politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the rumours that a YES lead poll is about to be publi

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the rumours that a YES lead poll is about to be published Ladbrokes open market on the next Panelbase findings

This might be a good way to flush out the data. If the odds change sharply or Ladbrokes suspend market then we’ll know something’s happening.

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Mike, your tweet has got the Yes/No odds the wrong way round.

Edit - fixed now

Carnyx

Mmm, interesting. Will be well worth a look at the Daily Record tomorrow when Mr Salmond takes over from Mr Darling as guest editor.

This also is an interesting comment on what Mr Pork late of this parish has called Eggpocalypse.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/sep/04/scottish-independence-newspapers

Nothing new re egg court case yet it seems.

TheScreamingEagles

The most interesting thing.

Looks like the Sunday Times have dropped panelbase as their pollster on the Indyref, this close to the referendum

Verulamius

I think that the problem is David Cameron. Other countries have nominated their prime ministers as european commissioners. In order to get the best commission role for the UK and fight for UK friendly policies he should have nominated himself.

This could have solved several problems in one go.

TheScreamingEagles

Oh balls, does this mean, I'm going to have to spend Saturday evening trawling the Sunday Times website looking for this YouGov Indyref poll.

The sacrifices I make for PBers.

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, I'm on the 3/1 Yes leading with the next Panelbase

Sean_F

Re EU Commissioners, Lord Hill was a decidedly strange choice. I'd never heard of him.

OldKingCole

Sean_F said:

Re EU Commissioners, Lord Hill was a decidedly strange choice. I'd never heard of him.

Cameron insulted and abused Juncker. Then he appointed a lightweight as EU Commissioner.

Now it appears the appointee is getting a second rank post.

Surprise, surprise.

TheScreamingEagles

Douglas Carswell may have just saved the Union

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100285195/douglas-carswell-may-have-just-saved-the-union/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

TheScreamingEagles

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

Re EU Commissioners, Lord Hill was a decidedly strange choice. I'd never heard of him.

Cameron insulted and abused Juncker. Then he appointed a lightweight as EU Commissioner.

Now it appears the appointee is getting a second rank post.

Surprise, surprise.

FPT

People are so wrong misinterpreting this as an insult for Dave, It is a great honour for Dave, remember, Dave's Green agenda (vote Blue, Go Green), Juncker knows this, and that's why he's given the UK this portfolio, a subject matter that is close to Dave's heart.

taffys

Douglas Carswell may have just saved the Union

Yet another piece of Westminster bubble journalist pseudo clever bullsh*t. Not quite high handed and remote enough to get the Matthew D'Ancona award, though.

DavidL

I was at the Forces Together event at Perth this morning where many of the points made on the previous thread were forcibly made. The idea that Scotland can have a credible force capable of being deployed beyond these islands with the total of 3,500 men and women that Salmond is contemplating was rightly laughed at. The question was asked who on earth would even want to join such a force? If that is what you want to do better joining the police.

Ruth Davidson was very good. She spoke of the work she had seen as a BBC reporter in Kosovo by the Black Watch, the work done in Sierra Leone and the work by the navy after the hurricane in the Philippines. She pointed out very few militaries in the world had that sort of capability. She found the idea that we Scots were going to walk away from all of that bizarre and maintained that is not who we are.

It was of course preaching to the converted but it was good to be amongst a room full of people who love their country as much as I do. In response to a question from me Ruth Davidson admitted that she had been arguing economics and technicalities for 2 years now and none of these were the reason she was going to vote no. That is the message that BT need to get out in these last 2 weeks even if it does not come naturally to too many in the Labour party.

isam

Oh by the way, if anyone wants to try to make the point that Douglas Carswell is pro immigration and therefore at odds with ukip, I linked to five articles in response to flight path on nighthawks where he criticises mass immigration in no uncertain terms whilst a conservative mp

malcolmg

Sean needs to take a look at what a real article is , he may learn something.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

TheScreamingEagles

There are rumours that tomorrow’s Daily Record will carry a poll showing a Yes lead. If true, this would be the first poll lead for independence since August last year.

Tomorrow’s Record is being guest edited by Alex Salmond (today’s is edited by Alistair Darling), which would explain why the polling is being held off until then. This polling, we hear, is being carried out by Panelbase, who have consistently shown the most positive results for independence, and is being carried out on behalf of the Yes campaign.

http://labourlist.org/2014/09/scottish-referendum-the-liveblog/

SimonStClare

Has the date for the second BBC Indy debate been announced?

Socrates

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

Re EU Commissioners, Lord Hill was a decidedly strange choice. I'd never heard of him.

Cameron insulted and abused Juncker. Then he appointed a lightweight as EU Commissioner.

Now it appears the appointee is getting a second rank post.

Surprise, surprise.

You really think Cameron wasn't told he was getting shafted before he appointed his candidate? This has been negotiated behind the scenes for months. Cameron knew hew was going to miss out and so put forward a small name candidate so it got less news coverage when the insult came.

In any case, the result is the same: we have no influence in the EU and many posts have gone to people utterly opposed to us free trade Atlanticists.

dr_spyn

BREAKING NEWS:Conservative Whips have begun asking Tory MPs for views on military action against Islamic State, BBC learns

Curious way of putting it.

Did any of them remind the Whips about Dave's awesome Defence Cuts?

Neil

TheScreamingEagles said:

There are rumours that tomorrow’s Daily Record will carry a poll showing a Yes lead. If true, this would be the first poll lead for independence since August last year.

Tomorrow’s Record is being guest edited by Alex Salmond (today’s is edited by Alistair Darling), which would explain why the polling is being held off until then. This polling, we hear, is being carried out by Panelbase, who have consistently shown the most positive results for independence, and is being carried out on behalf of the Yes campaign.

http://labourlist.org/2014/09/scottish-referendum-the-liveblog/

3/1, eh? But then it is a rumour being reported by Labourlist (and editorially I would be surprised to see them splash a poll on either of the days handed to both campaigns).

taffys

''In any case, the result is the same: we have no influence in the EU and many posts have gone to people utterly opposed to us free trade Atlanticists.''

Meanwhile the ECB cuts rates again in a desperate attempt to shore up Europe's tanking economy.

Special measures on the way.

Life_ina_market_town

malcolmg said:

Sean needs to take a look at what a real article is , he may learn something.

Monbiot merely rehashes the line of Leftist fellow travellers, following Nairn (1977), who desire the break up of the Britain in order to smash the capitalist state. It is an unremarkable and sloppy article.

edmundintokyo

Socrates said:

You really think Cameron wasn't told he was getting shafted before he appointed his candidate? This has been negotiated behind the scenes for months.

That should be obvious, but it's not. Cameron wouldn't even return Juncker's calls for a long time, including the time when he was putting together the agenda for the time period when Cameron's renegotiation is supposed to be happening. With Cameron you never quite know how much is performance for party management purposes and how much is sincere emotional prickliness, but there does seem to have been an actual refusal to communicate.

Socrates

TheScreamingEagles said:

Socrates said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

Socrates said:

You lot trying to play down the mass child rape story are getting desperate. When did I ever say they were guilty?

Accusing me of 'trying to play down ... mass child rape' is an outlandish, and defamatory allegation, but let's put that to one side. You said Aylesbury could be added to the list. Of what? The unavoidable implication was town's where large scale sexual abuse of children had been proven in a court of law, whereas no such thing has been proven in Buckinghamshire.

I overstepped a line in frustration and I apologise. I retract the accusation.

"Added to the list" just meant "towns where the model of Muslim-background men raping serially raping young girls" is being investigated. That is all.

Even that's inaccurate, if you read our own link.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Vikram Singh very likely and Jerome Joe possibly aren't Muslims.

Maybe not, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Asif Hussain, Sohail Qamar, Akbari Khan, Taimoor Khan and Sajid Ali are.

malcolmg

DavidL said:

I was at the Forces Together event at Perth this morning where many of the points made on the previous thread were forcibly made. The idea that Scotland can have a credible force capable of being deployed beyond these islands with the total of 3,500 men and women that Salmond is contemplating was rightly laughed at. The question was asked who on earth would even want to join such a force? If that is what you want to do better joining the police.

Ruth Davidson was very good. She spoke of the work she had seen as a BBC reporter in Kosovo by the Black Watch, the work done in Sierra Leone and the work by the navy after the hurricane in the Philippines. She pointed out very few militaries in the world had that sort of capability. She found the idea that we Scots were going to walk away from all of that bizarre and maintained that is not who we are.

It was of course preaching to the converted but it was good to be amongst a room full of people who love their country as much as I do. In response to a question from me Ruth Davidson admitted that she had been arguing economics and technicalities for 2 years now and none of these were the reason she was going to vote no. That is the message that BT need to get out in these last 2 weeks even if it does not come naturally to too many in the Labour party.

Mores lies and obfuscation David, you people really are getting desperate. Should have gone to specsavers rather than listen to Ruth Davidson's ludicrous lies.
Of course as you people only speak behind closed doors to your own supporters the lies would go down well.
She is voting NO on London orders to try and keep her job.
Quote ,
Mr Robertson said that a post-independence Scotland would retain an "appropriate" armed force for the country's size, consisting of 15,000 regular and 5000 reserve personnel.

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Socrates

edmundintokyo said:

Socrates said:

You really think Cameron wasn't told he was getting shafted before he appointed his candidate? This has been negotiated behind the scenes for months.

That should be obvious, but it's not. Cameron wouldn't even return Juncker's calls for a long time, including the time when he was putting together the agenda for the time period when Cameron's renegotiation is supposed to be happening. With Cameron you never quite know how much is performance for party management purposes and how much is sincere emotional prickliness, but there does seem to have been an actual refusal to communicate.

Is there a source for that?

TheScreamingEagles

Neil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There are rumours that tomorrow’s Daily Record will carry a poll showing a Yes lead. If true, this would be the first poll lead for independence since August last year.

Tomorrow’s Record is being guest edited by Alex Salmond (today’s is edited by Alistair Darling), which would explain why the polling is being held off until then. This polling, we hear, is being carried out by Panelbase, who have consistently shown the most positive results for independence, and is being carried out on behalf of the Yes campaign.

http://labourlist.org/2014/09/scottish-referendum-the-liveblog/

3/1, eh? But then it is a rumour being reported by Labourlist (and editorially I would be surprised to see them splash a poll on either of the days handed to both campaigns).

Well if the record give Alex Salmond the freedom to guest edit The record that Mike gives me to guest edit PB, anything is possible.

taffys

Just seen a tweet of the front page of the local Clacton rag, with the headline

'EXODUS'

150 tory workers cross the line to UKIP. Cast iron tories in a copper bottomed tory seat.

Lots of metal analogies there, for some reason...

GIN1138

An ICM with YES in the lead would set the cat amonst the pigeons!

Socrates

Isn't this the truth...

Backbenchers were keen to squeeze out more details on the European reform plan before Carswell defected, and now they think it essential. They see it as their duty to re-educate the PM. As one says: ‘The Prime Minister has to be dragged kicking and screaming each time to a more Eurosceptic position, and then when he’s there, he finds that it’s popular.’

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9304752/revolt-on-the-right/

MaxPB

So for all the talk about how Britain is important to the project blah blah, we end up with a derisory portfolio. The only thing Dave has been right about in the last 5 years is that by appointing JCJ to the top post in the EU they have set Britain on the path to leaving. Personally I see that as a positive, from talking to people around the City the opinion in financial services is starting to move against the EU as well, if there are more anti-wealth moves made by the EU then I could see all but the major banks shift towards leaving. Slowly the EU is becoming a net loss for British industry and it costs £9bn per year for membership. Markets are rational and as soon as the EU becomes a net drag on the majority of businesses bodies like the BBA and CBI will shift to oppose our continued membership, after that it is just a matter of time untilwe leave.

A free trade deal with the EU post exit would be enough for industry to get on with, I don't see the EU putting up a trade barrier with the single largest consumer bloc in Europe.

GIN1138

Incidentally, saw some footage of Ed Milliband in Scotland on the news. Couple of points:

1. Declaring Labour has the general election in the bag with 8 months to go looks arrogant and complacent! Of course it may be true, but no party leader should ever say this until all the ballots have been cast.

Did Tony Blair ever declare the 97 election was won, even with those 20-30% Labour poll leads he enjoyed?

2. Ed looks like a fish out of water in Scotland. He looks about as authentic as Cameron or Clegg or Farage would do north of the border. Given his and Labour's humiliation in 2011 maybe Ed should be keeping his head down like Cameron and Clegg?

TheScreamingEagles

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

I was at the Forces Together event at Perth this morning where many of the points made on the previous thread were forcibly made. The idea that Scotland can have a credible force capable of being deployed beyond these islands with the total of 3,500 men and women that Salmond is contemplating was rightly laughed at. The question was asked who on earth would even want to join such a force? If that is what you want to do better joining the police.

Ruth Davidson was very good. She spoke of the work she had seen as a BBC reporter in Kosovo by the Black Watch, the work done in Sierra Leone and the work by the navy after the hurricane in the Philippines. She pointed out very few militaries in the world had that sort of capability. She found the idea that we Scots were going to walk away from all of that bizarre and maintained that is not who we are.

It was of course preaching to the converted but it was good to be amongst a room full of people who love their country as much as I do. In response to a question from me Ruth Davidson admitted that she had been arguing economics and technicalities for 2 years now and none of these were the reason she was going to vote no. That is the message that BT need to get out in these last 2 weeks even if it does not come naturally to too many in the Labour party.

Mores lies and obfuscation David, you people really are getting desperate. Should have gone to specsavers rather than listen to Ruth Davidson's ludicrous lies.
Of course as you people only speak behind closed doors to your own supporters the lies would go down well.
She is voting NO on London orders to try and keep her job.
Quote ,
Mr Robertson said that a post-independence Scotland would retain an "appropriate" armed force for the country's size, consisting of 15,000 regular and 5000 reserve personnel.

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Malcolm did you get upset by Salmond's lies and obfuscation over his non existent legal advice over EU membership ?

DavidL

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Mores lies and obfuscation David, you people really are getting desperate. Should have gone to specsavers rather than listen to Ruth Davidson's ludicrous lies.
Of course as you people only speak behind closed doors to your own supporters the lies would go down well.
She is voting NO on London orders to try and keep her job.
Quote ,
Mr Robertson said that a post-independence Scotland would retain an "appropriate" armed force for the country's size, consisting of 15,000 regular and 5000 reserve personnel.

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Presumably he is one of the majority who never bothered to read the white paper. It said:

"This Scottish Government envisages a phased approach to reaching the level of Scottish defence forces set out above. This will be achieved through a staged process involving 7,500 regular and 2,000 reserve personnel at the point of independence, rising to around 10,000 regulars and 3,500 reserves by the end of the five years following independence, subject to consideration in the strategic defence review. The final force levels will provide capacity for Scotland to make enhanced contributions to international partnership operations."

That is 7,500 for the army, navy and airforce put together with any increase subject to a defence review.

If you were incredibly successful in reducing your support and logistic staff you might just manage 3,500 troops. Doubt it, it would be one of the best ratios in the world for troops to support staff but if include all the army support staff you might get close.

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

Socrates

MaxPB said:

So for all the talk about how Britain is important to the project blah blah, we end up with a derisory portfolio. The only thing Dave has been right about in the last 5 years is that by appointing JCJ to the top post in the EU they have set Britain on the path to leaving. Personally I see that as a positive, from talking to people around the City the opinion in financial services is starting to move against the EU as well, if there are more anti-wealth moves made by the EU then I could see all but the major banks shift towards leaving. Slowly the EU is becoming a net loss for British industry and it costs £9bn per year for membership. Markets are rational and as soon as the EU becomes a net drag on the majority of businesses bodies like the BBA and CBI will shift to oppose our continued membership, after that it is just a matter of time untilwe leave.

A free trade deal with the EU post exit would be enough for industry to get on with, I don't see the EU putting up a trade barrier with the single largest consumer bloc in Europe.

The economic case for the EU is that the minor increase in access of EU membership over a bilateral free trade deal is worth more to us than all the other trade deals we could sign combined, plus the membership fee saving plus the economic gain from the reduction in regulation.

isam

taffys said:

Just seen a tweet of the front page of the local Clacton rag, with the headline

'EXODUS'

150 tory workers cross the line to UKIP. Cast iron tories in a copper bottomed tory seat.

Lots of metal analogies there, for some reason...

With a headline of "Exodus" I'd have expected reggae analogies!

Ishmael_X

Tory PM bleats that he is "not ruling anything out" while euro nutters tear his party to pieces. 1996 all over again.

Neil

DavidL said:

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

Phew!

I cant quite believe I'm reading posts that are seeming to imply that not engaging in wars overseas is a downside to independence.

JonnyJimmy

Re @socrates figures on incomes for different ethnic groups yesterday. The average wage is currently about £23.5kpa, the current employment rate is 73%. The two multiplied together gives just over £17kpa.

How can every ethnic group have a lower figure than that?

MarkSenior

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

I was at the Forces Together event at Perth this morning where many of the points made on the previous thread were forcibly made. The idea that Scotland can have a credible force capable of being deployed beyond these islands with the total of 3,500 men and women that Salmond is contemplating was rightly laughed at. The question was asked who on earth would even want to join such a force? If that is what you want to do better joining the police.

Ruth Davidson was very good. She spoke of the work she had seen as a BBC reporter in Kosovo by the Black Watch, the work done in Sierra Leone and the work by the navy after the hurricane in the Philippines. She pointed out very few militaries in the world had that sort of capability. She found the idea that we Scots were going to walk away from all of that bizarre and maintained that is not who we are.

It was of course preaching to the converted but it was good to be amongst a room full of people who love their country as much as I do. In response to a question from me Ruth Davidson admitted that she had been arguing economics and technicalities for 2 years now and none of these were the reason she was going to vote no. That is the message that BT need to get out in these last 2 weeks even if it does not come naturally to too many in the Labour party.

Mores lies and obfuscation David, you people really are getting desperate. Should have gone to specsavers rather than listen to Ruth Davidson's ludicrous lies.
Of course as you people only speak behind closed doors to your own supporters the lies would go down well.
She is voting NO on London orders to try and keep her job.
Quote ,
Mr Robertson said that a post-independence Scotland would retain an "appropriate" armed force for the country's size, consisting of 15,000 regular and 5000 reserve personnel.

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

The only person who lies on here on a daily basis and pours out post after post of vitriolic abuse is yourself . As you say just 2 more weeks before you are shown up to have not even the remotest idea of how the majority of Scots feel .

Socrates

JonnyJimmy said:

Re @socrates figures on incomes for different ethnic groups yesterday. The average wage is currently about £23.5kpa, the current employment rate is 73%. The two multiplied together gives just over £17kpa.

How can every ethnic group have a lower figure than that?

Because the data was from 2011.

TheWatcher

Neil said:

DavidL said:

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

Phew!

I cant quite believe I'm reading posts that are seeming to imply that not engaging in wars overseas is a downside to independence.

Engaging in wars, and one assumes, peacekeeping operations too? Bosnia, Sierra Leone etc

Socrates

@JonnyJimmy

Table 9: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/306889/occ94.pdf

malcolmg

TheScreamingEagles said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

I was at the Forces Together event at Perth this morning where many of the points made on the previous thread were forcibly made. The idea that Scotland can have a credible force capable of being deployed beyond these islands with the total of 3,500 men and women that Salmond is contemplating was rightly laughed at. The question was asked who on earth would even want to join such a force? If that is what you want to do better joining the police.

Ruth Davidson was very good. She spoke of the work she had seen as a BBC reporter in Kosovo by the Black Watch, the work done in Sierra Leone and the work by the navy after the hurricane in the Philippines. She pointed out very few militaries in the world had that sort of capability. She found the idea that we Scots were going to walk away from all of that bizarre and maintained that is not who we are.

It was of course preaching to the converted but it was good to be amongst a room full of people who love their country as much as I do. In response to a question from me Ruth Davidson admitted that she had been arguing economics and technicalities for 2 years now and none of these were the reason she was going to vote no. That is the message that BT need to get out in these last 2 weeks even if it does not come naturally to too many in the Labour party.

Mores lies and obfuscation David, you people really are getting desperate. Should have gone to specsavers rather than listen to Ruth Davidson's ludicrous lies.
Of course as you people only speak behind closed doors to your own supporters the lies would go down well.
She is voting NO on London orders to try and keep her job.
Quote ,
Mr Robertson said that a post-independence Scotland would retain an "appropriate" armed force for the country's size, consisting of 15,000 regular and 5000 reserve personnel.

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Malcolm did you get upset by Salmond's lies and obfuscation over his non existent legal advice over EU membership ?

we all know he said he would not disclose legal advice as per normal government practice, I never actually heard him say he had any.
Ruth Davidson has read in print the numbers and is blatantly lying and David thinks that is good and wonders why they are getting cuffed.

Neil

TheWatcher said:

Neil said:

DavidL said:

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

Phew!

I cant quite believe I'm reading posts that are seeming to imply that not engaging in wars overseas is a downside to independence.

Engaging in wars, and one assumes, peacekeeping operations too? Bosnia, Sierra Leone etc

Presumably under a UN mandate rather than at the whim of a government. And if the Irish Defence Forces can play an active role in UN peace keeping missions I dont see a (presumably bigger and better equipped) Scottish Army couldnt.

malcolmg

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Mores lies and obfuscation David, you people really are getting desperate. Should have gone to specsavers rather than listen to Ruth Davidson's ludicrous lies.
Of course as you people only speak behind closed doors to your own supporters the lies would go down well.
She is voting NO on London orders to try and keep her job.
Quote ,
Mr Robertson said that a post-independence Scotland would retain an "appropriate" armed force for the country's size, consisting of 15,000 regular and 5000 reserve personnel.

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Presumably he is one of the majority who never bothered to read the white paper. It said:

"This Scottish Government envisages a phased approach to reaching the level of Scottish defence forces set out above. This will be achieved through a staged process involving 7,500 regular and 2,000 reserve personnel at the point of independence, rising to around 10,000 regulars and 3,500 reserves by the end of the five years following independence, subject to consideration in the strategic defence review. The final force levels will provide capacity for Scotland to make enhanced contributions to international partnership operations."

That is 7,500 for the army, navy and airforce put together with any increase subject to a defence review.

If you were incredibly successful in reducing your support and logistic staff you might just manage 3,500 troops. Doubt it, it would be one of the best ratios in the world for troops to support staff but if include all the army support staff you might get close.

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

So in Tory speak , Ruth Davidosn plucks out the 3,500 number from there and makes fantasy claims. The 13.5Kis close to the 15K.
I repeat Tories are lying dogs , if their lips move they are lying.

MaxPB

Socrates said:

MaxPB said:

So for all the talk about how Britain is important to the project blah blah, we end up with a derisory portfolio. The only thing Dave has been right about in the last 5 years is that by appointing JCJ to the top post in the EU they have set Britain on the path to leaving. Personally I see that as a positive, from talking to people around the City the opinion in financial services is starting to move against the EU as well, if there are more anti-wealth moves made by the EU then I could see all but the major banks shift towards leaving. Slowly the EU is becoming a net loss for British industry and it costs £9bn per year for membership. Markets are rational and as soon as the EU becomes a net drag on the majority of businesses bodies like the BBA and CBI will shift to oppose our continued membership, after that it is just a matter of time untilwe leave.

A free trade deal with the EU post exit would be enough for industry to get on with, I don't see the EU putting up a trade barrier with the single largest consumer bloc in Europe.

The economic case for the EU is that the minor increase in access of EU membership over a bilateral free trade deal is worth more to us than all the other trade deals we could sign combined, plus the membership fee saving plus the economic gain from the reduction in regulation.

I think, at the moment, the balance is still in favour and there is a net gain from our membership, but the tone of JCJ and him wanting to appoint a strict regulatory commissioner will erode that net gain significantly. Coupled with idiotic stuff like the FTT which we could attack better from outside and the stupid moves to try and block the Vickers banking reforms as well as the silly bonus cap is already moving the City into the anti-camp. What the EU doesn't understand is that the more they tryand attack the City the more of it they push into the BOO camp. Yes banks like HSBC and even BBarclay's might have a whine if we left but overall it wouldn't make much of a difference. Getting away from EU industrial regulations may even draw in a lot of business from Asia, countries like Taiwan and Japan have the same productivity adjusted unit labour cost for manufacturing of finished goods but the EU regulatory burden keeps companies away. If a free trade deal is signed immediately then drawing business in from Europe wouldn't be too difficult either, the reason Switzerland's industrial base is so strong is because of this factor despite very high wage costs.

DavidL

Neil said:

DavidL said:

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

Phew!

I cant quite believe I'm reading posts that are seeming to imply that not engaging in wars overseas is a downside to independence.

It's about being a player on the world stage Neil or walking off it. Like having a seat in the Security Council for the UN. Like being a member of the G8 and the G20 which allowed Gordon Brown, no less, to do excellent work on third world debt. Like being at the top table of the EU and having a real input in decisions.

How many opt outs has Ireland managed to negotiate for itself?

Of course we can hide away behind rUK and whistle a happy tune. Presumably GCHQ might tell us if some atrocity was planned. Presumably MI5 will keep an eye out if only to stop us becoming a threat to the security of rUK. It is just a cop out, parochial and frankly pathetic.

JonnyJimmy

Socrates said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Re @socrates figures on incomes for different ethnic groups yesterday. The average wage is currently about £23.5kpa, the current employment rate is 73%. The two multiplied together gives just over £17kpa.

How can every ethnic group have a lower figure than that?

Because the data was from 2011.

Using 2011 figures the figure works out at £14,800. If we assume from your figures that half the population are Indian men, the other half Caribbean women (the two highest groups) we get an average of c£13.5k. How do the highest paid groups have a lower average than the nation as a whole?

taffys

Tory PM bleats that he is "not ruling anything out" while euro nutters tear his party to pieces. 1996 all over again.

The situation is completely different. The nutters now have the lessons of history behind them. CF the ECB today.

[Deleted User]

A YES poll lead woud give that 400,000 quid NO punter palpitations I imagine.

hucks67

The European Central Bank has reduced its benchmark interest rate to 0.05%. This is taking it as low at they can, as I doubt it would ever be 0%.

If Europe continues to be in such a mess, I can see pressure on any UK government to hold an in/out referendum before the end of 2017, even if they don't currently plan to hold one.

ojcorbs

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Mores lies and obfuscation David, you people really are getting desperate. Should have gone to specsavers rather than listen to Ruth Davidson's ludicrous lies.
Of course as you people only speak behind closed doors to your own supporters the lies would go down well.
She is voting NO on London orders to try and keep her job.
Quote ,
Mr Robertson said that a post-independence Scotland would retain an "appropriate" armed force for the country's size, consisting of 15,000 regular and 5000 reserve personnel.

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Presumably he is one of the majority who never bothered to read the white paper. It said:

"This Scottish Government envisages a phased approach to reaching the level of Scottish defence forces set out above. This will be achieved through a staged process involving 7,500 regular and 2,000 reserve personnel at the point of independence, rising to around 10,000 regulars and 3,500 reserves by the end of the five years following independence, subject to consideration in the strategic defence review. The final force levels will provide capacity for Scotland to make enhanced contributions to international partnership operations."

That is 7,500 for the army, navy and airforce put together with any increase subject to a defence review.

If you were incredibly successful in reducing your support and logistic staff you might just manage 3,500 troops. Doubt it, it would be one of the best ratios in the world for troops to support staff but if include all the army support staff you might get close.

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

So in Tory speak , Ruth Davidosn plucks out the 3,500 number from there and makes fantasy claims. The 13.5Kis close to the 15K.
I repeat Tories are lying dogs , if their lips move they are lying.

Or alternatively YOU could try reading the White Paper, page 240, it's right there. She was talking about the army, not the overall defense force. The paper says after 5 years it will be up to 4,700 so her point is entirely valid.

TGOHF

Have panelbase been ditched by the Sunday Times ?

TheWatcher

Patrick said:

A YES poll lead woud give that 400,000 quid NO punter palpitations I imagine.

'Donald, I've shat in me troosers'

malcolmg's Turnip stooge, bankrolled by the Tory party?

TheScreamingEagles

TGOHF said:

Have panelbase been ditched by the Sunday Times ?

Looks like it.

rottenborough

Patrick said:

A YES poll lead woud give that 400,000 quid NO punter palpitations I imagine.

They say 'only bet what you can afford to lose'.

Socrates

@MaxPB

I agree with much of that, but I still don't get the "balance is still in favour" bit. I do get that greater access to European markets is better than less, but there's not a huge difference between the Korea FTA and EU membership. Given that we're much more important to the EU market than Korea is, being their biggest export partner, we could get a better deal, so the difference between a UK-EU FTA and outright membership really would be small.

So in favour we have:

- Slightly better service access to the economically stagnant EU

In opposition we have:

- Free trade with NAFTA (either a deal or outright membership)
- Free trade with Australia/New Zealand (both are keen to sign as many as possible)
- Potential deals with Japan, Brazil, India, China, Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore (let's say several hit snags, and we get three signed in the next couple of years)
- A unilateral reduction in tariffs of foodstuffs, reducing every Briton's food bill by a couple hundred quid
- No membership fees
- A large reduction in regulation on our domestic economy, and on non-EU exports

I don't see how people have this in balance as being in favour of the EU. I think it's just a combination of status quo bias, and people feel being pro-EU is the "respectable" position, so don't want to follow where logic leads them.

[Deleted User]

Hucks67

A world of ZIRP is a world of moral hazard on a grand scale. Nations, governments, individuals, companies - they get used to the idea of zero interest rate policy being a good thing and being a permanent thing. It's not. And it creates horrible capital allocation. When interest rates need to rise many are going to get eliminated. When you're in a huge bubble blowing harder is not a good thing.

And by the way - this rate cut makes the ECB's Deposit Facility Rate now -0.2%, which is lower than zero. EU bank customers have to pay the ECB to deposit their cash!

rottenborough

taffys said:

Tory PM bleats that he is "not ruling anything out" while euro nutters tear his party to pieces. 1996 all over again.

The situation is completely different. The nutters now have the lessons of history behind them. CF the ECB today.

What has the state of the Euro zone got to do with us leaving the EU? We are not in the Euro and never will be now.

nigel4england

hucks67 said:

The European Central Bank has reduced its benchmark interest rate to 0.05%. This is taking it as low at they can, as I doubt it would ever be 0%.

If Europe continues to be in such a mess, I can see pressure on any UK government to hold an in/out referendum before the end of 2017, even if they don't currently plan to hold one.

Much as I would love it to happen there is no way Ed would hold a referendum.

TGOHF

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Have panelbase been ditched by the Sunday Times ?

Looks like it.

YES were actively trying to get activists to register with YG as far back as April.

TheScreamingEagles

MalcolmG said:

we all know he said he would not disclose legal advice as per normal government practice, I never actually heard him say he had any.

The first minister has repeatedly said that Scotland would be an automatic member of the EU, be free to adopt sterling as its currency and would inherit all the UK's opt-outs on EU immigration and border controls. He has asserted that this position was supported by his government's legal advice.

But Salmond was forced to make a statement to the Scottish parliament late on Tuesday after opposition leaders accused him of "lying" and "covering-up" following an admission from his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, that no specific legal advice had been given by Scottish law officers on EU membership.

His critics highlighted an interview by Salmond with Andrew Neil on BBC1's Sunday Politics earlier this year in which the first minister said he had been given clear legal advice by Scottish law officers. Asked by Neil whether he had sought advice from the Scottish government's own law officers on membership of the EU, Salmond replied: "We have, yes, in terms of the debate."

Asked what that advice said, Salmond responded: "Well, you know I can't give you the legal advice or reveal the legal advice of law officers, but what you can say is that everything we publish is consistent with the legal advice we have received."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/oct/23/alex-salmond-eu-legal-advice-scotland

JonnyJimmy

Ah, those figures seem to have no upper age limit on the employment rate so the rates are lower than in the ONS figures I was using which are 16-64

Socrates

rottenborough said:

taffys said:

Tory PM bleats that he is "not ruling anything out" while euro nutters tear his party to pieces. 1996 all over again.

The situation is completely different. The nutters now have the lessons of history behind them. CF the ECB today.

What has the state of the Euro zone got to do with us leaving the EU? We are not in the Euro and never will be now.

Because the Eurozone is 85% of the trading area. Thus the Eurozone being stuck in a structural depression means greater access to that trading area is worth less in the calculation of whether membership is worth it.

TheScreamingEagles

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Have panelbase been ditched by the Sunday Times ?

Looks like it.

YES were actively trying to get activists to register with YG as far back as April.

Panelbase had the same issue.

IIRC, both pollsters took steps to stop the Nat infestation of their panels.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/new-recruits-banned-by-panelbase-from-indyref-polls.1378556935

rcs1000

Socrates said:

Given that we're much more important to the EU market than Korea is, being their biggest export partner

Aren't Eurozone exports to China c. €1bn/day (Germany even runs a trade surplus with China)? I could be wrong but I thought we imported c. €600m/day from the Eurozone. (That said, we run such a significant trade imbalance with the rest of the world, we're bound to be a surprisingly large portion of *everyone*'s exports.

MaxPB

The ZIRP seems insane on the face of it. It's one thing to buy public debt to try and drive rates lower and force banks to seek higher yields in the real economy, but it's entirely different from buying up private debt and asset backed securities. I don't know what this means for the EMU. The ECB had become a regular bank on the face of it. I also don't understand what kind of assets the ECB will be buying, surely only AAA rated ones, any lower and they begin to risk real monetary losses on their balance sheet.

It really is the worst of all choices. Outright QE has some moral hazard in a multi member monetary union, yes, but it is surely less than the ECB directly purchasing ABSs with the assets owned by private citizens and private corporations.

Socrates

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

Given that we're much more important to the EU market than Korea is, being their biggest export partner

Aren't Eurozone exports to China c. €1bn/day (Germany even runs a trade surplus with China)? I could be wrong but I thought we imported c. €600m/day from the Eurozone. (That said, we run such a significant trade imbalance with the rest of the world, we're bound to be a surprisingly large portion of *everyone*'s exports.

I believe total EU trade to China is the billion a day figure, so that includes non-Euro members plus imports.

Theuniondivvie

MarkSenior said:

The only person who lies on here on a daily basis and pours out post after post of vitriolic abuse is yourself . As you say just 2 more weeks before you are shown up to have not even the remotest idea of how the majority of Scots feel

I assume then you'll be making an apology for calling malc a 'piece of dogshit', else you'll look a bit of a hypocrite.
Regarding having a remote idea of how the majority of Scots feel, fancy doubling or trebling up on our Yes under 40% bet?

DavidL

ojcorbs said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Presumably he is one of the majority who never bothered to read the white paper. It said:

"This Scottish Government envisages a phased approach to reaching the level of Scottish defence forces set out above. This will be achieved through a staged process involving 7,500 regular and 2,000 reserve personnel at the point of independence, rising to around 10,000 regulars and 3,500 reserves by the end of the five years following independence, subject to consideration in the strategic defence review. The final force levels will provide capacity for Scotland to make enhanced contributions to international partnership operations."

That is 7,500 for the army, navy and airforce put together with any increase subject to a defence review.

If you were incredibly successful in reducing your support and logistic staff you might just manage 3,500 troops. Doubt it, it would be one of the best ratios in the world for troops to support staff but if include all the army support staff you might get close.

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

So in Tory speak , Ruth Davidosn plucks out the 3,500 number from there and makes fantasy claims. The 13.5Kis close to the 15K.
I repeat Tories are lying dogs , if their lips move they are lying.

Or alternatively YOU could try reading the White Paper, page 240, it's right there. She was talking about the army, not the overall defense force. The paper says after 5 years it will be up to 4,700 so her point is entirely valid.

It even has the 3,500 figure. The White paper says:
"
Land forces

An army HQ function and an all-arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, and supported by:
a deployable Brigade HQ
two light armoured reconnaissance units
two light artillery units
one engineer unit deploying a range of equipment for bridging, mine clearance and engineering functions
one aviation unit operating six helicopters for reconnaissance and liaison
two communication units
one transport unit
one logistics unit
one medical unit

Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel."

So no lie. Except from Robertson of course.

Neil

DavidL said:

Neil said:

DavidL said:

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

Phew!

I cant quite believe I'm reading posts that are seeming to imply that not engaging in wars overseas is a downside to independence.

It's about being a player on the world stage Neil or walking off it.

Yeah, you see ordinary soldiers are never "players on the world stage". The people who use them may be but here we are talking about the people who will actually have a vote rather than the people who might lose power or prestige as a result of that vote.

TheScreamingEagles

Absolute disgraceful language used here, everyone knows it is knob, and not nob

James Chapman (Mail) ‏@jameschappers 24s

Fabricant: Commons staff tell me "Speaker is a c***. I don’t use language like that, but he can be a bit of a nob" http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/michael-fabricant-sharpens-his-attack-on-john-bercow/ …

Casino_Royale

DavidL said:

ojcorbs said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Presumably he is one of the majority who never bothered to read the white paper. It said:

"This Scottish Government envisages a phased approach to reaching the level of Scottish defence forces set out above. This will be achieved through a staged process involving 7,500 regular and 2,000 reserve personnel at the point of independence, rising to around 10,000 regulars and 3,500 reserves by the end of the five years following independence, subject to consideration in the strategic defence review. The final force levels will provide capacity for Scotland to make enhanced contributions to international partnership operations."

That is 7,500 for the army, navy and airforce put together with any increase subject to a defence review.

If you were incredibly successful in reducing your support and logistic staff you might just manage 3,500 troops. Doubt it, it would be one of the best ratios in the world for troops to support staff but if include all the army support staff you might get close.

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

So in Tory speak , Ruth Davidosn plucks out the 3,500 number from there and makes fantasy claims. The 13.5Kis close to the 15K.
I repeat Tories are lying dogs , if their lips move they are lying.

Or alternatively YOU could try reading the White Paper, page 240, it's right there. She was talking about the army, not the overall defense force. The paper says after 5 years it will be up to 4,700 so her point is entirely valid.

It even has the 3,500 figure. The White paper says:
"
Land forces

An army HQ function and an all-arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, and supported by:
a deployable Brigade HQ
two light armoured reconnaissance units
two light artillery units
one engineer unit deploying a range of equipment for bridging, mine clearance and engineering functions
one aviation unit operating six helicopters for reconnaissance and liaison
two communication units
one transport unit
one logistics unit
one medical unit

Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel."

So no lie. Except from Robertson of course.

Given the need for training, rest and recuperation, public ceremonies, recruitment drives and the garrison needs of home defence, how many of those would be 'deployable' at any one time?

rcs1000

Socrates said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Re @socrates figures on incomes for different ethnic groups yesterday. The average wage is currently about £23.5kpa, the current employment rate is 73%. The two multiplied together gives just over £17kpa.

How can every ethnic group have a lower figure than that?

Because the data was from 2011.

That doesn't work. The proportion of employed people was lower in 2011, but it can't change the overall number by more than about £800.

EDIT: Average wages were lower in 2011, of course. However, I still can't make the numbers work, unless Afro-Caribbean Women made up about 60% of the female workforce. Which is probably not true.

Neil

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

ojcorbs said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Presumably he is one of the majority who never bothered to read the white paper. It said:

"This Scottish Government envisages a phased approach to reaching the level of Scottish defence forces set out above. This will be achieved through a staged process involving 7,500 regular and 2,000 reserve personnel at the point of independence, rising to around 10,000 regulars and 3,500 reserves by the end of the five years following independence, subject to consideration in the strategic defence review. The final force levels will provide capacity for Scotland to make enhanced contributions to international partnership operations."

That is 7,500 for the army, navy and airforce put together with any increase subject to a defence review.

If you were incredibly successful in reducing your support and logistic staff you might just manage 3,500 troops. Doubt it, it would be one of the best ratios in the world for troops to support staff but if include all the army support staff you might get close.

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

So in Tory speak , Ruth Davidosn plucks out the 3,500 number from there and makes fantasy claims. The 13.5Kis close to the 15K.
I repeat Tories are lying dogs , if their lips move they are lying.

Or alternatively YOU could try reading the White Paper, page 240, it's right there. She was talking about the army, not the overall defense force. The paper says after 5 years it will be up to 4,700 so her point is entirely valid.

It even has the 3,500 figure. The White paper says:
"
Land forces

An army HQ function and an all-arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, and supported by:
a deployable Brigade HQ
two light armoured reconnaissance units
two light artillery units
one engineer unit deploying a range of equipment for bridging, mine clearance and engineering functions
one aviation unit operating six helicopters for reconnaissance and liaison
two communication units
one transport unit
one logistics unit
one medical unit

Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel."

So no lie. Except from Robertson of course.

Given the need for training, rest and recuperation, public ceremonies, recruitment drives and the garrison needs of home defence, how many of those would be 'deployable' at any one time?

Who do you think Scotland will be invading?!

TheScreamingEagles

David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence

PM says referendum has nothing to do with his future but is a clear choice for Scots between staying part of UK or leaving it

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/04/david-cameron-i-will-not-resign-scotland-referendum-votes-independence?CMP=twt_gu

Neil

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence

Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.

NickPalmer

edmundintokyo said:

Socrates said:

You really think Cameron wasn't told he was getting shafted before he appointed his candidate? This has been negotiated behind the scenes for months.

That should be obvious, but it's not. Cameron wouldn't even return Juncker's calls for a long time, including the time when he was putting together the agenda for the time period when Cameron's renegotiation is supposed to be happening. With Cameron you never quite know how much is performance for party management purposes and how much is sincere emotional prickliness, but there does seem to have been an actual refusal to communicate.

Yes - there is a case for cooperation and a case for withdrawal, but the case for staying in but being sulky and refusing to talk is non-existent. The Tory loyalist view that it produces results in the end has just been tested to destruction.

TGOHF

Neil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence

Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.

whisky - seems harsh to give him Irish muck for such an important occasion.

Sean_F

Neil said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

ojcorbs said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Presumably he is one of the majority who never bothered to read the white paper. It said:

"This Scottish Government envisages a phased approach to reaching the level of Scottish defence forces set out above. This will be achieved through a staged process involving 7,500 regular and 2,000 reserve personnel at the point of independence, rising to around 10,000 regulars and 3,500 reserves by the end of the five years following independence, subject to consideration in the strategic defence review. The final force levels will provide capacity for Scotland to make enhanced contributions to international partnership operations."

That is 7,500 for the army, navy and airforce put together with any increase subject to a defence review.

If you were incredibly successful in reducing your support and logistic staff you might just manage 3,500 troops. Doubt it, it would be one of the best ratios in the world for troops to support staff but if include all the army support staff you might get close.

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

So in Tory speak , Ruth Davidosn plucks out the 3,500 number from there and makes fantasy claims. The 13.5Kis close to the 15K.
I repeat Tories are lying dogs , if their lips move they are lying.

Or alternatively YOU could try reading the White Paper, page 240, it's right there. She was talking about the army, not the overall defense force. The paper says after 5 years it will be up to 4,700 so her point is entirely valid.

It even has the 3,500 figure. The White paper says:
"


Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel."

So no lie. Except from Robertson of course.

Given the need for training, rest and recuperation, public ceremonies, recruitment drives and the garrison needs of home defence, how many of those would be 'deployable' at any one time?

Who do you think Scotland will be invading?!

If they are members of NATO, it's conceivable they'll be fighting at some point.

Theuniondivvie

Neil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence

Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.

Get drunk and let SeanT shoot him?

Neil

TGOHF said:

Neil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence

Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.

whisky - seems harsh to give him Irish muck for such an important occasion.

I didnt want to add insult to injury by suggesting he supp p*ss at the same time as getting harangued by SeanT.

Neil

Sean_F said:

Neil said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

ojcorbs said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Presumably he is one of the majority who never bothered to read the white paper. It said:

"This Scottish Government envisages a phased approach to reaching the level of Scottish defence forces set out above. This will be achieved through a staged process involving 7,500 regular and 2,000 reserve personnel at the point of independence, rising to around 10,000 regulars and 3,500 reserves by the end of the five years following independence, subject to consideration in the strategic defence review. The final force levels will provide capacity for Scotland to make enhanced contributions to international partnership operations."

That is 7,500 for the army, navy and airforce put together with any increase subject to a defence review.

If you were incredibly successful in reducing your support and logistic staff you might just manage 3,500 troops. Doubt it, it would be one of the best ratios in the world for troops to support staff but if include all the army support staff you might get close.

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

So in Tory speak , Ruth Davidosn plucks out the 3,500 number from there and makes fantasy claims. The 13.5Kis close to the 15K.
I repeat Tories are lying dogs , if their lips move they are lying.

Or alternatively YOU could try reading the White Paper, page 240, it's right there. She was talking about the army, not the overall defense force. The paper says after 5 years it will be up to 4,700 so her point is entirely valid.

It even has the 3,500 figure. The White paper says:
"


Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel."

So no lie. Except from Robertson of course.

Given the need for training, rest and recuperation, public ceremonies, recruitment drives and the garrison needs of home defence, how many of those would be 'deployable' at any one time?

Who do you think Scotland will be invading?!

If they are members of NATO, it's conceivable they'll be fighting at some point.

Perhaps ... but the idea that having fewer and less dangerous places to deploy them to would be a *downside* to independence appears novel to me.

TheWatcher

Neil said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

ojcorbs said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

It even has the 3,500 figure. The White paper says:
"
Land forces

An army HQ function and an all-arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, and supported by:
a deployable Brigade HQ
two light armoured reconnaissance units
two light artillery units
one engineer unit deploying a range of equipment for bridging, mine clearance and engineering functions
one aviation unit operating six helicopters for reconnaissance and liaison
two communication units
one transport unit
one logistics unit
one medical unit

Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel."

So no lie. Except from Robertson of course.

Given the need for training, rest and recuperation, public ceremonies, recruitment drives and the garrison needs of home defence, how many of those would be 'deployable' at any one time?

Who do you think Scotland will be invading?!

Charles

taffys said:

Just seen a tweet of the front page of the local Clacton rag, with the headline

'EXODUS'

150 tory workers cross the line to UKIP. Cast iron tories in a copper bottomed tory seat.

Lots of metal analogies there, for some reason...

Didn't the Exodus take 40 years?

If so, most of them will probably have died before they find UKIP

;-)

rcs1000

Neil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence

Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.

Or, at least, that's what SeanT will tell us he did...

MonikerDiCanio

Theuniondivvie said:

Neil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence

Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.

Get drunk and let SeanT shoot him?

Some poor fellow in Scotland has recently been prosecuted for that kind of talk about the First Minister.
I'd hate to see you locked up.

PBModerator

MikeK, don't copy and paste entire articles, or a majority of an entire article from other websites.

TheWatcher

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

ojcorbs said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

So in Tory speak , Ruth Davidosn plucks out the 3,500 number from there and makes fantasy claims. The 13.5Kis close to the 15K.
I repeat Tories are lying dogs , if their lips move they are lying.

Or alternatively YOU could try reading the White Paper, page 240, it's right there. She was talking about the army, not the overall defense force. The paper says after 5 years it will be up to 4,700 so her point is entirely valid.

It even has the 3,500 figure. The White paper says:
"
Land forces

An army HQ function and an all-arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, and supported by:
a deployable Brigade HQ
two light armoured reconnaissance units
two light artillery units
one engineer unit deploying a range of equipment for bridging, mine clearance and engineering functions
one aviation unit operating six helicopters for reconnaissance and liaison
two communication units
one transport unit
one logistics unit
one medical unit

Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel."

So no lie. Except from Robertson of course.

Given the need for training, rest and recuperation, public ceremonies, recruitment drives and the garrison needs of home defence, how many of those would be 'deployable' at any one time?

There doesn't seem much point in having an army if they can never be deployed in any useful number for offensive or non hostile purposes. Why bother?

Ah well, there's another few thousand unemployed. An Independent Scotland will be competing with Ireland as to which has the greatest number of young emigrants.

Socrates

NickPalmer said:

edmundintokyo said:

Socrates said:

You really think Cameron wasn't told he was getting shafted before he appointed his candidate? This has been negotiated behind the scenes for months.

That should be obvious, but it's not. Cameron wouldn't even return Juncker's calls for a long time, including the time when he was putting together the agenda for the time period when Cameron's renegotiation is supposed to be happening. With Cameron you never quite know how much is performance for party management purposes and how much is sincere emotional prickliness, but there does seem to have been an actual refusal to communicate.

Yes - there is a case for cooperation and a case for withdrawal, but the case for staying in but being sulky and refusing to talk is non-existent. The Tory loyalist view that it produces results in the end has just been tested to destruction.

The case for cooperation was tested to destruction when Blair gave away our rebate and cancelled a referendum for nothing.

So I guess we're left with withdrawal.

Socrates

Sabato's latest ratings have no-one in the top tier for Republican nominee!

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/2016-presidential-update-for-republicans-a-vacancy-at-the-top/

Charles

Neil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence

Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.

Cameron or SeanT?

state_go_away

NickPalmer said:

edmundintokyo said:

Socrates said:

You really think Cameron wasn't told he was getting shafted before he appointed his candidate? This has been negotiated behind the scenes for months.

That should be obvious, but it's not. Cameron wouldn't even return Juncker's calls for a long time, including the time when he was putting together the agenda for the time period when Cameron's renegotiation is supposed to be happening. With Cameron you never quite know how much is performance for party management purposes and how much is sincere emotional prickliness, but there does seem to have been an actual refusal to communicate.

Yes - there is a case for cooperation and a case for withdrawal, but the case for staying in but being sulky and refusing to talk is non-existent. The Tory loyalist view that it produces results in the end has just been tested to destruction.

You could say Mrs Thatcher was in the position of staying in but being sulky .She got a huge rebate in the end which Blair gave away by being nice and cuddly

NorthBriton

As a unionist living in the north of Scotland, I do wonder what Better Together can do to turn this round. The basic problem, I think, is that the Yes campaign is so full of holes and mendacious claims that it was assumed all you had to do was point them out and the electors would see reason and vote accordingly.

This assumption was further bolstered by the evidence of actual election results before the campaign got going: SNP going backwards in various by-elections with doorstep evidence that few ordinary people were interested in independence. Even once the campaign started, the startling results from the various school and university referendums - ie, consistently large margins in favor of "No" - seemed to demonstrate that the zeitgeist was against independence. If the young voters aren't going for it why on earth would the older and wiser demographic go for it?

So, a strong sense that this could not possibly go wrong. But it looks as if it might.

My feeling is that by going consistently negative on the pound etc. has now rather wearied the voting public and they have reacted with a sort of couthy "sod you". We'll go for it anyway. And, of course, the obvious passion and elan of the Yes campaign is pretty impressive. Their visual presence hugely outnumbers the BT one (reinforced, of course, by the fact that the BT field posters in my part of the North East only lasted a few hours before they were torn down).

My advice to Better Together. You have to show passion. If campaigners don't appear to care much, why vote for them? Two weeks and counting......

MikeK

PBModerator said:

MikeK, don't copy and paste entire articles, or a majority of an entire article from other websites.

Whats this, another new policy off the hook?

http://www.ukip.org/mike_hookem_raises_concerns_over_uk_troop_deployments_to_ukraine

NorthBriton

I should say, further to what I wrote below, my hat is off to Jim Murphy. Shown real grit in getting out there day after day. Done more for Better Together than anyone else. Hope a few more start stepping up.

Sean_F

NorthBriton said:

I should say, further to what I wrote below, my hat is off to Jim Murphy. Shown real grit in getting out there day after day. Done more for Better Together than anyone else. Hope a few more start stepping up.

NorthBriton said:

I should say, further to what I wrote below, my hat is off to Jim Murphy. Shown real grit in getting out there day after day. Done more for Better Together than anyone else. Hope a few more start stepping up.

Best of luck.

In purely narrow partisan terms, the Right in rUK could expect to benefit from a Yes vote. But, for me, it would be a very hollow victory indeed if this country tore itself apart.

TheScreamingEagles

F*** me, you Scots didn't just join the union.. you ran the whole f****** show, says Bob Geldof

THE outspoken Live Aid hero believes passionately that separation is wrong and says Scots should be true to their history by staying in the UK.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/better-together-takeover-bob-geldof-4161186

Casino_Royale

Neil said:

Sean_F said:

Neil said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

ojcorbs said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it

Presumably he is one of the majority who never bothered to read the white paper. It said:

"This Scottish Government envisages a phased approach to reaching the level of Scottish defence forces set out above. This will be achieved through a staged process involving 7,500 regular and 2,000 reserve personnel at the point of independence, rising to around 10,000 regulars and 3,500 reserves by the end of the five years following independence, subject to consideration in the strategic defence review. The final force levels will provide capacity for Scotland to make enhanced contributions to international partnership operations."

That is 7,500 for the army, navy and airforce put together with any increase subject to a defence review.

If you were incredibly successful in reducing your support and logistic staff you might just manage 3,500 troops. Doubt it, it would be one of the best ratios in the world for troops to support staff but if include all the army support staff you might get close.

And its not like they would be going anywhere.

So in Tory speak , Ruth Davidosn plucks out the 3,500 number from there and makes fantasy claims. The 13.5Kis close to the 15K.
I repeat Tories are lying dogs , if their lips move they are lying.

Or alternatively YOU could try reading the White Paper, page 240, it's right there. She was talking about the army, not the overall defense force. The paper says after 5 years it will be up to 4,700 so her point is entirely valid.

It even has the 3,500 figure. The White paper says:
"


Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel."

So no lie. Except from Robertson of course.

Given the need for training, rest and recuperation, public ceremonies, recruitment drives and the garrison needs of home defence, how many of those would be 'deployable' at any one time?

Who do you think Scotland will be invading?!

If they are members of NATO, it's conceivable they'll be fighting at some point.

Perhaps ... but the idea that having fewer and less dangerous places to deploy them to would be a *downside* to independence appears novel to me.

Having fewer troops, and a smaller overall defence capacity, does not make the world less dangerous, or Scotland more safe.

MonikerDiCanio

NorthBriton said:

I should say, further to what I wrote below, my hat is off to Jim Murphy. Shown real grit in getting out there day after day. Done more for Better Together than anyone else. Hope a few more start stepping up.

Murphy has been excellent. A future Labour leader, streets ahead of EdM.