Has anyone actually read the Sunday Times (££: won't bother linking) report that accompanied the infamous YouGov poll? I just did.
It has some fascinating titbits.
Here's a starter:
"Tory MPs warned that David Cameron would have to resign as prime minister if Scotland voted to go it alone. Several Conservative MPs are prepared to go public and demand he quit, and two Tory ministers have warned colleagues that they would also feel compelled to resign if there were a “yes” vote"
So that's two Tory ministers who will resign if YES wins, apart from Cameron and Osborne.
It will be a political meltdown. The idea that Cameron (and maybe Osborne) could survive this carnage is nuts. He will go. Along with several others. Maybe quite a few...
Murdoch paper stirs up shit - what's new ?
Oh FFS. It is just the case. The Sunday Times today is desperate to save the Union, despite what their elderly owner may want. This is just reportage. You can tell.
Here's another titbit, from the other side:
"Recriminations also engulfed Labour, with insiders calling for Ed Miliband to sack the party’s election co-ordinator, Douglas Alexander, who is blamed by many for the reversal of fortune.
"Unionists on both sides of the border are venting frustration at the quality of the Better Together team, which they claim lacks vision and ability.
"Better Together figures have christened Alexander “Rain Man” after the autistic character played by Dustin Hoffman because “people cannot connect with him”.
“"It’s a campaign with no vision and no direction — the general feeling is that the people are just not up to the job on the Labour side,” one unionist insider said.
"A Labour frontbencher said Miliband should fire Alexander as his general election co-ordinator. “Douglas is showing why he shouldn’t be put in charge of a whelk stall let alone a major campaign. Even if there’s a ‘no’ vote, we don’t want our fate in his hands next year.”
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
I remain amazed that our politicians haven't done so to date, increasingly he's painting himself in to a corner with only Salmond and Farage as stooges, assuming of course Farage can't ask himself what's that bad odour hanging over RM.
The interesting thing from that article is the story it tells for May 2015. If Labour can't sell hundreds of years of winning heritage, what chance do they have of selling a cobbled together bunch of economic measures that no-one believes make sense?
I tend to join with SeanT on this and scratch my head as to why Labour aren't doing more in Scotland. They are by far the biggest losers yet nothing.
The Scottish referendum is becoming a kind of national IQ Test. If Scots believe Salmond's bullshit about currency, the EU, etc, the Scottish average IQ must be less than 80.
Are they really that dim? Actually subnormal?
I don't want to believe they are. Not the nation of David Hume and Adam Smith.
I'm astonished at the naiveity of the left wing supporters of the yes campaign, just look at Irish history, when socialists get into bed with nationalists they are invariably exploited and quickly discarded.
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
And yet he runs the one remaining quality newspaper in the UK (or one of two if you count the FT, but that is more a specialist publication than a newspaper).
I've stopped reading both since they went pay wall, and from memory neither makes a profit so a bit like Radio 3 a subsidised plaything for the London chatterati
Before weightings in the YouGov IndyRef YES lead poll NO was ahead by comfortable margin.
Since the composition of the voting population for the indyref is likely to be quite different from that of normal election polling, I would have thought these weightings should be treated with considerable circumspection.
It was a bloody ROGUE poll that caused so much commotion.
@SeanT " Labour are putting party before country. They will risk the Union instead of risking the loss of some Labour influence in Westminster. " Doesn't make sense. Risking the Union itself risks Labour's influence at Westminster.
I'm new to the Scottish Indy discussion here and I haven't given it much considered thought before today. I've assumed No would win comfortably. That's clearly no longer a confident position anyone sensible can continue to hold.
So two questions from me.
The first is for PBers. Have any non Scots Nats here been calling this for "YES" from a long way out? As per Rod Crosby calling NOM in the last UK GE against the tide? If I'd been betting on this market I think I would now be sitting on a very unwelcome and sizeable string of No bets which would now be unsellable. Does this describe some of the regulars here?
Secondly, now a No vote looks a real possibility, is the currency issue really as vague and uncertain as it appears to be? If "No" prevails is the plan "sterlingisation", as I read in today's Sunday Times and is this tenable, deliverable and sustainable?
I get the impression that those voting on this momentous issue don't know what will happen to their currency if they vote YES and an awful lot of arguments, horse trading, uncertainties and logistical and legal difficulties are likely to follow a No majority.
It looks to me that the aftermath of a "NO' vote could be a bit of a dog's dinner.
Before weightings in the YouGov IndyRef YES lead poll NO was ahead by comfortable margin.
Since the composition of the voting population for the indyref is likely to be quite different from that of normal election polling, I would have thought these weightings should be treated with considerable circumspection.
As turnout heads towards 80%, the raw data may be more useful than the weighted. Interesting to see that it was the youngsters being up weighted and old timers down weighted.
I've stopped reading both since they went pay wall, and from memory neither makes a profit so a bit like Radio 3 a subsidised plaything for the London chatterati
That may be; the Guardian, Telegraph, and Indy don't make a profit either, but, more to the point, they have all three descended into sensationalist rant-fests . So either you rely on the Mail, which is the most sensationalist rant-fest of them all but is at least profitable, or you accept that, like it or not, the Times is the only remaining decent newspaper in the UK, and thank Rupert for subsidising it.
I'm new to the Scottish Indy discussion here and I haven't given it much considered thought before today. I've assumed No would win comfortably. That's clearly no longer a confident position anyone sensible can continue to hold.
So two questions from me.
The first is for PBers. Have any non Scots Nats here been calling this for "YES" from a long way out? As per Rod Crosby calling NOM in the last UK GE against the tide? If I'd been betting on this market I think I would now be sitting on a very unwelcome and sizeable string of No bets which would now be unsellable. Does this describe some of the regulars here?
Secondly, now a No vote looks a real possibility, is the currency issue really as vague and uncertain as it appears to be? If "No" prevails is the plan "sterlingisation", as I read in today's Sunday Times and is this tenable, deliverable and sustainable?
I get the impression that those voting on this momentous issue don't know what will happen to their currency if they vote YES and an awful lot of arguments, horse trading, uncertainties and logistical and legal difficulties are likely to follow a No majority.
It looks to me that the aftermath of a "NO' vote could be a bit of a dog's dinner.
SouthamObserver has been calling it for Yes for many months.
I've stopped reading both since they went pay wall, and from memory neither makes a profit so a bit like Radio 3 a subsidised plaything for the London chatterati
That may be; the Guardian, Telegraph, and Indy don't make a profit either, but, more to the point, they have all three descended into sensationalist rant-fests . So either you rely on the Mail, which is the most sensationalist rant-fest of them all but is at least profitable, or you accept that, like it or not, the Times is the only remaining decent newspaper in the UK, and thank Rupert for subsidising it.
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It doesn't say much for voters intelligence if anyone ever thought the Queen would be in favour and/or ambivalent to the vote...
Wouldn't be surprised to see an Independent Scotland causing (even more) constitutional chaos in a few years by trying to skip over Charles as King.
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
And yet he runs the one remaining quality newspaper in the UK (or one of two if you count the FT, but that is more a specialist publication than a newspaper).
I've stopped reading both since they went pay wall, and from memory neither makes a profit so a bit like Radio 3 a subsidised plaything for the London chatterati
There's a way of reading the FT for free.
Just do a google search of the title/headline of the FT article in quotation marks, and google will bring up the article to read for free
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
The Queen is already HoS of 15 Commonwealth Realms (ie. independent states as opposed to colonies):
Canada Oz NZ Jamaica Antigua Bahamas Barbados Belize Grenada Papua NG St Kitts St Lucia St Vincent Solomon Islands Tuvalu
Richard Nabavi - The Guardian a sensationalist rant-fest? Oh please.
Perhaps you missed this piece, for example
Be afraid. Be very afraid
Unbelievable as it may seem, Boris Johnson has a real chance of being elected London mayor today. Zoe Williams and other Londoners imagine what it would be like if this bigoted, lying, Old Etonian buffoon got his hands on our diverse and liberal capital
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
The Queen is already HoS of 15 Commonwealth Realms (ie. independent states as opposed to colonies):
Canada Oz NZ Jamaica Antigua Bahamas Barbados Belize Grenada Papua NG St Kitts St Lucia St Vincent Solomon Islands Tuvalu
plus the UK, natch.
True, but the connection to the Home nations is still different to the Commonwealth Realms. I doubt that minor distinction would shift many, but worth a try I guess.
Wouldn't it be great if we ALL had to re-apply for EU membership in the wake of Devomax? Should we just not bother? Say the dog ate the form? Lost in the post?
Some months ago someone, and I forget who, suggested that if Scotland voted to leave then all treaties signed by the UK since 1707 would lapse and SeanT said Cameron would have to resign. That struck me at the time as being a cracking deal - we get rid of the Scots, the EU, and Cameron all in one go. My only regret was that there was no way I could vote for it, oh and it did not include the Welsh.
Like you I wish that it were true but precedent - such as the case of the Czech Republic and Solvakia - sghows that both successor states would be considered to remain party to all treaties signed by the original state as a matter of course.
There is now also a Vienna Convention on Successor States in respect of treaties although the UK is not a signatory.
Only the rUK would be considered a successor state.
No. When the Czech Republic and Slovakia split the international community accepted that both were entitled to remain as signatories to all existing Czechoslovak treaties.
If the UK had signed the Vienna Convention it would be far more problematic but as it stands the precedent of Slovakia appears to hold good for Scotland as well.
I am not sure that's right, Richard.
International Treaties are self-evidently expressions of consent between the two Parties. If it is agreed that the new country can be treated the same as the country that entered into the Treaty then fine, the Treaty holds. But if any party demurs, they may not be bound by the terms of the Treaty.
I think the Czeck/Slovakia Treaties held because nobody was interested in nullifying or renegotiating them. I'm not sure that would be the case with UK/Scotland. For example, the UK has the world's widest network of Double Tax Treaties. Many were drafted long ago when the UK's position in the world was much stronger and the Treaties often reflect that in that they tend to be rather favorable to the UK. It would be unwise to assume that such favorable treatment would be automatically extended to Scotland. Might be - in some cases - but I wouldn't count on it.
England would be OK. There is ample precedent for the successor State to retain the Treaty benefits, but I'm not sure Scotland could safely depend upon the Czeck/Slovakia precedent, which as far as I am aware was never challenged or tested in the courts.
Four ELBOWs (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) have been published by the Sunil on Sunday. This week's (based on 5 polls with fieldwork 1st to 5th September) is as follows:
The continuing slide of the LibDems is remarkable. I was canvassing in a rock-solid LibDem ward today and apart from Red Liberals who we already knew about, I was struck by the number of former LibDems now saying they weren't quite sure how they'd vote, but definitely not LibDem (much bemused head-shaking - the voters are too nice to be angry, just feel the party has lost the plot). The party is still pondering whom to put up in the GE, in a seat where they got 17% last time and have roughly a third of the councillors and are part of the Lab-Lib governing coalition. Their GE campaign budget is at present zero.
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It's entertaining when No-ers are reduced to plucking a few thousand votes out of the air to make themselves feel better.
Just to clarify, do you think MI5 is playing absolutely no role in the referendum? If so, must be worrying for you that yet another pillar of the UK state is doing bugger all to preserve it.
You're not exactly Rourke's Drift material are you ? :-)
All this francophilia has you surrendering at the first whiff of danger.
On the contrary, I'm showing no sign of panic at all. That's for three good reasons:
1) On balance, although I don't too much care, I'd mildly prefer the Scots to leave the UK, and I wish them good luck
2) I have no big betting positions either way
3) The entertainment value of watching the inevitable sharp adjustment to reality if they do leave would be considerable. I'm particularly looking forward to Alex Salmond explaining to Scottish voters the fact that Scotland would not automatically become a member of the EU. The about-turn on the currency should also be very amusing.
What's in it for the English for Scotland to remain in the UK? English tax payers already massively subsidise the Scots and devomax or anything similar costs us more.
The Scots appear pathologically left wing which makes the UK more lefty than the English want a d if they bugger off Labour have near zero chance of ever winning again.
What's not to like about that about that
Well for one there seems to be disagreement about how much the Scots are subsidized, for two, Labour have won majorities in England in recent times so plenty within it probably don't like the idea of them not having a chance again, and even if both those points are true, not all beliefs are entirely rational. There are many rational arguments for and against Independence, but it seems to being won on the basis of emotional gut feelings, and that applies to the No side as well as Yes, even if it seems Yes have more fire in the belly.
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
No it slants it in a Rupert wants way.
I really don't think that is the case in respect of the Times.
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It doesn't say much for voters intelligence if anyone ever thought the Queen would be in favour and/or ambivalent to the vote...
Wouldn't be surprised to see an Independent Scotland causing (even more) constitutional chaos in a few years by trying to skip over Charles as King.
They would have to get the other 15 Commonwealth Realms to agree!
Four ELBOWs (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) have been published by the Sunil on Sunday. This week's (based on 5 polls with fieldwork 1st to 5th September) is as follows:
The continuing slide of the LibDems is remarkable. I was canvassing in a rock-solid LibDem ward today and apart from Red Liberals who we already knew about, I was struck by the number of former LibDems now saying they weren't quite sure how they'd vote, but definitely not LibDem (much bemused head-shaking - the voters are too nice to be angry, just feel the party has lost the plot). The party is still pondering whom to put up in the GE, in a seat where they got 17% last time and have roughly a third of the councillors and are part of the Lab-Lib governing coalition. Their GE campaign budget is at present zero.
I too despair over the LDs. They have done well in coalition and should not be afraid to say so, but seem incoherently want to oppose themselves.
I think that 30 seats next year is about right, though probably not making too much difference as the seats will go equally to Tory and Labour, even if the voters go mostly to Labour.
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It's entertaining when No-ers are reduced to plucking a few thousand votes out of the air to make themselves feel better.
Just to clarify, do you think MI5 is playing absolutely no role in the referendum? If so, must be worrying for you that yet another pillar of the UK state is doing bugger all to preserve it.
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
And yet he runs the one remaining quality newspaper in the UK (or one of two if you count the FT, but that is more a specialist publication than a newspaper).
Nothing wrong with the Grauniad, Richard, excepting that it sings a song you don't like.
Looking at the YouGov poll, the groups that were upweighted the most were 2011 SNP Voters, and 16-24s, these were the two groups really in favour of Yes, and the oldies were downweighted, the only group opposed to Yes.
You're not exactly Rourke's Drift material are you ? :-)
All this francophilia has you surrendering at the first whiff of danger.
On the contrary, I'm showing no sign of panic at all. That's for three good reasons:
1) On balance, although I don't too much care, I'd mildly prefer the Scots to leave the UK, and I wish them good luck
2) I have no big betting positions either way
3) The entertainment value of watching the inevitable sharp adjustment to reality if they do leave would be considerable. I'm particularly looking forward to Alex Salmond explaining to Scottish voters the fact that Scotland would not automatically become a member of the EU. The about-turn on the currency should also be very amusing.
I shall be looking forward to the draconian restrictions on taking capital out the country, as Scots have to make do with taking a single 50 Thistle note to cover their trip to Florida....
You're not exactly Rourke's Drift material are you ? :-)
All this francophilia has you surrendering at the first whiff of danger.
On the contrary, I'm showing no sign of panic at all. That's for three good reasons:
1) On balance, although I don't too much care, I'd mildly prefer the Scots to leave the UK, and I wish them good luck
2) I have no big betting positions either way
3) The entertainment value of watching the inevitable sharp adjustment to reality if they do leave would be considerable. I'm particularly looking forward to Alex Salmond explaining to Scottish voters the fact that Scotland would not automatically become a member of the EU. The about-turn on the currency should also be very amusing.
Top post, Mr. N., spoken like a true English gentleman (save that most of us would leave out the word, "mildly" in item 1).
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It's entertaining when No-ers are reduced to plucking a few thousand votes out of the air to make themselves feel better.
Just to clarify, do you think MI5 is playing absolutely no role in the referendum? If so, must be worrying for you that yet another pillar of the UK state is doing bugger all to preserve it.
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
The problem with this polling evidence of widespread conspiracy advocacy amongst the Scottish voters is that it tells of a potential undercurrent for a significant proportion of claimed "yes" voters that they aren't really voting for independence, because however they vote it just won't be allowed to happen. This could be potential good news in that it is not too late to get the message across that this isn't just "a bit of a laugh" but is really going to happen if they vote "yes" but equally could just explain why many are able to vote yes and remain deaf to the arguments about how much of Alex Salmond's propectus is just fantasy.
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
And yet he runs the one remaining quality newspaper in the UK (or one of two if you count the FT, but that is more a specialist publication than a newspaper).
Nothing wrong with the Grauniad, Richard, excepting that it sings a song you don't like.
Nonsense, it is a complete rant-fest, distorting every single issue with partisan garbage.
It used to be a good newspaper - indeed I used to buy it every day at one point, when the Times went through a bad patch in the early 90s and before the Independent came to the rescue in its original good-quality form under Whittam Smith . But now the Guardian has given up any pretence of being a quality newspaper.
"officials were forced to clarify that no new devolved powers would be announced. The Government will simply announce a new timetable for a cross-party convention to devolve powers to Scotland “swiftly” after the general election next year."
"Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish secretary, has pledged to hold a conference on devolution within weeks of a “no” vote. But there is incredulity in Tory and Lib Dem circles that Labour has refused to go as far as them in offering the Scottish government complete control of income tax."
In other words, my suspicions were right. Labour are putting party before country. They will risk the Union instead of risking the loss of some Labour influence in Westminster. They will not offer Devomax, because it damages them as a party. They would rather see Britain break up.
Labour = traitors.
The party that gave away half of our rebate to Brussels, that thinks the English are "naturally violent", that wanted to replace the "white mainstream" to be "genuinely multicultural", that ditched a referendum so that the EU could get primacy over British law, are traitors?
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
Err, I didn't say whether I thought they were involved or not. Perhaps you should stick to telling everyone (repeatedly) how uninterested you are in the subject.
You're not exactly Rourke's Drift material are you ? :-)
All this francophilia has you surrendering at the first whiff of danger.
On the contrary, I'm showing no sign of panic at all. That's for three good reasons:
1) On balance, although I don't too much care, I'd mildly prefer the Scots to leave the UK, and I wish them good luck
2) I have no big betting positions either way
3) The entertainment value of watching the inevitable sharp adjustment to reality if they do leave would be considerable. I'm particularly looking forward to Alex Salmond explaining to Scottish voters the fact that Scotland would not automatically become a member of the EU. The about-turn on the currency should also be very amusing.
In some ways I share your analysis here. However, where we diverge is that I do think the powers that be - in Brussels and in Westminster - will scramble to cut deals in the event of yes. It's about keeping big business happy and not rocking the boat; no more, no less.
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
And yet he runs the one remaining quality newspaper in the UK (or one of two if you count the FT, but that is more a specialist publication than a newspaper).
Nothing wrong with the Grauniad, Richard, excepting that it sings a song you don't like.
You're claiming there's nothing wrong with the newspaper that published this?
Personally I kept out of the Indy betting until recently but have secured a small plus position due to the recent market upheavals. Another PBer of my acquaintance bet heavily on No, as you suggested you might have done, but was subsequently able to hedge successfully. I suspect you would have been able to do the same.
As for the 'dog's dinner', yes - I believe it becoming increasingly apparent that that is what will follow a Yes vote. Currency is the big issue, as Darling indicated during the debates. He was drowned out in the second debate by a combination of Salmond's rhetoric and boo boys in the audience. In the cold light of day however I suspect that Scottish voters are becoming increasingly conscious of the problems of 'sterlingisation'.
Unfortunately, despite having several qualifying properties, I believe her Maj's advisors are too late now to get her onto the electoral role. The deadline was last week.
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It doesn't say much for voters intelligence if anyone ever thought the Queen would be in favour and/or ambivalent to the vote...
Wouldn't be surprised to see an Independent Scotland causing (even more) constitutional chaos in a few years by trying to skip over Charles as King.
They would have to get the other 15 Commonwealth Realms to agree!
No, they wouldn't - they'd just break the personal union.
The person they'd need to agree, and who would refuse, would be Prince William.
Why are youGov relying on 2011 weightings when turnout in 2011 was only 50% yet we are expecting a turnout of perhaps 80% this time. Isn't it also quite likely they'd be a fair amount of mis-remembering going on given there was a GE in 2010. I think Kellner made these points when he tried to explain why YouGov was reporting a bigger no lead than the other pollsters.
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
Err, I didn't say whether I thought they were involved or not. Perhaps you should stick to telling everyone (repeatedly) how uninterested you are in the subject.
Well if you didn't think it why hint at it? Oh, and I'll post what I like thanks.
@SeanT - I don't see why you are calling me a liar. I agree that a Yes vote would turn everything upside down. In the medium term, though, a break-up looks mildly beneficial to both sides; we get rid of a load of whingers who landed us with Gordon Brown and a mindless block-vote of Labour MPs, and the Scots (after the inevitable Thatcherite adjustment) should eventually recover their old traditions of hard-work, entrepreneurship and sound Scottish finances. Once they do that, they'll do very well.
Looks like a win-win to me.
Of course it would be a bit turbulent in the short-term.
Four ELBOWs (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) have been published by the Sunil on Sunday. This week's (based on 5 polls with fieldwork 1st to 5th September) is as follows:
The continuing slide of the LibDems is remarkable. I was canvassing in a rock-solid LibDem ward today and apart from Red Liberals who we already knew about, I was struck by the number of former LibDems now saying they weren't quite sure how they'd vote, but definitely not LibDem (much bemused head-shaking - the voters are too nice to be angry, just feel the party has lost the plot). The party is still pondering whom to put up in the GE, in a seat where they got 17% last time and have roughly a third of the councillors and are part of the Lab-Lib governing coalition. Their GE campaign budget is at present zero.
A police and crime commissioner who is facing calls for his resignation over the Rotherham child-sex scandal knew for years that local girls were being groomed and ruthlessly abused by men, it was claimed yesterday.
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
And yet he runs the one remaining quality newspaper in the UK (or one of two if you count the FT, but that is more a specialist publication than a newspaper).
Nothing wrong with the Grauniad, Richard, excepting that it sings a song you don't like.
You're claiming there's nothing wrong with the newspaper that published this?
Looking at the YouGov poll, the groups that were upweighted the most were 2011 SNP Voters, and 16-24s, these were the two groups really in favour of Yes, and the oldies were downweighted, the only group opposed to Yes.
So a perfect weighting storm gave Yes the lead
The change of position by Yougov is so spectacular, especially given Mr Kelner's earlier sanctimony about some of their competitors who were already calling it closer, that I for one am remaining fairly sanguine about their Yes lead until it is supported by others. Today it seemed to focus attention and make potential No voters understand the importance of their actions. Useful to that extent.
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
And yet he runs the one remaining quality newspaper in the UK (or one of two if you count the FT, but that is more a specialist publication than a newspaper).
Nothing wrong with the Grauniad, Richard, excepting that it sings a song you don't like.
You're claiming there's nothing wrong with the newspaper that published this?
Oh come on, Socrates, it's about being a platform for a range of views, and the Guardian publishes op-ed from all sides of the political spectrum. God knows I don't agree with everything that's written in any of the papers. But it is clearly wrong to say that a paper of the authority and lineage of the Grauniad is not a quality paper.
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
Err, I didn't say whether I thought they were involved or not. Perhaps you should stick to telling everyone (repeatedly) how uninterested you are in the subject.
aww come on divvie repetition is central to the indy debate.
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It doesn't say much for voters intelligence if anyone ever thought the Queen would be in favour and/or ambivalent to the vote...
Wouldn't be surprised to see an Independent Scotland causing (even more) constitutional chaos in a few years by trying to skip over Charles as King.
They would have to get the other 15 Commonwealth Realms to agree!
No, they wouldn't - they'd just break the personal union.
The person they'd need to agree, and who would refuse, would be Prince William.
I don't know - maybe it could be quite a good idea (the reigning monarch spreading territory among their progeny was quite common in the past). So the oldest son could get the Kingdom of Scotland, freeing up the Principality of Wales for the oldest grandson/second in line to the throne!
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
No it slants it in a Rupert wants way.
I really don't think that is the case in respect of the Times.
It has a *very* Bush-esque neocon slant to it, as do all the Murdoch publications. Everyone on this website including Mike Smithson would be in dessert cammo and on a plane to somewhere warm if we got involved in all the conflicts The Times urges us into.
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It's entertaining when No-ers are reduced to plucking a few thousand votes out of the air to make themselves feel better.
Just to clarify, do you think MI5 is playing absolutely no role in the referendum? If so, must be worrying for you that yet another pillar of the UK state is doing bugger all to preserve it.
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
No it slants it in a Rupert wants way.
I really don't think that is the case in respect of the Times.
It has a *very* Bush-esque neocon slant to it, as do all the Murdoch publications. Everyone on this website including Mike Smithson would be in dessert cammo and on a plane to somewhere warm if we got involved in all the conflicts The Times urges us into.
Yet the Murdoch Sun-on-Sunday is supposedly about to support the break-up of the United States' strongest ally?
As for the 'dog's dinner', yes - I believe it becoming increasingly apparent that that is what will follow a Yes vote. Currency is the big issue, as Darling indicated during the debates. He was drowned out in the second debate by a combination of Salmond's rhetoric and boo boys in the audience. In the cold light of day however I suspect that Scottish voters are becoming increasingly conscious of the problems of 'sterlingisation'.
I was talking about this with relatives yesterday. The way the referendum has been handled is a bit like asking Scotland if they would like to buy a house, but they won't find out where it is, how big it is, or what it costs until afterwards. It's a real leap in the dark. Nobody really seems to know what will happen.
Looking at the YouGov poll, the groups that were upweighted the most were 2011 SNP Voters, and 16-24s, these were the two groups really in favour of Yes, and the oldies were downweighted, the only group opposed to Yes.
So a perfect weighting storm gave Yes the lead
The change of position by Yougov is so spectacular, especially given Mr Kelner's earlier sanctimony about some of their competitors who were already calling it closer, that I for one am remaining fairly sanguine about their Yes lead until it is supported by others. Today it seemed to focus attention and make potential No voters understand the importance of their actions. Useful to that extent.
Next set of Indy Polls schedule
TNS - Wednesday (confirmed)
Survation - Thursday (confirmed)
YouGov - Friday (confirmed)
I'd also expect an ICM next weekend, and if we're lucky, an Ipsos-Mori poll this week, the only phone pollster in this race, and who like YouGov have shown significant No leads, if they had the No lead down or wiped out, then Unionists should really get worried.
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
And yet he runs the one remaining quality newspaper in the UK (or one of two if you count the FT, but that is more a specialist publication than a newspaper).
Nothing wrong with the Grauniad, Richard, excepting that it sings a song you don't like.
You're claiming there's nothing wrong with the newspaper that published this?
Oh come on, Socrates, it's about being a platform for a range of views, and the Guardian publishes op-ed from all sides of the political spectrum. God knows I don't agree with everything that's written in any of the papers. But it is clearly wrong to say that a paper of the authority and lineage of the Grauniad is not a quality paper.
A range of views which includes accusing the Times investigation into child rape as basically a racist conspiracy?
What about this hyperbolic tripe about England being basically hell on Earth?
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
And yet he runs the one remaining quality newspaper in the UK (or one of two if you count the FT, but that is more a specialist publication than a newspaper).
Nothing wrong with the Grauniad, Richard, excepting that it sings a song you don't like.
Nonsense, it is a complete rant-fest, distorting every single issue with partisan garbage.
It used to be a good newspaper - indeed I used to buy it every day at one point, when the Times went through a bad patch in the early 90s and before the Independent came to the rescue in its original good-quality form under Whittam Smith . But now the Guardian has given up any pretence of being a quality newspaper.
Interesting - I stopped reading the Times in the early 90s, but dropped the Telegraph shortly after the Barclays bought it because it became so downmarket. Picked up the Times again the last few days (too many flights & it's free...) and it was really rather good.
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
No it slants it in a Rupert wants way.
I really don't think that is the case in respect of the Times.
It has a *very* Bush-esque neocon slant to it, as do all the Murdoch publications. Everyone on this website including Mike Smithson would be in dessert cammo and on a plane to somewhere warm if we got involved in all the conflicts The Times urges us into.
Yet the Murdoch Sun-on-Sunday is supposedly about to support the break-up of the United States' strongest ally?
If it suits Murdoch's tax rate, he'll do it. Businessmen are patriots only until the taxman arrives, and anyway Murdoch is australian.
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It's entertaining when No-ers are reduced to plucking a few thousand votes out of the air to make themselves feel better.
Just to clarify, do you think MI5 is playing absolutely no role in the referendum? If so, must be worrying for you that yet another pillar of the UK state is doing bugger all to preserve it.
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
And these accusations were only from a quick look around.
You expect me to take that drivel seriously? MI6 plotting against UKIP? Really? Especially as what we commonly call MI6 is actually part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and has no remit to do anything in the UK.
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
No it slants it in a Rupert wants way.
I really don't think that is the case in respect of the Times.
It has a *very* Bush-esque neocon slant to it, as do all the Murdoch publications. Everyone on this website including Mike Smithson would be in dessert cammo and on a plane to somewhere warm if we got involved in all the conflicts The Times urges us into.
Yet the Murdoch Sun-on-Sunday is supposedly about to support the break-up of the United States' strongest ally?
If it suits Murdoch's tax rate, he'll do it. Businessmen are patriots only until the taxman arrives, and anyway Murdoch is australian.
An Australian who took US citizenship I believe in order to be able to control some US media. That's the law in the US.
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
No it slants it in a Rupert wants way.
I really don't think that is the case in respect of the Times.
It has a *very* Bush-esque neocon slant to it, as do all the Murdoch publications. Everyone on this website including Mike Smithson would be in dessert cammo and on a plane to somewhere warm if we got involved in all the conflicts The Times urges us into.
Yet the Murdoch Sun-on-Sunday is supposedly about to support the break-up of the United States' strongest ally?
Apart from A) Slight annoyance at the possibility of losing their nuclear weapons funded by and housed in the UK and Concern that an independent Scotland will look for friends in the new axis of China and Russia, I doubt America gives a flying proverbial (the leadership, not the people, who I like very much). American policy for at least 200 years has been to benefit from the destruction of Britain. This is the messy end.
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
No it slants it in a Rupert wants way.
I really don't think that is the case in respect of the Times.
It has a *very* Bush-esque neocon slant to it, as do all the Murdoch publications. Everyone on this website including Mike Smithson would be in dessert cammo and on a plane to somewhere warm if we got involved in all the conflicts The Times urges us into.
Yet the Murdoch Sun-on-Sunday is supposedly about to support the break-up of the United States' strongest ally?
If it suits Murdoch's tax rate, he'll do it. Businessmen are patriots only until the taxman arrives, and anyway Murdoch is australian.
Murdoch renounced his Australian citizenship and became a Yank so that he could own a national US TV network (Fox).
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It doesn't say much for voters intelligence if anyone ever thought the Queen would be in favour and/or ambivalent to the vote...
Wouldn't be surprised to see an Independent Scotland causing (even more) constitutional chaos in a few years by trying to skip over Charles as King.
They would have to get the other 15 Commonwealth Realms to agree!
No, they wouldn't - they'd just break the personal union.
The person they'd need to agree, and who would refuse, would be Prince William.
Why would Scots prefer the Etonian William, son of a very English aristocrat, to his father- a Gordonstoun educated, kilt wearing, lover of the highlands?
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
No it slants it in a Rupert wants way.
I really don't think that is the case in respect of the Times.
It has a *very* Bush-esque neocon slant to it, as do all the Murdoch publications. Everyone on this website including Mike Smithson would be in dessert cammo and on a plane to somewhere warm if we got involved in all the conflicts The Times urges us into.
Dessert cammo?
Is that camouflage used to combat armed cupcakes and guerilla rice puddings?
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
No it slants it in a Rupert wants way.
I really don't think that is the case in respect of the Times.
It has a *very* Bush-esque neocon slant to it, as do all the Murdoch publications. Everyone on this website including Mike Smithson would be in dessert cammo and on a plane to somewhere warm if we got involved in all the conflicts The Times urges us into.
Yet the Murdoch Sun-on-Sunday is supposedly about to support the break-up of the United States' strongest ally?
If it suits Murdoch's tax rate, he'll do it. Businessmen are patriots only until the taxman arrives, and anyway Murdoch is australian.
Murdoch renounced his Australian citizenship and became a Yank so that he could own a national US TV network (Fox).
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It's entertaining when No-ers are reduced to plucking a few thousand votes out of the air to make themselves feel better.
Just to clarify, do you think MI5 is playing absolutely no role in the referendum? If so, must be worrying for you that yet another pillar of the UK state is doing bugger all to preserve it.
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
And these accusations were only from a quick look around.
You expect me to take that drivel seriously? MI6 plotting against UKIP? Really? Especially as what we commonly call MI6 is actually part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and has no remit to do anything in the UK.
Intelligence agency in acts outside its remit shock.
I suspect that a lot of Scottish voters are beginning to think the same way now that the Independence has become a real possibility.
I've no idea what the outcome will be. My Scottish relatives that I thought would be Yes are No, and the ones I thought would be No are Yes. If I can't guess that right I sure as hell can't say what Scotland as a whole will answer. But none of them are happy with the campaign and lack of clarity.
I don't see much difference between the Times and the other ranters as you call it. It's as sensational as the rest but just more out of touch. See Matthew Parris.
No, it is definitely better than the others. In particular it doesn't slant the straightforward news reports in a party-political way as the others do.
No it slants it in a Rupert wants way.
I really don't think that is the case in respect of the Times.
It has a *very* Bush-esque neocon slant to it, as do all the Murdoch publications. Everyone on this website including Mike Smithson would be in dessert cammo and on a plane to somewhere warm if we got involved in all the conflicts The Times urges us into.
Dessert cammo?
Is that camouflage used to combat armed cupcakes and guerilla rice puddings?
Isn't the referendum about indy and not the Queen?
It is. It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Given that it's just been revealed 25% of Scots think MI5 are trying to sabotage the referendum in favour of "English Tories" who want to steal Caledonia's mince reserves, I think a front page story about the Queen being *worried* seems entirely sane. And in keeping.
And it will have an affect. The Queen is loved. Politicians are not. Even in Scotland. If it is widely believed that the Queen hates the idea of Partition it might persuade a few thousand voters to go NO.
As you well know.
It's entertaining when No-ers are reduced to plucking a few thousand votes out of the air to make themselves feel better.
Just to clarify, do you think MI5 is playing absolutely no role in the referendum? If so, must be worrying for you that yet another pillar of the UK state is doing bugger all to preserve it.
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
And these accusations were only from a quick look around.
You expect me to take that drivel seriously? MI6 plotting against UKIP? Really? Especially as what we commonly call MI6 is actually part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and has no remit to do anything in the UK.
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
Err, I didn't say whether I thought they were involved or not. Perhaps you should stick to telling everyone (repeatedly) how uninterested you are in the subject.
Well if you didn't think it why hint at it? Oh, and I'll post what I like thanks.
I'm curious if someone who perceives the possibility of Scottish independence as the greatest threat to his country in his lifetime might expect the security apparatus to get involved in stopping it.
Oh, and I haven't the slightest interest in stopping you posting what you like, repetitive as it is.
I'm not sure that I would have got out of a very deep hole if I had punted on "NO"; as I may well have held my position beyond the point when the markets had moved too far against me. I'm just relieved that I'm not in this market. (Not yet anyway!) In fact I've never been in the habit of backing odds on shots and certainly not 1/5 type shots. So I probably wouldn't have got involved in this one - before now.
But I am now wondering whether to go in on "No". Not because I still think "NO" is a sure thing. No way. But because it just feels too big a risk to me for the Scots to vote "NO" and I would expect a lot of voters to step back from the brink of uncertainty when faced with the ballot box. As they did in Quebec.
It's not as though the competition on the GOP side is exactly compelling..
Obama at this point 2 years before he got elected was already in the teens vs Clinton for the nomination. The public interest on Mike Pence is so low they don't even poll him, and they even poll Bobby Jindal because he gets 2%.
I've been tipping Mike Pence for 2016 for about two years.
My answer to that is simple: "Mike who?" They rate him even bellow Bobby Jindal "Bombs".
It doesn't matter because there's no front runner. There were a half dozen candidates that could have beaten Romney last time round if they hadn't shown up to be incompetents once they ran up a poll lead. Pence isn't an incompetent.
My view on this is that it's Paul Ryan's for the taking if he runs, and, if he doesn't, then Pence is probably the best placed if the GOP base is looking round for a non-Bush candidate. Thune also interesting.
It's not as though the competition on the GOP side is exactly compelling..
Obama at this point 2 years before he got elected was already in the teens vs Clinton for the nomination. The public interest on Mike Pence is so low they don't even poll him, and they even poll Bobby Jindal because he gets 2%.
Obama had to beat the Clintons, one of the biggest forces in American politics since the war. Who would Pence have to beat? Marco Rubio? Rand Paul?
Comments
Lizzie is Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms, many of which are thousands of miles away from Blighty.
It perhaps indicates what a tin ear Labour and its tabloid organ have in pushing this sort of guff.
Doesn't make sense. Risking the Union itself risks Labour's influence at Westminster.
So two questions from me.
The first is for PBers. Have any non Scots Nats here been calling this for "YES" from a long way out? As per Rod Crosby calling NOM in the last UK GE against the tide? If I'd been betting on this market I think I would now be sitting on a very unwelcome and sizeable string of No bets which would now be unsellable. Does this describe some of the regulars here?
Secondly, now a No vote looks a real possibility, is the currency issue really as vague and uncertain as it appears to be? If "No" prevails is the plan "sterlingisation", as I read in today's Sunday Times and is this tenable, deliverable and sustainable?
I get the impression that those voting on this momentous issue don't know what will happen to their currency if they vote YES and an awful lot of arguments, horse trading, uncertainties and logistical and legal difficulties are likely to follow a No majority.
It looks to me that the aftermath of a "NO' vote could be a bit of a dog's dinner.
Then again he did predict President Romney
Wouldn't be surprised to see an Independent Scotland causing (even more) constitutional chaos in a few years by trying to skip over Charles as King.
Just do a google search of the title/headline of the FT article in quotation marks, and google will bring up the article to read for free
Canada
Oz
NZ
Jamaica
Antigua
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Grenada
Papua NG
St Kitts
St Lucia
St Vincent
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
plus the UK, natch.
All this francophilia has you surrendering at the first whiff of danger.
Be afraid. Be very afraid
Unbelievable as it may seem, Boris Johnson has a real chance of being elected London mayor today. Zoe Williams and other Londoners imagine what it would be like if this bigoted, lying, Old Etonian buffoon got his hands on our diverse and liberal capital
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/may/01/boris.livingstone
International Treaties are self-evidently expressions of consent between the two Parties. If it is agreed that the new country can be treated the same as the country that entered into the Treaty then fine, the Treaty holds. But if any party demurs, they may not be bound by the terms of the Treaty.
I think the Czeck/Slovakia Treaties held because nobody was interested in nullifying or renegotiating them. I'm not sure that would be the case with UK/Scotland. For example, the UK has the world's widest network of Double Tax Treaties. Many were drafted long ago when the UK's position in the world was much stronger and the Treaties often reflect that in that they tend to be rather favorable to the UK. It would be unwise to assume that such favorable treatment would be automatically extended to Scotland. Might be - in some cases - but I wouldn't count on it.
England would be OK. There is ample precedent for the successor State to retain the Treaty benefits, but I'm not sure Scotland could safely depend upon the Czeck/Slovakia precedent, which as far as I am aware was never challenged or tested in the courts.
Scotland: ‘Yes’ blitzkrieg wipes out ‘No’ lead
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/07/scotland-yes-blitzkrieg-wipes-out-no-lead/
Just to clarify, do you think MI5 is playing absolutely no role in the referendum? If so, must be worrying for you that yet another pillar of the UK state is doing bugger all to preserve it.
1) On balance, although I don't too much care, I'd mildly prefer the Scots to leave the UK, and I wish them good luck
2) I have no big betting positions either way
3) The entertainment value of watching the inevitable sharp adjustment to reality if they do leave would be considerable. I'm particularly looking forward to Alex Salmond explaining to Scottish voters the fact that Scotland would not automatically become a member of the EU. The about-turn on the currency should also be very amusing.
I think that 30 seats next year is about right, though probably not making too much difference as the seats will go equally to Tory and Labour, even if the voters go mostly to Labour.
So a perfect weighting storm gave Yes the lead
It used to be a good newspaper - indeed I used to buy it every day at one point, when the Times went through a bad patch in the early 90s and before the Independent came to the rescue in its original good-quality form under Whittam Smith . But now the Guardian has given up any pretence of being a quality newspaper.
Really? You think?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/grooming-racialising-crime-tradition
Cheap British (or english ?) exports.
Personally I kept out of the Indy betting until recently but have secured a small plus position due to the recent market upheavals. Another PBer of my acquaintance bet heavily on No, as you suggested you might have done, but was subsequently able to hedge successfully. I suspect you would have been able to do the same.
As for the 'dog's dinner', yes - I believe it becoming increasingly apparent that that is what will follow a Yes vote. Currency is the big issue, as Darling indicated during the debates. He was drowned out in the second debate by a combination of Salmond's rhetoric and boo boys in the audience. In the cold light of day however I suspect that Scottish voters are becoming increasingly conscious of the problems of 'sterlingisation'.
Pity really. A canvassing opportunity missed.
The person they'd need to agree, and who would refuse, would be Prince William.
Looks like a win-win to me.
Of course it would be a bit turbulent in the short-term.
A police and crime commissioner who is facing calls for his resignation over the Rotherham child-sex scandal knew for years that local girls were being groomed and ruthlessly abused by men, it was claimed yesterday.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4199792.ece
As the bandwagon has moved on to Scottish issue, nobody in power in Rotherham and oversaw this scandal has moved an inch.
He was very clear in his BBC interview he knew nothing....I presume he still claims he knew nothing?
turnip.
http://news.sky.com/story/35324/tebbits-mi5-infiltration-claims
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1198902/Oh-spooky-Is-MI5-spying-Eurosceptics.html
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/04/did-mi6-plot-against-ukip/
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-118091119.html
And these accusations were only from a quick look around.
I was talking about this with relatives yesterday. The way the referendum has been handled is a bit like asking Scotland if they would like to buy a house, but they won't find out where it is, how big it is, or what it costs until afterwards. It's a real leap in the dark. Nobody really seems to know what will happen.
TNS - Wednesday (confirmed)
Survation - Thursday (confirmed)
YouGov - Friday (confirmed)
I'd also expect an ICM next weekend, and if we're lucky, an Ipsos-Mori poll this week, the only phone pollster in this race, and who like YouGov have shown significant No leads, if they had the No lead down or wiped out, then Unionists should really get worried.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/11527818
What about this hyperbolic tripe about England being basically hell on Earth?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland
I suspect that a lot of Scottish voters are beginning to think the same way now that the Independence has become a real possibility.
Businessmen are patriots only until the taxman arrives, and anyway Murdoch is australian.
"Mike who?"
They rate him even bellow Bobby Jindal "Bombs".
Is that camouflage used to combat armed cupcakes and guerilla rice puddings?
Business trumps nationality.
It's not as though the competition on the GOP side is exactly compelling..
Oh, and I haven't the slightest interest in stopping you posting what you like, repetitive as it is.
Thanks for the reply.
I'm not sure that I would have got out of a very deep hole if I had punted on "NO"; as I may well have held my position beyond the point when the markets had moved too far against me. I'm just relieved that I'm not in this market. (Not yet anyway!) In fact I've never been in the habit of backing odds on shots and certainly not 1/5 type shots. So I probably wouldn't have got involved in this one - before now.
But I am now wondering whether to go in on "No". Not because I still think "NO" is a sure thing. No way. But because it just feels too big a risk to me for the Scots to vote "NO" and I would expect a lot of voters to step back from the brink of uncertainty when faced with the ballot box. As they did in Quebec.
The public interest on Mike Pence is so low they don't even poll him, and they even poll Bobby Jindal because he gets 2%.
My view on this is that it's Paul Ryan's for the taking if he runs, and, if he doesn't, then Pence is probably the best placed if the GOP base is looking round for a non-Bush candidate. Thune also interesting.