"It's very much about a dislike of the English; this latest 'Anti Westminster' line that some are peddling, is simply laughable."
Somewhat reluctantly I'm inclined to agree.
There is little economic justification for Independence. If anything the economic advantages lie the other way. It has to be fuelled by something else then, and anti-Englishness seems the obvious significant driving force.
I find this rather sad. I like Scotland, and the Scots, and am disappointed to discover that enough of them feel hostile enough towards England and the English to consider the risks and likely economic disadvantages of separation worthwhile.
But if that's the way they feel....
It's all very sad, even tragic. It's like the wanton destruction of a magnificent work of art.
I still can't quite believe that they are going to do it. If they do I will genuinely grieve. It makes me so so sad.
crocodile tears.
For you maybe, but I love this country and I love Scotland being part of it.
I say crocodile tear since as a Laourite you are hoisted on your own petards
- for years you let the toories venom flow in Scotland and did the SNPs work for them it was a short hop from tory to english - you didn't think through the consequences of the devolution settlement and merrily marched down a route which created a crack which the Nats are trying to make a fissure - you acted like a bunch of lazy sods in the campaign and if it's a yes it's the Labour vote wot did it
so if you loved this country so much maybe you should have looked after it better.
As it is I think it will be a NO and you'll then breathe a sigh of relief and go off and fk it all up again.
We could always do a Putin if the worst happens, if the borders vote to stay with the union we should move the border North to respect their sovereign will. Would act as a means of minimising the territorial loss.
We would still be Great Britain after the separation. Great Britain just means bigger than Brittany doesn't it? No title change. Just take the Saltire out of the Union flag.
The Roman province of Britannia stopped at Hadrian's Wall.
What happens to our overseas territories in result of independence, save I believe Bermuda and Gibraltar, we collected them as a Union. I doubt Scotland would wish to lay claim to any of them, but will they be treated as assets?
I have no idea. However earlier in the year , I remember the SNP were asked how much it would cost to create new embassies etc in each country. So to offset these cost, I imagine they might.
"It's very much about a dislike of the English; this latest 'Anti Westminster' line that some are peddling, is simply laughable."
Somewhat reluctantly I'm inclined to agree.
There is little economic justification for Independence. If anything the economic advantages lie the other way. It has to be fuelled by something else then, and anti-Englishness seems the obvious significant driving force.
I find this rather sad. I like Scotland, and the Scots, and am disappointed to discover that enough of them feel hostile enough towards England and the English to consider the risks and likely economic disadvantages of separation worthwhile.
But if that's the way they feel....
It's all very sad, even tragic. It's like the wanton destruction of a magnificent work of art.
I still can't quite believe that they are going to do it. If they do I will genuinely grieve. It makes me so so sad.
crocodile tears.
For you maybe, but I love this country and I love Scotland being part of it.
I say crocodile tear since as a Laourite you are hoisted on your own petards
- for years youy let the toories venom flow in Scotland and did the SNPs work for them it was a short hop from tory to english - you didn't think through the consequences of the devolution settlement and merrily marched down a route which created a crack which the Nats are trying to make a fissure - you acted like a bunch of lazy sods in the campaign and if it's a yes it's the Labour vote wot did it
so if you loved this country so much maybe you should have looked after it better.
As it is I think it will be a NO and you'll then breathe a sigh of relief and go off and fk it all up again.
crocodile tears.
And Cameron mismanaged the referendum so badly that there was no Devo-Max while the Conservatives can only blame themselves for their unpopularity in Scotland as a whole.
That's not to say Labour are blameless but this is one huge sh!t sandwich my friend and we are all going to have to take a bite.
To me, the Union Flag represents one of the greatest and most enlightened nations in history. An island whose people's overcame their differences to forge a political union and went on to build the modern world. A benign nation that, even today, much of the world still looks up to for inspiration as a mother of liberty and defender of freedom.
And if the Scots want to leave that behind, that tells you all you need to know....
We could always do a Putin if the worst happens, if the borders vote to stay with the union we should move the border North to respect their sovereign will. Would act as a means of minimising the territorial loss.
There's a fair few "Ethnic English" in Aberdeen too - so maybe we can send a few off-duty SAS tourists and keep the oil after all?
We could always do a Putin if the worst happens, if the borders vote to stay with the union we should move the border North to respect their sovereign will. Would act as a means of minimising the territorial loss.
the correct thing to do Miss C wouyld be to let the Orkneys and Shetlands vote on independence first, give them a status like thye IoM and Jersey and THEN let Scotland have independence. ;-)
"It's very much about a dislike of the English; this latest 'Anti Westminster' line that some are peddling, is simply laughable."
Somewhat reluctantly I'm inclined to agree.
There is little economic justification for Independence. If anything the economic advantages lie the other way. It has to be fuelled by something else then, and anti-Englishness seems the obvious significant driving force.
I find this rather sad. I like Scotland, and the Scots, and am disappointed to discover that enough of them feel hostile enough towards England and the English to consider the risks and likely economic disadvantages of separation worthwhile.
But if that's the way they feel....
It's all very sad, even tragic. It's like the wanton destruction of a magnificent work of art.
I still can't quite believe that they are going to do it. If they do I will genuinely grieve. It makes me so so sad.
crocodile tears.
For you maybe, but I love this country and I love Scotland being part of it.
I say crocodile tear since as a Laourite you are hoisted on your own petards
- for years youy let the toories venom flow in Scotland and did the SNPs work for them it was a short hop from tory to english - you didn't think through the consequences of the devolution settlement and merrily marched down a route which created a crack which the Nats are trying to make a fissure - you acted like a bunch of lazy sods in the campaign and if it's a yes it's the Labour vote wot did it
so if you loved this country so much maybe you should have looked after it better.
As it is I think it will be a NO and you'll then breathe a sigh of relief and go off and fk it all up again.
crocodile tears.
And Cameron mismanaged the referendum so badly that there was no Devo-Max while the Conservatives can only blame themselves for their unpopularity in Scotland as a whole.
That's not to say Labour are blameless but this is one huge sh!t sandwich my friend and we are all going to have to take a bite.
I think the Scottish Labour MPs will actually have to demolish most of that particular buffet....
The position of the four home Countries is wholly anomalous and explainable only in terms of history and tradition.
I should think FIFA would be only too pleased to see the anomaly removed.
Precisely my point and rather underlines that there's a whole host of stuff that people haven't yet thought of that will be equally subject to the new order spawned by Scottish independence.
Marquee They cannot have another referendum next year, Canada was only 51-49 Non in 1995 and still no new referendum 19 years later, the next referendum could be on EU in 2017
"It's very much about a dislike of the English; this latest 'Anti Westminster' line that some are peddling, is simply laughable."
Somewhat reluctantly I'm inclined to agree.
There is little economic justification for Independence. If anything the economic advantages lie the other way. It has to be fuelled by something else then, and anti-Englishness seems the obvious significant driving force.
I find this rather sad. I like Scotland, and the Scots, and am disappointed to discover that enough of them feel hostile enough towards England and the English to consider the risks and likely economic disadvantages of separation worthwhile.
But if that's the way they feel....
It's all very sad, even tragic. It's like the wanton destruction of a magnificent work of art.
I still can't quite believe that they are going to do it. If they do I will genuinely grieve. It makes me so so sad.
crocodile tears.
For you maybe, but I love this country and I love Scotland being part of it.
I say crocodile tear since as a Laourite you are hoisted on your own petards
- for years youy let the toories venom flow in Scotland and did the SNPs work for them it was a short hop from tory to english - you didn't think through the consequences of the devolution settlement and merrily marched down a route which created a crack which the Nats are trying to make a fissure - you acted like a bunch of lazy sods in the campaign and if it's a yes it's the Labour vote wot did it
so if you loved this country so much maybe you should have looked after it better.
As it is I think it will be a NO and you'll then breathe a sigh of relief and go off and fk it all up again.
crocodile tears.
And Cameron mismanaged the referendum so badly that there was no Devo-Max while the Conservatives can only blame themselves for their unpopularity in Scotland as a whole.
That's not to say Labour are blameless but this is one huge sh!t sandwich my friend and we are all going to have to take a bite.
Personally I'm not going to. Labour owns this sandwich all by itself with a diarrhoea side order.
If you'd looked half thought through what you were doing instead of trying to rig fiefdoms for yourselves you wouldn't be in the mess. Save the tears.
Usually "former UK", as an alternative to "rUK" or rump UK - though there would be no other Kingdom for England to unite with.
Would it not be "The United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland" ?
Because NI is a province? Well, yes, the UK could still call itself that in a different sense of the word united. But that's a little bit like orange flavour drink ...
Er, we can call ourselves what the FUK we like. I imagine it will be the United Kingdom of England Wales and Northern Ireland. One Kingdom, united. How hard is that?
Likewise the flag. Post-YES I am sure we will keep the Union Jack, cause everyone likes it and it is globally cool.
I am slightly bemused why this should be of any interest to foreigners, which is what you will be if you get your wish. Butt out.
The flag itself is of only academic interest, and I agree entirely with you as regards that bit of vexillology. But it also symbolizes the claim of EWNI to be the continuing UK.
In the event of a Yes, that claim is central to the next two years.
This paper by Anthony Carty and Mairianna Clyde is currently available free as a pdf. It's a very interesting review of that very claim - and their contrary conclusion, based on the argument that the UK is not a unitary but composite state. It's well worth a read by those interested, as I have mentioned before - but it may have a new importance.
Given it will be a Westminster bill that defines Scottish independence, it's bloody foolish to believe they will ever let the UK not be the continuing state.
Besides, we have a predecessor case of Ireland. We know what will happen.
"It's very much about a dislike of the English; this latest 'Anti Westminster' line that some are peddling, is simply laughable."
Somewhat reluctantly I'm inclined to agree.
There is little economic justification for Independence. If anything the economic advantages lie the other way. It has to be fuelled by something else then, and anti-Englishness seems the obvious significant driving force.
I find this rather sad. I like Scotland, and the Scots, and am disappointed to discover that enough of them feel hostile enough towards England and the English to consider the risks and likely economic disadvantages of separation worthwhile.
But if that's the way they feel....
It's all very sad, even tragic. It's like the wanton destruction of a magnificent work of art.
I still can't quite believe that they are going to do it. If they do I will genuinely grieve. It makes me so so sad.
crocodile tears.
For you maybe, but I love this country and I love Scotland being part of it.
I say crocodile tear since as a Laourite you are hoisted on your own petards
- for years youy let the toories venom flow in Scotland and did the SNPs work for them it was a short hop from tory to english - you didn't think through the consequences of the devolution settlement and merrily marched down a route which created a crack which the Nats are trying to make a fissure - you acted like a bunch of lazy sods in the campaign and if it's a yes it's the Labour vote wot did it
so if you loved this country so much maybe you should have looked after it better.
As it is I think it will be a NO and you'll then breathe a sigh of relief and go off and fk it all up again.
crocodile tears.
And Cameron mismanaged the referendum so badly that there was no Devo-Max while the Conservatives can only blame themselves for their unpopularity in Scotland as a whole.
That's not to say Labour are blameless but this is one huge sh!t sandwich my friend and we are all going to have to take a bite.
Personally I'm not going to. Labour owns this sandwich all by itself with a diarrhoea side order.
If you'd looked half thought through what you were doing instead of trying to rig fiefdoms for yourselves you wouldn't be in the mess. Save the tears.
Whatever. I'm only too aware that for some on here the question to any problem is "How is it Labour's fault?". Not sure if that's too helpful in this situation but if it makes you feel better knock yourself out.
Given that we are contemplating a political revolution, and the death of our country, we might as well have some fun and think up some possible bizarre consequences, which now come into play.
I was driving my daughter through the streets of FUK's capital, just now, and I had this idea.
Suppose I'm right and Cameron resigns (I am right, btw) following a YES.
What if the next guy is Hammond, an apparently pukka eurosceptic?
What is to stop Hammond forging an electoral pact with Farage? Nothing, as far as I can see. This new Coalition would presumably romp home in 2015 against a demoralised party led by Ed "couldn't even save Govan" Miliband, and lacking dozens of Labour MPs from Scotland, booted out by smirking Nats.
So we could see a very eurosceptic Tory-UKIP government in 2015, running FUK. And gunning for Scotland, and aiming to quit the EU.
We live in VERY interesting times.
The future for the British right is a CSU-CDU sort of situation. UKIP can stand in the working class seats and the Tories can stand in the posh seats. That would maximise their seats in parliament, if only the Matthew Parris element of the Tories weren't so idiotically snobbish about UKIP.
An alliance with the Tories would severely limit UKIP's ability to win working class seats.
Nonsense. UKIP will clearly be able to say "a vote for us will pull the Tories towards being a more working man's party".
On the footy theme, will Berwick get kicked out of the Scottish league unless they agree to the border being moved? Their ground would still be in England in any case.
Hear, hear. This going to pieces in worry over the first hiccup is very un-British.
It's not just one poll. It's the momentum that worries. And that is ALL with YES, and points very firmly to a YES victory. Only the horror of that enormity stops me from calling it for YES already.
I believe Nate Silver has done research which shows "momentum" is a myth in politics. A movement of the polls in one direction does not mean polls are any more likely to carry on moving in that direction than to reverse.
Another part of our mutual cultural heritage to be ripped asunder if Scotland leaves: James Bond.
James Bond. The son of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix. Spends much of his early years abroad, due to his father's work in a major UK defence company. Educated initially at Eton, but then at Fettes College in Scotland. Spends his career in the Royal Navy, later joining the Secret Service. A patriot who's absolutely and thoroughly British all round.
(Not to mention, Ian Fleming himself had significant Scottish ancestry himself)
Hear, hear. This going to pieces in worry over the first hiccup is very un-British.
It's not just one poll. It's the momentum that worries. And that is ALL with YES, and points very firmly to a YES victory. Only the horror of that enormity stops me from calling it for YES already.
I still think there's a very good chance that this poll will shock enough people to 'No' on the day. I agree with your point that the Nats may have peaked to early.
On the footy theme, will Berwick get kicked out of the Scottish league unless they agree to the border being moved? Their ground would still be in England in any case.
Nah we let the Welsh clubs play in the English Premier League
the correct thing to do Miss C wouyld be to let the Orkneys and Shetlands vote on independence first, give them a status like thye IoM and Jersey and THEN let Scotland have independence. ;-)
I quite agree, we can play all sorts of games with our new neighbours
Just heard that Osborne is promising to transfer powers if Scotland will stay.....What a tactically inept thing to do. It's tantamount to throwing in the towel.
You can't on the one hand say Scotland will fall apart without the rest of the UK and on the other prostate yourself in front of Salmond offering him anything if only he'll stay.
An indecipherable mixed message. The man's a clown
Usually "former UK", as an alternative to "rUK" or rump UK - though there would be no other Kingdom for England to unite with.
Would it not be "The United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland" ?
Because NI is a province? Well, yes, the UK could still call itself that in a different sense of the word united. But that's a little bit like orange flavour drink ...
Er, we can call ourselves what the FUK we like. I imagine it will be the United Kingdom of England Wales and Northern Ireland. One Kingdom, united. How hard is that?
Likewise the flag. Post-YES I am sure we will keep the Union Jack, cause everyone likes it and it is globally cool.
I am slightly bemused why this should be of any interest to foreigners, which is what you will be if you get your wish. Butt out.
Clearly no need to change the Union Jack. There are millions of people of Scottish and Irish ancestry living in the rUK. As you say, the idea that a foreign country gets any input at all into our name and our flag is absurd.
But I'm under no illusions: it would be ludicrous as a national flag, and open to ridicule. People would point and laugh. That's what makes it so desperately sad.
No they wouldn't. They'd say "Oh that's the country that has the cool flag.
I am in South East Asia - the Union Jack is a major fashion icon - yet few people know which country it is from - it's associated with young people and hipness - we'd be bonkers to change it.
Yes, indeed. As I said, we're just left with a fashion icon.
To me, the Union Flag represents one of the greatest and most enlightened nations in history. An island whose people's overcame their differences to forge a political union and went on to build the modern world. A benign nation that, even today, much of the world still looks up to for inspiration as a mother of liberty and defender of freedom.
And yet all we might be left with is snazzy variations of an obsolete design stamped on t-shirts - that young Koreans in Seoul think is "hip", but have no idea what it means, what it represents, or where it is from.
What a sad fate.
One of the greatest? I think we're the #1 by a country mile. I'm still going to think that, with or without the Scots.
Just heard that Osborne is promising to transfer powers if Scotland will stay.....What a tactically inept thing to do. It's tantamount to throwing in the towel.
You can't on the one hand say Scotland will fall apart without the rest of the UK and on the other prostate yourself in front of Salmond offering him anything if only he'll stay.
An indecipherable mixed message. The man's a clown
I agree. It smells of panic. Why not announce this three months ago?
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first because Scottish MPs begged for it. They genuinely thought it was a good idea and would be popular.
Devo-max could not be on the ballot. Cameron can't change the laws of physics. This was discussed in length at the time
If there is a Yes, there can't possibly be an EU referendum in 2017. The next Parliament will be taken up with negotiations between rUK, Scotland, EU, and NATO.
Just heard that Osborne is promising to transfer powers if Scotland will stay.....What a tactically inept thing to do. It's tantamount to throwing in the towel.
You can't on the one hand say Scotland will fall apart without the rest of the UK and on the other prostate yourself in front of Salmond offering him anything if only he'll stay.
An indecipherable mixed message. The man's a clown
The former Prime Minister is to embark on a 30-stop tour of Scotland arguing that "change is coming" even with a No vote and pointing out a series of major economic questions the separatists have failed to answer.
Gordon Brown is to take centre stage in the knife-edge fight to save the United Kingdom after announcing an exhausting tour across Scotland to persuade voters “change is coming” even if there is a No vote.
If there is a Yes, there can't possibly be an EU referendum in 2017. The next Parliament will be taken up with negotiations between rUK, Scotland, EU, and NATO.
On the other hand, since everything will have to re-jigged anyway, to reflect the departure of Scotland from the UK and the application of Scotland to become a member, it would be a good time to renegotiate the treaties.
Strong turnout today. Pretty much a record. The polling is indeed a wake up call for BT and people are responding.
Very rough area today with multi stories that have more visits from the police than any other public sector workers. Surprisingly it was very even with a bit of a generational split, oldies voting (or voted in many cases) No and the younger ones voting Yes. Really, given the area, quite encouraging.
1. The implied probability of independence is very high. 2. Independence would have a major impact on the Scottish general election in 2015 (very harmful to Labour and Lib Dems) and an impact of unknown magnitude on the English election (probably bad for both Tories and Labour, neutral for Lib Dems, positive for UKIP). 3. Betting markets are efficient, and general election prices are a probability-weighted average of expected Yes and No outcomes. 1 + 2 + 3 => The announcement of a "No" vote, which is still very likely, should have a small, positive impact on P[Labour most seats] and especially on P[Labour majority] and P[not hung parliament]. But maybe 3 is wrong. In particular, independence markets may have more sentimental Yes bets.
By the way, I blame EdM's recent cloth-eared intervention in the debate, which he treated as a party political matter, for the Yes surge. It looks like don't knows and weak labour supporters saying no thanks to his idea that they can avoid "Tory rule from Westminster" by voting No on 18th September and then voting for Labour next May.
Ed telling the Scots that he will likely be the next PM is perhaps not the vote winner that he imagines it is.
The impression from a distance is that the move towards YES stems from the inexplicable decision by the NO campaign to agree to a second debate, and its result.
1 + 2 + 3 => The announcement of a "No" vote, which is still very likely, should have a small, positive impact on P[Labour most seats] and especially on P[Labour majority] and P[not hung parliament]. .
Good post, EPG.
However, your logic would imply that the odds on Lab Maj should have lengthened considerably when punters considered the increased prospect of a Yes vote since yesterday. They didn't, implying that they won't shorten in the event of a No.
I agree that after the referendum, if lost, Osborne and Cameron should disappear from politics at once.
No. If lost, Osborne will lead the negotiations for fUK
What, Osborne the man who decided Devomax shouldn't go on the ballot? The architect of this disaster?
Brilliant idea.
"remarks by Clegg are likely to be seized on by nationalists who had believed that the people of Scotland should be given two choices in the referendum – independence or "devo-max". But George Osborne ruled this out and pressed for a straight in-out vote after calculating that the electoral success of the SNP denoted anger with Labour, the largest party in Scotland in recent decades, and not overwhelming support for independence."
If Tory MPs wake up to the fact that Osborne is as much to blame as Cameron for the catastrophe of 18/9/2014, then I wonder if he will be forced to resign alongside the PM.
Devomax could only have gone on the ballot paper if *all* UK voters hand the chance to vote on it.
The current arrangement is fair. Independence Yes or No.
"You are welcome to provide alternatives. NO is losing, even though you assured us it was winning."
If NO is to win it'll be because as the voting paper looms the Scottish voter will panic about currency pensions their future and everything else the Unionists have been throwing at them. It was just a question of who blinked first. This has shown their entire strategy to be fake and it'll only serve to gird the Scottish loins.
'NO' was an overwhelming favourite. Yesterday's YouGov just a last hurrah.
1 + 2 + 3 => The announcement of a "No" vote, which is still very likely, should have a small, positive impact on P[Labour most seats] and especially on P[Labour majority] and P[not hung parliament]. .
Good post, EPG.
However, your logic would imply that the odds on Lab Maj should have lengthened considerably when punters considered the prospect of a Yes vote. They didn't, implying that they won't shorten in the event of a No.
You have got to my point exactly. Either the movement was imperceptible as Yes drifted up over time, or betting markets are incomplete and there is money to be made on one of the markets (realistically, Yes = England WC = Murray Wimbledon).
I think it's the right thing to do (the only thing to do), but fronting it with Osborne shows a rather disappointing short term tactical mindset (let's give Osborne a nice thing to announce to soften his image), rather than a bigger picture strategic one, which is to let it get out via someone who at least isn't DETESTED by all and sundry.
If there is a Yes, there can't possibly be an EU referendum in 2017. The next Parliament will be taken up with negotiations between rUK, Scotland, EU, and NATO.
On the other hand, since everything will have to re-jigged anyway, to reflect the departure of Scotland from the UK and the application of Scotland to become a member, it would be a good time to renegotiate the treaties.
In theory, yes. In practice, how could we wrap it all up in two years?
That said, if Yes wins, then a vote by rUK to leave the EU becomes very likely.
On the footy theme, will Berwick get kicked out of the Scottish league unless they agree to the border being moved? Their ground would still be in England in any case.
No. Derry play in the ROI league. So long as both FAs agree.
"You are welcome to provide alternatives. NO is losing, even though you assured us it was winning."
If NO is to win it'll be because as the voting paper looms the Scottish voter will panic about currency pensions their future and everything else the Unionists have been throwing at them. It was just a question of who blinked first. This has shown their entire strategy to be fake and it'll only serve to gird the Scottish loins.
'NO' was an overwhelming favourite. Yesterday's YouGov just a last hurrah.
That said, if Yes wins, then a vote by rUK to leave the EU becomes very likely.
I'm not so sure about that. It could work either way. A lot would depend on whether the papers are full of stories about the Scottish economy being hit as employers move out of Scotland. If so, that would strengthen the warnings of the Stay In side.
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first because Scottish MPs begged for it. They genuinely thought it was a good idea and would be popular.
Devo-max could not be on the ballot. Cameron can't change the laws of physics. This was discussed in length at the time
I find it incredible that not a small amount of support for Scottish independence, in some quarters, seems to be born of a desire to sock it to Maggie. A few even seem to regret "(she's) not still alive to see it". E.g. Irvine Welsh.
Yes, she made a monumental blunder on introducing the poll tax "early" in Scotland (I believe in good faith) but the lady left office almost 25 years ago. She's now passed on, and into the history books.
The union was a sordid political stitch up by the Edinburgh establishment troughing on a massive scale and hoping to get their Darien losses underwritten. It was loathed by the rank and file of the Scottish people. And if you think they overcame their differences in 1707, 1715 and 1745 take a bit of explaining. Less of the fustian already.
Gordon Brown is to take centre stage in the knife-edge fight to save the United Kingdom after announcing an exhausting tour across Scotland to persuade voters “change is coming” even if there is a No vote.
My sincerest wish would be for Scotland to become independent.
Then find that Gordon Brown has been foisted upon it as it's Prime Minister.
Hear, hear. This going to pieces in worry over the first hiccup is very un-British.
It's not just one poll. It's the momentum that worries. And that is ALL with YES, and points very firmly to a YES victory. Only the horror of that enormity stops me from calling it for YES already.
I believe Nate Silver has done research which shows "momentum" is a myth in politics. A movement of the polls in one direction does not mean polls are any more likely to carry on moving in that direction than to reverse.
Momentum in polls is nonsense (and not present in Panelbase anyway) Why should one person change their mind because someone else has done so?
"You are welcome to provide alternatives. NO is losing, even though you assured us it was winning."
If NO is to win it'll be because as the voting paper looms the Scottish voter will panic about currency pensions their future and everything else the Unionists have been throwing at them. It was just a question of who blinked first. This has shown their entire strategy to be fake and it'll only serve to gird the Scottish loins.
'NO' was an overwhelming favourite. Yesterday's YouGov just a last hurrah.
Now I'm not so sure
You'd make a lot of us on the board feel much, much better if you just came out and said 'YES are going to win.'
I agree that after the referendum, if lost, Osborne and Cameron should disappear from politics at once.
No. If lost, Osborne will lead the negotiations for fUK
What, Osborne the man who decided Devomax shouldn't go on the ballot? The architect of this disaster?
Brilliant idea.
"remarks by Clegg are likely to be seized on by nationalists who had believed that the people of Scotland should be given two choices in the referendum – independence or "devo-max". But George Osborne ruled this out and pressed for a straight in-out vote after calculating that the electoral success of the SNP denoted anger with Labour, the largest party in Scotland in recent decades, and not overwhelming support for independence."
If Tory MPs wake up to the fact that Osborne is as much to blame as Cameron for the catastrophe of 18/9/2014, then I wonder if he will be forced to resign alongside the PM.
Seant is quite correct. If it is a Yes vote both Cameron and Osborne will be toast. I am a Tory Party member of the increasingly rare moderate variety and no supporter of the swivel-eyed tendency in the party. But if this goes pear-shaped then even I would expect them both to go. And there will certainly be a motion of no confidence in Cameron from someone in the parliamentary party - he is not without his enemies. The union breaking would be of an existential nature for the Conservative and Unionist Party. It is in our DNA.
Having said all this, I am still expecting a No vote. However will have a better feeling for it next week after I've bashed a few door-knockers.
The former Prime Minister is to embark on a 30-stop tour of Scotland arguing that "change is coming" even with a No vote and pointing out a series of major economic questions the separatists have failed to answer.
Gordon Brown is to take centre stage in the knife-edge fight to save the United Kingdom after announcing an exhausting tour across Scotland to persuade voters “change is coming” even if there is a No vote.
To change the subject TSE, on the UNS research you are doing it seems that in 1970, 74 and 79 elections, UNS came within +/-10 seats of the actual result. I haven't been able to find yet any figures for 1983, or for 1966, 64, 59 and 1955.
By the way, I blame EdM's recent cloth-eared intervention in the debate, which he treated as a party political matter, for the Yes surge. It looks like don't knows and weak labour supporters saying no thanks to his idea that they can avoid "Tory rule from Westminster" by voting No on 18th September and then voting for Labour next May.
Ed telling the Scots that he will likely be the next PM is perhaps not the vote winner that he imagines it is.
Or they just don't believe it.
I did think that was a totally bonkers approach when I saw it all over the media. Basically vote no, because in less than a year you will get me...and the Tories are all evil bar stewards....
So nothing to say on the merits of the union itself, and the obvious counter is go independent and you can not only get rid of the Tories, you don't have to have Ed either. Genius.
And also just plays in the Yes campaign characterization of the Westminster elite, shuffling chairs, etc.
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first because Scottish MPs begged for it. They genuinely thought it was a good idea and would be popular.
Devo-max could not be on the ballot. Cameron can't change the laws of physics. This was discussed in length at the time
I find it incredible that not a small amount of support for Scottish independence, in some quarters, seems to be born of a desire to sock it to Maggie. A few even seem to regret "(she's) not still alive to see it". E.g. Irvine Welsh.
Yes, she made a monumental blunder on introducing the poll tax "early" in Scotland (I believe in good faith) but the lady left office almost 25 years ago. She's now passed on, and into the history books.
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
For some people, Mrs. Thatcher has become a semi-mythical demon like Emmanuel Goldstein.
The former Prime Minister is to embark on a 30-stop tour of Scotland arguing that "change is coming" even with a No vote and pointing out a series of major economic questions the separatists have failed to answer.
Gordon Brown is to take centre stage in the knife-edge fight to save the United Kingdom after announcing an exhausting tour across Scotland to persuade voters “change is coming” even if there is a No vote.
To change the subject TSE, on the UNS research you are doing it seems that in 1970, 74 and 79 elections, UNS came within +/-10 seats of the actual result. I haven't been able to find yet any figures for 1983, or for 1966, 64, 59 and 1955.
That said, if Yes wins, then a vote by rUK to leave the EU becomes very likely.
I'm not so sure about that. It could work either way. A lot would depend on whether the papers are full of stories about the Scottish economy being hit as employers move out of Scotland. If so, that would strengthen the warnings of the Stay In side.
The big difference there, though, is currency and language. Two things Scotland shares with rUK, but we don't share with the EU. No real exodus is going to occur out of London to Dublin if we leave the EU or, indeed, back to Edinburgh.
Sean Fear: I agree. It also would make immigration controls at the Scottish/English border almost a certainty. But Lord knows how they'd "seal" that - it's a long and remote land border.
UKIPs support is pretty evenly distributed through all classes if I remember the polling correctly
But that does not fit the narrative, Far better to say that UKIP support comes from the poor and those "left behind" (read uneducated).
Total boolox of course.
If you were to look at some form of alliance between the Tories and UKIP (and I don't think it would be good for either party), UKIP needs to focus on what it *will be*, not what it is right now.
I suspect that the even class divide doesn't accurately reflect the support that UKIP would have in the event that it formed a part of the next government (NB: I'm not sure if there is any way to test this hypothesis).
I suspect UKIP's support consists of two main groups:
- those who feel economically threatened, both by globalisation and, in many cases, immigration (particularly unskilled) resulting in increased competition. These will primarily be C1/C2 - the classic protest voters, who used to vote LibDem, and just want to vote without having to sully their hands with the necessary compromises of government. I'd assume that most of these are A/B from a class perspective - there is also a small group of libertarians, but not enough to count as a "main group" but which would most likely be A/B with some C1 as well
From UKIP's perspective, if they ever got into government, I'd imagine they would rapidly lose the protest voters and - less rapidly - the libertarians.
Consequently, when UKIP thinks about strategy, it should view its core target group as the C1/C2 (not the WWC, but the skilled working class). These are the people, of course, that formed the bedrock of Maggie's electoral coalition
Will Scottish persons working and living in England, and the reverse, have to eventually decide which passport to apply for, either a Scottish one or rUK one ?
Good question: especially if the FUK quits the EU or achieves an end to free movement within the EU. In that case, Scots won't be able to move to England any more than Brazilians, Chinese or Americans.
Another thing: the border will already be in place, in theory, the moment Scots vote YES. Entering the EU means joining Schengen. It is very unlikely iScotland will be allowed an opt-out (countries like Spain will be keen to make things as hard as poss for them, to discourage Catalunya).
As the FUK will remain outside Schengen, passports will shortly have to be shown at the Berwick border-check, just as they are when you take the car to Calais. It really isn't a figment of unionist imagination.
In reality, rUK and iScot will agree to a travel treaty like exists (used to?) with RoI: no passports needed.
Of course this will be unsustainable once (1) iScot joins Schengen or (2) if immigration policies materially differ between iScot and rUK.
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first because Scottish MPs begged for it. They genuinely thought it was a good idea and would be popular.
Devo-max could not be on the ballot. Cameron can't change the laws of physics. This was discussed in length at the time
I find it incredible that not a small amount of support for Scottish independence, in some quarters, seems to be born of a desire to sock it to Maggie. A few even seem to regret "(she's) not still alive to see it". E.g. Irvine Welsh.
Yes, she made a monumental blunder on introducing the poll tax "early" in Scotland (I believe in good faith) but the lady left office almost 25 years ago. She's now passed on, and into the history books.
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
For some people, Mrs. Thatcher has become a semi-mythical demon like Emmanuel Goldstein.
You'd be amazed at how often hatred for Mrs T comes up.
My theory, FWIW, is that support for independence is at a generational peak. That is to say once memories (and folk memories) of "It's Scotland's oil" and the poll-tax recede so will support for separatism. There is very little interest in independence among younger voters, as vouchsafed by my kids - both students down in Edinburgh. Nationalism is widely despised by most reasonably educated young people.
I agree that after the referendum, if lost, Osborne and Cameron should disappear from politics at once.
No. If lost, Osborne will lead the negotiations for fUK
What, Osborne the man who decided Devomax shouldn't go on the ballot? The architect of this disaster?
Brilliant idea.
"remarks by Clegg are likely to be seized on by nationalists who had believed that the people of Scotland should be given two choices in the referendum – independence or "devo-max". But George Osborne ruled this out and pressed for a straight in-out vote after calculating that the electoral success of the SNP denoted anger with Labour, the largest party in Scotland in recent decades, and not overwhelming support for independence."
If Tory MPs wake up to the fact that Osborne is as much to blame as Cameron for the catastrophe of 18/9/2014, then I wonder if he will be forced to resign alongside the PM.
Having said all this, I am still expecting a No vote. However will have a better feeling for it next week after I've bashed a few door-knockers.
I agree that after the referendum, if lost, Osborne and Cameron should disappear from politics at once.
No. If lost, Osborne will lead the negotiations for fUK
What, Osborne the man who decided Devomax shouldn't go on the ballot? The architect of this disaster?
Brilliant idea.
"remarks by Clegg are likely to be seized on by nationalists who had believed that the people of Scotland should be given two choices in the referendum – independence or "devo-max". But George Osborne ruled this out and pressed for a straight in-out vote after calculating that the electoral success of the SNP denoted anger with Labour, the largest party in Scotland in recent decades, and not overwhelming support for independence."
If Tory MPs wake up to the fact that Osborne is as much to blame as Cameron for the catastrophe of 18/9/2014, then I wonder if he will be forced to resign alongside the PM.
Seant is quite correct. If it is a Yes vote both Cameron and Osborne will be toast. I am a Tory Party member of the increasingly rare moderate variety and no supporter of the swivel-eyed tendency in the party. But if this goes pear-shaped then even I would expect them both to go. And there will certainly be a motion of no confidence in Cameron from someone in the parliamentary party - he is not without his enemies. The union breaking would be of an existential nature for the Conservative and Unionist Party. It is in our DNA.
Having said all this, I am still expecting a No vote. However will have a better feeling for it next week after I've bashed a few door-knockers.
It would not be practical to put Devomax to the vote. How do you define Devomax? There are very many considerations for Devomax. The Nats would probably object to the "list" as being insufficient no matter what was included.
What happens to our overseas territories in result of independence, save I believe Bermuda and Gibraltar, we collected them as a Union. I doubt Scotland would wish to lay claim to any of them, but will they be treated as assets?
How can you ask for an eighth of Bermuda?
It just goes to show what a horrific mess it will be, if and when Scotland leaves. The debates and arguments will be endless, energy-sapping, acrimonious, and leave everyone poorer. Financially and emotionally.
A YES really would be the greatest political disaster of my lifetime, a huge blow to Britain, and bad for all concerned, north and south. Like losing a major war.
I see Dan Hodges is in the Torygraph claiming that if YES wins nothing will happen, there will be no trouble in the markets, and everything will trot along smoothly (this after claiming a week ago that YES had no chance, and he would run naked etc etc)
On this question, he really is an idiot.
EDIT: I believe England colonised Bermuda before the Act of Union, so that, at least, is not at stake
Other bits, yes. I trust Scotland will help to pay for the Defence of the Falklands. What, you mean they won't? What a surprise.
The few precedents and international conventions that exist support the interpretation that only officially named successor states inherit the overseas assets such as bases in the Falklands, Cyprus etc together with the obligations to defend them, just as it does with the legal responsibility to repay sovereign debt.
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first because Scottish MPs begged for it. They genuinely thought it was a good idea and would be popular.
Devo-max could not be on the ballot. Cameron can't change the laws of physics. This was discussed in length at the time
I find it incredible that not a small amount of support for Scottish independence, in some quarters, seems to be born of a desire to sock it to Maggie. A few even seem to regret "(she's) not still alive to see it". E.g. Irvine Welsh.
Yes, she made a monumental blunder on introducing the poll tax "early" in Scotland (I believe in good faith) but the lady left office almost 25 years ago. She's now passed on, and into the history books.
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
For some people, Mrs. Thatcher has become a semi-mythical demon like Emmanuel Goldstein.
You'd be amazed at how often hatred for Mrs T comes up.
My theory, FWIW, is that support for independence is at a generational peak. That is to say once memories (and folk memories) of "It's Scotland's oil" and the poll-tax recede so will support for separatism. There is very little interest in independence among younger voters, as vouchsafed by my kids - both students down in Edinburgh. Nationalism is widely despised by most reasonably educated young people.
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first because Scottish MPs begged for it. They genuinely thought it was a good idea and would be popular.
Devo-max could not be on the ballot. Cameron can't change the laws of physics. This was discussed in length at the time
I find it incredible that not a small amount of support for Scottish independence, in some quarters, seems to be born of a desire to sock it to Maggie. A few even seem to regret "(she's) not still alive to see it". E.g. Irvine Welsh.
Yes, she made a monumental blunder on introducing the poll tax "early" in Scotland (I believe in good faith) but the lady left office almost 25 years ago. She's now passed on, and into the history books.
Move on.
By the same token it would probably help if Thatcherophiles stopped waxing nostalgically lyrical about her greatness, no shortage of which is expressed on here.
The former Prime Minister is to embark on a 30-stop tour of Scotland arguing that "change is coming" even with a No vote and pointing out a series of major economic questions the separatists have failed to answer.
Gordon Brown is to take centre stage in the knife-edge fight to save the United Kingdom after announcing an exhausting tour across Scotland to persuade voters “change is coming” even if there is a No vote.
To change the subject TSE, on the UNS research you are doing it seems that in 1970, 74 and 79 elections, UNS came within +/-10 seats of the actual result. I haven't been able to find yet any figures for 1983, or for 1966, 64, 59 and 1955.
They were way off in 2010 and 2005. 2001 too. Let alone 1997, 1992.
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first because Scottish MPs begged for it. They genuinely thought it was a good idea and would be popular.
Devo-max could not be on the ballot. Cameron can't change the laws of physics. This was discussed in length at the time
I find it incredible that not a small amount of support for Scottish independence, in some quarters, seems to be born of a desire to sock it to Maggie. A few even seem to regret "(she's) not still alive to see it". E.g. Irvine Welsh.
Yes, she made a monumental blunder on introducing the poll tax "early" in Scotland (I believe in good faith) but the lady left office almost 25 years ago. She's now passed on, and into the history books.
Move on.
By the same token it would probably help if Thatcherophiles stopped waxing nostalgically lyrical about her greatness, no shortage of which is expressed on here.
Move on.
The two things have no equivalence. Which political figures people admire when discussing political figures on a message board is their business. Breaking up the country because you resent an individual you never knew is ridiculous.
UKIPs support is pretty evenly distributed through all classes if I remember the polling correctly
But that does not fit the narrative, Far better to say that UKIP support comes from the poor and those "left behind" (read uneducated).
Total boolox of course.
If you were to look at some form of alliance between the Tories and UKIP (and I don't think it would be good for either party), UKIP needs to focus on what it *will be*, not what it is right now.
I suspect that the even class divide doesn't accurately reflect the support that UKIP would have in the event that it formed a part of the next government (NB: I'm not sure if there is any way to test this hypothesis).
I suspect UKIP's support consists of two main groups:
- those who feel economically threatened, both by globalisation and, in many cases, immigration (particularly unskilled) resulting in increased competition. These will primarily be C1/C2 - the classic protest voters, who used to vote LibDem, and just want to vote without having to sully their hands with the necessary compromises of government. I'd assume that most of these are A/B from a class perspective - there is also a small group of libertarians, but not enough to count as a "main group" but which would most likely be A/B with some C1 as well
From UKIP's perspective, if they ever got into government, I'd imagine they would rapidly lose the protest voters and - less rapidly - the libertarians.
Consequently, when UKIP thinks about strategy, it should view its core target group as the C1/C2 (not the WWC, but the skilled working class). These are the people, of course, that formed the bedrock of Maggie's electoral coalition
Plus old school A/B reactionaries living in the Home Counties. Like me actually!
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first because Scottish MPs begged for it.
Devo-max could not be on the ballot. Cameron can't change the laws of physics. This was discussed in length at the time
I find it incredible that not a small amount of support for Scottish independence, in some quarters, seems to be born of a desire to sock it to Maggie. A few even seem to regret "(she's) not still alive to see it". E.g. Irvine Welsh.
Yes, she made a monumental blunder on introducing the poll tax "early" in Scotland (I believe in good faith) but the lady left office almost 25 years ago. She's now passed on, and into the history books.
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
For some people, Mrs. Thatcher has become a semi-mythical demon like Emmanuel Goldstein.
You'd be amazed at how often hatred for Mrs T comes up.
My theory, FWIW, is that support for independence is at a generational peak. That is to say once memories (and folk memories) of "It's Scotland's oil" and the poll-tax recede so will support for separatism. There is very little interest in independence among younger voters, as vouchsafed by my kids - both students down in Edinburgh. Nationalism is widely despised by most reasonably educated young people.
All we need to do is survive the 18th intact!
I think there's something in that. It seems that the core of independence support is concentrated in Scottish males aged 30-60 yrs old.
The youngest are a little more hesitant. The oldest fairly solidly against.
I still can't get over how few polls there are for something as momentous (and closely-fought) as this. I think there were more for the Euro elections even.
I'm currently trying to decide whether to book the day off work on the day after the referendum, so that I can watch the results all night, or if I'd be officially crossing over into total political-anorak-saddo territory more than ever by doing that.
I still can't get over how few polls there are for something as momentous (and closely-fought) as this. I think there were more for the Euro elections even.
I'm currently trying to decide whether to book the day off work on the day after the referendum, so that I can watch the results all night, or if I'd be officially crossing over into total political-anorak-saddo territory more than ever by doing that.
I've booked my holiday accordingly. Same for May 2015!
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first because Scottish MPs begged for it. They genuinely thought it was a good idea and would be popular.
Devo-max could not be on the ballot. Cameron can't change the laws of physics. This was discussed in length at the time
I find it incredible that not a small amount of support for Scottish independence, in some quarters, seems to be born of a desire to sock it to Maggie. A few even seem to regret "(she's) not still alive to see it". E.g. Irvine Welsh.
Yes, she made a monumental blunder on introducing the poll tax "early" in Scotland (I believe in good faith) but the lady left office almost 25 years ago. She's now passed on, and into the history books.
Move on.
By the same token it would probably help if Thatcherophiles stopped waxing nostalgically lyrical about her greatness, no shortage of which is expressed on here.
Move on.
Can you provide a citation of where (what you call) "Thatcherophiles" on this forum have waxed lyrical about her greatness in the context of this referendum please?
Surely someone else whose reputation takes another huge knock is Tony Blair.
Blair replaced a constitutional settlement that have lasted almost 300 years with one that doesn't look as though it will last 20.
Whether Yes or No win, Blair's settlement will be torn up.
New Labour really were the worst government in history. The Iraq War, mass immigration, the great recession, and now their wretched, botched Devolution is leading to the death of Great Britain.
Blair and Brown did more damage to this proud nation than Hitler and Napoleon combined.
The two Ed's want to finish what the other two started.... depressing eh?
I still can't get over how few polls there are for something as momentous (and closely-fought) as this. I think there were more for the Euro elections even.
I'm currently trying to decide whether to book the day off work on the day after the referendum, so that I can watch the results all night, or if I'd be officially crossing over into total political-anorak-saddo territory more than ever by doing that.
Fortunately for me, I am on the night shift for the rest of this month. So I will at least be able to watch the results while I am being paid to be awake. Is there a timetable of expected declaration times yet?
Firstly, we wouldn't likely be in this mess if the Tories hadn't treated Scotland as some sort of crash-test dummy centre on the Poll Tax thus wiping out any remaining Scottish support for them in the process. That's led to a very divided country in the first place. Secondly I'm angry with the refusal to allow a Devo-Max option. A lot of sensible Scots who justifiably feel excluded from the current situation may well have voted for that instead of independence. That's got to be down to Cameron and co.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first because Scottish MPs begged for it. They genuinely thought it was a good idea and would be popular.
Devo-max could not be on the ballot. Cameron can't change the laws of physics. This was discussed in length at the time
I find it incredible that not a small amount of support for Scottish independence, in some quarters, seems to be born of a desire to sock it to Maggie. A few even seem to regret "(she's) not still alive to see it". E.g. Irvine Welsh.
Yes, she made a monumental blunder on introducing the poll tax "early" in Scotland (I believe in good faith) but the lady left office almost 25 years ago. She's now passed on, and into the history books.
Move on.
By the same token it would probably help if Thatcherophiles stopped waxing nostalgically lyrical about her greatness, no shortage of which is expressed on here.
Move on.
The two things have no equivalence. Which political figures people admire when discussing political figures on a message board is their business. Breaking up the country because you resent an individual you never knew is ridiculous.
Oh, I recognise this muddy little backwater hasn't changed a single vote either way, just as much a cultural factor (though occupying different geographical areas) as Thatcher detestation though.
1. Shadsy's 5/6 on SNP over 7.5 seats in 2015 looks a bit of a snip, n'est ce pas?
2. The Antifrank Gambit - betting on the SNP to win Westminster seats at long odds - is looking better than ever.
Yep, that Ladbrokes offering that the SNP wins > 7.5 seats seats at next May's GE has long appeared to be one of the very best value political bets around even if, at slightly odds-on, it's hardly the sexiest. The referendum makes it particularly attractive since, as someone pointed out on PB earlier today, the SNP look likely to benefit very significantly in terms of support whether there is a YES or NO vote. I've loaded on at various times, but DYOR.
Can you provide a citation of where (what you call) "Thatcherophiles" on this forum have waxed lyrical about her greatness in the context of this referendum please?
Surprising as it may be to those who have only noticed the distinct nature of Scottish politics this weekend, Scots seem to see the last thirty-five years of UK politics as the context of this referendum.
I agree that after the referendum, if lost, Osborne and Cameron should disappear from politics at once.
No. If lost, Osborne will lead the negotiations for fUK
What, Osborne the man who decided Devomax shouldn't go on the ballot? The architect of this disaster?
Brilliant idea.
"remarks by Clegg are likely to be seized on by nationalists who had believed that the people of Scotland should be given two choices in the referendum – independence or "devo-max". But George Osborne ruled this out and pressed for a straight in-out vote after calculating that the electoral success of the SNP denoted anger with Labour, the largest party in Scotland in recent decades, and not overwhelming support for independence."
If Tory MPs wake up to the fact that Osborne is as much to blame as Cameron for the catastrophe of 18/9/2014, then I wonder if he will be forced to resign alongside the PM.
Seant is quite correct. If it is a Yes vote both Cameron and Osborne will be toast. I am a Tory Party member of the increasingly rare moderate variety and no supporter of the swivel-eyed tendency in the party. But if this goes pear-shaped then even I would expect them both to go. And there will certainly be a motion of no confidence in Cameron from someone in the parliamentary party - he is not without his enemies. The union breaking would be of an existential nature for the Conservative and Unionist Party. It is in our DNA.
Having said all this, I am still expecting a No vote. However will have a better feeling for it next week after I've bashed a few door-knockers.
You can't care all that much about the Union if you've only started knocking doors one week before polling day.
Comments
- for years you let the toories venom flow in Scotland and did the SNPs work for them it was a short hop from tory to english
- you didn't think through the consequences of the devolution settlement and merrily marched down a route which created a crack which the Nats are trying to make a fissure
- you acted like a bunch of lazy sods in the campaign and if it's a yes it's the Labour vote wot did it
so if you loved this country so much maybe you should have looked after it better.
As it is I think it will be a NO and you'll then breathe a sigh of relief and go off and fk it all up again.
crocodile tears.
*We as in the allies.
That's not to say Labour are blameless but this is one huge sh!t sandwich my friend and we are all going to have to take a bite.
The position of the four home Countries is wholly anomalous and explainable only in terms of history and tradition.
I should think FIFA would be only too pleased to see the anomaly removed.
Can't say I'm looking forward to it.
If you'd looked half thought through what you were doing instead of trying to rig fiefdoms for yourselves you wouldn't be in the mess. Save the tears.
Can't we get them to take Rotherham as part of a job lot? That'll cheer everyone up.
Besides, we have a predecessor case of Ireland. We know what will happen.
1. Shadsy's 5/6 on SNP over 7.5 seats in 2015 looks a bit of a snip, n'est ce pas?
2. The Antifrank Gambit - betting on the SNP to win Westminster seats at long odds - is looking better than ever.
James Bond. The son of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix. Spends much of his early years abroad, due to his father's work in a major UK defence company. Educated initially at Eton, but then at Fettes College in Scotland. Spends his career in the Royal Navy, later joining the Secret Service. A patriot who's absolutely and thoroughly British all round.
(Not to mention, Ian Fleming himself had significant Scottish ancestry himself)
Vote for independence; kill James Bond.
You can't on the one hand say Scotland will fall apart without the rest of the UK and on the other prostate yourself in front of Salmond offering him anything if only he'll stay.
An indecipherable mixed message. The man's a clown
Devo-max could not be on the ballot. Cameron can't change the laws of physics. This was discussed in length at the time
The former Prime Minister is to embark on a 30-stop tour of Scotland arguing that "change is coming" even with a No vote and pointing out a series of major economic questions the separatists have failed to answer.
Gordon Brown is to take centre stage in the knife-edge fight to save the United Kingdom after announcing an exhausting tour across Scotland to persuade voters “change is coming” even if there is a No vote.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11080220/Gordon-Brown-to-take-centre-stage-in-fight-for-UK.html
2 papers in 1 vote couldn't be done
Southam rumours of private polls are worthless.
2. Independence would have a major impact on the Scottish general election in 2015 (very harmful to Labour and Lib Dems) and an impact of unknown magnitude on the English election (probably bad for both Tories and Labour, neutral for Lib Dems, positive for UKIP).
3. Betting markets are efficient, and general election prices are a probability-weighted average of expected Yes and No outcomes.
1 + 2 + 3 => The announcement of a "No" vote, which is still very likely, should have a small, positive impact on P[Labour most seats] and especially on P[Labour majority] and P[not hung parliament]. But maybe 3 is wrong. In particular, independence markets may have more sentimental Yes bets.
The choices for Pres are (nominally) equivalent. The choices here are explicitly not, and non-symmetric.
I know you are looking for scapegoats, but blaming the lack of a fantasy ballot option that could not happen is just displacement activity
However, your logic would imply that the odds on Lab Maj should have lengthened considerably when punters considered the increased prospect of a Yes vote since yesterday. They didn't, implying that they won't shorten in the event of a No.
The current arrangement is fair. Independence Yes or No.
If NO is to win it'll be because as the voting paper looms the Scottish voter will panic about currency pensions their future and everything else the Unionists have been throwing at them. It was just a question of who blinked first. This has shown their entire strategy to be fake and it'll only serve to gird the Scottish loins.
'NO' was an overwhelming favourite. Yesterday's YouGov just a last hurrah.
Now I'm not so sure
That said, if Yes wins, then a vote by rUK to leave the EU becomes very likely.
Yes, she made a monumental blunder on introducing the poll tax "early" in Scotland (I believe in good faith) but the lady left office almost 25 years ago. She's now passed on, and into the history books.
Move on.
The union was a sordid political stitch up by the Edinburgh establishment troughing on a massive scale and hoping to get their Darien losses underwritten. It was loathed by the rank and file of the Scottish people. And if you think they overcame their differences in 1707, 1715 and 1745 take a bit of explaining. Less of the fustian already.
Then find that Gordon Brown has been foisted upon it as it's Prime Minister.
With it's own currency.
Think about it.
Having said all this, I am still expecting a No vote. However will have a better feeling for it next week after I've bashed a few door-knockers.
Probably nothing, keep calm and don't panic.
So nothing to say on the merits of the union itself, and the obvious counter is go independent and you can not only get rid of the Tories, you don't have to have Ed either. Genius.
And also just plays in the Yes campaign characterization of the Westminster elite, shuffling chairs, etc.
'who at least isn't DETESTED by all and sundry.'
You seemed to have forgotten that Ed was in Scotland last week,just a coincidence that the Yes vote suddenly surges?
Sean Fear: I agree. It also would make immigration controls at the Scottish/English border almost a certainty. But Lord knows how they'd "seal" that - it's a long and remote land border.
Total boolox of course.
If you were to look at some form of alliance between the Tories and UKIP (and I don't think it would be good for either party), UKIP needs to focus on what it *will be*, not what it is right now.
I suspect that the even class divide doesn't accurately reflect the support that UKIP would have in the event that it formed a part of the next government (NB: I'm not sure if there is any way to test this hypothesis).
I suspect UKIP's support consists of two main groups:
- those who feel economically threatened, both by globalisation and, in many cases, immigration (particularly unskilled) resulting in increased competition. These will primarily be C1/C2
- the classic protest voters, who used to vote LibDem, and just want to vote without having to sully their hands with the necessary compromises of government. I'd assume that most of these are A/B from a class perspective
- there is also a small group of libertarians, but not enough to count as a "main group" but which would most likely be A/B with some C1 as well
From UKIP's perspective, if they ever got into government, I'd imagine they would rapidly lose the protest voters and - less rapidly - the libertarians.
Consequently, when UKIP thinks about strategy, it should view its core target group as the C1/C2 (not the WWC, but the skilled working class). These are the people, of course, that formed the bedrock of Maggie's electoral coalition
Would Scotland be a net contributor or recipient if it was in the EU as an independent country?
Of course this will be unsustainable once (1) iScot joins Schengen or (2) if immigration policies materially differ between iScot and rUK.
Move on.
I suspect that the even class divide doesn't accurately reflect the support that UKIP would have in the event that it formed a part of the next government (NB: I'm not sure if there is any way to test this hypothesis).
I suspect UKIP's support consists of two main groups:
- those who feel economically threatened, both by globalisation and, in many cases, immigration (particularly unskilled) resulting in increased competition. These will primarily be C1/C2
- the classic protest voters, who used to vote LibDem, and just want to vote without having to sully their hands with the necessary compromises of government. I'd assume that most of these are A/B from a class perspective
- there is also a small group of libertarians, but not enough to count as a "main group" but which would most likely be A/B with some C1 as well
From UKIP's perspective, if they ever got into government, I'd imagine they would rapidly lose the protest voters and - less rapidly - the libertarians.
Consequently, when UKIP thinks about strategy, it should view its core target group as the C1/C2 (not the WWC, but the skilled working class). These are the people, of course, that formed the bedrock of Maggie's electoral coalition
Plus old school A/B reactionaries living in the Home Counties. Like me actually!
I'm currently trying to decide whether to book the day off work on the day after the referendum, so that I can watch the results all night, or if I'd be officially crossing over into total political-anorak-saddo territory more than ever by doing that.
So I will at least be able to watch the results while I am being paid to be awake.
Is there a timetable of expected declaration times yet?
I've loaded on at various times, but DYOR.