That Parris article almost reads like a spoof. The disdain for poor people and their opinions just drips from evrry sentence. The man sums up the entire arrogant metropolitan elite so perfectly. I suggest that UKIP put some of those quotes in a leaflet to show what London Tories think.
For the first time Le Pen is ahead in the second round. She beats Holland 54-46. She still loses to any UMP candidate in the second round but with a much reduced margin than past opinion polls. So far there are 2 candidates from the UMP and with Sarkozy looming.
With 2.5 years to go and France not getting any better, plus with the UMP divided, Le Pen might get the presidency.
The point of the two-round system is that the wildly unpopular person doesn't get into the second round in the first place.
The second reference from euro2day shows the Socialist Hollande in his true egalitarian colours:
"The most personally wounding blow this week came from the book by Valerie Trierweiler, Mr Hollande's former partner, called Merci pour ce moment (Thanks for the moment).
It attacked Mr Hollande for allegedly lying to her over his infidelity with actress Julie Gayet, being two-faced ("the king of double speak") and joking derisively about the poor.......
But the most damaging revelation politically was the allegation about his attitude to the poor, for a man who once said he did not like the rich. "This man of the left calls (the poor) in private les sans-dents (the toothless) - he's very proud of his funny crack," Ms Trierweiler wrote.
The mocking phrase has instantly been thrown back at Mr Hollande on social media, with new groups of activists being formed under the banner of Les sans-dents.
It is set to become a marker of the Hollande presidency in the same way Nicolas Sarkozy, his predecessor, suffered from his snarled comment to a hostile bystander at a public event: "Casse-toi, pauvre con." (roughly translated: "Piss off, you little creep.")
Leading government and socialist figures rushed to defend Mr Hollande, including Segolene Royal, ecology minister and mother of his four children whom he left for Ms Trierweiler in 2007. "It's nonsense," Ms Royal said.
But the damage is done. Ms Trierweiler's book is flying off the shelves, three times faster than the erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey when it was first published, according to Fnac, the retail chain.
Mr Hollande's 13 per cent approval rating compared with the 20 per cent floor hit during his term by Mr Sarkozy, who was shown by the Ifop poll beating Ms Le Pen in a presidential vote by 60-40 per cent."
Does EDM think of his very poor constituents in Doncaster the same way?
The YES campaign seem to atract all the hotheads who want to turn it into a socialist militant stronghold. Some of the behaviour of YES supporters trying to shout down Jim Murphy have looked pretty awful. IF Scotland votes for independence, some of these people would still be unhappy with a Scottish government in Edinburgh.
If it's a YES the then watching chippy Scottish lefties colliding with the reality of their decision will be a joy to behold. Dry economic righties like we will have a decade of popcorn to chew through as we look north.
I seriously think Parris is losing it - and I mean, mentally. He is getting on a bit now, and in the last few months he has written articles which are based on easily falsifiable non-facts, articles which don't hang together, and articles - like this - which seem borderline demented.
where he claimed the Nat polling was "struggling to get over 30". In a blog I pointed out that the last ten out of eleven polls before Parris's article had shown YES over 30, sometimes well over 30.
For a previously reliable and scrupulous journalist that was a howling error. Laughably bad. His own falsifiable data destroyed the entire thesis of his article.
I really think he may be getting a bit doddery, in order to write this tripe. I hope not, as that would be sad. Maybe he is going nuts like Anatole Kaletsky (another esteemed Times writer who bizarrely spazzed out)
I can see his sanctimonious grin as I read every word... I agree he could be mentally ill
Carswell said it's saved him writing his next by election leaflet... I can't understand why anyone would write such disparaging stuff about people who've done nothing wrong, it really is the height of metropolitan elite snobbery
I see the argument but for all three leaders it would be the end as all three were elected under a franchise that included Scots members. Secondly they're leaders of UK parties and as you say have all three have personally been party to the end of the Union. Finally, given the election next May will be determined in part by Scots MP's who cease to sit the reason to delay a General Election beyond this autumn would surely be politically untenable....
That Parris article almost reads like a spoof. The disdain for poor people and their opinions just drips from evrry sentence. The man sums up the entire arrogant metropolitan elite so perfectly. I suggest that UKIP put some of those quotes in a leaflet to show what London Tories think.
Matthew Parris of course lives in the Derbyshire Dales and has done since he was an MP there. He was an early Thatcherite.
Whatever the result, it will be interesting to see how the Scots eventually react when they finally realise that Salmond and his acolytes have been systematically lying to them all this time.
Chuck them out and get someone better in , difference is we will be able to do it. We have been lied to for last 50 years and can do nothing.
The most horrible thing about a YES vote is that Scotland would be well on the way to becoming a dire socialist state that will suck the life out of the land. There will a mass exodus of buisiness' and firms and people, to England and Wales.
Better that than be run by rapacious Tories and lunatic kippers
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
That Parris article almost reads like a spoof. The disdain for poor people and their opinions just drips from evrry sentence. The man sums up the entire arrogant metropolitan elite so perfectly. I suggest that UKIP put some of those quotes in a leaflet to show what London Tories think.
Matthew Parris of course lives in the Derbyshire Dales and has done since he was an MP there. He was an early Thatcherite.
Except when he lives in his penthouse in Limehouse East London.
A questioner asked about postal charges between Scotland and England in the event of independence. As usual, the Nat response was that life would go on as before. I asked if he knew what it costs to post a letter from the UK to the Republic of Ireland, even just a few hundred yards between north and south.
He didn’t, which seemed as careless as not knowing the price of a pint of milk. The answer is that, because Ireland is treated by Royal Mail as an international destination (as Scotland would become), the cost of postage is between twice and four times greater than the cost of a first-class stamp, for delivery within five days.
Consider the plea of a local politician in County Tyrone who paid £2.38 for a stamp that would have cost, at most, 62p if the letter had stayed within the UK. “It’s crazy,” she complained. “It is very expensive and nobody can understand it”. To which one might reasonably have replied: “It’s the border, stupid”.
The Royal Mail website tells me I can send a letter to the Republic of Ireland for 97p. The price becomes £1.47 above 20g and £2.35 above 60g. Few letters (which fit into the Royal Mail's letter sizing criterion) weigh above 60g. This is typical of the misleading drivel both sides serve up.
Should we assume this local politician is in favour of Norn Iron leaving the Union in favour of a united Ireland to reduce his postal costs? Or that he would prefer a one world state?
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
That Parris article almost reads like a spoof. The disdain for poor people and their opinions just drips from evrry sentence. The man sums up the entire arrogant metropolitan elite so perfectly. I suggest that UKIP put some of those quotes in a leaflet to show what London Tories think.
Oh it will. UKIP are laughing in Clapton at this very minute.
A questioner asked about postal charges between Scotland and England in the event of independence. As usual, the Nat response was that life would go on as before. I asked if he knew what it costs to post a letter from the UK to the Republic of Ireland, even just a few hundred yards between north and south.
He didn’t, which seemed as careless as not knowing the price of a pint of milk. The answer is that, because Ireland is treated by Royal Mail as an international destination (as Scotland would become), the cost of postage is between twice and four times greater than the cost of a first-class stamp, for delivery within five days.
Consider the plea of a local politician in County Tyrone who paid £2.38 for a stamp that would have cost, at most, 62p if the letter had stayed within the UK. “It’s crazy,” she complained. “It is very expensive and nobody can understand it”. To which one might reasonably have replied: “It’s the border, stupid”.
I buy about 1 stamp every 4 months, not exactly earth shattering even if your porkies became fact. Plus nationalisation has doubled them in a flash so by the time your Tory pals milk it the price will be same in England.
The most horrible thing about a YES vote is that Scotland would be well on the way to becoming a dire socialist state that will suck the life out of the land. There will a mass exodus of buisiness' and firms and people, to England and Wales.
Better that than be run by rapacious Tories and lunatic kippers
But that's not true Macolm, as in some moments you yourself have acknowledged. Look at the economy in 1997. Falling unemployment, rising productivity, manufacturing up, agriculture up, etc. etc. If Scotland were a Tory/Kipper escape project it would be a turbo-capitalist Singapore style low tax state. As it is, it looks like it will be a socialist sink estate.
Only one thing worse than being talked about I suppose
Douglas Carswell (@DouglasCarswell) 06/09/2014 12:44 You know that thing I was saying about remote political elites in SW1? Who sneer? And aren't on our side.... blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanle…
Raheem Kassam (@RaheemJKassam) 06/09/2014 12:53 The Despicable Matthew Parris Represents Everything that's Wrong with the Modern Conservative Party: bit.ly/1qDA4av
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
The YES campaign seem to atract all the hotheads who want to turn it into a socialist militant stronghold. Some of the behaviour of YES supporters trying to shout down Jim Murphy have looked pretty awful. IF Scotland votes for independence, some of these people would still be unhappy with a Scottish government in Edinburgh.
"Tony Blair said with terrifying pride in 2006: "London is a great city, and no longer a British one". It describes the reality of the viewpoint and aspiration of the modern day metropole, and Parris is almost a parody of that unfortunate pointless bourgeois crust of British productivity. They love London, and rarely leave because London is no longer discernibly British, and they hate nothing more than what remains of Britain and its culture."
Talking of the bedroom tax....(or the rather catchy 'spare room subsidy')
I am listening to 'Any Questions' and the good news for those of us who are admirers of Nick P is that his opponent in Broxtowe Anna Soubrey-a big fan of the tax-is all but being booed.
I must say having heard her perform I'd travel quite a distance to vote against her.
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Do you mean sign like the Lib-dem tuition fees pledge
Only one thing worse than being talked about I suppose
Douglas Carswell (@DouglasCarswell) 06/09/2014 12:44 You know that thing I was saying about remote political elites in SW1? Who sneer? And aren't on our side.... blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanle…
Raheem Kassam (@RaheemJKassam) 06/09/2014 12:53 The Despicable Matthew Parris Represents Everything that's Wrong with the Modern Conservative Party: bit.ly/1qDA4av
Who is Raheen Kassam and why should I be interested in his opinion?
Malcolm's deep deep problem with Tories is not the fact that they are generally speaking right on economic matters - it is that they are generally English and posh. The independence movement is strongly influenced by a kind of mental class war where English play the role of Louis XIV and Scots those storming the Bastille.
The YES campaign seem to atract all the hotheads who want to turn it into a socialist militant stronghold. Some of the behaviour of YES supporters trying to shout down Jim Murphy have looked pretty awful. IF Scotland votes for independence, some of these people would still be unhappy with a Scottish government in Edinburgh.
A questioner asked about postal charges between Scotland and England in the event of independence. As usual, the Nat response was that life would go on as before. I asked if he knew what it costs to post a letter from the UK to the Republic of Ireland, even just a few hundred yards between north and south.
He didn’t, which seemed as careless as not knowing the price of a pint of milk. The answer is that, because Ireland is treated by Royal Mail as an international destination (as Scotland would become), the cost of postage is between twice and four times greater than the cost of a first-class stamp, for delivery within five days.
Consider the plea of a local politician in County Tyrone who paid £2.38 for a stamp that would have cost, at most, 62p if the letter had stayed within the UK. “It’s crazy,” she complained. “It is very expensive and nobody can understand it”. To which one might reasonably have replied: “It’s the border, stupid”.
The Royal Mail website tells me I can send a letter to the Republic of Ireland for 97p. The price becomes £1.47 above 20g and £2.35 above 60g. Few letters (which fit into the Royal Mail's letter sizing criterion) weigh above 60g. This is typical of the misleading drivel both sides serve up.
Should we assume this local politician is in favour of Norn Iron leaving the Union in favour of a united Ireland to reduce his postal costs? Or that he would prefer a one world state?
It is habitual for Carlotta to mislead and present any Scottish case as dire, so no surprise there. She claims to be Scottish , she is a Tory and misleads like one.
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Mope, it's too late. Scotland is going.
I think it's around the right time actually -to do it before crossover would have looked like throwing in the towel early. To do it at the 11th hour when the union looks set to break up is the only 'crisis' circumstances where it would be credible.
That said, it clearly won't happen, because I don't think the powers that be really want to prevent the break up of the UK.
A questioner asked about postal charges between Scotland and England in the event of independence. As usual, the Nat response was that life would go on as before. I asked if he knew what it costs to post a letter from the UK to the Republic of Ireland, even just a few hundred yards between north and south.
He didn’t, which seemed as careless as not knowing the price of a pint of milk. The answer is that, because Ireland is treated by Royal Mail as an international destination (as Scotland would become), the cost of postage is between twice and four times greater than the cost of a first-class stamp, for delivery within five days.
Consider the plea of a local politician in County Tyrone who paid £2.38 for a stamp that would have cost, at most, 62p if the letter had stayed within the UK. “It’s crazy,” she complained. “It is very expensive and nobody can understand it”. To which one might reasonably have replied: “It’s the border, stupid”.
The Royal Mail website tells me I can send a letter to the Republic of Ireland for 97p. The price becomes £1.47 above 20g and £2.35 above 60g. Few letters (which fit into the Royal Mail's letter sizing criterion) weigh above 60g. This is typical of the misleading drivel both sides serve up.
Should we assume this local politician is in favour of Norn Iron leaving the Union in favour of a united Ireland to reduce his postal costs? Or that he would prefer a one world state?
It is habitual for Carlotta to mislead and present any Scottish case as dire, so no surprise there. She claims to be Scottish , she is a Tory and misleads like one.
You doubt she's a real Scot, unlike new Scots such as yourself.
Only one thing worse than being talked about I suppose
Douglas Carswell (@DouglasCarswell) 06/09/2014 12:44 You know that thing I was saying about remote political elites in SW1? Who sneer? And aren't on our side.... blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanle…
Raheem Kassam (@RaheemJKassam) 06/09/2014 12:53 The Despicable Matthew Parris Represents Everything that's Wrong with the Modern Conservative Party: bit.ly/1qDA4av
Who is Raheen Kassam and why should I be interested in his opinion?
He's the editor of Breitbart and you can take it or leave it
The most horrible thing about a YES vote is that Scotland would be well on the way to becoming a dire socialist state that will suck the life out of the land. There will a mass exodus of buisiness' and firms and people, to England and Wales.
Better that than be run by rapacious Tories and lunatic kippers
But that's not true Macolm, as in some moments you yourself have acknowledged. Look at the economy in 1997. Falling unemployment, rising productivity, manufacturing up, agriculture up, etc. etc. If Scotland were a Tory/Kipper escape project it would be a turbo-capitalist Singapore style low tax state. As it is, it looks like it will be a socialist sink estate.
We only get London sock puppets as Tories up here. The London ones are rapacious and fill their and their pals boots, they are as bad as Labour. Westminster is broken and has fallen to a cabal of robbers. It needs broken and YES will do that, England will wake up and do something about it then , too late but better late than never.
We need the old real Tory policies, encourage growth and self reliance but do not steal from and beat up the poor whilst encouraging it.
That Parris article almost reads like a spoof. The disdain for poor people and their opinions just drips from evrry sentence. The man sums up the entire arrogant metropolitan elite so perfectly. I suggest that UKIP put some of those quotes in a leaflet to show what London Tories think.
Matthew Parris of course lives in the Derbyshire Dales and has done since he was an MP there. He was an early Thatcherite.
Just because he lives in Derbyshire, it doesn't mean he doesn't subscribe to the metropolitan mindset. He presumably just appreciates fresh air with it.
What Parris is really suffering from is grief at the loss of the old political certainties and particularly on the centre-right, who used to be able to rely on these voters (i.e. when the centre-right did represent them). He's been through denial and recognised that UKIP is here to stay for the time being at least. He's now moved on to anger. Expect bargaining, depression and ultimately acceptance to follow.
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
All unionist party leaders, north and south, need to come together publicly and say:
"It is clear from the passionate debate that Scots want change, and they want Devomax.
If Scots vote No we solemnly declare that we will immediately form a grand committee, drawn from all parties, to Federalise the UK, an arrangement where all the constituent nations are happy. The aim of this committee will be to reach an agreement whereby Scots have control of 90% of their own tax money, complete control in all other fields, barring Foreign Policy, Defence, which will remain at Westminster, but with Scots MPs fully involved on those issues.
In return Scotland will remain part of the UK, benefiting from formal sterling currency union, a lender of last resort, etc."
If the polls are bad this weekend, that is what has to be done, to save the Union. And if it has to be done - do it.
Fully agree, but we should do this anyway. Dave certainly should offer a federal UK in the Tory manifesto - and Labour would find it alot harder to follow. A federal UK solves the WLQ and EV4EL and the public sector overspend in Scotland at a stroke. The Sindy campaign has made abundantly clear we can't carry on as we were. If we are to remain a United Kingdom then let's make it a fully devolved federal one.
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
With a suitable nod to TSE, could it be called the Gina Gee Devo more option?
Ooh ah, just a little bit Ooh ah, a little bit more Ooh ah, just a little bit You know what I'm I'm looking for
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
All unionist party leaders, north and south, need to come together publicly and say:
"It is clear from the passionate debate that Scots want change, and they want Devomax.
If Scots vote No we solemnly declare that we will immediately form a grand committee, drawn from all parties, to Federalise the UK, an arrangement where all the constituent nations are happy. The aim of this committee will be to reach an agreement whereby Scots have control of 90% of their own tax money, complete control in all other fields, barring Foreign Policy, Defence, which will remain at Westminster, but with Scots MPs fully involved on those issues.
In return Scotland will remain part of the UK, benefiting from formal sterling currency union, a lender of last resort, etc."
If the polls are bad this weekend, that is what has to be done, to save the Union. And if it has to be done - do it.
Do the Welsh and Northern Irish and English gain control of 90% of their own tax money too? And what will the English gain from this? Will fiscal transfers been banned?
You are working from a false premise - that the Union is worth saving and that the English care about it.
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
All unionist party leaders, north and south, need to come together publicly and say:
"It is clear from the passionate debate that Scots want change, and they want Devomax.
If Scots vote No we solemnly declare that we will immediately form a grand committee, drawn from all parties, to Federalise the UK, an arrangement where all the constituent nations are happy. The aim of this committee will be to reach an agreement whereby Scots have control of 90% of their own tax money, complete control in all other fields, barring Foreign Policy, Defence, which will remain at Westminster, but with Scots MPs fully involved on those issues.
In return Scotland will remain part of the UK, benefiting from formal sterling currency union, a lender of last resort, etc."
If the polls are bad this weekend, that is what has to be done, to save the Union. And if it has to be done - do it.
Too little too late and we know they are serial liars.
A questioner asked about postal charges between Scotland and England in the event of independence. As usual, the Nat response was that life would go on as before. I asked if he knew what it costs to post a letter from the UK to the Republic of Ireland, even just a few hundred yards between north and south.
He didn’t, which seemed as careless as not knowing the price of a pint of milk. The answer is that, because Ireland is treated by Royal Mail as an international destination (as Scotland would become), the cost of postage is between twice and four times greater than the cost of a first-class stamp, for delivery within five days.
Consider the plea of a local politician in County Tyrone who paid £2.38 for a stamp that would have cost, at most, 62p if the letter had stayed within the UK. “It’s crazy,” she complained. “It is very expensive and nobody can understand it”. To which one might reasonably have replied: “It’s the border, stupid”.
The Royal Mail website tells me I can send a letter to the Republic of Ireland for 97p. The price becomes £1.47 above 20g and £2.35 above 60g. Few letters (which fit into the Royal Mail's letter sizing criterion) weigh above 60g. This is typical of the misleading drivel both sides serve up.
Should we assume this local politician is in favour of Norn Iron leaving the Union in favour of a united Ireland to reduce his postal costs? Or that he would prefer a one world state?
It is habitual for Carlotta to mislead and present any Scottish case as dire, so no surprise there. She claims to be Scottish , she is a Tory and misleads like one.
You doubt she's a real Scot, unlike new Scots such as yourself.
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Do you mean sign like the Lib-dem tuition fees pledge
I mean Cameron, Milliband, Clegg, Darling, Lamont, Bob Geldof, Sting, the Queen, and frankly whoever else it took, having a press conference and making a public declaration of a new United Kingdom that would be acceptable to the electors of Scotland for a generation, and signing it. I don't think you could get much fairer than that.
Talking of the bedroom tax....(or the rather catchy 'spare room subsidy')
I am listening to 'Any Questions' and the good news for those of us who are admirers of Nick P is that his opponent in Broxtowe Anna Soubrey-a big fan of the tax-is all but being booed.
I must say having heard her perform I'd travel quite a distance to vote against her.
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
All unionist party leaders, north and south, need to come together publicly and say:
"It is clear from the passionate debate that Scots want change, and they want Devomax.
If Scots vote No we solemnly declare that we will immediately form a grand committee, drawn from all parties, to Federalise the UK, an arrangement where all the constituent nations are happy. The aim of this committee will be to reach an agreement whereby Scots have control of 90% of their own tax money, complete control in all other fields, barring Foreign Policy, Defence, which will remain at Westminster, but with Scots MPs fully involved on those issues.
In return Scotland will remain part of the UK, benefiting from formal sterling currency union, a lender of last resort, etc."
If the polls are bad this weekend, that is what has to be done, to save the Union. And if it has to be done - do it.
Would it be credible?
1979 casts a long shadow.
So do the Tory backbenchers and UKIP.
And there is the doctrine that one administration can't bind its successor. It's (by definition) not an international treaty.
Malcolm's deep deep problem with Tories is not the fact that they are generally speaking right on economic matters - it is that they are generally English and posh. The independence movement is strongly influenced by a kind of mental class war where English play the role of Louis XIV and Scots those storming the Bastille.
Well, quite. And like the Bastille, where only a couple of mangey prisoners and a dog were actually IN the Bastille, the powers Westminster will relinquish are largely symbolic in a situation where EU law is supreme.
Malcolm's deep deep problem with Tories is not the fact that they are generally speaking right on economic matters - it is that they are generally English and posh. The independence movement is strongly influenced by a kind of mental class war where English play the role of Louis XIV and Scots those storming the Bastille.
Once again Patrick you miss the whole point , you have this chip on your shoulder that every Scot must hate the English. Very few do. I do not like current Tories because they are an effete elite who are lying cheating rapacious so and so's. They are happy to scourge the poor while throwing money at the rich. I am happy for people to have lots of money but it should be shared around somewhat and people should not be treated like crap. We have the same elite in Scotland who are also panicking. When CEO's are making over a thousand times what workers are making it is obscene.
PS: I know lots of nice English and posh people, they do not usually have the inferiority complex to imagine that if you are from Scotland you must hate them.
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
All unionist party leaders, north and south, need to come together publicly and say:
"It is clear from the passionate debate that Scots want change, and they want Devomax.
If Scots vote No we solemnly declare that we will immediately form a grand committee, drawn from all parties, to Federalise the UK, an arrangement where all the constituent nations are happy. The aim of this committee will be to reach an agreement whereby Scots have control of 90% of their own tax money, complete control in all other fields, barring Foreign Policy, Defence, which will remain at Westminster, but with Scots MPs fully involved on those issues.
In return Scotland will remain part of the UK, benefiting from formal sterling currency union, a lender of last resort, etc."
If the polls are bad this weekend, that is what has to be done, to save the Union. And if it has to be done - do it.
a public declaration of a new United Kingdom that would be acceptable to the electors of Scotland for a generation
That's a more deluded fantasy than the Nats.
Those that are voting No want the United Kingdom they currently have (or perhaps one with Less devolution)
Those voting Yes are happy to burn the house down, just to see the smoke. What happens the morning after, or indeed any rational argument, is not a factor in the vote.
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
All unionist party leaders, north and south, need to come together publicly and say:
"It is clear from the passionate debate that Scots want change, and they want Devomax.
If Scots vote No we solemnly declare that we will immediately form a grand committee, drawn from all parties, to Federalise the UK, an arrangement where all the constituent nations are happy. The aim of this committee will be to reach an agreement whereby Scots have control of 90% of their own tax money, complete control in all other fields, barring Foreign Policy, Defence, which will remain at Westminster, but with Scots MPs fully involved on those issues.
In return Scotland will remain part of the UK, benefiting from formal sterling currency union, a lender of last resort, etc."
If the polls are bad this weekend, that is what has to be done, to save the Union. And if it has to be done - do it.
It could and should have been done a while back. But the Westminster parties put their own interests first. Between them they have thrown the Union away. And now it's too late. Who in Scotland would believe them? It is extraordinary. Not only Cameron should resign, EdM should go too. To destroy a country for entirely preventable reasons is unforgivable.
That Parris article almost reads like a spoof. The disdain for poor people and their opinions just drips from evrry sentence. The man sums up the entire arrogant metropolitan elite so perfectly. I suggest that UKIP put some of those quotes in a leaflet to show what London Tories think.
Matthew Parris of course lives in the Derbyshire Dales and has done since he was an MP there. He was an early Thatcherite.
Just because he lives in Derbyshire, it doesn't mean he doesn't subscribe to the metropolitan mindset. He presumably just appreciates fresh air with it.
What Parris is really suffering from is grief at the loss of the old political certainties and particularly on the centre-right, who used to be able to rely on these voters (i.e. when the centre-right did represent them). He's been through denial and recognised that UKIP is here to stay for the time being at least. He's now moved on to anger. Expect bargaining, depression and ultimately acceptance to follow.
You are being to kind to Parris. With this mornings blog he has crossed a kind of rubicon, bordering - not anger, but - a form of madness and hatred and despair. Obviously Parris is a person where change is a form of oblivion.
The YES campaign seem to atract all the hotheads who want to turn it into a socialist militant stronghold. Some of the behaviour of YES supporters trying to shout down Jim Murphy have looked pretty awful. IF Scotland votes for independence, some of these people would still be unhappy with a Scottish government in Edinburgh.
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
All unionist party leaders, north and south, need to come together publicly and say:
"It is clear from the passionate debate that Scots want change, and they want Devomax.
If Scots vote No we solemnly declare that we will immediately form a grand committee, drawn from all parties, to Federalise the UK, an arrangement where all the constituent nations are happy. The aim of this committee will be to reach an agreement whereby Scots have control of 90% of their own tax money, complete control in all other fields, barring Foreign Policy, Defence, which will remain at Westminster, but with Scots MPs fully involved on those issues.
In return Scotland will remain part of the UK, benefiting from formal sterling currency union, a lender of last resort, etc."
If the polls are bad this weekend, that is what has to be done, to save the Union. And if it has to be done - do it.
It could and should have been done a while back. But the Westminster parties put their own interests first. Between them they have thrown the Union away. And now it's too late. Who in Scotland would believe them? It is extraordinary. Not only Cameron should resign, EdM should go too. To destroy a country for entirely preventable reasons is unforgivable.
SO, just yesterday we had Red up here and all the moron could say was vote NO so that Labour get in at Westminster. The man is stupid.
Wouldn't sway any of the Yes voters I have been speaking to.
Not now, no.
But a lot of them would have been pro- devo max back at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (which is probably the time when Mr Cameron should have made the proposal which Mr T suggests).
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
All unionist party leaders, north and south, need to come together publicly and say:
"It is clear from the passionate debate that Scots want change, and they want Devomax.
If Scots vote No we solemnly declare that we will immediately form a grand committee, drawn from all parties, to Federalise the UK, an arrangement where all the constituent nations are happy. The aim of this committee will be to reach an agreement whereby Scots have control of 90% of their own tax money, complete control in all other fields, barring Foreign Policy, Defence, which will remain at Westminster, but with Scots MPs fully involved on those issues.
In return Scotland will remain part of the UK, benefiting from formal sterling currency union, a lender of last resort, etc."
If the polls are bad this weekend, that is what has to be done, to save the Union. And if it has to be done - do it.
Would it be credible?
1979 casts a long shadow.
So do the Tory backbenchers and UKIP.
And there is the doctrine that one administration can't bind its successor. It's (by definition) not an international treaty.
But it would be interesting.
"But it would be interesting."
It would be complete bollocks. If the Scots don't like what they have got, then they can go and set up on their own. Fine by me, and I wish them all the best. However, Sean's proposal that the majority kow-tow to a small minority is a nonsense.
I am all in favour of a new, more federal constitutional settlement but it has to be based on equity and realism and not throwing prizes to maintain a fundamentally broken union.
We are told that the Scots cannot tolerate a Conservative government in Westminster. If that is true then the Union is beyond repair. Lets us end it now.
But a lot of them would have been pro- devo max back at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (which is probably the time when Mr Cameron should have made the proposal which Mr T suggests).
a public declaration of a new United Kingdom that would be acceptable to the electors of Scotland for a generation
That's a more deluded fantasy than the Nats.
Those that are voting No want the United Kingdom they currently have (or perhaps one with Less devolution)
Those voting Yes are happy to burn the house down, just to see the smoke. What happens the morning after, or indeed any rational argument, is not a factor in the vote.
Not true. All polling before indyref began showed a plurality (majority?) of Scots would prefer Devomax over status quo and total partition.
Cameron, the halfwit, should have offered it. He didn't. But he needs to do it now.
Wouldn't sway any of the Yes voters I have been speaking to.
Not now, no.
But a lot of them would have been pro- devo max back at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (which is probably the time when Mr Cameron should have made the proposal which Mr T suggests).
Mr Bell was saying on GMS today that they had talks with Cameron's team in 2010 re more powers but as the polls were saying Labour was going to win the Tories took it no further and we see the result. Short termism by our PR genius.
Spent an hour this morning calling Scottish voters using the very impressive "neighbour contact" system deployed by Scottish Labour Party (obviously sourced from US - light years ahead of the clunky systems Labour has had in the past). Spoke to about 10 peole - all but one voting No. This might not be typical - I've no idea how the phone numbers were selected - but it was very reassuring.
Yes has moved out from 4.3 to 4.6 on betfair this morning.
Is it time to play the last card in Scotland, and put Devomax (federation) plans in writing and publicly 'sign' them? Give nationalists the 'win' before they've even won -it could well be that getting closer to the actuality of a 'yes' vote, many do not actually relish the economic realities of separation. Say 'we didn't listen; but we've heard you now' etc.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
It could and should have been done a while back. But the Westminster parties put their own interests first. Between them they have thrown the Union away. And now it's too late. Who in Scotland would believe them? It is extraordinary. Not only Cameron should resign, EdM should go too. To destroy a country for entirely preventable reasons is unforgivable.
I agree that Ed Miliband's position would also be under threat after YES. This is a neglected possibility, but it is one being openly discussed in lefty blogs.
If Cameron would have to go as the PM who lost the union, Ed M would maybe have to go as the guy who presided over the electoral crippling of Labour, after a vote which shifted rUK (and Scotland, probably) significantly to the right.
Labour's botched Devolution, and then their hideous complacency this last two years (under Miliband) has been one of the main reasons Scots might now secede.
And yes, Thatcher's Tories must also take some of the blame. But she is dead.
It is still quite hard to get my head around the fact the UK is about to come to an end. It is beyond belief and I cannot understand those who dismiss it. Our entire elite should stand down on 19th. To fail to keep the country together is the most calamitous fail of all.
Wouldn't sway any of the Yes voters I have been speaking to.
It would (with grumbling) sway I think 3 of the vocal Yessers in my close acquaintance, with a further 3 not convinced. The three it would convince are salt of the earth, not privileged, instinctive yes voters who just think 'something is wrong'. They will buy extra powers with less risk of having to pay for independence -especially when you raise things like WW2 etc. As long as it was perceived as being done with genuine humility. The other three who it wouldn't convince are die hards who have more profound psychological reasons.
That (extremely unscientific) sample indicates a 50% success rate, so not bad! But in all seriousness, you don't need to convince Yes campaigners, just the bulk of yes-leaning voters who were previously undecided.
Spent an hour this morning calling Scottish voters using the very impressive "neighbour contact" system deployed by Scottish Labour Party (obviously sourced from US - light years ahead of the clunky systems Labour has had in the past). Spoke to about 10 peole - all but one voting No. This might not be typical - I've no idea how the phone numbers were selected - but it was very reassuring.
Yes has moved out from 4.3 to 4.6 on betfair this morning.
Were you phoning from Scotland or was it similar to double glazing cold calling. I am sorry I voted YES now if it is going to be 90% NO.
It is still quite hard to get my head around the fact the UK is about to come to an end. It is beyond belief and I cannot understand those who dismiss it. Our entire elite should stand down on 19th. To fail to keep the country together is the most calamitous fail of all.
And you fail to take on board that the current 'elite' can't be responsible for events 30 years ago.
At least one of my Yes voting friends blames Thatcher. Who should resign for that?
a public declaration of a new United Kingdom that would be acceptable to the electors of Scotland for a generation
That's a more deluded fantasy than the Nats.
Those that are voting No want the United Kingdom they currently have (or perhaps one with Less devolution)
Those voting Yes are happy to burn the house down, just to see the smoke. What happens the morning after, or indeed any rational argument, is not a factor in the vote.
I don't think so. Yes campaigners, certainly. But they represent a hard core. The majority (if the polls are to be believed) are new yes leaners. You can't conflate those with the nihilists.
"There is clearly discontent up and down the land at Westminster and the London elite."
Absolutely, but how your one-sided proposal of giving the Scots 95% of what they want without addressing the issues affecting the overwhelming majority will improve matters seems a bit up in the air.
The vote is clearly close. It only needs to sway 100,000-200,000 - the undecideds who are switching to YES.
Let's revisit that prediction on the 19th
I presume you are predicting a solid NO. I hope to goodness you are right.
But most of my instincts on indyref have been proved right so far, and I fear this is damnably close.
If I am wrong, and NO walks it, I will never have been so pleased to be proved an idiot. And I will happily come on here to be derided by all and sundry.
He is a dumpling , any fools knows best case now is that NO scrape through by 1 or 2 votes and even that is starting to look like a fantasy.
It is still quite hard to get my head around the fact the UK is about to come to an end. It is beyond belief and I cannot understand those who dismiss it. Our entire elite should stand down on 19th. To fail to keep the country together is the most calamitous fail of all.
And you fail to take on board that the current 'elite' can't be responsible for events 30 years ago.
At least one of my Yes voting friends blames Thatcher. Who should resign for that?
I don't think so. Yes campaigners, certainly. But they represent a hard core. The majority (if the polls are to be believed) are new yes leaners. You can't conflate those with the nihilists.
That may be true. Perhaps it was just my misfortune that every Yes voter I spoke to last week was firmly in the nihilist camp.
It is still quite hard to get my head around the fact the UK is about to come to an end. It is beyond belief and I cannot understand those who dismiss it. Our entire elite should stand down on 19th. To fail to keep the country together is the most calamitous fail of all.
And you fail to take on board that the current 'elite' can't be responsible for events 30 years ago.
At least one of my Yes voting friends blames Thatcher. Who should resign for that?
what is your real opinion of what you have seen recently , do you see NO gaining ground.
Honest question , I know you are diehard NO but do you really see them doing well, I honestly think they are done for.
It is still quite hard to get my head around the fact the UK is about to come to an end. It is beyond belief and I cannot understand those who dismiss it. Our entire elite should stand down on 19th. To fail to keep the country together is the most calamitous fail of all.
And you fail to take on board that the current 'elite' can't be responsible for events 30 years ago.
At least one of my Yes voting friends blames Thatcher. Who should resign for that?
Scotland is going on their watch. It didn't have to be this way, whatever happened in the past.
"Tony Blair said with terrifying pride in 2006: "London is a great city, and no longer a British one". It describes the reality of the viewpoint and aspiration of the modern day metropole, and Parris is almost a parody of that unfortunate pointless bourgeois crust of British productivity. They love London, and rarely leave because London is no longer discernibly British, and they hate nothing more than what remains of Britain and its culture."
"Poor, white, thick and old", that is Parris's view and according to him such people's views should be ignored.
This profiling of UKIP's electorate has been noted before. Since voter segmentation is useful (the best way to attract votes is segment the voters, work out which group is most amenable to your cause, and tailor your message to them), it's perhaps better formulated as "white skin blue collar, grey hair", since that's a more neutral choice of words. Additionally, "uneducated" is not the same as "thick" (but you already knew that, apols)
Wouldn't sway any of the Yes voters I have been speaking to.
It would (with grumbling) sway I think 3 of the vocal Yessers in my close acquaintance, with a further 3 not convinced. The three it would convince are salt of the earth, not privileged, instinctive yes voters who just think 'something is wrong'. They will buy extra powers with less risk of having to pay for independence -especially when you raise things like WW2 etc. As long as it was perceived as being done with genuine humility. The other three who it wouldn't convince are die hards who have more profound psychological reasons.
That (extremely unscientific) sample indicates a 50% success rate, so not bad! But in all seriousness, you don't need to convince Yes campaigners, just the bulk of yes-leaning voters who were previously undecided.
And you can add to that some of the Noes who were formerly devo-maxers at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement.
Then it was roughly 1/1/1 between the three options, but I think it a credible possibility that the arguments in the indyref campaign so far would have led to an increase in devo-max to above the 50% of all voters which is what you would need to resolve arguments about indecisive results. And even the hard Yes and No voters would have had a consolation prize.
I don't subscribe to that , I think he has made mistakes but he has to decide if he is good enough or should fall on his sword. I think all of the Westminster leaders are very poor and he is the best of a bad lot.
"There is clearly discontent up and down the land at Westminster and the London elite."
Absolutely, but how your one-sided proposal of giving the Scots 95% of what they want without addressing the issues affecting the overwhelming majority will improve matters seems a bit up in the air.
Did you read what I suggested? A Grand Committee whose aim was to reach a constitutional settlement where ALL four nations are happy: but with a guarantee Scots get devomax at the end.
I think England having English MPs voting on English matters would be a good start - for England.
(Personally I'd like this Committee to look at electoral reform, too. FPTP is dead now, it doesn't work any more.)
But it's first job would be to make the Scots happy, constitutionally, then move on to other stuff. And I don't think any English people would object if Scots had to run their own country with their own tax money, do you? it would remove a bone of contention almost immediately.
They have been too negative and nasty , as well as telling too many lies. His mistake was to put Labour in charge and for that he deserves brickbats. labour have been low and dirty and even alienated their own support.
Interesting thought. One obvious problem is that they have already devalued the term devo-max by using the term for their various minuscule proposals for devo-a-little-bit-more.
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
It could and should have been done a while back. But the Westminster parties put their own interests first. Between them they have thrown the Union away. And now it's too late. Who in Scotland would believe them? It is extraordinary. Not only Cameron should resign, EdM should go too. To destroy a country for entirely preventable reasons is unforgivable.
I agree that Ed Miliband's position would also be under threat after YES. This is a neglected possibility, but it is one being openly discussed in lefty blogs.
If Cameron would have to go as the PM who lost the union, Ed M would maybe have to go as the guy who presided over the electoral crippling of Labour, after a vote which shifted rUK (and Scotland, probably) significantly to the right.
Labour's botched Devolution, and then their hideous complacency this last two years (under Miliband) has been one of the main reasons Scots might now secede.
And yes, Thatcher's Tories must also take some of the blame. But she is dead.
Miliband's position would be more under threat if No does end up winning comfortably (not an outcome to be written off: No voters seem to have good cause to be shy at the moment). If it's Yes, Labour will be so shocked at the implications, they'll probably freeze like rabbits in the headlights. If it's No, then it's all systems go for 2015, which throws the spotlight on Miliband.
The other side of the equation is who do you replace Miliband with? Balls? Burnham? Cooper? Not exactly an improvement. On the other hand, if Darling has pulled off a good result in Scotland, closing down the subject for a generation, he might be a more plausible alternative leader. That said, shifting any Labour leader's a tough job, if they want to stay. Ask Gordon Brown.
I think he has made mistakes but he has to decide if he is good enough or should fall on his sword. I think all of the Westminster leaders are very poor and he is the best of a bad lot.
Which is a different position than SO.
There are people arguing he MUST resign, even though he wasn't responsible for almost anything that is driving the vote.
"There is clearly discontent up and down the land at Westminster and the London elite."
Absolutely, but how your one-sided proposal of giving the Scots 95% of what they want without addressing the issues affecting the overwhelming majority will improve matters seems a bit up in the air.
Did you read what I suggested? A Grand Committee whose aim was to reach a constitutional settlement where ALL four nations are happy: but with a guarantee Scots get devomax at the end.
I think England having English MPs voting on English matters would be a good start - for England.
(Personally I'd like this Committee to look at electoral reform, too. FPTP is dead now, it doesn't work any more.)
But it's first job would be to make the Scots happy, constitutionally, then move on to other stuff. And I don't think any English people would object if Scots had to run their own country with their own tax money, do you? it would remove a bone of contention almost immediately.
" it's first job would be to make the Scots happy,"
I did read what you said, Mr.T, and my main objection is illustrated in that phrase. You are suggesting that wishes of a tiny minority of the UK population take precedence over what the majority might want.
Your fixation seems to be to maintain the Union at all costs. I cannot agree with that. Less than eight percent of the population should never be allowed to to dictate terms to the 92% plus.
There is also the point that a surprisingly big part of the yes vote fervently believes that if the vote is no, there will be a vengeful Westminster backlash against the people of Scotland, devolution will be revoked etc. etc. So much for 'No' being fear-mongers, this contention is actually a key message for the 'Yes' campaign. I was flabbergasted when I heard it. A new settlement offer would allay those fears.
"So, yes, he is saying that the Tories should be careless of their needs. Because what they need is what they ask for – respect. And Mr Parris can’t bring himself to give that to tattooed simpletons on crutches."
Very interesting critique on Matyhew Parris's article by Tim Stanley he continues..."
I, too am “ordinary”. I know the kind of people he’s describing; there are a lot of them in my family. And although I may have grown up into something that could perhaps be described as “exotic”, I’ve retained a deep love of the ordinary. I love seaside towns like Clacton: the piers, the fish’n’chips, the crappy shows (more impersonators of the Bee Gees than there were Bee Gees), the fag ash, the “family tattoo emporiums”, the loud families, the tired old gramps falling asleep on the bench, beer in plastic cups ..... Those people who Matthew dismisses built this country. They have survived world wars, recessions, depressions and 16 Eurovision humiliations in a row. They are indomitable – and no Westminster bureaucrats or clever-clogs writers will ever change them. I love them. I love them because I have to as a Christian and I want to as a fellow Briton. We are family. And you don’t turn your back on family'
I'm not a fan of Parris but in this instance it strikes me he's not criticizing the way the people talk walk eat or dress themselves. What he objects to is their attitudes and prejudices. To be fair to him even when he was a Tory MP during their most intolerant periods he never had any truck with racists and homophobes. What he's saying is that the Tory Party should ignore them and cast them adrift. They don't need people with those attitudes anymore. And I think he's right
"There is clearly discontent up and down the land at Westminster and the London elite."
Absolutely, but how your one-sided proposal of giving the Scots 95% of what they want without addressing the issues affecting the overwhelming majority will improve matters seems a bit up in the air.
Did you read what I suggested? A Grand Committee whose aim was to reach a constitutional settlement where ALL four nations are happy: but with a guarantee Scots get devomax at the end.
I think England having English MPs voting on English matters would be a good start - for England.
(Personally I'd like this Committee to look at electoral reform, too. FPTP is dead now, it doesn't work any more.)
But it's first job would be to make the Scots happy, constitutionally, then move on to other stuff. And I don't think any English people would object if Scots had to run their own country with their own tax money, do you? it would remove a bone of contention almost immediately.
" it's first job would be to make the Scots happy,"
I did read what you said, Mr.T, and my main objection is illustrated in that phrase. You are suggesting that wishes of a tiny minority of the UK population take precedence over what the majority might want.
Your fixation seems to be to maintain the Union at all costs. I cannot agree with that. Less than eight percent of the population should never be allowed to to dictate terms to the 92% plus.
Dicate, no, but take the lead in voicing a general discontent, leading to a new democratic settlement, why not?
A constant theme of 'yes' is that Westminster doesn't listen or care. Personally I tend to agree, I just contend that they don't listen to or care about anyone.
There is also the point that a surprisingly big part of the yes vote fervently believes that if the vote is no, there will be a vengeful Westminster backlash against the people of Scotland, devolution will be revoked etc. etc. So much for 'No' being fear-mongers, this contention is actually a key message for the 'Yes' campaign. I was flabbergasted when I heard it. A new settlement offer would allay those fears.
Lucky, I am sure it would be a certainty, we know how these back stabbers operate.
I cannot see Cameron resigning because of a Yes vote.
* He didn't start the devolution bandwagon, Labour did.
* Scottish voters choose the SNP against a poor Labour showing in 2011.
* If Bitter Together loses, then that will be a Labour campaign failure.
How is any of this Cameron's fault? He gave a referendum and will abide by it. UKIP on here are deriding Cameron and saying he won't give an EU referendum. Yet when he provides one to Scotland, he is also derided?
There are a number of issues one can complain about the government, but giving a referendum to the Scottish people when they indicated a preference (via voting SNP) is not one of them.
Wouldn't sway the Yes voters I spoke to. They have completely bought the line that Scots politicians in Holyrood (John Swinney, Mike Russell FFS) will do a better job than Scots politicians in Westminster (Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling)
Again, logic and reason have no place in this debate.
"Tony Blair said with terrifying pride in 2006: "London is a great city, and no longer a British one". It describes the reality of the viewpoint and aspiration of the modern day metropole, and Parris is almost a parody of that unfortunate pointless bourgeois crust of British productivity. They love London, and rarely leave because London is no longer discernibly British, and they hate nothing more than what remains of Britain and its culture."
Yes, Parris loves London so much he lives nowhere near the place.
In fact, Parris isn't even British. He was born in Johannesburg.
He lives mainly in Limehouse, London, and in a big house in Catalonia, Spain, with the odd visit to a cottage in Derbyshire.
Limehouse? I presume all the Chinese have been cleared out together with the rest of the WWC in Docklands.
So Parris lives around international financiers and works in a media bubble. Not in the 'real' London, the one with the people who are here for the long haul and actually vote in elections.
I think he has made mistakes but he has to decide if he is good enough or should fall on his sword. I think all of the Westminster leaders are very poor and he is the best of a bad lot.
Which is a different position than SO.
There are people arguing he MUST resign, even though he wasn't responsible for almost anything that is driving the vote.
He might resign, but that's a long way from must.
I don't suppose Lord North was reponsible for almost anything that led to the loss of the American colonies and Chamberlain was certainly not personally responsible for almost anything driving events in 1940 but they still had to go. If it's a yes then Cameron will find himself in the same position - it happened on his watch and history will allocate most of the blame to him.
Comments
Actually a Scotsman piece - from a very No-friendly newspaper - which makes it an interesting if anecdotal report on Ms Lamont in Govan (Glasgow).
"The most personally wounding blow this week came from the book by Valerie Trierweiler, Mr Hollande's former partner, called Merci pour ce moment (Thanks for the moment).
It attacked Mr Hollande for allegedly lying to her over his infidelity with actress Julie Gayet, being two-faced ("the king of double speak") and joking derisively about the poor.......
But the most damaging revelation politically was the allegation about his attitude to the poor, for a man who once said he did not like the rich. "This man of the left calls (the poor) in private les sans-dents (the toothless) - he's very proud of his funny crack," Ms Trierweiler wrote.
The mocking phrase has instantly been thrown back at Mr Hollande on social media, with new groups of activists being formed under the banner of Les sans-dents.
It is set to become a marker of the Hollande presidency in the same way Nicolas Sarkozy, his predecessor, suffered from his snarled comment to a hostile bystander at a public event: "Casse-toi, pauvre con." (roughly translated: "Piss off, you little creep.")
Leading government and socialist figures rushed to defend Mr Hollande, including Segolene Royal, ecology minister and mother of his four children whom he left for Ms Trierweiler in 2007. "It's nonsense," Ms Royal said.
But the damage is done. Ms Trierweiler's book is flying off the shelves, three times faster than the erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey when it was first published, according to Fnac, the retail chain.
Mr Hollande's 13 per cent approval rating compared with the 20 per cent floor hit during his term by Mr Sarkozy, who was shown by the Ifop poll beating Ms Le Pen in a presidential vote by 60-40 per cent."
Does EDM think of his very poor constituents in Doncaster the same way?
Carswell said it's saved him writing his next by election leaflet... I can't understand why anyone would write such disparaging stuff about people who've done nothing wrong, it really is the height of metropolitan elite snobbery
Should we assume this local politician is in favour of Norn Iron leaving the Union in favour of a united Ireland to reduce his postal costs? Or that he would prefer a one world state?
Also would need a quick rejigging of the No campaign, not least because they fronted indyref with a Labour backbencher MP who is not a credible spokesperson for the Union [edit: in terms of being able to make promises like that]. But if Mr Cameron actually gets involved ...
This is however one to watch, and you're not (I think) the only one who thinks so.
Douglas Carswell (@DouglasCarswell)
06/09/2014 12:44
You know that thing I was saying about remote political elites in SW1? Who sneer? And aren't on our side.... blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanle…
Raheem Kassam (@RaheemJKassam)
06/09/2014 12:53
The Despicable Matthew Parris Represents Everything that's Wrong with the Modern Conservative Party: bit.ly/1qDA4av
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/06/Matthew-Parris-Clacton/
Talking of the bedroom tax....(or the rather catchy 'spare room subsidy')
I am listening to 'Any Questions' and the good news for those of us who are admirers of Nick P is that his opponent in Broxtowe Anna Soubrey-a big fan of the tax-is all but being booed.
I must say having heard her perform I'd travel quite a distance to vote against her.
Malcolm's deep deep problem with Tories is not the fact that they are generally speaking right on economic matters - it is that they are generally English and posh. The independence movement is strongly influenced by a kind of mental class war where English play the role of Louis XIV and Scots those storming the Bastille.
Don't waste your time answering the Scotts troll. Leave him/her to wither alone.
That said, it clearly won't happen, because I don't think the powers that be really want to prevent the break up of the UK.
We need the old real Tory policies, encourage growth and self reliance but do not steal from and beat up the poor whilst encouraging it.
What Parris is really suffering from is grief at the loss of the old political certainties and particularly on the centre-right, who used to be able to rely on these voters (i.e. when the centre-right did represent them). He's been through denial and recognised that UKIP is here to stay for the time being at least. He's now moved on to anger. Expect bargaining, depression and ultimately acceptance to follow.
Why are there so many batty 'Rogers' around at the moment. Roger Helmer is so batty he's actually making AS sound like she's of this planet......
Ooh ah, just a little bit
Ooh ah, a little bit more
Ooh ah, just a little bit
You know what I'm I'm looking for
You are working from a false premise - that the Union is worth saving and that the English care about it.
1979 casts a long shadow.
So do the Tory backbenchers and UKIP.
And there is the doctrine that one administration can't bind its successor. It's (by definition) not an international treaty.
But it would be interesting.
PS: I know lots of nice English and posh people, they do not usually have the inferiority complex to imagine that if you are from Scotland you must hate them.
Those that are voting No want the United Kingdom they currently have (or perhaps one with Less devolution)
Those voting Yes are happy to burn the house down, just to see the smoke. What happens the morning after, or indeed any rational argument, is not a factor in the vote.
Federalise the United Kingdom may be a start. Discuss....
He couldn't prevent the SNP victory at the election.
He couldn't prevent them calling the election.
He couldn't put Devomax on the ballot paper.
He can't even vote.
It's curious that amongst all the talk of who should resign in either case, not a single person has mentioned Nick Clegg.
But a lot of them would have been pro- devo max back at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (which is probably the time when Mr Cameron should have made the proposal which Mr T suggests).
It would be complete bollocks. If the Scots don't like what they have got, then they can go and set up on their own. Fine by me, and I wish them all the best. However, Sean's proposal that the majority kow-tow to a small minority is a nonsense.
I am all in favour of a new, more federal constitutional settlement but it has to be based on equity and realism and not throwing prizes to maintain a fundamentally broken union.
We are told that the Scots cannot tolerate a Conservative government in Westminster. If that is true then the Union is beyond repair. Lets us end it now.
Yes has moved out from 4.3 to 4.6 on betfair this morning.
That (extremely unscientific) sample indicates a 50% success rate, so not bad! But in all seriousness, you don't need to convince Yes campaigners, just the bulk of yes-leaning voters who were previously undecided.
At least one of my Yes voting friends blames Thatcher. Who should resign for that?
"There is clearly discontent up and down the land at Westminster and the London elite."
Absolutely, but how your one-sided proposal of giving the Scots 95% of what they want without addressing the issues affecting the overwhelming majority will improve matters seems a bit up in the air.
Honest question , I know you are diehard NO but do you really see them doing well, I honestly think they are done for.
In fact, Parris isn't even British. He was born in Johannesburg.
Then it was roughly 1/1/1 between the three options, but I think it a credible possibility that the arguments in the indyref campaign so far would have led to an increase in devo-max to above the 50% of all voters which is what you would need to resolve arguments about indecisive results. And even the hard Yes and No voters would have had a consolation prize.
The Yes voters are more visible, and much more vocal, but that doesn't mean there are more of them.
The other side of the equation is who do you replace Miliband with? Balls? Burnham? Cooper? Not exactly an improvement. On the other hand, if Darling has pulled off a good result in Scotland, closing down the subject for a generation, he might be a more plausible alternative leader. That said, shifting any Labour leader's a tough job, if they want to stay. Ask Gordon Brown.
There are people arguing he MUST resign, even though he wasn't responsible for almost anything that is driving the vote.
He might resign, but that's a long way from must.
I did read what you said, Mr.T, and my main objection is illustrated in that phrase. You are suggesting that wishes of a tiny minority of the UK population take precedence over what the majority might want.
Your fixation seems to be to maintain the Union at all costs. I cannot agree with that. Less than eight percent of the population should never be allowed to to dictate terms to the 92% plus.
Will set about writing the pre-race piece shortly. Might be up later on, depending how the markets are shaping up.
Very interesting critique on Matyhew Parris's article by Tim Stanley he continues..."
I, too am “ordinary”. I know the kind of people he’s describing; there are a lot of them in my family. And although I may have grown up into something that could perhaps be described as “exotic”, I’ve retained a deep love of the ordinary. I love seaside towns like Clacton: the piers, the fish’n’chips, the crappy shows (more impersonators of the Bee Gees than there were Bee Gees), the fag ash, the “family tattoo emporiums”, the loud families, the tired old gramps falling asleep on the bench, beer in plastic cups ..... Those people who Matthew dismisses built this country. They have survived world wars, recessions, depressions and 16 Eurovision humiliations in a row. They are indomitable – and no Westminster bureaucrats or clever-clogs writers will ever change them. I love them. I love them because I have to as a Christian and I want to as a fellow Briton. We are family. And you don’t turn your back on family'
I'm not a fan of Parris but in this instance it strikes me he's not criticizing the way the people talk walk eat or dress themselves. What he objects to is their attitudes and prejudices. To be fair to him even when he was a Tory MP during their most intolerant periods he never had any truck with racists and homophobes. What he's saying is that the Tory Party should ignore them and cast them adrift. They don't need people with those attitudes anymore. And I think he's right
A constant theme of 'yes' is that Westminster doesn't listen or care. Personally I tend to agree, I just contend that they don't listen to or care about anyone.
I cannot see Cameron resigning because of a Yes vote.
* He didn't start the devolution bandwagon, Labour did.
* Scottish voters choose the SNP against a poor Labour showing in 2011.
* If Bitter Together loses, then that will be a Labour campaign failure.
How is any of this Cameron's fault? He gave a referendum and will abide by it. UKIP on here are deriding Cameron and saying he won't give an EU referendum. Yet when he provides one to Scotland, he is also derided?
There are a number of issues one can complain about the government, but giving a referendum to the Scottish people when they indicated a preference (via voting SNP) is not one of them.
Again, logic and reason have no place in this debate.
So Parris lives around international financiers and works in a media bubble. Not in the 'real' London, the one with the people who are here for the long haul and actually vote in elections.