments
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour retain three-point lead: CON 33%, LAB 36%, LD 7%, UKIP 14%
Another great site: http://explosm.net/comics/3671/
And I bid you goodnight, family matters to attend to.
The other consideration is how will Scotland react to independence. Could the Scots vote in considerably more SNP MPs to emphasise their backing of their new government in the wake of a Yes vote. It could be Miliband's Scottish temporary forces will be considerably less than previous Scottish Labour factions in Westminster?
He may well resist any attempts to delay the election but in doing so he will damage himself quite severely.
As for the comparison with Brown, that is a false comparison to a greater extent. Brown had been clearly beaten on votes and seats by Cameron and that fact would never change. In this case as a result of the Scottish influence Labour could start their term with more votes and more seats but end up with fewer votes and fewer seats and likely be forced to hold another election.
What's the point of holding an election knowing you are likely going to have another one in two years?
Not only that but if the Tories remain in power for another 12 months there is much risk for them. The negotiation with Scotland will not be easy and the English voters will expect Cameron to play hardball something he is not good at especially against someone as slippery as Salmond. Such negotiations could put considerable pressure on the cohesiveness of the Tory Party and on what's left of Cameron's reputation.
In addition Osborne would have to reveal his post election economic plan for the next term before the election or delay it 12 months. Either way that would put strain on the Treasury and give Labour a considerable heads up.
Not only that but what does Cameron do about his other referendum pledge? He would have to start negotiations with Brussels surely and that could split the Tory party in half on its own?
What of the Coalition? It would be difficult enough for Cameron to manage the Scottish negotiations and the Brussels negotiations but with Nick Clegg sitting on his shoulder?
It may serve Miliband to do the sensible thing offer to delay the election for a seat at the Scottish independence negotiating table and some other concessions regarding the Union breakup leaving Cameron with the problem of what to do.
If anything it may be Cameron who might not want to stay on, His chances in 2015 may prove to be far better than in 2016.
In the event of a Yes: if your 'our' means the UK, then they wouldn't BE MPs for a foreign state before independence - and likewise there will be no MPs for EWNI. And till independence happens, the Scots are guaranteed representation in the UK Parliament. Vide Treaty of Union, and common decency and democracy.
Exactly the same could be argued, in fact, about English MPs shaping Scottish government (e.g. through the Barnett formula, so it's not just the Scottish Parliament).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dundee,_New_South_Wales
I imagine the "Act for the Expulsion of the Kingdom of the Scots from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will deal with the matter of Scotland no longer sending MPs to Westminster.
Wales?
Quite how Portugal managed not to be big or conquered is amazing though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty
* yes the communications protocol is named after him and the Bluetooth logo is an HB bind-rune.
Many of us will be working hard to ensure the SNP doesn't win the 2016 Scottish election so we get away from the current feeling of a One Party state under the SNP far worse than ever under Scottish Labour.
Last week - average 3.0 (4, 1, 3, 4 - only four polls due to Bank Hol)
This week - average 2.33 (1, 3, 3 - three polls so far, two to come)
Lab 4/6
Ukip 2/1
Tory 9/2
Lib 100/1
Rule Britannia.
Clean SNP sweep? Who knows, but one or two Labour MPs north of the border have already indicated they'll throw in the towel if Yes wins, which is helpful. If your thesis is right, then it's time to start heavily laying a Labour majority, surely...
And if the SNP don't sweep all before them, then we could be facing a Miliband government reliant on the political equivalent of Dead Men Walking. Then what?
Constitutional Doomsday...
It wouldn't be an English Parliament - rUK for want of a better phrase. I rather think that they are foreign MPs if they're in the process of devolving. Government is about making decisions for the future after all.
If the Scots vote Yes then all Scottish MPs should absent themselves from the House of Commons, and certainly not stand for re-election. It would be intolerable for a minority to decide something and then have power over the majority. If the UK populace as a whole gets a vote in Scottish independence then it's different. As it stands if they vote to exclude themselves then that's precisely what the outcome should be.
It would be suicidal for Miliband to try and form a government off the back of Scottish MPs whilst having to negotiate with Salmond. And for what? To be booted out of office come a general election in 2016/17?
Oh, evening all BTW.
PB's number one Ar*e licker here!
Lab 300
Con 280
LD 35
Nats 15
Con + LD would hold an rUK majority...
Who forms a government?
In the event of a Scottish yes if it were me I'd seriously consider making a proposal to delay the election if I were Miliband. I'd certainly walk through it with my advisers.
Trouble I have with that is that Scotland at once is given the status of a colony - admittedly a temporary one on the way out. Taxation, wars, etc., can be imposed, but no representation is given. (Which also rather implies a clear commitment to independence from both sides by a specific date.)
On the other hand it might be possible to come to a special agreement to avoid these problems.
It would also minimise damage to Labour and LDs in England through being split across the border, which is another interesting point (obviously a minimal issue for Tories and not at all for SNP).
It is the opposite that is the driver for removing Scottish representation. Basically there is no point the Scottish MPs being there because all decisions from the day after Scotland voted yes would be made in Edinburgh. There is no way Salmond having won independence would allow Westminster to dictate anything.
The only thing those MPs could do is influence matters that do not effect Scotland (i.e. shore up a Labour Government for two years or interfere with a Tory government for two years). From the moment Scotland vote yes the Scottish MPs should be withdrawn because effectively they will no longer be representing their constituencies whatever the constitutional niceties say. They will just be interfering in matters that are none of their business!
I am told that Panelbase has an IndyRef poll in the field that will be out in a day or so
Well, I can tell you what didn't happen.
i) There was no intervening general election between the de facto separation and the de jure separation.
ii) The UK/rUK government handling the matter was not dependent on the votes of MPs from Ireland...
He needs to be at least 22 points ahead at this stage.
3 of the top 5 hotels in Birmingham are Premier Inns according to TripAdvisor:
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotels-g186402-Birmingham_West_Midlands_England-Hotels.html
Mike normally goes on holiday end of August/Start of September, this year, because of the events in Scotland, he had to delay it.
One Tory insider said "yeah, this is a real zinger Dan. Another drink?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-29043248
As for the Guardian article that Cameron could delay the general election because of a YES vote, I believe that this would not be possible. The rules as far as I understand it, only allow the PM to extend parliamentary time in the event of war or some catastrophic event affecting the UK. I don't think the Scots voting for independence would be considerd an event, where the PM could postpone an election. I remember this being raised with a constituitional expert and they said that legally a PM could not postpone the election. The Tories don't have a majority anyway and I think all other parties would vote against. There is no chance of the HOL voting to postpone the election either.
"How can a government propped up by Scottish MPs possibly get the best deal for rUK?"