politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why I’ve backed Philip Hammond as next Prime Minister at 33

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why I’ve backed Philip Hammond as next Prime Minister at 33/1 (and Sajid Javid at 50/1)

A few months ago, there was speculation that if Scotland votes Yes, then David Cameron would resign as Prime Minister, that speculation has amped up in recent days.

Read the full story here

Eastwinger

So how was Cameron supposed to deny the Scots a vote after the SNP had won an overall majority.

He didn't really have an option.

Eastwinger

Oh! and first.

Scrapheap_as_was

I'm backing Bercow!

edmundintokyo

So assuming a semi-controlled resignation (ie Cameron jumps before he's pushed rather than waiting for 15% to make a formal vote), can someone talk us through the process? How long does it all take? Is there room for a caretaker PM in between?

HG3

Any thoughts on the wisdom of getting on to some of the longer-shot Westminster constituencies for the SNP on Ladbrokes? I'd have thought that, if the referendum is won, they'll suddenly start looking a bit more within range.

__Bobajob__

Cameron should resign in the event of a Yes. But I doubt he will

Norm

I think the likely disruption and dislocation following a Yes vote will temporarily save Cameron for the rest of 2014 as it will probably be rightly deemed we don't want to add to the turmoil. However as seriously damaged goods he may still have to step aside before GE 2015 and I agree Hammond would be a good bet in that scenario.

rottenborough

Hammond odds slipping already. Just got 25/1 at Ladbrokes

Scott_P

Norm said:

I think the likely disruption and dislocation following a Yes vote will temporarily save Cameron for the rest of 2014 as it will probably be rightly deemed we don't want to add to the turmoil.

Exactly. FPT, the Queen can refuse to accept his resignation, if the alternatives are worse.

Clegg?

isam

Oh! @TheScreamingEagles.. our bet?!

If Cameron leaves as PM within a week of a YES vote.. what price he is/isnt officially out by the end of the year, and how much do you want to bet?

PeterC

There would be no election. The Magic Circle would reconvene and Hammond would emerge as the sole candidate.

The situation would be similar to the post-Suez one in 1956. Anthony Eden with his his distinguished career was undone by catastrophic miscalculations as PM and had to resign under cover of ill-health. This is Cameron. His successor, Harold MacMillan, brought reassurance and calm to a situation in which Britain had suffered a political, military and diplomatic humiliation; he eventually turned things around. This is Hammond. And Scottish secession would be every bit as traumatic as Suez, if not more so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7ySKryGldo

Smarmeron

@Norm
I mentioned that last night, a "half" resignation.

Scott_P

@TelePolitics: Scottish independence: Mark Carney hits out at 'incompatible' currency union plans http://t.co/pY9oCGEPmO

DaemonBarber

Survation ‏@Survation 2m
On Sept 10th @davieclegg pol editor of @daily_record will release #indyref headline figs at 10.30pm.Tables will then be tweeted by us HERE

TheScreamingEagles

isam said:

Oh! @TheScreamingEagles.. our bet?!

If Cameron leaves as PM within a week of a YES vote.. what price he is/isnt officially out by the end of the year, and how much do you want to bet?

I've spent most of the morning writing this thread, I've concluded if Dave goes, he'll be gone PDQ.

rottenborough

edmundintokyo said:

So assuming a semi-controlled resignation (ie Cameron jumps before he's pushed rather than waiting for 15% to make a formal vote), can someone talk us through the process? How long does it all take? Is there room for a caretaker PM in between?

this document is 2005, but I believe it is still accurate:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN01366/leadership-elections-conservative-party

2 names go forward to full membership vote. The 2 names are selected by Tory MPs via a series of ballots.

Scott_P

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've spent most of the morning writing this thread, I've concluded if Dave goes, he'll be gone PDQ.

He's going nowhere

Just through asking around, it doesn’t feel as if a Yes vote is survivable for Cameron – but I just wonder: do we really want to send a signal halfway around the world that the appropriate reaction to a country or a region voting to leave in a democratic election is for the leadership of the larger country to be forced out? I’m not certain we do.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephenkb/100285809/so-much-for-sangfroid/

Bob__Sykes

Eastwinger said:

So how was Cameron supposed to deny the Scots a vote after the SNP had won an overall majority.

He didn't really have an option.

Let Salmond hold his unofficial illegal referendum he was threatening to hold anyway at some indistinct possible future date, and then with the other Unionist parties simply ignore it if indeed it ever happened?

With polls at the time showing only a third of Scots backed independence, it would have been perfectly sensible to have said "there is no demand for it", and just carried on as normal - ideally, of course, pursuing some policies that were vaguely Scot-friendly.

Instead, he felt the hand of history on his shoulder and thought "I'll lance the SNP boil by forcing them to hold an earlier referendum, on whatever terms Salmond wants, because the Unionist cause will win, and I'll be the PM who saved the Union and put the issue to bed for a generation".

A bold vision. But he's screwed it up magnificently, and even if No somehow gets 50%+1, the genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before the wailing Nats get their way now.

All his own doing. He will have to go.

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Oh! @TheScreamingEagles.. our bet?!

If Cameron leaves as PM within a week of a YES vote.. what price he is/isnt officially out by the end of the year, and how much do you want to bet?

I've spent most of the morning writing this thread, I've concluded if Dave goes, he'll be gone PDQ.

I agree I don't think we can have no PM for 3 months plus. You referenced Hague I think and the gap when he left/was replaced, but LOTO is a different kettle of fish entirely

Damn I wanted you to put your money where your mouth was

Casino_Royale

It's the Conservative and Unionist party, not just the Conservatives. The clue's in the name. Cameron has totally neglected the 2nd part.

There are plenty enough people in the party who wouldn't forgive him and who'd feel strong enough to push him out if he didn't go of his own accord.

I suspect Ashcroft, Murdoch and a few chided donors might even 'help' with that.

rottenborough

SeanT said:

Nice that everyone now agrees with what I've been saying for weeks, initially to much derision.

Cameron will surely have to go if he loses. He might cling on for a bit for "stability", but I very much doubt he will make it to the GE (unless it is brought forward: highly unlikely)

I reckon he'll be gone by Xmas. IF he loses the vote.

We should now turn to the possibilities inside Labour, which are massively neglected. Miliband is also tying himself to this campaign. There must be a good chance he will go, too, if he loses Labour's heartland.

What are the odds on him quitting?

4/1 that he is not leader by GE according to OddsChecker.
International telephone call for Mr David Miliband...

Casino_Royale

I like Javid. But to win back ex-Tories he'd have to convince them his appointment was the real deal and not just some cheap modernising gimmick.

And right now grassroots Tories are highly suspicious of anything that vaguely looks like one of those.

isam

SeanT said:

Nice that everyone now agrees with what I've been saying for weeks, initially to much derision.

Cameron will surely have to go if he loses. He might cling on for a bit for "stability", but I very much doubt he will make it to the GE (unless it is brought forward: highly unlikely)

I reckon he'll be gone by Xmas. IF he loses the vote.

We should now turn to the possibilities inside Labour, which are massively neglected. Miliband is also tying himself to this campaign. There must be a good chance he will go, too, if he loses Labour's heartland.

What are the odds on him quitting?

Its 6/1 he goes before the GE

rottenborough

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Oh! @TheScreamingEagles.. our bet?!

If Cameron leaves as PM within a week of a YES vote.. what price he is/isnt officially out by the end of the year, and how much do you want to bet?

I've spent most of the morning writing this thread, I've concluded if Dave goes, he'll be gone PDQ.

I agree I don't think we can have no PM for 3 months plus. You referenced Hague I think and the gap when he left/was replaced, but LOTO is a different kettle of fish entirely

Damn I wanted you to put your money where your mouth was

"In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

Bob__Sykes

SeanT said:

Nice that everyone now agrees with what I've been saying for weeks, initially to much derision.

Cameron will surely have to go if he loses. He might cling on for a bit for "stability", but I very much doubt he will make it to the GE (unless it is brought forward: highly unlikely)

I reckon he'll be gone by Xmas. IF he loses the vote.

I'm clueless with the PB archives, but pretty sure that around the time of the Edinburgh Agreement, I said that it's now a high stakes showdown because inevitably one of Salmond or Cameron would have to quit in September 2014. I've not been on here much in the past 2 years, for various reasons, but I have always consistently believed that one of the two would have to go after the vote.

As it happens, Salmond is safe even if No scrapes home because it's pretty clear now that Yes isn't going to anything less than the mid to high 40s - had it been 60% or more for No, then Salmond would have been out on his ear too.

Norm

Bob__Sykes said:

Eastwinger said:

So how was Cameron supposed to deny the Scots a vote after the SNP had won an overall majority.

He didn't really have an option.

Let Salmond hold his unofficial illegal referendum he was threatening to hold anyway at some indistinct possible future date, and then with the other Unionist parties simply ignore it if indeed it ever happened?

With polls at the time showing only a third of Scots backed independence, it would have been perfectly sensible to have said "there is no demand for it", and just carried on as normal - ideally, of course, pursuing some policies that were vaguely Scot-friendly.

Instead, he felt the hand of history on his shoulder and thought "I'll lance the SNP boil by forcing them to hold an earlier referendum, on whatever terms Salmond wants, because the Unionist cause will win, and I'll be the PM who saved the Union and put the issue to bed for a generation".

A bold vision. But he's screwed it up magnificently, and even if No somehow gets 50%+1, the genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before the wailing Nats get their way now.

All his own doing. He will have to go.

I disagree in that I think this is actually the Nats only opportunity for independence. If No wins some sort of Devo Max deal will be cobbled together after which I can't see full independence with all the attendant risks being revisited.

MarkHopkins

SeanT said:

Nice that everyone now agrees with what I've been saying for weeks, initially to much derision.

Cameron will surely have to go if he loses. He might cling on for a bit for "stability", but I very much doubt he will make it to the GE (unless it is brought forward: highly unlikely)

I reckon he'll be gone by Xmas. IF he loses the vote.

We should now turn to the possibilities inside Labour, which are massively neglected. Miliband is also tying himself to this campaign. There must be a good chance he will go, too, if he loses Labour's heartland.

What are the odds on him quitting?

"Nice that everyone now agrees with what I've been saying for weeks, initially to much derision."

That was because back then, nobody thought that Yes would win. Now it is a distinct possibility.

Scott_P

rottenborough said:

"In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

Exactly. And who is that?

Socrates

Theresa May won't get it because she's failed to cut immigration, has handed powers over to Brussels, and seen a string of cock-ups on her watch.

anothernick

But would the Lib Dems accept Hammond or May (or anyone else) as PM? Or would they see the chaos as a good opportunity to distance themselves from the Tories and demand a vote of confidence? A yes vote could easily result in an Autumn General Election IMO.

Theuniondivvie

They're everywhere!

'Top energy and defence figure switches from No to Yes

A leading energy and defence industry figure who was involved in the early stages of the No campaign has come out strongly in favour of a Yes vote on September 18.
Ian Godden says independence will unleash an ‘energy and passion’ that will not only be good for Scotland, but will also lead to a much needed ‘refresh’ of the rest of the UK.
The international businessman, who has more than 40 years’ experience in the oil, aerospace and security sectors, says a No vote would be “a vote for the long-term decline of Scotland” and would be ‘tragic’.
Mr Godden, who comes from Edinburgh, is founder and chairman of independent oil company Glenmore Energy plc, a non-executive director of the Bristows Helicopters Group, and until recently chairman of Farnborough International, the company behind the Farnborough Airshow and other global aerospace, defence and security events.
He is also chairman of KBC Advanced Technologies plc, a public consulting and Software Company involved in oil and gas production, and a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.'

http://tinyurl.com/k7zxqle

PeterC

Bob Sykes:

A bold vision. But he's screwed it up magnificently, and even if No somehow gets 50%+1, the genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before the wailing Nats get their way now.

.

I'm not so sure. The Westminster parties, having been given the fright of their lives, will have learned to say an unequivocal NO to any further referendum.

Pulpstar

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

Oh God just seen Ed Miliband with the huge saltire in Liverpool and Dave hoisting it over No 10. It's getting desperate and embarrassing.

@Theuniondivvie Prepare the paypal invoice.

@Bond_James_Bond Prepare to send £30 to Cancer Research or a charity of your choice.

Yes, but they have no choice.

All those sneering might offer better ideas?

Could be too little, too late - offering some positive vision for Scotland within the UK would have been a good idea.

Tissue_Price

I don't think Cameron's done anything wrong here. His fault in the matter is that he is not the Prime Minister that Scots want. And if they can't cope with having a PM they don't like from time to time, they should leave.

Giving the Scots the referendum that the SNP had earned was the honourable call. Devo Max is not for the Scots alone to decide.

TheScreamingEagles

anothernick said:

But would the Lib Dems accept Hammond or May (or anyone else) as PM? Or would they see the chaos as a good opportunity to distance themselves from the Tories and demand a vote of confidence? A yes vote could easily result in an Autumn General Election IMO.

The Lib Dems would not trigger an early election when they are polling single digits.

Would be the greatest strategic blunder since Japan attacked Pearl Harbour to keep America OUT of the Second World War.

Socrates

Bob__Sykes said:

Eastwinger said:

So how was Cameron supposed to deny the Scots a vote after the SNP had won an overall majority.

He didn't really have an option.

Let Salmond hold his unofficial illegal referendum he was threatening to hold anyway at some indistinct possible future date, and then with the other Unionist parties simply ignore it if indeed it ever happened?

With polls at the time showing only a third of Scots backed independence, it would have been perfectly sensible to have said "there is no demand for it", and just carried on as normal - ideally, of course, pursuing some policies that were vaguely Scot-friendly.

Instead, he felt the hand of history on his shoulder and thought "I'll lance the SNP boil by forcing them to hold an earlier referendum, on whatever terms Salmond wants, because the Unionist cause will win, and I'll be the PM who saved the Union and put the issue to bed for a generation".

A bold vision. But he's screwed it up magnificently, and even if No somehow gets 50%+1, the genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before the wailing Nats get their way now.

All his own doing. He will have to go.

Absurd. Cameron has done things to encourage Scottish independence, but letting the referendum happen wasn't one of them. You can't have a nationalist government in charge of the place and not let them have the vote. It would have caused Scots to be incensed and felt justifiably like a controlled colony. The 'fake' referendum would have won by a large margin and we'd have been in far more bitter constitutional crisis.

Cameron should have allowed a moderate devoplus on the ballot, and made sure Scots in EWNI could vote. No way Salmond would have won.

rottenborough

Scott_P said:

rottenborough said:

"In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

Exactly. And who is that?

Normally leader of largest party is asked first, as I understand it. Sometimes an MP is asked by the Queen to explore whether they think they can form a government.

I can't see there being a wait unless Cameron announces a two or three month resignation period. If he goes straight away, then, IMHO, the Leader of the House might be asked by the Queen to explore whether he could command the confidence. This is Hague, so the 50/1 you can get on him has tempted me. But really we need Vernon Bogdanor on this thread.

isam

Scott_P said:

rottenborough said:

"In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

Exactly. And who is that?

I fancy James Purnell at 40s #value

[Deleted User]

Theuniondivvie said:

Ian Godden says independence will unleash an ‘energy and passion’ that will not only be good for Scotland, but will also lead to a much needed ‘refresh’ of the rest of the UK.

Yup. A serious businessman (cue - not a socialist) points out that iScot would necessarily require 'energy and passion' to be an entrepreneurial, successful place. No shit Sherlock. The Scots can have independence or they can have socialism - but not both. He's absolutely right.

Only minor flaw is that this is NOT the prospectus upon which Sindy has been sold. 'Freedom and jam' is a base lie.

Scott_P

rottenborough said:

Normally leader of largest party is asked first, as I understand it. Sometimes an MP is asked by the Queen to explore whether they think they can form a government.

That's precisely my point.

Given the choices on offer, the Queen might well be expected to say "Dave, you're not leaving"

Anorak

TheScreamingEagles said:

anothernick said:

But would the Lib Dems accept Hammond or May (or anyone else) as PM? Or would they see the chaos as a good opportunity to distance themselves from the Tories and demand a vote of confidence? A yes vote could easily result in an Autumn General Election IMO.

The Lib Dems would not trigger an early election when they are polling single digits.

Would be the greatest strategic blunder since Japan attacked Pearl Harbour to keep America OUT of the Second World War.

If there'd been one or two more carriers in port, they'd probably have established an Empire over most of the region.

For the want of a nail, etc, etc.

malcolmg

Scott_P said:

@TelePolitics: Scottish independence: Mark Carney hits out at 'incompatible' currency union plans http://t.co/pY9oCGEPmO

So repeated the same bollocks he said the last time. Better to have your own but different from not having a CU.
Nothing new and just clutching at straws.

rottenborough

isam said:

Scott_P said:

rottenborough said:

"In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

Exactly. And who is that?

I fancy James Purnell at 40s #value

I dunno, you can get Benefit Street's White Dee, at 1000/1

Norm

Socrates said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Eastwinger said:

So how was Cameron supposed to deny the Scots a vote after the SNP had won an overall majority.

He didn't really have an option.

Let Salmond hold his unofficial illegal referendum he was threatening to hold anyway at some indistinct possible future date, and then with the other Unionist parties simply ignore it if indeed it ever happened?

With polls at the time showing only a third of Scots backed independence, it would have been perfectly sensible to have said "there is no demand for it", and just carried on as normal - ideally, of course, pursuing some policies that were vaguely Scot-friendly.

Instead, he felt the hand of history on his shoulder and thought "I'll lance the SNP boil by forcing them to hold an earlier referendum, on whatever terms Salmond wants, because the Unionist cause will win, and I'll be the PM who saved the Union and put the issue to bed for a generation".

A bold vision. But he's screwed it up magnificently, and even if No somehow gets 50%+1, the genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before the wailing Nats get their way now.

All his own doing. He will have to go.

Absurd. Cameron has done things to encourage Scottish independence, but letting the referendum happen wasn't one of them. You can't have a nationalist government in charge of the place and not let them have the vote. It would have caused Scots to be incensed and felt justifiably like a controlled colony. The 'fake' referendum would have won by a large margin and we'd have been in far more bitter constitutional crisis.

Cameron should have allowed a moderate devoplus on the ballot, and made sure Scots in EWNI could vote. No way Salmond would have won.

Indeed and kept immature 16 and 17 year olds off the ballot paper for good measure. Sadly blunder after blunder by "Cammo." If this vote is lost by a few thousand votes as it could well be these little inattentions to detail will finish him.

Bob__Sykes

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Theresa May won't get it because she's failed to cut immigration, has handed powers over to Brussels, and seen a string of cock-ups on her watch.

Yes. I think Tories will want a perceived "hard man". Some grey but flinty guy able to do a tough deal with Scotland and win an election (maybe allied with UKIP, as TSE says).

Hammond obviously the strong candidate.

Otherwise Hague could be the nightwatchman.

If Cameron goes over the 19-21st weekend, then I think both Tories and LDs would be perfectly happy with the "de facto deputy" Hague coming in to steady the ship and sail the sinking ship Britannia through the early phase of unchartered waters, until a proper leadership election can be held in the new year (perhaps Mr Randall would stand down early to let Boris throw his hat in?). I think the country would find that acceptable too.

Perhaps WH would even reconsider his retirement plans - I would think him a good choice man to keep FUK together, hold Tory votes in the north, drive a hard bargain with the SNP and Farage, and seek re-election in May 2015.

Hammond? I'm hardly enthused.

Casino_Royale

anothernick said:

But would the Lib Dems accept Hammond or May (or anyone else) as PM? Or would they see the chaos as a good opportunity to distance themselves from the Tories and demand a vote of confidence? A yes vote could easily result in an Autumn General Election IMO.

I was just going to make the same point. It would be dirty, but why should the Lib Dems patiently wait and accept whatever new leader the Tories select?

If they wanted to they could immediately end the coalition and call a vote of no confidence in the government, which they'd almost certainly win. The Tories don't have the votes to stop it if Lib Dem/Labour combine, even if the DUP back Cameron (and why would they when he's just lost the Union)

The only thing stopping it would be pure Lib Dem self-interest.

Scott_P

malcolmg said:

So repeated the same bollocks he said the last time.

Only this morning your glorious leader said that Carney was the man in charge. Need to get the new script Malcolm

anothernick

TheScreamingEagles said:

anothernick said:

But would the Lib Dems accept Hammond or May (or anyone else) as PM? Or would they see the chaos as a good opportunity to distance themselves from the Tories and demand a vote of confidence? A yes vote could easily result in an Autumn General Election IMO.

The Lib Dems would not trigger an early election when they are polling single digits.

Would be the greatest strategic blunder since Japan attacked Pearl Harbour to keep America OUT of the Second World War.

But what hope have they got of being out of single digits by the Spring? They need to do something drastic to make people sit up and take notice and try to win back some of the left-leaning supported they have lost. How could anyone have confidence in a government that had presided over the loss of a large part of its own country?

Neil

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Theresa May won't get it because she's failed to cut immigration, has handed powers over to Brussels, and seen a string of cock-ups on her watch.

Yes. I think Tories will want a perceived "hard man". Some grey but flinty guy able to do a tough deal with Scotland and win an election (maybe allied with UKIP, as TSE says).

Hammond obviously the strong candidate.

Otherwise Hague could be the nightwatchman.

Hammond is a "hard man" now?

Meanwhile here is some not-completely-irrelevant-if-hardly-scientific polling to use to assess May's chances relative to Hammond's:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/06/theresa-may-storms-to-a-12-point-lead-over-boris-in-our-future-leader-poll.html

JonnyJimmy

rottenborough said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Oh! @TheScreamingEagles.. our bet?!

If Cameron leaves as PM within a week of a YES vote.. what price he is/isnt officially out by the end of the year, and how much do you want to bet?

I've spent most of the morning writing this thread, I've concluded if Dave goes, he'll be gone PDQ.

I agree I don't think we can have no PM for 3 months plus. You referenced Hague I think and the gap when he left/was replaced, but LOTO is a different kettle of fish entirely

Damn I wanted you to put your money where your mouth was

"In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

But would the PM need the confidence of the entire house? Surely the support or opposition of the Scottish MPs would become irrelevant post-Yes? In which case any new Tory leader wouldn't need the LDs to have the confidence of the house.

kjohnw

No one English I have spoken to seems to have any clue of the possible negative effects of independence on the whole UK economy, The Scottish are like lemmings heading for a cliff lead by the pied piper Salmond to disaster. The rUK will suffer too as a consequence. But Labour cant blame the tories for iScot this all started when Labour lost power in Holyrood and the SNP swept them out of the way. This disaster can be clearly pinned to the mast of the good ship SLAB and New Labour under Brown.

malcolmg

Patrick said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ian Godden says independence will unleash an ‘energy and passion’ that will not only be good for Scotland, but will also lead to a much needed ‘refresh’ of the rest of the UK.

Yup. A serious businessman (cue - not a socialist) points out that iScot would necessarily require 'energy and passion' to be an entrepreneurial, successful place. No shit Sherlock. The Scots can have independence or they can have socialism - but not both. He's absolutely right.

Only minor flaw is that this is NOT the prospectus upon which Sindy has been sold. 'Freedom and jam' is a base lie.

Patrick , Nobody said it was a free ride , it is Freedom, hard work and jam. Everybody knows that.

rcs1000

anothernick said:

But what hope have they got of being out of single digits by the Spring?

Who knows. But if you know you're going to be out of a job for sure at the next election, then why not delay that election for as long possible.

TheScreamingEagles

anothernick said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

anothernick said:

But would the Lib Dems accept Hammond or May (or anyone else) as PM? Or would they see the chaos as a good opportunity to distance themselves from the Tories and demand a vote of confidence? A yes vote could easily result in an Autumn General Election IMO.

The Lib Dems would not trigger an early election when they are polling single digits.

Would be the greatest strategic blunder since Japan attacked Pearl Harbour to keep America OUT of the Second World War.

But what hope have they got of being out of single digits by the Spring? They need to do something drastic to make people sit up and take notice and try to win back some of the left-leaning supported they have lost. How could anyone have confidence in a government that had presided over the loss of a large part of its own country?

The 2015 Budget has potential to boost both coalition parties.

Neil

JonnyJimmy said:

rottenborough said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Oh! @TheScreamingEagles.. our bet?!

If Cameron leaves as PM within a week of a YES vote.. what price he is/isnt officially out by the end of the year, and how much do you want to bet?

I've spent most of the morning writing this thread, I've concluded if Dave goes, he'll be gone PDQ.

I agree I don't think we can have no PM for 3 months plus. You referenced Hague I think and the gap when he left/was replaced, but LOTO is a different kettle of fish entirely

Damn I wanted you to put your money where your mouth was

"In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

But would the PM need the confidence of the entire house? Surely the support or opposition of the Scottish MPs would become irrelevant post-Yes? In which case any new Tory leader wouldn't need the LDs to have the confidence of the house.

The PM might need those Scottish MPs to pass a budget so I wouldnt be so quick to rule them irrelevant.

rcs1000

re Philip Hammond: from what I understand, he's not particularly interested in the top job. (Odd for a politician, but my source is a good one.)

malcolmg

Scott_P said:

malcolmg said:

So repeated the same bollocks he said the last time.

Only this morning your glorious leader said that Carney was the man in charge. Need to get the new script Malcolm

He has said nothing different from last time, newspaper spin. Exactly the same

[Deleted User]

malcolmg said:

Patrick said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ian Godden says independence will unleash an ‘energy and passion’ that will not only be good for Scotland, but will also lead to a much needed ‘refresh’ of the rest of the UK.

Yup. A serious businessman (cue - not a socialist) points out that iScot would necessarily require 'energy and passion' to be an entrepreneurial, successful place. No shit Sherlock. The Scots can have independence or they can have socialism - but not both. He's absolutely right.

Only minor flaw is that this is NOT the prospectus upon which Sindy has been sold. 'Freedom and jam' is a base lie.

Patrick , Nobody said it was a free ride , it is Freedom, hard work and jam. Everybody knows that.

God. We agree AGAIN!

Casino_Royale

Socrates said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Eastwinger said:

So how was Cameron supposed to deny the Scots a vote after the SNP had won an overall majority.

He didn't really have an option.

Let Salmond hold his unofficial illegal referendum he was threatening to hold anyway at some indistinct possible future date, and then with the other Unionist parties simply ignore it if indeed it ever happened?

With polls at the time showing only a third of Scots backed independence, it would have been perfectly sensible to have said "there is no demand for it", and just carried on as normal - ideally, of course, pursuing some policies that were vaguely Scot-friendly.

Instead, he felt the hand of history on his shoulder and thought "I'll lance the SNP boil by forcing them to hold an earlier referendum, on whatever terms Salmond wants, because the Unionist cause will win, and I'll be the PM who saved the Union and put the issue to bed for a generation".

A bold vision. But he's screwed it up magnificently, and even if No somehow gets 50%+1, the genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before the wailing Nats get their way now.

All his own doing. He will have to go.

Absurd. Cameron has done things to encourage Scottish independence, but letting the referendum happen wasn't one of them. You can't have a nationalist government in charge of the place and not let them have the vote. It would have caused Scots to be incensed and felt justifiably like a controlled colony. The 'fake' referendum would have won by a large margin and we'd have been in far more bitter constitutional crisis.

Cameron should have allowed a moderate devoplus on the ballot, and made sure Scots in EWNI could vote. No way Salmond would have won.

Agree with that.

Plus no special rule for 16-18 year olds and 'do you agree Scotland should leave the UK?' or similar rather than this nebulous 'should' Scotland be an 'independent' country nonsense. Makes it sound like it's currently dependent and shackled.

But Cameron is too crap at politics to do this. In a way it's a shame he won't be around to table his EU referendum "offer" in 2017. I'd love to have eventually found out how shite it was.

Theuniondivvie

SeanT said:

Theuniondivvie said:

They're everywhere!

'Top energy and defence figure switches from No to Yes

A leading energy and defence industry figure who was involved in the early stages of the No campaign has come out strongly in favour of a Yes vote on September 18.
Ian Godden says independence will unleash an ‘energy and passion’ that will not only be good for Scotland, but will also lead to a much needed ‘refresh’ of the rest of the UK.
The international businessman, who has more than 40 years’ experience in the oil, aerospace and security sectors, says a No vote would be “a vote for the long-term decline of Scotland” and would be ‘tragic’.
Mr Godden, who comes from Edinburgh, is founder and chairman of independent oil company Glenmore Energy plc, a non-executive director of the Bristows Helicopters Group, and until recently chairman of Farnborough International, the company behind the Farnborough Airshow and other global aerospace, defence and security events.
He is also chairman of KBC Advanced Technologies plc, a public consulting and Software Company involved in oil and gas production, and a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.'

http://tinyurl.com/k7zxqle

Wow. Yes. A veritable titan of business.

Here's his wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=ian+godden&title=Special:Search&go=Go

I'm sure it's a sign of strength that Better Together aren't bothering to publicise all the Yessers that have changed to No.

FalseFlag

Socrates said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Eastwinger said:

So how was Cameron supposed to deny the Scots a vote after the SNP had won an overall majority.

He didn't really have an option.

Let Salmond hold his unofficial illegal referendum he was threatening to hold anyway at some indistinct possible future date, and then with the other Unionist parties simply ignore it if indeed it ever happened?

With polls at the time showing only a third of Scots backed independence, it would have been perfectly sensible to have said "there is no demand for it", and just carried on as normal - ideally, of course, pursuing some policies that were vaguely Scot-friendly.

Instead, he felt the hand of history on his shoulder and thought "I'll lance the SNP boil by forcing them to hold an earlier referendum, on whatever terms Salmond wants, because the Unionist cause will win, and I'll be the PM who saved the Union and put the issue to bed for a generation".

A bold vision. But he's screwed it up magnificently, and even if No somehow gets 50%+1, the genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before the wailing Nats get their way now.

All his own doing. He will have to go.

Absurd. Cameron has done things to encourage Scottish independence, but letting the referendum happen wasn't one of them. You can't have a nationalist government in charge of the place and not let them have the vote. It would have caused Scots to be incensed and felt justifiably like a controlled colony. The 'fake' referendum would have won by a large margin and we'd have been in far more bitter constitutional crisis.

Cameron should have allowed a moderate devoplus on the ballot, and made sure Scots in EWNI could vote. No way Salmond would have won.

Sorry, why does this principle not apply to Crimea and Donbass then?

stodge

Afternoon all

I don't think we can yet relegate "What If Scotland votes No?" to the status of amusing counterfactual history.

That said, as far as I'm aware, the Coalition Agreement was for the duration of the Parliament and that means until the dissolution next March. As an LD, I'm sure the deal was with the Conservative Party, not David Cameron or William Hague. IF the Conservatives choose to change leader (which is their prerogative), for my money the Coalition remains in place.

The problem I can see is that if some new "hardline" (whatever that means) Prime Minister and Chancellor decide on a Budget aimed more at winning UKIP voters to the blue ticket than the general good of the economy.

Neil

SeanT said:

Neil said:

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Theresa May won't get it because she's failed to cut immigration, has handed powers over to Brussels, and seen a string of cock-ups on her watch.

Yes. I think Tories will want a perceived "hard man". Some grey but flinty guy able to do a tough deal with Scotland and win an election (maybe allied with UKIP, as TSE says).

Hammond obviously the strong candidate.

Otherwise Hague could be the nightwatchman.

Hammond is a "hard man" now?

Meanwhile here is some not-completely-irrelevant-if-hardly-scientific polling to use to assess May's chances relative to Hammond's:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/06/theresa-may-storms-to-a-12-point-lead-over-boris-in-our-future-leader-poll.html

Hammond was born in Essex, of average middle class family, went to a state school - but then went onto make millions in business (after taking a First at Oxford).

He is no Eton toff who had it handed to him on a plate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hammond

A smart self-made millionaire businessman is what the FUK needs, negotiating with Salmond and Farage et al, if it is a YES.

I used to think you were butch but now I know you think Hammond is a hard man I've had to completely reassess my view of you.

isam

Scott_P said:

rottenborough said:

Normally leader of largest party is asked first, as I understand it. Sometimes an MP is asked by the Queen to explore whether they think they can form a government.

That's precisely my point.

Given the choices on offer, the Queen might well be expected to say "Dave, you're not leaving"

If she was going to say that, he wouldn't resign

rcs1000

FalseFlag said:

Socrates said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Eastwinger said:

So how was Cameron supposed to deny the Scots a vote after the SNP had won an overall majority.

He didn't really have an option.

Let Salmond hold his unofficial illegal referendum he was threatening to hold anyway at some indistinct possible future date, and then with the other Unionist parties simply ignore it if indeed it ever happened?

With polls at the time showing only a third of Scots backed independence, it would have been perfectly sensible to have said "there is no demand for it", and just carried on as normal - ideally, of course, pursuing some policies that were vaguely Scot-friendly.

Instead, he felt the hand of history on his shoulder and thought "I'll lance the SNP boil by forcing them to hold an earlier referendum, on whatever terms Salmond wants, because the Unionist cause will win, and I'll be the PM who saved the Union and put the issue to bed for a generation".

A bold vision. But he's screwed it up magnificently, and even if No somehow gets 50%+1, the genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before the wailing Nats get their way now.

All his own doing. He will have to go.

Absurd. Cameron has done things to encourage Scottish independence, but letting the referendum happen wasn't one of them. You can't have a nationalist government in charge of the place and not let them have the vote. It would have caused Scots to be incensed and felt justifiably like a controlled colony. The 'fake' referendum would have won by a large margin and we'd have been in far more bitter constitutional crisis.

Cameron should have allowed a moderate devoplus on the ballot, and made sure Scots in EWNI could vote. No way Salmond would have won.

Sorry, why does this principle not apply to Crimea and Donbass then?

And Chechnya

isam

Bob__Sykes said:

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Theresa May won't get it because she's failed to cut immigration, has handed powers over to Brussels, and seen a string of cock-ups on her watch.

Yes. I think Tories will want a perceived "hard man". Some grey but flinty guy able to do a tough deal with Scotland and win an election (maybe allied with UKIP, as TSE says).

Hammond obviously the strong candidate.

Otherwise Hague could be the nightwatchman.

If Cameron goes over the 19-21st weekend, then I think both Tories and LDs would be perfectly happy with the "de facto deputy" Hague coming in to steady the ship and sail the sinking ship Britannia through the early phase of unchartered waters, until a proper leadership election can be held in the new year (perhaps Mr Randall would stand down early to let Boris throw his hat in?). I think the country would find that acceptable too.

Perhaps WH would even reconsider his retirement plans - I would think him a good choice man to keep FUK together, hold Tory votes in the north, drive a hard bargain with the SNP and Farage, and seek re-election in May 2015.

Hammond? I'm hardly enthused.

Hague is doing PMQs tmrw

FalseFlag

Despite my reservations about Bojo on immigration and perhaps foreign policy the Conservatives would be daft to go for anyone else.

Casino_Royale

Theuniondivvie said:

SeanT said:

Theuniondivvie said:

They're everywhere!

'Top energy and defence figure switches from No to Yes

A leading energy and defence industry figure who was involved in the early stages of the No campaign has come out strongly in favour of a Yes vote on September 18.
Ian Godden says independence will unleash an ‘energy and passion’ that will not only be good for Scotland, but will also lead to a much needed ‘refresh’ of the rest of the UK.
The international businessman, who has more than 40 years’ experience in the oil, aerospace and security sectors, says a No vote would be “a vote for the long-term decline of Scotland” and would be ‘tragic’.
Mr Godden, who comes from Edinburgh, is founder and chairman of independent oil company Glenmore Energy plc, a non-executive director of the Bristows Helicopters Group, and until recently chairman of Farnborough International, the company behind the Farnborough Airshow and other global aerospace, defence and security events.
He is also chairman of KBC Advanced Technologies plc, a public consulting and Software Company involved in oil and gas production, and a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.'

http://tinyurl.com/k7zxqle

Wow. Yes. A veritable titan of business.

Here's his wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=ian+godden&title=Special:Search&go=Go

I'm sure it's a sign of strength that Better Together aren't bothering to publicise all the Yessers that have changed to No.

Sounds very sensible to me. They'd probably be lynched, their homes petrol bombed and their children abducted.

Plato

Quite.

Tissue_Price said:

I don't think Cameron's done anything wrong here. His fault in the matter is that he is not the Prime Minister that Scots want. And if they can't cope with having a PM they don't like from time to time, they should leave.

Giving the Scots the referendum that the SNP had earned was the honourable call. Devo Max is not for the Scots alone to decide.

TheScreamingEagles

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

anothernick said:

But would the Lib Dems accept Hammond or May (or anyone else) as PM? Or would they see the chaos as a good opportunity to distance themselves from the Tories and demand a vote of confidence? A yes vote could easily result in an Autumn General Election IMO.

The Lib Dems would not trigger an early election when they are polling single digits.

Would be the greatest strategic blunder since Japan attacked Pearl Harbour to keep America OUT of the Second World War.

If there'd been one or two more carriers in port, they'd probably have established an Empire over most of the region.

For the want of a nail, etc, etc.

But think of the film we got.

Alistair

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

Oh God just seen Ed Miliband with the huge saltire in Liverpool and Dave hoisting it over No 10. It's getting desperate and embarrassing.

@Theuniondivvie Prepare the paypal invoice.

@Bond_James_Bond Prepare to send £30 to Cancer Research or a charity of your choice.

Yes, but they have no choice.

All those sneering might offer better ideas?

A time machine to go back 3 years and not treat the whole process with open contempt

Charles

As an aside, the Times today suggested that, in the event of a YES vote, EWNI should be rebranded as the Untied Kingdom, or UK for short.

They deserve a prize for effort, at least...

Scott_P

isam said:

If she was going to say that, he wouldn't resign

Exactly. As I said on the previous thread, and several times on this one.

Socrates

FalseFlag said:

Socrates said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Eastwinger said:

So how was Cameron supposed to deny the Scots a vote after the SNP had won an overall majority.

He didn't really have an option.

Let Salmond hold his unofficial illegal referendum he was threatening to hold anyway at some indistinct possible future date, and then with the other Unionist parties simply ignore it if indeed it ever happened?

With polls at the time showing only a third of Scots backed independence, it would have been perfectly sensible to have said "there is no demand for it", and just carried on as normal - ideally, of course, pursuing some policies that were vaguely Scot-friendly.

Instead, he felt the hand of history on his shoulder and thought "I'll lance the SNP boil by forcing them to hold an earlier referendum, on whatever terms Salmond wants, because the Unionist cause will win, and I'll be the PM who saved the Union and put the issue to bed for a generation".

A bold vision. But he's screwed it up magnificently, and even if No somehow gets 50%+1, the genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before the wailing Nats get their way now.

All his own doing. He will have to go.

Absurd. Cameron has done things to encourage Scottish independence, but letting the referendum happen wasn't one of them. You can't have a nationalist government in charge of the place and not let them have the vote. It would have caused Scots to be incensed and felt justifiably like a controlled colony. The 'fake' referendum would have won by a large margin and we'd have been in far more bitter constitutional crisis.

Cameron should have allowed a moderate devoplus on the ballot, and made sure Scots in EWNI could vote. No way Salmond would have won.

Sorry, why does this principle not apply to Crimea and Donbass then?

Because these places were invaded by a foreign army.

TheScreamingEagles

SeanT said:

Neil said:

SeanT said:

Neil said:

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Theresa May won't get it because she's failed to cut immigration, has handed powers over to Brussels, and seen a string of cock-ups on her watch.

Yes. I think Tories will want a perceived "hard man". Some grey but flinty guy able to do a tough deal with Scotland and win an election (maybe allied with UKIP, as TSE says).

Hammond obviously the strong candidate.

Otherwise Hague could be the nightwatchman.

Hammond is a "hard man" now?

Meanwhile here is some not-completely-irrelevant-if-hardly-scientific polling to use to assess May's chances relative to Hammond's:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/06/theresa-may-storms-to-a-12-point-lead-over-boris-in-our-future-leader-poll.html

Hammond was born in Essex, of average middle class family, went to a state school - but then went onto make millions in business (after taking a First at Oxford).

He is no Eton toff who had it handed to him on a plate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hammond

A smart self-made millionaire businessman is what the FUK needs, negotiating with Salmond and Farage et al, if it is a YES.

I used to think you were butch but now I know you think Hammond is a hard man I've had to completely reassess my view of you.

Hah. I take yr point. He's not a tattooed docker.

But by the horrifically effete standards of Westminster - Cameron? Clegg?? little Ed Miliband???? - he probably counts as a hard man. Certainly I'd be happy with him doing the negotiations with Scotland - screwing them for as much as possible.

Who would you prefer doing that? Who do you see driving the best and hardest bargain for England and the FUK? Miliband? Alistair Darling? Vince Cable?

This really will be the overriding issue if it is a YES, re the next PM, and next government. Are they able to get the best terms for FUK in the divorce.

It is drearily depressing how this issue is going to dominate politics for years - north and south. If YES wins. I might just emigrate til it's over.

Philip Hammond also did PPE like ponceyboots Gaylord Cameron

JonnyJimmy

Neil said:

JonnyJimmy said:

rottenborough said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Oh! @TheScreamingEagles.. our bet?!

If Cameron leaves as PM within a week of a YES vote.. what price he is/isnt officially out by the end of the year, and how much do you want to bet?

I've spent most of the morning writing this thread, I've concluded if Dave goes, he'll be gone PDQ.

I agree I don't think we can have no PM for 3 months plus. You referenced Hague I think and the gap when he left/was replaced, but LOTO is a different kettle of fish entirely

Damn I wanted you to put your money where your mouth was

"In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

But would the PM need the confidence of the entire house? Surely the support or opposition of the Scottish MPs would become irrelevant post-Yes? In which case any new Tory leader wouldn't need the LDs to have the confidence of the house.

The PM might need those Scottish MPs to pass a budget so I wouldnt be so quick to rule them irrelevant.

"In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."

I meant irrelevant in respect of this. I'd be surprised if there's a constitutional convention requiring the FUK leader to have the confidence of those that just FUKed us. If the queen has told you different, why not enlighten us..

Charles

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Oh! @TheScreamingEagles.. our bet?!

If Cameron leaves as PM within a week of a YES vote.. what price he is/isnt officially out by the end of the year, and how much do you want to bet?

I've spent most of the morning writing this thread, I've concluded if Dave goes, he'll be gone PDQ.

How are your billable hours looking? ;-)

Neil

SeanT said:

Who would you prefer doing that?

Unlike you I dont see the discussions post a 'yes' vote as being a zero-sum game. I think a level-headed spirit of cooperation would produce a better outcome for everyone than your "screw them all as hard and as much as we can" approach.

And now we know what your standards of hardness are that "screw them all" clarion call is so much less believable.

Socrates

Tissue_Price said:

I don't think Cameron's done anything wrong here. His fault in the matter is that he is not the Prime Minister that Scots want. And if they can't cope with having a PM they don't like from time to time, they should leave.

Giving the Scots the referendum that the SNP had earned was the honourable call. Devo Max is not for the Scots alone to decide.

isam said:

Scott_P said:

rottenborough said:

"In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

Exactly. And who is that?

I fancy James Purnell at 40s #value

Brave choice considering he's not an MP.

TheScreamingEagles

HG3 said:

Any thoughts on the wisdom of getting on to some of the longer-shot Westminster constituencies for the SNP on Ladbrokes? I'd have thought that, if the referendum is won, they'll suddenly start looking a bit more within range.

Quite a few of those did that after Antifrank suggested it

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/scotland-pre-referendum-special.html

CarlottaVance

Ahem......in the event of Scotland voting to become independent [. ] should remain (net agree) (among VI)
Cameron: +20 (+75)
Miliband : +16 (+30)

Neil

JonnyJimmy said:

If the queen has told you different, why not enlighten us..

Bless.

TheScreamingEagles

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Oh! @TheScreamingEagles.. our bet?!

If Cameron leaves as PM within a week of a YES vote.. what price he is/isnt officially out by the end of the year, and how much do you want to bet?

I've spent most of the morning writing this thread, I've concluded if Dave goes, he'll be gone PDQ.

How are your billable hours looking? ;-)

I've not had a single billable hour in three years.

I work in house these days

isam

Socrates said:

Tissue_Price said:

I don't think Cameron's done anything wrong here. His fault in the matter is that he is not the Prime Minister that Scots want. And if they can't cope with having a PM they don't like from time to time, they should leave.

Giving the Scots the referendum that the SNP had earned was the honourable call. Devo Max is not for the Scots alone to decide.

isam said:

Scott_P said:

rottenborough said:

"In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

Exactly. And who is that?

I fancy James Purnell at 40s #value

Brave choice considering he's not an MP.

Ha! Just kidding! The worst odds ever surely???!!!

Imagine he did become the next PM?! A lot less than 2.4% chance I reckon!

MarkHopkins

CarlottaVance said:

Ahem......in the event of Scotland voting to become independent [. ] should remain (net agree) (among VI)
Cameron: +20 (+75)
Miliband : +16 (+30)

Indeed, why should Cameron go because Miliband's Labour has run a bad campaign?

Even if every, single, last, Tory Scottish MP asks for Cameron's head, I cannot see amounting to much...

Theuniondivvie

Peter Dominiczak ‏@peterdominiczak 18 mins
Saltire falls off Downing Street flagpole. Portent of doom.

Charles

Casino_Royale said:

I like Javid. But to win back ex-Tories he'd have to convince them his appointment was the real deal and not just some cheap modernising gimmick.

And right now grassroots Tories are highly suspicious of anything that vaguely looks like one of those.

I personally think - knowing him slightly - that Javid would be fabulous as PM. He's got good judgement, is a fast learner, and a great backstory.

What counts against him is his relative lack of political experience (2010 elected, I believe). And the fact that he built his career at DB Singapore. You can imagine Labour attacking him for being a banker (although in this scenario they will be forming a circular firing squad anyway, one hopes)...

Neil

SeanT said:

Neil said:

SeanT said:

Who would you prefer doing that?

Unlike you I dont see the discussions post a 'yes' vote as being a zero-sum game. I think a level-headed spirit of cooperation would produce a better outcome for everyone than your "screw them all as hard and as much as we can" approach.

And now we know what your standards of hardness are that "screw them all" clarion call is so much less believable.

With respect, you are a homosexual Green-voting Irishman who wants the Scots to vote YES.

You have to stop making things up, SeanT!

And I didnt say what I thought voters would want, I said what I thought would be best (that was, after all, what you asked). So even if I had a position on Scottish independence it would be irrelevant.

matt

Norm said:

Socrates said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Eastwinger said:

So how was Cameron supposed to deny the Scots a vote after the SNP had won an overall majority.

He didn't really have an option.

Let Salmond hold his unofficial illegal referendum he was threatening to hold anyway at some indistinct possible future date, and then with the other Unionist parties simply ignore it if indeed it ever happened?

With polls at the time showing only a third of Scots backed independence, it would have been perfectly sensible to have said "there is no demand for it", and just carried on as normal - ideally, of course, pursuing some policies that were vaguely Scot-friendly.

Instead, he felt the hand of history on his shoulder and thought "I'll lance the SNP boil by forcing them to hold an earlier referendum, on whatever terms Salmond wants, because the Unionist cause will win, and I'll be the PM who saved the Union and put the issue to bed for a generation".

A bold vision. But he's screwed it up magnificently, and even if No somehow gets 50%+1, the genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before the wailing Nats get their way now.

All his own doing. He will have to go.

Absurd. Cameron has done things to encourage Scottish independence, but letting the referendum happen wasn't one of them. You can't have a nationalist government in charge of the place and not let them have the vote. It would have caused Scots to be incensed and felt justifiably like a controlled colony. The 'fake' referendum would have won by a large margin and we'd have been in far more bitter constitutional crisis.

Cameron should have allowed a moderate devoplus on the ballot, and made sure Scots in EWNI could vote. No way Salmond would have won.

Indeed and kept immature 16 and 17 year olds off the ballot paper for good measure. Sadly blunder after blunder by "Cammo." If this vote is lost by a few thousand votes as it could well be these little inattentions to detail will finish him.

Why single them out. They're no more or less likely to be politically mature or immature than the person living on Welfare in Cumbernauld or the tweedy laird walking his beat, or the voter who pays no attention and just votes according to their tribe, right or wrong. They are entitled to work, to pay taxes, to join the military (well less so now), so why stop them voting. An independant or not Scotland is more their future than an OAPs. The latter can vote though.

Smarmeron

@TheScreamingEagles
"I've not had a single billable hour in three years"
Not a good day to be bringing up "billable hours"?
(kidding, before you serve me a writ) :-)

"Ex-coroner William John Owen pleads guilty to £1m theft"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-29127916

matt

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Oh! @TheScreamingEagles.. our bet?!

If Cameron leaves as PM within a week of a YES vote.. what price he is/isnt officially out by the end of the year, and how much do you want to bet?

I've spent most of the morning writing this thread, I've concluded if Dave goes, he'll be gone PDQ.

How are your billable hours looking? ;-)

I've not had a single billable hour in three years.

I work in house these days

In my experience of moving from pp to ih, I'm not surprised that you have the time to do this. Compare to 2500 hours plus in pp: you wouldn't be spending time here.....

MarqueeMark

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

anothernick said:

But would the Lib Dems accept Hammond or May (or anyone else) as PM? Or would they see the chaos as a good opportunity to distance themselves from the Tories and demand a vote of confidence? A yes vote could easily result in an Autumn General Election IMO.

The Lib Dems would not trigger an early election when they are polling single digits.

Would be the greatest strategic blunder since Japan attacked Pearl Harbour to keep America OUT of the Second World War.

If there'd been one or two more carriers in port, they'd probably have established an Empire over most of the region.

For the want of a nail, etc, etc.

But think of the film we got.

I distinctly HOPE you're thinking of Tora Tora Tora!

TheWatcher

SeanT said:

Neil said:

SeanT said:

Neil said:

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Theresa May won't get it because she's failed to cut immigration, has handed powers over to Brussels, and seen a string of cock-ups on her watch.

Yes. I think Tories will want a perceived "hard man". Some grey but flinty guy able to do a tough deal with Scotland and win an election (maybe allied with UKIP, as TSE says).

Hammond obviously the strong candidate.

Otherwise Hague could be the nightwatchman.

Hammond is a "hard man" now?

Meanwhile here is some not-completely-irrelevant-if-hardly-scientific polling to use to assess May's chances relative to Hammond's:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/06/theresa-may-storms-to-a-12-point-lead-over-boris-in-our-future-leader-poll.html

Hammond was born in Essex, of average middle class family, went to a state school - but then went onto make millions in business (after taking a First at Oxford).

He is no Eton toff who had it handed to him on a plate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hammond

A smart self-made millionaire businessman is what the FUK needs, negotiating with Salmond and Farage et al, if it is a YES.

I used to think you were butch but now I know you think Hammond is a hard man I've had to completely reassess my view of you.

If YES wins. I might just emigrate til it's over.

You sound just like all wailers in The Guardian from 2008.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/may/01/boris.livingstone

Theuniondivvie

This actually did make me laugh out loud.

Helen Milburn ‏@HelenMilburn 9m
"You're a weird lookin bastart eh?" "Yes, it is a lovely day!"
http://tinyurl.com/qgs3tco

MarqueeMark

Without wishing to be ungallant, May is looking ridiculously haggard these days. She needs a bit of time out the limelight - and a bit of work done.

But she would be the cartoonists choice as replacement.

CarlottaVance

MarkHopkins said:

CarlottaVance said:

Ahem......in the event of Scotland voting to become independent [. ] should remain (net agree) (among VI)
Cameron: +20 (+75)
Miliband : +16 (+30)

Indeed, why should Cameron go because Miliband's Labour has run a bad campaign?

Even if every, single, last, Tory Scottish MP asks for Cameron's head, I cannot see amounting to much...

Of those who have decided (90%) -98% of Scottish Tories are voting "No"

Would that the Labour & Lib Dem numbers were as robust.....and that's Cameron's fault?

__Bobajob__

@SeanT

As usual you are confusing what you and your fellow travellers want with the wider public. Two very different things, as ever. Most people will, I dare say, want an amicable divorce that maintains the intercourse if not the marriage between the two nations to maximum benefit.

FalseFlag

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

Socrates said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Eastwinger said:

So how was Cameron supposed to deny the Scots a vote after the SNP had won an overall majority.

He didn't really have an option.

Let Salmond hold his unofficial illegal referendum he was threatening to hold anyway at some indistinct possible future date, and then with the other Unionist parties simply ignore it if indeed it ever happened?

With polls at the time showing only a third of Scots backed independence, it would have been perfectly sensible to have said "there is no demand for it", and just carried on as normal - ideally, of course, pursuing some policies that were vaguely Scot-friendly.

Instead, he felt the hand of history on his shoulder and thought "I'll lance the SNP boil by forcing them to hold an earlier referendum, on whatever terms Salmond wants, because the Unionist cause will win, and I'll be the PM who saved the Union and put the issue to bed for a generation".

A bold vision. But he's screwed it up magnificently, and even if No somehow gets 50%+1, the genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before the wailing Nats get their way now.

All his own doing. He will have to go.

Absurd. Cameron has done things to encourage Scottish independence, but letting the referendum happen wasn't one of them. You can't have a nationalist government in charge of the place and not let them have the vote. It would have caused Scots to be incensed and felt justifiably like a controlled colony. The 'fake' referendum would have won by a large margin and we'd have been in far more bitter constitutional crisis.

Cameron should have allowed a moderate devoplus on the ballot, and made sure Scots in EWNI could vote. No way Salmond would have won.

Sorry, why does this principle not apply to Crimea and Donbass then?

And Chechnya

I agree.

Sunil_Prasannan

Vote NO, get Ed!
Vote YES, get (rid of) Dave!

MaxPB

Casino_Royale said:

I like Javid. But to win back ex-Tories he'd have to convince them his appointment was the real deal and not just some cheap modernising gimmick.

And right now grassroots Tories are highly suspicious of anything that vaguely looks like one of those.

That's why I think Hammond is a good bet. He is on the right of the party and holds traditional values. He would appeal to Purple Tories.

Neil said:

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Theresa May won't get it because she's failed to cut immigration, has handed powers over to Brussels, and seen a string of cock-ups on her watch.

Yes. I think Tories will want a perceived "hard man". Some grey but flinty guy able to do a tough deal with Scotland and win an election (maybe allied with UKIP, as TSE says).

Hammond obviously the strong candidate.

Otherwise Hague could be the nightwatchman.

Hammond is a "hard man" now?

Meanwhile here is some not-completely-irrelevant-if-hardly-scientific polling to use to assess May's chances relative to Hammond's:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/06/theresa-may-storms-to-a-12-point-lead-over-boris-in-our-future-leader-poll.html

That was when Hammond was having his career wrecked by Osborne imposibg massive Defence cuts on him.