Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
@SeanT Only part of the independence vote is emotional, and that part you will never shift. The other (and I would reckon largest) part comes from people who think the entire British system is broken. That they think it is broken in different ways, will lead to an upheaval after a "yes" vote is neither here nor there, they consider it worth the risk. You see the same thing in English politics, but its outlets are limited to the "Greens", UKIP mainly.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.
No one knows. The Scots seem to be voting on an emotional basis. Don't be surprised if the English react, similarly.
I am 100% sure there will be a very strong 'well f^&k you then!' attitude from England the day after a YES. And it will only strengthen. Labour opened Pandora's box with devolution for wholly misguided self-serving reasons. It breathed life into Scots nationalism. It also, on a slower fuse, beathed serious life into English nationalism. (That's a good thing). Go FUK!
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
I blame the separate media and sports market. Example, the biggest obstacle for catalonian independence is the spanish football league and Barcelona FC. If catalonia gets its independence were would Barcelona FC play?
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Indeed. It's an incredibly silly and childish arguement.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
If Scotland secedes, the people of rUK would expect their government to negotiate the best settlement they can with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. A government that's dependent on Scottish votes to survive can't do that.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
I'm not sure that follows. Post-2015, Labour can use Scottish votes to force through electoral reforms to keep itself in power in perpetuity, with the quid pro quo being they agree to Salmond's currency union. By not having an In / Out referendum he keeps UKIP alive, which will be worth another 15 or 20 seats to him as well.
You haven't spoken to many lefties then. All the ones I know are spitting blood at the idea of Scotland leaving, they feel it is a betrayal, especially by Labour voters.
Miliband will not be able to pacify his own people and reach some cosy deal with Salmond.
Besides, I believe we are all under-estimating the total shock a YES will be to the Labour Party, in toto. It's not just the loss of 40 MPs, it's the entirety - Labour loses its heartland and its birthplace. The recriminations will be bitter and prolonged - probably worse than in the Tory party. Gordon Brown will become a foreigner. Likewise Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy. They will be furious and bewildered, at once.
I wonder if Miliband will survive. YES makes everything uncertain. Everything.
I think another, unlooked for negative will be the vast majority of Labour voters who like the Monarchy and will dislike seeing the Queen distressed.
@GIN1138 And government by the minority is sensible? Our system allows almost unlimited power to the party who can offer the best bribe to a small portion of the electorate.
@FalseFlag Pre Victorian values? The dream of the far right, a peasant class that can service their every whim, at a price they can set. There was a reason that that idea collapsed into the dust of history, and trying to resurrect it under modern conditions is not going to happen without a "police state".
But it is happening now. The concentration of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands and the decline of the middle classes is a current phenomena yet we don't have a police state, though admittedly we have a much more authoritarian one.
What is a police state? Our movements are tracked and recorded, along with our shopping, bank accounts and almost every other aspect of our lives, including our mitherings on pb. Surely Erich Honecker's wet dream, were he not dead.
The organs of the state can certainly track much of our lives if they want to and to an extent that the Stasi could only dream of. However, to do anything to us they need a reasonable cause that can be tested in the courts. Once that protection goes then we have a police state. In my view we are creeping towards that point, the European Arrest Warrant and the proposal that HMRC should be able to seize our assets are milestones along the way, but we are not there yet.
Just remember the National Anthem used to have these lines in them, it speaks about us as a Nation, seditious Scots take note
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush, and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God save The King.
Vote Yes, and well, you'll wake a sleeping dragon.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
I am 100% sure there will be a very strong 'well f^&k you then!' attitude from England the day after a YES. And it will only strengthen. Labour opened Pandora's box with devolution for wholly misguided self-serving reasons. It breathed life into Scots nationalism. It also, on a slower fuse, beathed serious life into English nationalism. (That's a good thing). Go FUK!
Makes life a bit uncomfortable for Wales then.
Resurgent English nationalism would surely lead to England and Wales parting ways.
@GIN1138 And government by the minority is sensible? Our system allows almost unlimited power to the party who can offer the best bribe to a small portion of the electorate.
It's called western democracy. Almost every country that is a modern democracy is governed by a minority. If you don't like it, there is always Switzerland. An independent scotland would not be an exception, it will be governed by the SNP and it's 35-40% of the electorate.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
If Scotland secedes, the people of rUK would expect their government to negotiate the best settlement they can with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. A government that's dependent on Scottish votes to survive can't do that.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
I'm not sure that follows. Post-2015, Labour can use Scottish votes to force through electoral reforms to keep itself in power in perpetuity, with the quid pro quo being they agree to Salmond's currency union. By not having an In / Out referendum he keeps UKIP alive, which will be worth another 15 or 20 seats to him as well.
You haven't spoken to many lefties then. All the ones I know are spitting blood at the idea of Scotland leaving, they feel it is a betrayal, especially by Labour voters. Miliband will not be able to pacify his own people and reach some cosy deal with Salmond. Besides, I believe we are all under-estimating the total shock a YES will be to the Labour Party, in toto. It's not just the loss of 40 MPs, it's the entirety - Labour loses its heartland and its birthplace. The recriminations will be bitter and prolonged - probably worse than in the Tory party. Gordon Brown will become a foreigner. Likewise Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy. They will be furious and bewildered, at once. I wonder if Miliband will survive. YES makes everything uncertain. Everything.
Here is a freebie for any hack wondering what to write for tomorrow's paper. Did the selection of an English man (Miliband) shift a significant amount of SLAB voters into the independence camp? Having fed the image of "nasty English", SLAB are now reaping what they sowed.
I am 100% sure there will be a very strong 'well f^&k you then!' attitude from England the day after a YES. And it will only strengthen. Labour opened Pandora's box with devolution for wholly misguided self-serving reasons. It breathed life into Scots nationalism. It also, on a slower fuse, beathed serious life into English nationalism. (That's a good thing). Go FUK!
Makes life a bit uncomfortable for Wales then.
Resurgent English nationalism would surely lead to England and Wales parting ways.
followed by 50% of the population of Wales needing to emigrate.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
The latest Populus is a mildly encouraging one for the Tories (especially for a Monday), but yet again they appear incapable of breaking through that 34%/35% ceiling. Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?
Patience, look at the long term trend, a couple of years ago, Labour were polling 40+, and the Tories 28-31.
I expect there'll be further tightening.
Remember in the last parliament, the Tories had a 17% lead at this stage with ICM, and their lead only really started to shrink from January 2010 onwards
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
... and who fed the idea that Scotland was different and stood apart from the UK? It started with the justification of having the Scottish assembly etc etc. Step forward SLAB and the SLD who used the same logic as the SNP.
You haven't spoken to many lefties then. All the ones I know are spitting blood at the idea of Scotland leaving, they feel it is a betrayal, especially by Labour voters.
Miliband will not be able to pacify his own people and reach some cosy deal with Salmond.
Besides, I believe we are all under-estimating the total shock a YES will be to the Labour Party, in toto. It's not just the loss of 40 MPs, it's the entirety - Labour loses its heartland and its birthplace. The recriminations will be bitter and prolonged - probably worse than in the Tory party. Gordon Brown will become a foreigner. Likewise Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy. They will be furious and bewildered, at once.
I wonder if Miliband will survive. YES makes everything uncertain. Everything.
I know lots more lefties than you do, I'd think. The ones I talk to are best described as a bit concerned - they would be rather sorry if the Scots decide to leave us on general grounds, and as lefties they note that it makes getting a majority harder. But they accept that it's a matter for the Scots and they don't see it as a betrayal or a matter for bitterness and anguish.
Perhaps I attract placid friends and you attract emotional ones...
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
So when do we ditch London ?
Once we get rid of the Scots.
In your dreams. Half of them will be moving down your way looking for jobs and then telling you why it's all your fault. Labour majority in Horsham nailed on.
TCPoliticalBetting Scotland is indeed the heart of the "Labour" movement in Britain, and in understanding the "why", you can gain an insight into the heart of the "yes" votes broader appeal. The SNP will fracture after the referendum, and will split completely should they win.
@Alanbrooke And if Scotland offers better tax incentives than England? The answer is that it becomes a bidding war in which only the better off win, but someone will try it, they always do.
It's a trade off. Lower tax for a duff currency ? Companies will go with the safety of currency.
However Ireland already has a much lower rate of taxation than the UK and is under pressure to increase it so I can't see an iScotland being allowed to repeat the trick if it wants into the EU quickly.
Nothing says you have to trade in or keep your reserves in the currency of the country you pay tax in.
Except enough to pay the tax of course, but for that, the duffer that currency the happier you are: earn dollar profits, pay tax bawbees. Result.
Another reason many English lefties are angry is that they see this bid for indy as naked selfishness: a "resource grab". Scotland is quite a prosperous part of the UK, and the Nats are saying to poorer bits of the country, like Wales, northern England, Cornwall - bugger off, we're having the oil, you impoverished Geordies and Scousers can go suck on it.
This really needs to be hammered home. Independence is not social justice. It is a resource grab.
The saintly Aneurin Bevan, of course, considered nationalism to be nothing less than "pure chauvinism".
@GIN1138 And government by the minority is sensible? Our system allows almost unlimited power to the party who can offer the best bribe to a small portion of the electorate.
It's called western democracy. Almost every country that is a modern democracy is governed by a minority. If you don't like it, there is always Switzerland. An independent scotland would not be an exception, it will be governed by the SNP and it's 35-40% of the electorate.
Quite. When did Massachusets last vote Republican? Yet the Bostonians didn't demand secession when they got Dubya Bush.
What we need is federalism, or quasi-federalism.
But Labour selfishly and deliberately botched the Devolution, to keep it as a party fiefdom, and now we, and they, are reaping the consequences.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
If Scotland secedes, the people of rUK would expect their government to negotiate the best settlement they can with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. A government that's dependent on Scottish votes to survive can't do that.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
I'm not sure that follows. Post-2015, Labour can use Scottish votes to force through electoral reforms to keep itself in power in perpetuity, with the quid pro quo being they agree to Salmond's currency union. By not having an In / Out referendum he keeps UKIP alive, which will be worth another 15 or 20 seats to him as well.
I wonder if Miliband will survive. YES makes everything uncertain. Everything.
I think another, unlooked for negative will be the vast majority of Labour voters who like the Monarchy and will dislike seeing the Queen distressed.
Another reason many English lefties are angry is that they see this bid for indy as naked selfishness: a "resource grab". Scotland is quite a prosperous part of the UK, and the Nats are saying to poorer bits of the country, like Wales, northern England, Cornwall - bugger off, we're having the oil, you impoverished Geordies and Scousers can go suck on it.
This really needs to be hammered home. Independence is not social justice. It is a resource grab.
BTW can somebody explain why the Scandinavia model is unlikely to work for Scotlans?
When you have a small country bordering a large country, and in this case sharing a language with it, business can very easily migrate to one side of the border or the other. So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
The latest Populus is a mildly encouraging one for the Tories (especially for a Monday), but yet again they appear incapable of breaking through that 34%/35% ceiling. Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?
Patience, look at the long term trend, a couple of years ago, Labour were polling 40+, and the Tories 28-31.
I expect there'll be further tightening.
Remember in the last parliament, the Tories had a 17% lead at this stage with ICM, and their lead only really started to shrink from January 2010 onwards
On average it started to decline after August 2009, if you only count ICM it started after December 2009, but the other opinion polls caught the drift much earlier.
BTW can somebody explain why the Scandinavia model is unlikely to work for Scotlans?
When you have a small country bordering a large country, and in this case sharing a language with it, business can very easily migrate to one side of the border or the other. So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
So low corporate tax rates with high income tax rates...
The latest Populus is a mildly encouraging one for the Tories (especially for a Monday), but yet again they appear incapable of breaking through that 34%/35% ceiling. Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?
Patience, look at the long term trend, a couple of years ago, Labour were polling 40+, and the Tories 28-31.
I expect there'll be further tightening.
Remember in the last parliament, the Tories had a 17% lead at this stage with ICM, and their lead only really started to shrink from January 2010 onwards
If Scotland votes Yes, then I think all the prediction models go out the window.
Would the votes punish the Conservatives for losing Scotland? Or would they swing to the Conservatives to play hardball with Scotland during the negotiations? Or would they swing generally rightwards, to the benefit of UKIP?
BTW can somebody explain why the Scandinavia model is unlikely to work for Scotlans?
When you have a small country bordering a large country, and in this case sharing a language with it, business can very easily migrate to one side of the border or the other. So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
BTW can somebody explain why the Scandinavia model is unlikely to work for Scotlans?
When you have a small country bordering a large country, and in this case sharing a language with it, business can very easily migrate to one side of the border or the other. So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
So low corporate tax rates with high income tax rates...
I'd imagine they'd need to be competitive on income tax rates as well, so low tax and low spending all around.
@MonikerDiCanio "National service" need not be the same as "conscription", but attacking a country where almost all the population has been trained in using weapons, and has access to them in time of need can be a fairly effective deterrent. I am talking about the modern Swiss system here, and not the older "gun and ammunition in every household".
When you have a small country bordering a large country, and in this case sharing a language with it, business can very easily migrate to one side of the border or the other. So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
Only if they are members of the same market. if Scotland is not an EU member that strategy doesn't really work
@MonikerDiCanio "National service" need not be the same as "conscription", but attacking a country where almost all the population has been trained in using weapons, and has access to them in time of need can be a fairly effective deterrent. I am talking about the modern Swiss system here, and not the older "gun and ammunition in every household".
So you support the US militia movement and would like to see something similar in Scotland.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
By not having an In / Out referendum he keeps UKIP alive, which will be worth another 15 or 20 seats to him as well.
I wonder if Miliband will survive. YES makes everything uncertain. Everything.
I think another, unlooked for negative will be the vast majority of Labour voters who like the Monarchy and will dislike seeing the Queen distressed.
Another reason many English lefties are angry is that they see this bid for indy as naked selfishness: a "resource grab". Scotland is quite a prosperous part of the UK, and the Nats are saying to poorer bits of the country, like Wales, northern England, Cornwall - bugger off, we're having the oil, you impoverished Geordies and Scousers can go suck on it.
This really needs to be hammered home. Independence is not social justice. It is a resource grab.
Before North Sea oil the Nats got about 0.5% of the vote in Scotland. It's a party of base greed and selfishness.
The case for social justice and equality for the whole of society and not just one nationality can trump nationalism, but only if the case can be made by people who have the credentials to do it. Old Socialist Labour could do it. The only way to defeat an ideology is by using another ideology. They could say "we should use the oil for the benefit of all people, not just a small portion".
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
Against that, you could make a reasonable argument that anyone who enters the UK from France is ineligible for asylum (because they should claim in the first safe country).
We can then assess them as normal economic migrants and see whether it is in our interest to give them a visa.
BTW can somebody explain why the Scandinavia model is unlikely to work for Scotlans?
So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
The only problem is that the YES vote will have been obtained on a series of profound lies saying exactly the opposite - lefty jam tomorrow at the end of the rainbow. The collision of reality with YES expectations after a YES is going to be brutal. Scotland will have a monster deficit, no central bank and serious serious challenges borrowing in a market. Freedom will come a t a heavy heavy price.
The latest Populus is a mildly encouraging one for the Tories (especially for a Monday), but yet again they appear incapable of breaking through that 34%/35% ceiling. Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?
Patience, look at the long term trend, a couple of years ago, Labour were polling 40+, and the Tories 28-31.
I expect there'll be further tightening.
Remember in the last parliament, the Tories had a 17% lead at this stage with ICM, and their lead only really started to shrink from January 2010 onwards
If Scotland votes Yes, then I think all the prediction models go out the window.
Would the votes punish the Conservatives for losing Scotland? Or would they swing to the Conservatives to play hardball with Scotland during the negotiations? Or would they swing generally rightwards, to the benefit of UKIP?
When you have a small country bordering a large country, and in this case sharing a language with it, business can very easily migrate to one side of the border or the other. So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
Only if they are members of the same market. if Scotland is not an EU member that strategy doesn't really work
Back on planet earth, they'll be in the EU, although it may involve extensive faffing and/or unfavourable terms pour encourager les autres.
The latest Populus is a mildly encouraging one for the Tories (especially for a Monday), but yet again they appear incapable of breaking through that 34%/35% ceiling. Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?
Patience, look at the long term trend, a couple of years ago, Labour were polling 40+, and the Tories 28-31.
I expect there'll be further tightening.
Remember in the last parliament, the Tories had a 17% lead at this stage with ICM, and their lead only really started to shrink from January 2010 onwards
If Scotland votes Yes, then I think all the prediction models go out the window.
Would the votes punish the Conservatives for losing Scotland? Or would they swing to the Conservatives to play hardball with Scotland during the negotiations? Or would they swing generally rightwards, to the benefit of UKIP?
I really don't know.
It would create an opportunity for one or another politician to capture the public mood - or alternatively to completely misjudge the public mood - and therefore to win or lose the confidence of the public.
I don't think it's something you can predict on the basis of an ideological framework. It's also possible that all the party politicians will do equally well, leading to surprisingly little net change.
You haven't spoken to many lefties then. All the ones I know are spitting blood at the idea of Scotland leaving, they feel it is a betrayal, especially by Labour voters.
Miliband will not be able to pacify his own people and reach some cosy deal with Salmond.
Besides, I believe we are all under-estimating the total shock a YES will be to the Labour Party, in toto. It's not just the loss of 40 MPs, it's the entirety - Labour loses its heartland and its birthplace. The recriminations will be bitter and prolonged - probably worse than in the Tory party. Gordon Brown will become a foreigner. Likewise Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy. They will be furious and bewildered, at once.
I wonder if Miliband will survive. YES makes everything uncertain. Everything.
I know lots more lefties than you do, I'd think. The ones I talk to are best described as a bit concerned - they would be rather sorry if the Scots decide to leave us on general grounds, and as lefties they note that it makes getting a majority harder. But they accept that it's a matter for the Scots and they don't see it as a betrayal or a matter for bitterness and anguish.
Perhaps I attract placid friends and you attract emotional ones...
Perhaps I have more friends?
The 40 MPs will not be lost until at least March 2016, and I think that's wildly optimistic as a date for independence. Labour could easily run a one year government if they poll as they are doing now and then do some kind of deal in 2016.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
If Scotland secedes, the people of rUK would expect their government to negotiate the best settlement they can with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. A government that's dependent on Scottish votes to survive can't do that.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
I'm not sure that follows. Post-2015, Labour can use Scottish votes to force through electoral reforms to keep itself in power in perpetuity, with the quid pro quo being they agree to Salmond's currency union. By not having an In / Out referendum he keeps UKIP alive, which will be worth another 15 or 20 seats to him as well.
Electoral reform would see Labour thrown out of power. They need First Past the Post to say in place.
Mr Bond - They'd be no incentive for Miliband to offer Scotland anything. Why should he care about Scottish Labour? It'll be a separate party.
The incentive would be that after 2015, Miliband will find he needs the votes of exiting Scottish MPs to do anything at all. So they'll get their currency union. We'll underwrite their banks as a quid pro quo, or perhaps that should be several billion quid pro quo, for Miliband being allowed to do valuable things, such as apply mansion taxes to southern semis and wreck the housing market with rent controls. SLAB will argue that it was them wot won it for Scotland.
Agree it wouldn't necessarily be electoral reform as in AV or whatever. It would be more of a gerrymandering of boundaries coupled with a Bismarckian gerrymandering of the House, so that the same number of Labour votes always adds up to most seats, and they can always veto anything they don't like.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
So when do we ditch London ?
Once we get rid of the Scots.
In your dreams. Half of them will be moving down your way looking for jobs and then telling you why it's all your fault. Labour majority in Horsham nailed on.
A Labour majority in Horsham, that would be something to see. Mind you, someone has to live in the thousands of houses they are building in the area, plus Cameron's localisation (i.e. dictates from Westminster) has not gone down well and I hear on the grapevine that the local Conservative association is planning to put up an ever bigger prick than Francis Maude when that ghastly man stands down. So it may not be outside the bounds of possibility.
For myself I continue to try and persuade Herself that we need to move North for a better quality of life, but it is a long slog. Northumbria would be my ideal but she won't have that. So I am thinking about suggesting the Welsh Marches, perhaps somewhere around Ludlow.
BTW can somebody explain why the Scandinavia model is unlikely to work for Scotlans?
So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
The only problem is that the YES vote will have been obtained on a series of profound lies saying exactly the opposite - lefty jam tomorrow at the end of the rainbow. The collision of reality with YES expectations after a YES is going to be brutal. Scotland will have a monster deficit, no central bank and serious serious challenges borrowing in a market. Freedom will come a t a heavy heavy price.
That depends - if the UK/EU economies are growing at the time it probably won't feel too bad, but if not it could potentially be quite nasty. But they won't have any other option, they'll just have to suck it up.
If anyone is in the Edinburgh area next Monday, Ladbrokes are staging a "Referendum race" at Musselburgh before the afternoon card begins. Two horses, one called Yes We Can, the other Neigh Thanks in a 5f match. http://www.musselburgh-racecourse.co.uk/latest-news.asp?id=MR2-N10391&p=1 You can book free tickets using the link in the article. I'll be there.
The incentive would be that after 2015, Miliband will find he needs the votes of exiting Scottish MPs to do anything at all. So they'll get their currency union. We'll underwrite their banks as a quid pro quo
Which is why it might be interesting to stop Scottish banks printing money on the 19th.
At the next GE Labour would campaign in Scotland "We'll get your pound notes back" while in the fUK the Tories would campaign on "Labour will give your money away"
If anyone is in the Edinburgh area next Monday, Ladbrokes are staging a "Referendum race" at Musselburgh before the afternoon card begins. Two horses, one called Yes We Can, the other Neigh Thanks in a 5f match. http://www.musselburgh-racecourse.co.uk/latest-news.asp?id=MR2-N10391&p=1 You can book free tickets using the link in the article. I'll be there.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.
They've voted to secede. They have to deal with the consequences.
Why would we be entitled to their tax revenues? Are you suggesting that rUK could just do whatever it wanted in such a scenario because Scotland has 'to deal with the consequences?' A Crimea style coup around Faslane?
Because the most likely first thing that would happen would be that the block grant would be guaranteed as an absolute amount until iDay thereby abolishing the Barnett Formula.
Scottish people would pay their taxes into the UK system and then the Holyrood government would get the money back (less something for defence, FCO, etc)
' I thought that even you would realise that some of them were obviously refugees from a war-torn country.
Strange though in all the clips we see from Calais,it's just young men ,no middle aged or elderly men,no women and thankfully no children.
But if they are genuine refugees they an claim asylum in the first country they arrive in and in the case of France with it's left wing government it would be a formality.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
So when do we ditch London ?
Once we get rid of the Scots.
In your dreams. Half of them will be moving down your way looking for jobs and then telling you why it's all your fault. Labour majority in Horsham nailed on.
A Labour majority in Horsham, that would be something to see. Mind you, someone has to live in the thousands of houses they are building in the area, plus Cameron's localisation (i.e. dictates from Westminster) has not gone down well and I hear on the grapevine that the local Conservative association is planning to put up an ever bigger prick than Francis Maude when that ghastly man stands down. So it may not be outside the bounds of possibility.
For myself I continue to try and persuade Herself that we need to move North for a better quality of life, but it is a long slog. Northumbria would be my ideal but she won't have that. So I am thinking about suggesting the Welsh Marches, perhaps somewhere around Ludlow.
I'd definitely think abouit retiring to an iScotland as it would contain some decent size cities with very cheap housing buyable in very cheap local currency, the Scottish Pwned or whatever. The trouble is that the local dialect is very hard to understand and then of course there would be the riots and stuff.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
So when do we ditch London ?
Once we get rid of the Scots.
In your dreams. Half of them will be moving down your way looking for jobs and then telling you why it's all your fault. Labour majority in Horsham nailed on.
Don't joke about it.
We already have Eastern European ghettos forming (as I predicted here a couple of years ago, although I'm surprised at how soon it is happening) :
If there's a Yes, I wonder if on the 19th the Treasury might withdraw permission for Scottish banks to print their own notes?
- a statement of intent. We were not fibbing about a currency union so better get used to importing your notes from 'abroad'
- Alex Salmond was lying to you all along
- We are not going to roll over in the negotiations
Wouldn't change the result, but might have a bearing on future elections and the negotiated outcomes?
More to the point, who in their right mind will accept those notes, in England?
Scots already suffer a bit of resistance, when using them. After a YES I expect significant resistance. I wouldn't accept them if I were offered them as payment. If I did take them, how could I be sure the person I handed them on to would also take them? How could I be sure there wouldn't be come huge crisis in 2 months, during the divorce, rendering them worthless in England, or everywhere?
From a technical perspective, the Scottish Banks deposit with the Bank of England the equivalent amount in Pounds Sterling to that they have in issued bank notes. If BoS or Clydesdale wants to print another £10 note, it needs to send £10 to the Bank of England first.
The consequence of this is that Scottish bank notes are - effectively - fully underwritten by the BoE. I believe - although I could be wrong - that you can turn up in Threadneedle Street, hand over a Scottish bank note to the cashier, they will hand you a crisp BoE one. They will then reduce the amount that the Scottish bank is required to deposit with the BoE.
There is no reason why this should change immediately post independence vote.
Which is all fine and dandy whilst one Scottish pound equals one of our English pounds.
But imagine down the road a Scottish leftie profligate like, ooh, I dunno - Gordon Brown - gets his hands on power in Scotland, pledging to give the magic money tree a damn good shaking.... How long is parity going to last then?
Blaw Blaw your kilt awa, just fantasy politics from numpties. If your granny had testicles she would have been your grandpa. What if they discover ten times the oil , Scotland is awash with cash and we have starving English people at the border, will we feed them or shout freedom. The level of discourse on here is pathetic, stupid cretins making up crap.
This gives the Labour a predicted 41 MPs. If you take that off their overall prediction of 340 they are left with 300ish. Tories on 244, Liberals on 16. Still a Lab majority.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
So when do we ditch London ?
Once we get rid of the Scots.
In your dreams. Half of them will be moving down your way looking for jobs and then telling you why it's all your fault. Labour majority in Horsham nailed on.
Don't joke about it.
We already have Eastern European ghettos forming (as I predicted here a couple of years ago, although I'm surprised at how soon it is happening) :
Making the same point as mine, but much better written. Chris Deerin.
"Every Scottish Labour politician continued to blame the Tories for all society’s ills – it was an easy hit with the voters. The SNP and the Lib Dems happily joined in. And this England they all talked about: it made the hair on the back of your neck stand up. A foreign land of sinister experiments on the poor, of cackling toffs stubbing out cigars on passing immigrants, of warmongers obsessed with Jesus, George W and oil.
In this view, the Blair government wasn’t a necessary attempt to accommodate Labour values and modernity, it was proof that the worst of the English character had triumphed. Reform and innovation became dirty words. In 2010, when a moderate Tory/Lib Dem coalition came to power, it was treated like the Gestapo had taken over." https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/wrestling-with-smoke-7fa728a21318
The incentive would be that after 2015, Miliband will find he needs the votes of exiting Scottish MPs to do anything at all. So they'll get their currency union. We'll underwrite their banks as a quid pro quo
Which is why it might be interesting to stop Scottish banks printing money on the 19th.
At the next GE Labour would campaign in Scotland "We'll get your pound notes back" while in the fUK the Tories would campaign on "Labour will give your money away"
Labour always campaign on "The Tories will privatise the NHS" and will continue to do so.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.
They've voted to secede. They have to deal with the consequences.
Why would we be entitled to their tax revenues? Are you suggesting that rUK could just do whatever it wanted in such a scenario because Scotland has 'to deal with the consequences?' A Crimea style coup around Faslane?
Because the most likely first thing that would happen would be that the block grant would be guaranteed as an absolute amount until iDay thereby abolishing the Barnett Formula.
Scottish people would pay their taxes into the UK system and then the Holyrood government would get the money back (less something for defence, FCO, etc)
I think you'd find a Miliband government would guarantee the Barnett formula forever.
The incentive would be that after 2015, Miliband will find he needs the votes of exiting Scottish MPs to do anything at all. So they'll get their currency union. We'll underwrite their banks as a quid pro quo
Which is why it might be interesting to stop Scottish banks printing money on the 19th.
At the next GE Labour would campaign in Scotland "We'll get your pound notes back" while in the fUK the Tories would campaign on "Labour will give your money away"
The Labour Party will split into Scottish and rUK. Neither would have much incentive to work with the other.
BTW can somebody explain why the Scandinavia model is unlikely to work for Scotlans?
So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
The only problem is that the YES vote will have been obtained on a series of profound lies saying exactly the opposite - lefty jam tomorrow at the end of the rainbow. The collision of reality with YES expectations after a YES is going to be brutal. Scotland will have a monster deficit, no central bank and serious serious challenges borrowing in a market. Freedom will come a t a heavy heavy price.
That depends - if the UK/EU economies are growing at the time it probably won't feel too bad, but if not it could potentially be quite nasty. But they won't have any other option, they'll just have to suck it up.
Bullshit. rUK will have its own cuurency / central bank and can print if absolutely needed. It is technically impossible for rUK to go hard bankrupt (although we might go soft bankrupt via debauching our cuurency unless we get the deficit sorted). A Sterlingised Scotland would be borrowing in a foreign currency. Ask the GIPSIs how that pans out. They face hard bankruptcy - and possibly on a short timeline.
The incentive would be that after 2015, Miliband will find he needs the votes of exiting Scottish MPs to do anything at all. So they'll get their currency union. We'll underwrite their banks as a quid pro quo
Which is why it might be interesting to stop Scottish banks printing money on the 19th.
At the next GE Labour would campaign in Scotland "We'll get your pound notes back" while in the fUK the Tories would campaign on "Labour will give your money away"
The Labour Party will split into Scottish and rUK. Neither would have much incentive to work with the other.
The incentive might be something as crude as guaranteed public sector jobs in Scotland for all those Labour Scots. If that's their goal then they're going to want to ensure the Scotch public sector is properly funded, at which point they reach for English money.
If there's a Yes, I wonder if on the 19th the Treasury might withdraw permission for Scottish banks to print their own notes?
- a statement of intent. We were not fibbing about a currency union so better get used to importing your notes from 'abroad'
- Alex Salmond was lying to you all along
- We are not going to roll over in the negotiations
Wouldn't change the result, but might have a bearing on future elections and the negotiated outcomes?
More to the point, who in their right mind will accept those notes, in England?
Scots already suffer a bit of resistance, when using them. After a YES I expect significant resistance. I wouldn't accept them if I were offered them as payment. If I did take them, how could I be sure the person I handed them on to would also take them? How could I be sure there wouldn't be come huge crisis in 2 months, during the divorce, rendering them worthless in England, or everywhere?
From a technical perspective, the Scottish Banks deposit with the Bank of England the equivalent amount in Pounds Sterling to that they have in issued bank notes. If BoS or Clydesdale wants to print another £10 note, it needs to send £10 to the Bank of England first.
The consequence of this is that Scottish bank notes are - effectively - fully underwritten by the BoE. I believe - although I could be wrong - that you can turn up in Threadneedle Street, hand over a Scottish bank note to the cashier, they will hand you a crisp BoE one. They will then reduce the amount that the Scottish bank is required to deposit with the BoE.
There is no reason why this should change immediately post independence vote.
Which is all fine and dandy whilst one Scottish pound equals one of our English pounds.
But imagine down the road a Scottish leftie profligate like, ooh, I dunno - Gordon Brown - gets his hands on power in Scotland, pledging to give the magic money tree a damn good shaking.... How long is parity going to last then?
The level of discourse on here is pathetic, stupid cretins making up crap.
If there's a Yes, I wonder if on the 19th the Treasury might withdraw permission for Scottish banks to print their own notes?
- a statement of intent. We were not fibbing about a currency union so better get used to importing your notes from 'abroad'
- Alex Salmond was lying to you all along
- We are not going to roll over in the negotiations
Wouldn't change the result, but might have a bearing on future elections and the negotiated outcomes?
?
.
?
Blaw Blaw your kilt awa, just fantasy politics from numpties. If your granny had testicles she would have been your grandpa. What if they discover ten times the oil , Scotland is awash with cash and we have starving English people at the border, will we feed them or shout freedom. The level of discourse on here is pathetic, stupid cretins making up crap.
No, this is an example of a stupid cretin making up crap
Alex Salmond has been accused of misleading voters about the legal advice given to his government about the right of an independent Scotland to join the European Union.
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.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
So when do we ditch London ?
Once we get rid of the Scots.
In your dreams. Half of them will be moving down your way looking for jobs and then telling you why it's all your fault. Labour majority in Horsham nailed on.
Don't joke about it.
We already have Eastern European ghettos forming (as I predicted here a couple of years ago, although I'm surprised at how soon it is happening) :
It wouldn't surprise me to see Scottish ghettoes forming in England after an independent Scotland's welfare state goes bankrupt.
I have an interesting one developing.
I regularly order steel from a service centre in Dudley. But they are part of a national chain and their invoicing centre is in Scotland. If it's Indy I'll stop ordering from them since I don't want the extra VAT hassle of dealing with export, or they move their billing SOTB.
I wonder if the Mayor of Zeebrugge is worried - his ferry port may be under siege as immigrants look to board a boat to Rosyth to be part of the socialst utopia ?
Flash get into the 21st century , there is no ferry to Rosyth you stupid turnip.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
Mr. Speedy, I think you have put your finger on exactly why the Union is broken and needs to go. The South and the Shires don't demand independence when there is a labour government or the Northern cities when their is a Conservative government because we all see ourselves as part of one body and will take the rough with the smooth. Scotland no longer sees itself as part of the same body.
So when do we ditch London ?
Once we get rid of the Scots.
In your dreams. Half of them will be moving down your way looking for jobs and then telling you why it's all your fault. Labour majority in Horsham nailed on.
Don't joke about it.
We already have Eastern European ghettos forming (as I predicted here a couple of years ago, although I'm surprised at how soon it is happening) :
BTW can somebody explain why the Scandinavia model is unlikely to work for Scotlans?
So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
The only problem is that the YES vote will have been obtained on a series of profound lies saying exactly the opposite - lefty jam tomorrow at the end of the rainbow. The collision of reality with YES expectations after a YES is going to be brutal. Scotland will have a monster deficit, no central bank and serious serious challenges borrowing in a market. Freedom will come a t a heavy heavy price.
That depends - if the UK/EU economies are growing at the time it probably won't feel too bad, but if not it could potentially be quite nasty. But they won't have any other option, they'll just have to suck it up.
Bullshit. rUK will have its own cuurency / central bank and can print if absolutely needed. It is technically impossible for rUK to go hard bankrupt (although we might go soft bankrupt via debauching our cuurency unless we get the deficit sorted). A Sterlingised Scotland would be borrowing in a foreign currency. Ask the GIPSIs how that pans out. They face hard bankruptcy - and possibly on a short timeline.
Borrowing in a foreign currency is OK when everything is OK, but not when it's not. So it really depends on the state of the economy at the time.
If anyone is in the Edinburgh area next Monday, Ladbrokes are staging a "Referendum race" at Musselburgh before the afternoon card begins. Two horses, one called Yes We Can, the other Neigh Thanks in a 5f match. http://www.musselburgh-racecourse.co.uk/latest-news.asp?id=MR2-N10391&p=1 You can book free tickets using the link in the article. I'll be there.
I'm not sure that's as clever or amusing as your marketing department believes. Aside from the politics, it devalues the sport of kings.
BTW can somebody explain why the Scandinavia model is unlikely to work for Scotlans?
When you have a small country bordering a large country, and in this case sharing a language with it, business can very easily migrate to one side of the border or the other. So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?
Proportionately far more people emigrated to Ireland than to the UK over the last year for which statistics are available.
You haven't spoken to many lefties then. All the ones I know are spitting blood at the idea of Scotland leaving, they feel it is a betrayal, especially by Labour voters.
Miliband will not be able to pacify his own people and reach some cosy deal with Salmond.
Besides, I believe we are all under-estimating the total shock a YES will be to the Labour Party, in toto. It's not just the loss of 40 MPs, it's the entirety - Labour loses its heartland and its birthplace. The recriminations will be bitter and prolonged - probably worse than in the Tory party. Gordon Brown will become a foreigner. Likewise Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy. They will be furious and bewildered, at once.
I wonder if Miliband will survive. YES makes everything uncertain. Everything.
I know lots more lefties than you do, I'd think. The ones I talk to are best described as a bit concerned - they would be rather sorry if the Scots decide to leave us on general grounds, and as lefties they note that it makes getting a majority harder. But they accept that it's a matter for the Scots and they don't see it as a betrayal or a matter for bitterness and anguish.
Perhaps I attract placid friends and you attract emotional ones...
Perhaps I have more friends?
The 40 MPs will not be lost until at least March 2016, and I think that's wildly optimistic as a date for independence. Labour could easily run a one year government if they poll as they are doing now and then do some kind of deal in 2016.
That makes so many wild presumptions it is barely worth considering.
As Sean Fear says, if we get a YES, all bets are off. Who knows how the English will react, or the Scots.
Will Scottish MPs even be allowed to enter Westminster? Will they be allowed a say (they certainly won't be allowed a say on the divorce). Why should Scots continue to vote for Labour MPs, when they will want as many Nats in london, to fight their side? Labour could lose all 40 MPs anyway, even through normal voting.
Plus the Tories might win under a new leader, if and when Cameron goes. Or a Tory-UKIP Coalition. Or the Tartan Martians will land and beat us to death with a mile wide galacto-haggis.
Really. No one knows. But it ain't gonna be good for Labour, that's for sure.
Agreed that alsorts of possibilities, but nothing in our constitution could stop them taking their seats I think.
I think you'd find a Miliband government would guarantee the Barnett formula forever.
The Barnett formula has to be one of the most misunderstood features of British politics.
If the ratio of England's population to Scotland's had remained constant since its introduction then spending levels per capita in the two countries would now be nearly identical.
It is only because Scotland's population has declined relative to England's that a discrepancy has remained. Were this relative population decline to reverse then at some point per capita spending in England would increase above that of Scotland.
The latest Populus is a mildly encouraging one for the Tories (especially for a Monday), but yet again they appear incapable of breaking through that 34%/35% ceiling. Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?
Patience, look at the long term trend, a couple of years ago, Labour were polling 40+, and the Tories 28-31.
I expect there'll be further tightening.
Remember in the last parliament, the Tories had a 17% lead at this stage with ICM, and their lead only really started to shrink from January 2010 onwards
So, if you believe all this The (you don't mind me calling you that do you), why do you keep telling us again and again that you expect Labour to win the most seats?
BTW can somebody explain why the Scandinavia model is unlikely to work for Scotlans?
So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
The only problem is that the YES vote will have been obtained on a series of profound lies saying exactly the opposite - lefty jam tomorrow at the end of the rainbow. The collision of reality with YES expectations after a YES is going to be brutal. Scotland will have a monster deficit, no central bank and serious serious challenges borrowing in a market. Freedom will come a t a heavy heavy price.
That depends - if the UK/EU economies are growing at the time it probably won't feel too bad, but if not it could potentially be quite nasty. But they won't have any other option, they'll just have to suck it up.
Bullshit. rUK will have its own cuurency / central bank and can print if absolutely needed. It is technically impossible for rUK to go hard bankrupt (although we might go soft bankrupt via debauching our cuurency unless we get the deficit sorted). A Sterlingised Scotland would be borrowing in a foreign currency. Ask the GIPSIs how that pans out. They face hard bankruptcy - and possibly on a short timeline.
Borrowing in a foreign currency is OK when everything is OK, but not when it's not. So it really depends on the state of the economy at the time.
Borrowing in a foreign currency is always insane. Economies are cyclical. Things look fine until they look dire. Servicing debt in your own cirrency is hard enough without having forex risk on top and interest rates you can't control. Currency unions don't work without political union, fiscal union and transfer union. Scotland will be in very serious risk until it establishes and stabilisies the Gordo. And balances its books.
When you have a small country bordering a large country, and in this case sharing a language with it, business can very easily migrate to one side of the border or the other. So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
Only if they are members of the same market. if Scotland is not an EU member that strategy doesn't really work
Back on planet earth, they'll be in the EU, although it may involve extensive faffing and/or unfavourable terms pour encourager les autres.
And even if they aren't, cross-border trade isn't going to stop. Why on earth would it?
The quality of indyref debate seems - almost impossibly - to be actually declining.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
If Scotland secedes, the people of rUK would expect their government to negotiate the best settlement they can with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. A government that's dependent on Scottish votes to survive can't do that.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
I'm not sure that follows. Post-2015, Labour can use Scottish votes to force through electoral reforms to keep itself in power in perpetuity, with the quid pro quo being they agree to Salmond's currency union. By not having an In / Out referendum he keeps UKIP alive, which will be worth another 15 or 20 seats to him as well.
You haven't spoken to many lefties then. All the ones I know are spitting blood at the idea of Scotland leaving, they feel it is a betrayal, especially by Labour voters. Miliband will not be able to pacify his own people and reach some cosy deal with Salmond. Besides, I believe we are all under-estimating the total shock a YES will be to the Labour Party, in toto. It's not just the loss of 40 MPs, it's the entirety - Labour loses its heartland and its birthplace. The recriminations will be bitter and prolonged - probably worse than in the Tory party. Gordon Brown will become a foreigner. Likewise Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy. They will be furious and bewildered, at once. I wonder if Miliband will survive. YES makes everything uncertain. Everything.
Here is a freebie for any hack wondering what to write for tomorrow's paper. Did the selection of an English man (Miliband) shift a significant amount of SLAB voters into the independence camp? Having fed the image of "nasty English", SLAB are now reaping what they sowed.
When you have a small country bordering a large country, and in this case sharing a language with it, business can very easily migrate to one side of the border or the other. So Scotland will have strong incentives to try to undercut England with low taxes and light regulation, and probably won't even try to implement the Scandinavia model (if that's still a thing). It'll be like Ireland but even more so.
Only if they are members of the same market. if Scotland is not an EU member that strategy doesn't really work
Back on planet earth, they'll be in the EU, although it may involve extensive faffing and/or unfavourable terms pour encourager les autres.
And even if they aren't, cross-border trade isn't going to stop. Why on earth would it?
The quality of indyref debate seems - almost impossibly - to be actually declining.
It's the old adage never argue with an economic idiot, first Salmond drags you down to his level and then he beats you on experience.
The latest Populus is a mildly encouraging one for the Tories (especially for a Monday), but yet again they appear incapable of breaking through that 34%/35% ceiling. Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?
Patience, look at the long term trend, a couple of years ago, Labour were polling 40+, and the Tories 28-31.
I expect there'll be further tightening.
Remember in the last parliament, the Tories had a 17% lead at this stage with ICM, and their lead only really started to shrink from January 2010 onwards
So, if you believe all this The (you don't mind me calling you that do you), why do you keep telling us again and again that you expect Labour to win the most seats?
I'm expecting the Tories to win the most votes, but Labour most seats.
I'm expecting the Lib Dems to do better in the Lib/Con marginals, and UKIP to hurt the Tories.
Baxtering Con 35 Lab 33 LD 12 UKIP 12
Gives a seat distribution of Con 289, Lab 309, LD 25, UKIP 0.
Wow. Just did an indyref tweet which went totally viral (retweeted by Dan Snow et al)
Now got lots of cybernats foaming at me.
Heh.
@thomasknox Dear Scotland. Here is my daughter. She is quarter Scottish. She is British. Please don't take away her identity. pic.twitter.com/GdlReCFUrq
Fantastic Sean - good for you.
You can, of course, decide to retweet the abuse as well and thus hoist the nationalists by their own petard.
Comments
Only part of the independence vote is emotional, and that part you will never shift.
The other (and I would reckon largest) part comes from people who think the entire British system is broken.
That they think it is broken in different ways, will lead to an upheaval after a "yes" vote is neither here nor there, they consider it worth the risk.
You see the same thing in English politics, but its outlets are limited to the "Greens", UKIP mainly.
Example, the biggest obstacle for catalonian independence is the spanish football league and Barcelona FC. If catalonia gets its independence were would Barcelona FC play?
I expect the usual suspects will claim this as Great news for Yes
And government by the minority is sensible?
Our system allows almost unlimited power to the party who can offer the best bribe to a small portion of the electorate.
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save The King.
Vote Yes, and well, you'll wake a sleeping dragon.
Resurgent English nationalism would surely lead to England and Wales parting ways.
Almost every country that is a modern democracy is governed by a minority.
If you don't like it, there is always Switzerland.
An independent scotland would not be an exception, it will be governed by the SNP and it's 35-40% of the electorate.
Scotland should go for the Swiss version of home defense.
I expect there'll be further tightening.
Remember in the last parliament, the Tories had a 17% lead at this stage with ICM, and their lead only really started to shrink from January 2010 onwards
London already does that anyway.
Perhaps I attract placid friends and you attract emotional ones...
Scotland is indeed the heart of the "Labour" movement in Britain, and in understanding the "why", you can gain an insight into the heart of the "yes" votes broader appeal.
The SNP will fracture after the referendum, and will split completely should they win.
Except enough to pay the tax of course, but for that, the duffer that currency the happier you are: earn dollar profits, pay tax bawbees. Result.
Would the votes punish the Conservatives for losing Scotland? Or would they swing to the Conservatives to play hardball with Scotland during the negotiations? Or would they swing generally rightwards, to the benefit of UKIP?
I really don't know.
"National service" need not be the same as "conscription", but attacking a country where almost all the population has been trained in using weapons, and has access to them in time of need can be a fairly effective deterrent.
I am talking about the modern Swiss system here, and not the older "gun and ammunition in every household".
Old Socialist Labour could do it.
The only way to defeat an ideology is by using another ideology.
They could say "we should use the oil for the benefit of all people, not just a small portion".
We can then assess them as normal economic migrants and see whether it is in our interest to give them a visa.
No, I support the Swiss system, The US version is nuts.
I don't think it's something you can predict on the basis of an ideological framework. It's also possible that all the party politicians will do equally well, leading to surprisingly little net change.
Agree it wouldn't necessarily be electoral reform as in AV or whatever. It would be more of a gerrymandering of boundaries coupled with a Bismarckian gerrymandering of the House, so that the same number of Labour votes always adds up to most seats, and they can always veto anything they don't like.
For myself I continue to try and persuade Herself that we need to move North for a better quality of life, but it is a long slog. Northumbria would be my ideal but she won't have that. So I am thinking about suggesting the Welsh Marches, perhaps somewhere around Ludlow.
http://www.musselburgh-racecourse.co.uk/latest-news.asp?id=MR2-N10391&p=1
You can book free tickets using the link in the article. I'll be there.
At the next GE Labour would campaign in Scotland "We'll get your pound notes back" while in the fUK the Tories would campaign on "Labour will give your money away"
Scottish people would pay their taxes into the UK system and then the Holyrood government would get the money back (less something for defence, FCO, etc)
' I thought that even you would realise that some of them were obviously refugees from a war-torn country.
Strange though in all the clips we see from Calais,it's just young men ,no middle aged or elderly men,no women and thankfully no children.
But if they are genuine refugees they an claim asylum in the first country they arrive in and in the case of France with it's left wing government it would be a formality.
We already have Eastern European ghettos forming (as I predicted here a couple of years ago, although I'm surprised at how soon it is happening) :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29068034
It wouldn't surprise me to see Scottish ghettoes forming in England after an independent Scotland's welfare state goes bankrupt.
What if they discover ten times the oil , Scotland is awash with cash and we have starving English people at the border, will we feed them or shout freedom.
The level of discourse on here is pathetic, stupid cretins making up crap.
This gives the Labour a predicted 41 MPs. If you take that off their overall prediction of 340 they are left with 300ish. Tories on 244, Liberals on 16. Still a Lab majority.
Alex Salmond has been accused of misleading voters about the legal advice given to his government about the right of an independent Scotland to join the European Union.
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.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/oct/23/alex-salmond-eu-legal-advice-scotland
I regularly order steel from a service centre in Dudley. But they are part of a national chain and their invoicing centre is in Scotland. If it's Indy I'll stop ordering from them since I don't want the extra VAT hassle of dealing with export, or they move their billing SOTB.
If the ratio of England's population to Scotland's had remained constant since its introduction then spending levels per capita in the two countries would now be nearly identical.
It is only because Scotland's population has declined relative to England's that a discrepancy has remained. Were this relative population decline to reverse then at some point per capita spending in England would increase above that of Scotland.
You should hear what he calls Dave though.....
(Full disclosure, I've never met Lord Ashcroft, only ever communicated to him via twitter)
The quality of indyref debate seems - almost impossibly - to be actually declining.
I'm expecting the Lib Dems to do better in the Lib/Con marginals, and UKIP to hurt the Tories.
Baxtering Con 35 Lab 33 LD 12 UKIP 12
Gives a seat distribution of Con 289, Lab 309, LD 25, UKIP 0.
You can, of course, decide to retweet the abuse as well and thus hoist the nationalists by their own petard.
Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch 2m
British six scandal n Rotherham too horrible . Problem in other northern cities endemic. Labour councils cover up Reverse racism.
Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch · 9m
Muslims 1per cent of US, basically very well integrated. UK 4 plus and France 5, man more joining ISIS and majority far from integrated
When Education Secretary tried to correct in some schools Cameron sacked him. General public disgusted.