ThomasNashe Easterross Perhaps if Cameron is ousted as PM after a Yes he will return to Scotland and launch a new Scottish Tory Party and challenge for Scottish PM, could Brown also do the same? Certainly after Salmond and Sturgeon the SNP team is weak, John Swinney was a terrible SNP leader in 2003
Stuart, you might want to tone it down until we get another poll with Yes in the lead.
Well, finally the Nats claim to have the momentum has clearly visible fact behind it and not just anecdotes which can be easily dismissed by No, and in any case unbridled triumphalism may demoralise No voters into staying at home (regrettably, given it has been a fight decades in the making, the same tactic did not work on the Yes side), so even if things do start to change I would not begrudge the Yes side their moment.
Interesting developments. What they will demonstrate, in the event of a No vote, is that this is very much Scotland suing for the divorce. RUK is practically begging Scotland to stay in the relationship. The fall-out, which will undoubtedly be bad economically, will be Scotland's responsibility and her responsibility alone. It will mean that there will be absolutely no need for the RUK to have any compunction about driving an extremely hard deal. Rejected suitors tend to react badly.
If the politicians do what they say they are going to do, the following will happen.
1) Scottish request for a currency union will be turned down flat. 2) Salmond will renege on Scotland's share of national debt. 3) Huge market turbulence will damage everyone and the Scottish "transition" via the Panama model will look completely impossible. 4) Scotland will have to establish central bank and own currency in the worst possible consequences. Austerity all-round. 5) Scotland will sue for entry to Europe and adoption of Euro in the worst possible of all circumstances.
Really lovely prospect.
5 Scotland will get vetoed by UK on EU membership unitl it settles its debts - why wouldn't we ?
I suspect that we wouldn't because for all the initial reaction will probably include a lot of bitter people, me included, who won't want to give Scotland an inch, a strong Scotland is good for rUK. I don't think that means they will get all they want as the Yes side suggest, I think they put too much faith in people a) acting rationally b) agreeing that the rational approach is the one they support, c) the complexity of what they are asking for, but I do think rUK will be making a great many accomodations to a new Scottish state in fairly short order.
If they welch on their debts why would we ? Salmond's poker hands are all bluff when it comes to economics. he trades on english fears they might lose a bit of money, but actually keeping him at a distance will be more profitable in the long run.
Scotland's financial services will move south Followed by some of the service industries and govt jobs
And if their farmers aren't in the CAP then the orders go to beef farmers in Ireland or dairy farmers in the west country. Which of course also brings the EU angle of 28 nations looking at a desperate man and saying what can we screw out of him ?
Why would Spaniards not demand more access to fishing zones or Croats who have had to jump through hoops for the Euro not expect Scotland to do the same. Most EU nations are driven by self interest and don't have soft-headed PMs seeking to do the decent thing.
Interesting developments. What they will demonstrate, in the event of a No vote, is that this is very much Scotland suing for the divorce. RUK is practically begging Scotland to stay in the relationship. The fall-out, which will undoubtedly be bad economically, will be Scotland's responsibility and her responsibility alone. It will mean that there will be absolutely no need for the RUK to have any compunction about driving an extremely hard deal. Rejected suitors tend to react badly.
If the politicians do what they say they are going to do, the following will happen.
1) Scottish request for a currency union will be turned down flat. 2) Salmond will renege on Scotland's share of national debt. 3) Huge market turbulence will damage everyone and the Scottish "transition" via the Panama model will look completely impossible. 4) Scotland will have to establish central bank and own currency in the worst possible consequences. Austerity all-round. 5) Scotland will sue for entry to Europe and adoption of Euro in the worst possible of all circumstances.
Really lovely prospect.
5 Scotland will get vetoed by UK on EU membership unitl it settles its debts - why wouldn't we ?
I suspect that we wouldn't because for all the initial reaction will probably include a lot of bitter people, me included, who won't want to give Scotland an inch, a strong Scotland is good for rUK. I don't think that means they will get all they want as the Yes side suggest, I think they put too much faith in people a) acting rationally b) agreeing that the rational approach is the one they support, c) the complexity of what they are asking for, but I do think rUK will be making a great many accomodations to a new Scottish state in fairly short order.
Highly questionable. If Scotland reneges on the debt there is absolutely no way RUK will play ball. Absolutely no way. Unreasonable nationalism works both ways. If you think Scottish nationalism is awful just wait until the English are sufficiently goaded to respond.
Remember - for all the lefty, greeny talk, what is being ignited here is nationalism. And those lighting the blue touchpaper bear a heavy responsibility for the subsequent blaze.
I guess the one thing that was absolutely inevitable about the polls in the final few days was that they'd tighten significantly.
We can now look forward a whole host of "on the day" inevitibilities
1) Bad weather (decreases turnout of older voters) 2) Students not back/back early 3) Queues at polling stations past 10pm (a la 2010) 4) At least one accusation of vote rigging, most likely concerned with postal votes 5) Accusations of voter intimidation at polling stations 6) A massive recount if it's remotely close
3) has I think been defused. Anyone in the queue at 10 will be able to vote no matter how long it takes.
One of my friends is to be in charge of a local polling station. He and his colleagues have been given tutorials about how to deal with queues at 10pm, people turning up with postal votes etc etc. The Returning Officer has appointed a flying squad of officials who can attend any polling station in a short period to deal with any issues on the spot if necessary.
Crikey, we got that same training and contingency planning for running polling stations in Sussex for the Euro Elections in May. I wouldn't read anything into that.
BTW - for all the talk of momentum etc., I still can't help feeling that the older voters will be unmoved by all this stuff. And that unlike the frothier nationalists are likely to take the impending visit of the three UK leaders at face value, ie, legitimate expression of extreme concern at hugely significant vote. The impression the Nats give is that they are having a laugh - not a good impression to give.
BTW - I was quite impressed by the Gordon Brown BT advert. Not usually a big fan but he does gravity well. And bringing his family into the equation is an astute move. People can identify with that. And he is post-ambition, unlike King Alex.
Whether all this will be enough, who can say.
yes I had to laugh at Salmond telling youngsters to vote yes over Sunday lunch. Aside from inviting a family argument I suspect the oldies might persuade youngsters the other way.
Interesting developments. What they will demonstrate, in the event of a No vote, is that this is very much Scotland suing for the divorce. RUK is practically begging Scotland to stay in the relationship. The fall-out, which will undoubtedly be bad economically, will be Scotland's responsibility and her responsibility alone. It will mean that there will be absolutely no need for the RUK to have any compunction about driving an extremely hard deal. Rejected suitors tend to react badly.
If the politicians do what they say they are going to do, the following will happen.
1) Scottish request for a currency union will be turned down flat. 2) Salmond will renege on Scotland's share of national debt. 3) Huge market turbulence will damage everyone and the Scottish "transition" via the Panama model will look completely impossible. 4) Scotland will have to establish central bank and own currency in the worst possible consequences. Austerity all-round. 5) Scotland will sue for entry to Europe and adoption of Euro in the worst possible of all circumstances.
Really lovely prospect.
5 Scotland will get vetoed by UK on EU membership unitl it settles its debts - why wouldn't we ?
I suspect that we wouldn't because for all the initial reaction will probably include a lot of bitter people, me included, who won't want to give Scotland an inch, a strong Scotland is good for rUK. I don't think that means they will get all they want as the Yes side suggest, I think they put too much faith in people a) acting rationally b) agreeing that the rational approach is the one they support, c) the complexity of what they are asking for, but I do think rUK will be making a great many accomodations to a new Scottish state in fairly short order.
If they welch on their debts why would we ? Salmond's poker hands are all bluff when it comes to economics. he trades on english fears they might lose a bit of money, but actually keeping him at a distance will be more profitable in the long run.
Probably, but I can easily see those fears winning out after an initial indignant and angry reaction to anything perceived to be light on Scotland. Our leaders certainly don't plan for the long run in much of anything, so it depends how much their fear will drive the bureaucrats negotiating I guess.
As I was saying in the previous thread, I think the DK's could be the downfalls of the pollsters are their elimination in the rush to produce 'definite' Yes/No numbers could be critical.
"Anyway, as a result, an easy win for independence is now Ladbrokes’ nightmare scenario. As things stand, it would comfortably be the worst ever result for the company on a non-sports market. I’m not updating my cv just yet, but this blog might be going a bit quiet for a few weeks after September 18th if it happens."
Cameron is of course a member of Clan Cameron through his Scottish father and perfectly entitled to wear a kilt, he is the most Scottish of the 3. Indeed all are hybrids, Clegg from Russian aristocrat stock and Miliband Belgian Jewish. Hopefully they will flesh out more of the devomax proposals together tomorrow as the 3 Scottish party leaders did this morning
Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English. His father is from Aberdeenshire. His mother's grandmother was Lady Agnes Duff, daughter of the 5th Earl of Fife and granddaughter of the 18th Earl of Errol. Through those 2 he is descended from most of Scotland's oldest aristocratic families. Through the Countess of Errol he is of course a direct descendant of James VI and I and through that link a distant cousin of yours truly.
Anyone who is part of the extended family of Easterross has to be of fine Scottish lineage. If I'm not mistaken he is also a cousin of both mine and NPXMP through the Earls of Moray.
Interesting. It's really surprising that he's not made more of his lineage ...
Indeed. If only the voters knew that Dave was related to Easterross.
Cameron is of course a member of Clan Cameron through his Scottish father and perfectly entitled to wear a kilt, he is the most Scottish of the 3. Indeed all are hybrids, Clegg from Russian aristocrat stock and Miliband Belgian Jewish. Hopefully they will flesh out more of the devomax proposals together tomorrow as the 3 Scottish party leaders did this morning
Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English. His father is from Aberdeenshire. His mother's grandmother was Lady Agnes Duff, daughter of the 5th Earl of Fife and granddaughter of the 18th Earl of Errol. Through those 2 he is descended from most of Scotland's oldest aristocratic families. Through the Countess of Errol he is of course a direct descendant of James VI and I and through that link a distant cousin of yours truly.
Anyone who is part of the extended family of Easterross has to be of fine Scottish lineage. If I'm not mistaken he is also a cousin of both mine and NPXMP through the Earls of Moray.
Interesting. It's really surprising that he's not made more of his lineage ...
Indeed. If only the voters knew that Dave was related to Easterross.
"Anyway, as a result, an easy win for independence is now Ladbrokes’ nightmare scenario. As things stand, it would comfortably be the worst ever result for the company on a non-sports market. I’m not updating my cv just yet, but this blog might be going a bit quiet for a few weeks after September 18th if it happens."
Cameron is of course a member of Clan Cameron through his Scottish father and perfectly entitled to wear a kilt, he is the most Scottish of the 3. Indeed all are hybrids, Clegg from Russian aristocrat stock and Miliband Belgian Jewish. Hopefully they will flesh out more of the devomax proposals together tomorrow as the 3 Scottish party leaders did this morning
Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English. His father is from Aberdeenshire. His mother's grandmother was Lady Agnes Duff, daughter of the 5th Earl of Fife and granddaughter of the 18th Earl of Errol. Through those 2 he is descended from most of Scotland's oldest aristocratic families. Through the Countess of Errol he is of course a direct descendant of James VI and I and through that link a distant cousin of yours truly.
Anyone who is part of the extended family of Easterross has to be of fine Scottish lineage. If I'm not mistaken he is also a cousin of both mine and NPXMP through the Earls of Moray.
Interesting. It's really surprising that he's not made more of his lineage ...
Indeed. If only the voters knew that Dave was related to Easterross.
However, if you put a gun to my head, I think I would have to predict that BF would be more accurate in forecasting this election than financial markets if they ever took a signficant difference of opinion. They don't have as much experience in looking at polls etc, geopolitical risk, isn't really their speciality. They have just tuned into the issue etc...where as politics punters have seen surprise results and poll swings day in, day out for more than a decade.
If there was a conflict between the financial markets implied probability of yes, I think one would need to assume BF was likely to be more the reliable guide.
Saying that, I don't think there has been much commentary on here about the current BF price on "yes", in the circumstnaces. For me, the TNS poll confirmed that this is currently neck and neck amoung voters - at this moment. we are out of rogue poll territory now.
The BF market is telling us, I feel, that even though it's neck and neck right now, they believe "no" will move ahead between now and the result. Perhaps because of a Quebec style polling booth step back from the brink or for another reason? I don't know.
But it seems quite clear to me, that the BF price is not consistent with the current polling evidence. Of course, BF may well be right. Punters have probably thought through the next stage in this playing out. But the BF market is clearly saying, we don't believe the current polling evidence is likely to reflect the outcome on the day. Polls aren't everything!
For example, there almost seems to be a majority assumption on this board among contributors that Yes is more likely to win than not - while on BF the price of a "no" victory remains shorter than 4/9. That feels like something of a paradox given the expertise here...
Cameron is of course a member of Clan Cameron through his Scottish father and perfectly entitled to wear a kilt, he is the most Scottish of the 3. Indeed all are hybrids, Clegg from Russian aristocrat stock and Miliband Belgian Jewish. Hopefully they will flesh out more of the devomax proposals together tomorrow as the 3 Scottish party leaders did this morning
Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English. His father is from Aberdeenshire. His mother's grandmother was Lady Agnes Duff, daughter of the 5th Earl of Fife and granddaughter of the 18th Earl of Errol. Through those 2 he is descended from most of Scotland's oldest aristocratic families. Through the Countess of Errol he is of course a direct descendant of James VI and I and through that link a distant cousin of yours truly.
Anyone who is part of the extended family of Easterross has to be of fine Scottish lineage. If I'm not mistaken he is also a cousin of both mine and NPXMP through the Earls of Moray.
Interesting. It's really surprising that he's not made more of his lineage ...
Indeed. If only the voters knew that Dave was related to Easterross.
Your lineage is transparent in your name.
Everybody on the planet has a dick involved in their lineage. Including you.
Cameron is of course a member of Clan Cameron through his Scottish father and perfectly entitled to wear a kilt, he is the most Scottish of the 3. Indeed all are hybrids, Clegg from Russian aristocrat stock and Miliband Belgian Jewish. Hopefully they will flesh out more of the devomax proposals together tomorrow as the 3 Scottish party leaders did this morning
Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English. His father is from Aberdeenshire. His mother's grandmother was Lady Agnes Duff, daughter of the 5th Earl of Fife and granddaughter of the 18th Earl of Errol. Through those 2 he is descended from most of Scotland's oldest aristocratic families. Through the Countess of Errol he is of course a direct descendant of James VI and I and through that link a distant cousin of yours truly.
Anyone who is part of the extended family of Easterross has to be of fine Scottish lineage. If I'm not mistaken he is also a cousin of both mine and NPXMP through the Earls of Moray.
Interesting. It's really surprising that he's not made more of his lineage ...
Indeed. If only the voters knew that Dave was related to Easterross.
One hesitates to say this, but perhaps it could even be a ... tipping point?
Cameron is of course a member of Clan Cameron through his Scottish father and perfectly entitled to wear a kilt, he is the most Scottish of the 3. Indeed all are hybrids, Clegg from Russian aristocrat stock and Miliband Belgian Jewish. Hopefully they will flesh out more of the devomax proposals together tomorrow as the 3 Scottish party leaders did this morning
Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English. His father is from Aberdeenshire. His mother's grandmother was Lady Agnes Duff, daughter of the 5th Earl of Fife and granddaughter of the 18th Earl of Errol. Through those 2 he is descended from most of Scotland's oldest aristocratic families. Through the Countess of Errol he is of course a direct descendant of James VI and I and through that link a distant cousin of yours truly.
Anyone who is part of the extended family of Easterross has to be of fine Scottish lineage. If I'm not mistaken he is also a cousin of both mine and NPXMP through the Earls of Moray.
Interesting. It's really surprising that he's not made more of his lineage ...
He did; he was going on all about his merged streams of Scottish and English blood or words to that effect, though in the genetic sense I hasten to add, when he was speaking at the London Olympics velodrome last autumn IIRC. But I don't think he came up with all that aristocratic connexion at the time.
"Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English" is also rather unfortunately worded, very unusually for Mr Easterross, and not just because it is only the No side which keep going on about Braveheart and the English.
If Salmond thinks of reneging on share of UK debt, who will lend to his puppet government in Edinburgh. He has been schooled at the De Kirchner School of Economics.
Stuart, you might want to tone it down until we get another poll with Yes in the lead.
Tipping point.
Have you given up all hope of an Alliance win on Sunday? I assume the Swedish election is at least one you get to vote in?
I wouldn't write off Fredrik just yet. Polls are tightening.
The most likely outcome is a hung parliament with the Social Democrats the largest party, despite a poor result for them.
The Sweden Democrats (UKIP-ish) will almost certainly hold the balance of power, so this is a great election for the centre-right to lose. PM Löfven will be crippled from day one by the Left Party fruitcakes and the Swedish Kippers.
Whatever happens, the near century-long period of Social Democrat hegemony is now very firmly a closed chapter in Sweden's political history.
Cameron is of course a member of Clan Cameron through his Scottish father and perfectly entitled to wear a kilt, he is the most Scottish of the 3. Indeed all are hybrids, Clegg from Russian aristocrat stock and Miliband Belgian Jewish. Hopefully they will flesh out more of the devomax proposals together tomorrow as the 3 Scottish party leaders did this morning
Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English. His father is from Aberdeenshire. His mother's grandmother was Lady Agnes Duff, daughter of the 5th Earl of Fife and granddaughter of the 18th Earl of Errol. Through those 2 he is descended from most of Scotland's oldest aristocratic families. Through the Countess of Errol he is of course a direct descendant of James VI and I and through that link a distant cousin of yours truly.
Anyone who is part of the extended family of Easterross has to be of fine Scottish lineage. If I'm not mistaken he is also a cousin of both mine and NPXMP through the Earls of Moray.
Interesting. It's really surprising that he's not made more of his lineage ...
Indeed. If only the voters knew that Dave was related to Easterross.
Your lineage is transparent in your name.
Everybody on the planet has a dick involved in their lineage. Including you.
Good line - I may have to steal it for future use. Now just to find a situation to use it...
Will the UKIP MEP and other UKIP people in Scotland be rebranded as the SIP, a sister party to UKIP, following a Yes vote at all do you know. There will presumably still be an anti-EU vote to target in Scotland, albeit from a 'don't take us into it' position.
However, if you put a gun to my head, I think I would have to predict that BF would be more accurate in forecasting this election than financial markets if they ever took a signficant difference of opinion. They don't have as much experience in looking at polls etc, geopolitical risk, isn't really their speciality. They have just tuned into the issue etc...where as politics punters have seen surprise results and poll swings day in, day out for more than a decade.
If there was a conflict between the financial markets implied probability of yes, I think one would need to assume BF was likely to be more the reliable guide.
Saying that, I don't think there has been much commentary on here about the current BF price on "yes", in the circumstnaces. For me, the TNS poll confirmed that this is currently neck and neck amoung voters - at this moment. we are out of rogue poll territory now.
The BF market is telling us, I feel, that even though it's neck and neck right now, they believe "no" will move ahead between now and the result. Perhaps because of a Quebec style polling booth step back from the brink or for another reason? I don't know.
But it seems quite clear to me, that the BF price is not consistent with the current polling evidence. Of course, BF may well be right. Punters have probably thought through the next stage in this playing out. But the BF market is clearly saying, we don't believe the current polling evidence is likely to reflect the outcome on the day. Polls aren't everything!
For example, there almost seems to be a majority assumption on this board among contributors that Yes is more likely to win than not - while on BF the price of a "no" victory remains shorter than 4/9. That feels like something of a paradox given the expertise here...
Bazz, as you probably know, a bookie's odds on the horses in a race have only a second order connection on the chances of a horse actually winning the race. The bookie sets his odds based on the money being gambled on each horse and does so in such a way that he hopes to come out with a profit no matter which horse wins. Bookies are usually richer than the people who gamble money with them for a reason.
When you look at something like Betfair the situation is even less related to the actual chances of an event taking place. Punters have holding positions, trading positions and God knows what besides. The gamblers are there to make money not to predict outcomes. They will most often come out with a profit because they are betting with their heads against people who are betting with their hearts.
Stuart, you might want to tone it down until we get another poll with Yes in the lead.
Tipping point.
Have you given up all hope of an Alliance win on Sunday? I assume the Swedish election is at least one you get to vote in?
I wouldn't write off Fredrik just yet. Polls are tightening.
The most likely outcome is a hung parliament with the Social Democrats the largest party, despite a poor result for them.
The Sweden Democrats (UKIP-ish) will almost certainly hold the balance of power, so this is a great election for the centre-right to lose. PM Löfven will be crippled from day one by the Left Party fruitcakes and the Swedish Kippers.
Whatever happens, the near century-long period of Social Democrat hegemony is now very firmly a closed chapter in Sweden's political history.
I'm more in fear of what happens here in Stockholm. Bloody tree hugging hippies MP are within 5% of the Social Democrats in the latest polls. Cancel the ring road, close Bromma airport and having a Roma encampment at Sergels Torg. Not to mention F.I polling 6% here. Nightmare.
I can never understand why Fredrik polls so well as PM, but the Moderates are doing so badly. If the Alliance do cling on I guess the Moderates probably won't even get to 25%. Strange.
The Queen takes the view that the fate of Scotland - to stay in the union or leave - is in the hands of its people, a Buckingham Palace spokesman has said.
After reports over the weekend claimed the Queen was growing increasingly concerned about Scotland breaking away, a Palace spokesman stressed any suggestion the head of state wanted to influence the referendum vote was "categorically wrong".
Cameron is of course a member of Clan Cameron through his Scottish father and perfectly entitled to wear a kilt, he is the most Scottish of the 3. Indeed all are hybrids, Clegg from Russian aristocrat stock and Miliband Belgian Jewish. Hopefully they will flesh out more of the devomax proposals together tomorrow as the 3 Scottish party leaders did this morning
Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English. His father is from Aberdeenshire. His mother's grandmother was Lady Agnes Duff, daughter of the 5th Earl of Fife and granddaughter of the 18th Earl of Errol. Through those 2 he is descended from most of Scotland's oldest aristocratic families. Through the Countess of Errol he is of course a direct descendant of James VI and I and through that link a distant cousin of yours truly.
Anyone who is part of the extended family of Easterross has to be of fine Scottish lineage. If I'm not mistaken he is also a cousin of both mine and NPXMP through the Earls of Moray.
Interesting. It's really surprising that he's not made more of his lineage ...
Indeed. If only the voters knew that Dave was related to Easterross.
Your lineage is transparent in your name.
Everybody on the planet has a dick involved in their lineage. Including you.
Good line - I may have to steal it for future use. Now just to find a situation to use it...
In find the spelling interesting,why not the standard English Dixon. There are many Dixons and Coxons but fewer Dicksons and Cocksons.
Stuart, you might want to tone it down until we get another poll with Yes in the lead.
Tipping point.
Have you given up all hope of an Alliance win on Sunday? I assume the Swedish election is at least one you get to vote in?
I wouldn't write off Fredrik just yet. Polls are tightening.
The most likely outcome is a hung parliament with the Social Democrats the largest party, despite a poor result for them.
The Sweden Democrats (UKIP-ish) will almost certainly hold the balance of power, so this is a great election for the centre-right to lose. PM Löfven will be crippled from day one by the Left Party fruitcakes and the Swedish Kippers.
Whatever happens, the near century-long period of Social Democrat hegemony is now very firmly a closed chapter in Sweden's political history.
I'm more in fear of what happens here in Stockholm. Bloody tree hugging hippies MP are within 5% of the Social Democrats in the latest polls. Cancel the ring road, close Bromma airport and having a Roma encampment at Sergels Torg. Not to mention F.I polling 6% here. Nightmare.
I can never understand why Fredrik polls so well as PM, but the Moderates are doing so badly. If the Alliance do cling on I guess the Moderates probably won't even get to 25%. Strange.
I know why, but I feel disinclined to discuss in public.
Will the UKIP MEP and other UKIP people in Scotland be rebranded as the SIP, a sister party to UKIP, following a Yes vote at all do you know. There will presumably still be an anti-EU vote to target in Scotland, albeit from a 'don't take us into it' position.
Hooray - a new question re indyref! A little checking shows that this chap reckon's they'd pack it in:
The Queen takes the view that the fate of Scotland - to stay in the union or leave - is in the hands of its people, a Buckingham Palace spokesman has said.
After reports over the weekend claimed the Queen was growing increasingly concerned about Scotland breaking away, a Palace spokesman stressed any suggestion the head of state wanted to influence the referendum vote was "categorically wrong".
If anyone has any doubts about just how dysfunctional the Labour party has become at the top, you only have to look at their less than smart strategy of trying to use dishonest scare stories about the need to protect the NHS from the Tories as one of the main planks of their campaign for the next GE at the same time as they are trying to defend the Union.
No one should have then been surprised up here in Scotland, least of all the Labour party when the SNP/Yes played them at their own game. And yes, used dishonest scared stories about needing to protect the Scottish NHS from Westminster as a reason to vote Yes in the Indy Ref. For weeks now, we have watched Scottish Labour politicians defending the Coalition Government's increased funding of the NHS at Westminster, and while they try to campaign on the opposite being the case South of the border.
This was reweeted by an SNP/Yes supporter...... Twitter Dr Éoin Clarke @LabourEoin 25m Absolutely crucial for Labour PPCs in marginal English seats that Scottish Labour tell the truth about the NHS. Tories have cut NHS Spending
Cameron is of course a member of Clan Cameron through his Scottish father and perfectly entitled to wear a kilt, he is the most Scottish of the 3. Indeed all are hybrids, Clegg from Russian aristocrat stock and Miliband Belgian Jewish. Hopefully they will flesh out more of the devomax proposals together tomorrow as the 3 Scottish party leaders did this morning
Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English. His father is from Aberdeenshire. His mother's grandmother was Lady Agnes Duff, daughter of the 5th Earl of Fife and granddaughter of the 18th Earl of Errol. Through those 2 he is descended from most of Scotland's oldest aristocratic families. Through the Countess of Errol he is of course a direct descendant of James VI and I and through that link a distant cousin of yours truly.
Anyone who is part of the extended family of Easterross has to be of fine Scottish lineage. If I'm not mistaken he is also a cousin of both mine and NPXMP through the Earls of Moray.
Interesting. It's really surprising that he's not made more of his lineage ...
Indeed. If only the voters knew that Dave was related to Easterross.
Your lineage is transparent in your name.
Everybody on the planet has a dick involved in their lineage. Including you.
Good line - I may have to steal it for future use. Now just to find a situation to use it...
In find the spelling interesting,why not the standard English Dixon. There are many Dixons and Coxons but fewer Dicksons and Cocksons.
Because Dickson was never standard English orthography to begin with, so was never contracted? Don't recall coming across Coxons in either form.
Dick is of course a common Scottish surname. e.g. Sir Thomas Dick Lauder of the Grange. Dick Lauder wrote a fascinating book on the Moray floods of, I think, 1830.
The Queen takes the view that the fate of Scotland - to stay in the union or leave - is in the hands of its people, a Buckingham Palace spokesman has said.
After reports over the weekend claimed the Queen was growing increasingly concerned about Scotland breaking away, a Palace spokesman stressed any suggestion the head of state wanted to influence the referendum vote was "categorically wrong".
The best thing for the city now might be for them to go into meltdown, the effects of that will be felt before and on the day, and will likely push the undecideds into No. Then when there is a No vote it rallies.
Interesting developments. What they will demonstrate, in the event of a No vote, is that this is very much Scotland suing for the divorce. RUK is practically begging Scotland to stay in the relationship. The fall-out, which will undoubtedly be bad economically, will be Scotland's responsibility and her responsibility alone. It will mean that there will be absolutely no need for the RUK to have any compunction about driving an extremely hard deal. Rejected suitors tend to react badly.
If the politicians do what they say they are going to do, the following will happen.
1) Scottish request for a currency union will be turned down flat. 2) Salmond will renege on Scotland's share of national debt. 3) Huge market turbulence will damage everyone and the Scottish "transition" via the Panama model will look completely impossible. 4) Scotland will have to establish central bank and own currency in the worst possible consequences. Austerity all-round. 5) Scotland will sue for entry to Europe and adoption of Euro in the worst possible of all circumstances.
Really lovely prospect.
5 Scotland will get vetoed by UK on EU membership unitl it settles its debts - why wouldn't we ?
UK won't need to. Spain will be happy to oblige.
Why didn't the UK veto Spain's membership of the EU until they conceded Gibraltar?
Interesting developments. What they will demonstrate, in the event of a No vote, is that this is very much Scotland suing for the divorce. RUK is practically begging Scotland to stay in the relationship. The fall-out, which will undoubtedly be bad economically, will be Scotland's responsibility and her responsibility alone. It will mean that there will be absolutely no need for the RUK to have any compunction about driving an extremely hard deal. Rejected suitors tend to react badly.
If the politicians do what they say they are going to do, the following will happen.
1) Scottish request for a currency union will be turned down flat. 2) Salmond will renege on Scotland's share of national debt. 3) Huge market turbulence will damage everyone and the Scottish "transition" via the Panama model will look completely impossible. 4) Scotland will have to establish central bank and own currency in the worst possible consequences. Austerity all-round. 5) Scotland will sue for entry to Europe and adoption of Euro in the worst possible of all circumstances.
Really lovely prospect.
5 Scotland will get vetoed by UK on EU membership unitl it settles its debts - why wouldn't we ?
UK won't need to. Spain will be happy to oblige.
Why didn't the UK veto Spain's membership of the EU until they conceded Gibraltar?
It just wouldn't have been cricket old chap now would it?
Have to admit I love this new line from PBTories about how the Scottish referendum swing is Labour's fault for pointing out how nasty and destructive the Tories' policies are on the economy and public services, rather than it being the Tories' fault for implementing those policies in the first place.
Will the UKIP MEP and other UKIP people in Scotland be rebranded as the SIP, a sister party to UKIP, following a Yes vote at all do you know. There will presumably still be an anti-EU vote to target in Scotland, albeit from a 'don't take us into it' position.
UKIP, or SIP, or whatever will no doubt be pressing for Scotland to have another referendum in 2017 to ensure that Scotland is not taken back into the EU without popular assent.
Suggested wording:
"Should Scotland cease to be an independent country?"
I fear whatever the happens next week, the end result will be independence in the next 20-30 years.
DevoMax is all well and good, but the natural progression from that is independence. Devolution did not kill off the nationalist sentiment, even though the Labour Party hoped it would.
I wish we weren't at this stage, but I feel we've crossed a line now. As I said this morning, perhaps it is better that it is done now rather than a few years down the line when we've had constitutional turmoil and backbiting over DevoMax.
Interesting developments. What they will demonstrate, in the event of a No vote, is that this is very much Scotland suing for the divorce. RUK is practically begging Scotland to stay in the relationship. The fall-out, which will undoubtedly be bad economically, will be Scotland's responsibility and her responsibility alone. It will mean that there will be absolutely no need for the RUK to have any compunction about driving an extremely hard deal. Rejected suitors tend to react badly.
If the politicians do what they say they are going to do, the following will happen.
1) Scottish request for a currency union will be turned down flat. 2) Salmond will renege on Scotland's share of national debt. 3) Huge market turbulence will damage everyone and the Scottish "transition" via the Panama model will look completely impossible. 4) Scotland will have to establish central bank and own currency in the worst possible consequences. Austerity all-round. 5) Scotland will sue for entry to Europe and adoption of Euro in the worst possible of all circumstances.
Really lovely prospect.
5 Scotland will get vetoed by UK on EU membership unitl it settles its debts - why wouldn't we ?
UK won't need to. Spain will be happy to oblige.
Why didn't the UK veto Spain's membership of the EU until they conceded Gibraltar?
Spain did concede Gibraltar - in 1713. They just keep forgetting.
Interesting critique of Mr Brown (and his past form) by Lesley Riddoch, acknowledging the failure to resolve the 92% problem as well.
It sounds like Gordon Brown is fooling no one.
I am glad of that because I am sure that any solution he comes up with would be over-complicated, biased and designed to make sure that he gets one over on his political enemies.
Cameron is of course a member of Clan Cameron through his Scottish father and perfectly entitled to wear a kilt, he is the most Scottish of the 3. Indeed all are hybrids, Clegg from Russian aristocrat stock and Miliband Belgian Jewish. Hopefully they will flesh out more of the devomax proposals together tomorrow as the 3 Scottish party leaders did this morning
Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English. His father is from Aberdeenshire. His mother's grandmother was Lady Agnes Duff, daughter of the 5th Earl of Fife and granddaughter of the 18th Earl of Errol. Through those 2 he is descended from most of Scotland's oldest aristocratic families. Through the Countess of Errol he is of course a direct descendant of James VI and I and through that link a distant cousin of yours truly.
Anyone who is part of the extended family of Easterross has to be of fine Scottish lineage. If I'm not mistaken he is also a cousin of both mine and NPXMP through the Earls of Moray.
Interesting. It's really surprising that he's not made more of his lineage ...
Indeed. If only the voters knew that Dave was related to Easterross.
Your lineage is transparent in your name.
Everybody on the planet has a dick involved in their lineage. Including you.
Good line - I may have to steal it for future use. Now just to find a situation to use it...
In find the spelling interesting,why not the standard English Dixon. There are many Dixons and Coxons but fewer Dicksons and Cocksons.
Because Dickson was never standard English orthography to begin with, so was never contracted? Don't recall coming across Coxons in either form.
Dick is of course a common Scottish surname. e.g. Sir Thomas Dick Lauder of the Grange. Dick Lauder wrote a fascinating book on the Moray floods of, I think, 1830.
I think the origin of the Dick surname comes from Flemish Dykes. Dick van Dyke is a Hollywood invention.
Have to admit I love this new line from PBTories about how the Scottish referendum swing is Labour's fault for pointing out how nasty and destructive the Tories' policies are on the economy and public services, rather than it being the Tories' fault for implementing those policies in the first place.
Well it aint the Tories who are going to lose forty plus MP's is it? Whatever the origin should Scotland vote yes the outcome will be Labour are weakened. Not very clever of them is it?
We really are seriously in the mire, if the best candidates for PM are Cameron, Milliband and Clegg. If I was Scottish, and a bit undecided, after today, I'd be draping myself in the Saltire, painting my face blue, and joining the SNP. It's been embarrassing. Westminster politicians have been talking tough since the referendum was announced, but now they're squealing and offering everything, including the kitchen sink. It absolutely stinks that devo-whatever was off the table, but now it's a bit close, Gordon Brown, yes, Gordon effing Brown has crawled out from under his rock to save the union with offers of near-as-damnit indy.
Scotland, please, please vote yes, so that the whole rotten gang can implode during the recriminations after you do.
Greetings TFS!
I completely agree. Devomax is a can of worms that needs to stay closed. Independence means independence, and if Hammond was the blabbermouth minister that said it was a bluff about currency union then he is not fit to be a negotiator.
We need a reincarnated Longshanks as our advocate, not some PPE jessie.
Tend to agree. I was upset, but the Scots obviously want to leave. So, let's be adult, and both negotiate the terms of leaving in a way that can benefit us both.
The behaviour of our political "leaders" today has been shameful.
Interesting developments. What they will demonstrate, in the event of a No vote, is that this is very much Scotland suing for the divorce. RUK is practically begging Scotland to stay in the relationship. The fall-out, which will undoubtedly be bad economically, will be Scotland's responsibility and her responsibility alone. It will mean that there will be absolutely no need for the RUK to have any compunction about driving an extremely hard deal. Rejected suitors tend to react badly.
If the politicians do what they say they are going to do, the following will happen.
1) Scottish request for a currency union will be turned down flat. 2) Salmond will renege on Scotland's share of national debt. 3) Huge market turbulence will damage everyone and the Scottish "transition" via the Panama model will look completely impossible. 4) Scotland will have to establish central bank and own currency in the worst possible consequences. Austerity all-round. 5) Scotland will sue for entry to Europe and adoption of Euro in the worst possible of all circumstances.
Really lovely prospect.
5 Scotland will get vetoed by UK on EU membership unitl it settles its debts - why wouldn't we ?
UK won't need to. Spain will be happy to oblige.
Why didn't the UK veto Spain's membership of the EU until they conceded Gibraltar?
Spain did concede Gibraltar - in 1713. They just keep forgetting.
I always thought that the main difference between Gibraltar and the Falklands and the disputed claims was that Argentina maintains that the Islands are theirs and should always have been, whereas Spain acknowledges they ceded Gibraltar (although exact dimensions and various bits of the treaty being abided by may well be disputable), and their desire to get it back is a political wish, not an argument on the legality as Argentina's is (regarding being the successor state in the region in addition to geography and so on. But I confess my history is a bit hazy on those points.
I fear whatever the happens next week, the end result will be independence in the next 20-30 years. ...
I wish we weren't at this stage, but I feel we've crossed a line now.
I agree. I said much the same on the previous thread I do not see how all the bile, resentment and unpleasantness that has been stirred up can be ignored in the event of a NO vote. In the event of a YES vote, I feel that the parting will be acrimonious.
Have to admit I love this new line from PBTories about how the Scottish referendum swing is Labour's fault for pointing out how nasty and destructive the Tories' policies are on the economy and public services, rather than it being the Tories' fault for implementing those policies in the first place.
Well it aint the Tories who are going to lose forty plus MP's is it? Whatever the origin should Scotland vote yes the outcome will be Labour are weakened. Not very clever of them is it?
I'm actually quite fearful that the huge surge in media coverage of the "indyref" in the rest of the UK in the past few days might mean a swing to the Tories in the national polls. An air of impending crisis/doom always seems to favour the incumbent government.
And of course a Tory poll lead would give another boost to the "Yes" camp...
Interesting developments. What they will demonstrate, in the event of a No vote, is that this is very much Scotland suing for the divorce. RUK is practically begging Scotland to stay in the relationship. The fall-out, which will undoubtedly be bad economically, will be Scotland's responsibility and her responsibility alone. It will mean that there will be absolutely no need for the RUK to have any compunction about driving an extremely hard deal. Rejected suitors tend to react badly.
If the politicians do what they say they are going to do, the following will happen.
1) Scottish request for a currency union will be turned down flat. 2) Salmond will renege on Scotland's share of national debt. 3) Huge market turbulence will damage everyone and the Scottish "transition" via the Panama model will look completely impossible. 4) Scotland will have to establish central bank and own currency in the worst possible consequences. Austerity all-round. 5) Scotland will sue for entry to Europe and adoption of Euro in the worst possible of all circumstances.
Really lovely prospect.
5 Scotland will get vetoed by UK on EU membership unitl it settles its debts - why wouldn't we ?
UK won't need to. Spain will be happy to oblige.
Why didn't the UK veto Spain's membership of the EU until they conceded Gibraltar?
Spain did concede Gibraltar - in 1713. They just keep forgetting.
I always thought that the main difference between Gibraltar and the Falklands and the disputed claims was that Argentina maintains that the Islands are theirs and should always have been, whereas Spain acknowledges they ceded Gibraltar (although exact dimensions and various bits of the treaty being abided by may well be disputable), and their desire to get it back is a political wish, not an argument on the legality as Argentina's is (regarding being the successor state in the region in addition to geography and so on. But I confess my history is a bit hazy on those points.
Sounds about right, but all you have to remember is that both Spain and Argentina are, for different reasons, utterly wrong.
I fear whatever the happens next week, the end result will be independence in the next 20-30 years. ...
I wish we weren't at this stage, but I feel we've crossed a line now.
I agree. I said much the same on the previous thread I do not see how all the bile, resentment and unpleasantness that has been stirred up can be ignored in the event of a NO vote. In the event of a YES vote, I feel that the parting will be acrimonious.
Agreed. Add to that the demographics of only old people being in favour of No decisively, if at all, and it seems pretty much over. I had hoped a FederalUK might entice people back, but I don't see why that would appeal to the 45+% considering voting Yes.
If anyone has any doubts about just how dysfunctional the Labour party has become at the top, you only have to look at their less than smart strategy of trying to use dishonest scare stories about the need to protect the NHS from the Tories as one of the main planks of their campaign for the next GE at the same time as they are trying to defend the Union.
No one should have then been surprised up here in Scotland, least of all the Labour party when the SNP/Yes played them at their own game. And yes, used dishonest scared stories about needing to protect the Scottish NHS from Westminster as a reason to vote Yes in the Indy Ref. For weeks now, we have watched Scottish Labour politicians defending the Coalition Government's increased funding of the NHS at Westminster, and while they try to campaign on the opposite being the case South of the border.
This was reweeted by an SNP/Yes supporter...... Twitter Dr Éoin Clarke @LabourEoin 25m Absolutely crucial for Labour PPCs in marginal English seats that Scottish Labour tell the truth about the NHS. Tories have cut NHS Spending
What a perverse argument - it's your party that are doing the cutting. How other parties present that is ancillary to the actual act
If anyone has any doubts about just how dysfunctional the Labour party has become at the top, you only have to look at their less than smart strategy of trying to use dishonest scare stories about the need to protect the NHS from the Tories as one of the main planks of their campaign for the next GE at the same time as they are trying to defend the Union.
No one should have then been surprised up here in Scotland, least of all the Labour party when the SNP/Yes played them at their own game. And yes, used dishonest scared stories about needing to protect the Scottish NHS from Westminster as a reason to vote Yes in the Indy Ref. For weeks now, we have watched Scottish Labour politicians defending the Coalition Government's increased funding of the NHS at Westminster, and while they try to campaign on the opposite being the case South of the border.
This was reweeted by an SNP/Yes supporter...... Twitter Dr Éoin Clarke @LabourEoin 25m Absolutely crucial for Labour PPCs in marginal English seats that Scottish Labour tell the truth about the NHS. Tories have cut NHS Spending
Not dishonest in substantial fact (though strictly speaking so, in terms of current budgets, which is presumably what Labour are pushing in Scotland, on the other side of their Zaphod Beeblebrox impersonation from what Mr Burnham is saying in England). It's what happens over the next year or two that counts: the structural changes in England have opened the way to charging directly and TTIP in health, and as that proceeds the public budgets will be cut, with immediate and direct effects on Barnett and the Scottish budget, and therefore the Scottish NHS. Google Allyson Pollock, Philippa Whiteford, etc.
Have to admit I love this new line from PBTories about how the Scottish referendum swing is Labour's fault for pointing out how nasty and destructive the Tories' policies are on the economy and public services, rather than it being the Tories' fault for implementing those policies in the first place.
Well it aint the Tories who are going to lose forty plus MP's is it? Whatever the origin should Scotland vote yes the outcome will be Labour are weakened. Not very clever of them is it?
My point is I don't think the surge in the "Yes" vote has been caused by Labour "scaremongering" -- I think it's been caused by the actual policies that the Tories have put in place themselves.
We really are seriously in the mire, if the best candidates for PM are Cameron, Milliband and Clegg. If I was Scottish, and a bit undecided, after today, I'd be draping myself in the Saltire, painting my face blue, and joining the SNP. It's been embarrassing. Westminster politicians have been talking tough since the referendum was announced, but now they're squealing and offering everything, including the kitchen sink. It absolutely stinks that devo-whatever was off the table, but now it's a bit close, Gordon Brown, yes, Gordon effing Brown has crawled out from under his rock to save the union with offers of near-as-damnit indy.
Scotland, please, please vote yes, so that the whole rotten gang can implode during the recriminations after you do.
Greetings TFS!
I completely agree. Devomax is a can of worms that needs to stay closed. Independence means independence, and if Hammond was the blabbermouth minister that said it was a bluff about currency union then he is not fit to be a negotiator.
We need a reincarnated Longshanks as our advocate, not some PPE jessie.
Tend to agree. I was upset, but the Scots obviously want to leave. So, let's be adult, and both negotiate the terms of leaving in a way that can benefit us both.
The behaviour of our political "leaders" today has been shameful.
Quite right on both counts. I am not sure where this vindictive idea that we should somehow punish Scotland for leaving a union in which it was a founding and voluntary partner ever came from. We should be good neighbours, and allies.
"DAVID Cameron's plans to show Scotland the UK is better together by flying the Scottish flag didn't go to plan today - as it fell down halfway through being raised."
"DAVID Cameron's plans to show Scotland the UK is better together by flying the Scottish flag didn't go to plan today - as it fell down halfway through being raised."
We really are seriously in the mire, if the best candidates for PM are Cameron, Milliband and Clegg. If I was Scottish, and a bit undecided, after today, I'd be draping myself in the Saltire, painting my face blue, and joining the SNP. It's been embarrassing. Westminster politicians have been talking tough since the referendum was announced, but now they're squealing and offering everything, including the kitchen sink. It absolutely stinks that devo-whatever was off the table, but now it's a bit close, Gordon Brown, yes, Gordon effing Brown has crawled out from under his rock to save the union with offers of near-as-damnit indy.
Scotland, please, please vote yes, so that the whole rotten gang can implode during the recriminations after you do.
Greetings TFS!
I completely agree. Devomax is a can of worms that needs to stay closed. Independence means independence, and if Hammond was the blabbermouth minister that said it was a bluff about currency union then he is not fit to be a negotiator.
We need a reincarnated Longshanks as our advocate, not some PPE jessie.
Tend to agree. I was upset, but the Scots obviously want to leave. So, let's be adult, and both negotiate the terms of leaving in a way that can benefit us both.
The behaviour of our political "leaders" today has been shameful.
Quite right on both counts. I am not sure where this vindictive idea that we should somehow punish Scotland for leaving a union in which it was a founding and voluntary partner ever came from. We should be good neighbours, and allies.
Hence why I think rUk will give Scotland pretty much whatever it wants and support it a great deal, despite initial bitterness, although there will be some things that Scotland (and some in England, more happily) may see as being vindictive and punishing, but which genuinely are that rUK does not see it in their best interests (and perhaps not even Scotland's) and will stick to their guns on that. I have zero doubt that even if everything else is conceded happily, such a position would be portrayed as being vindictive.
I fear whatever the happens next week, the end result will be independence in the next 20-30 years. ...
I wish we weren't at this stage, but I feel we've crossed a line now.
I agree. I said much the same on the previous thread I do not see how all the bile, resentment and unpleasantness that has been stirred up can be ignored in the event of a NO vote. In the event of a YES vote, I feel that the parting will be acrimonious.
Agreed. Add to that the demographics of only old people being in favour of No decisively, if at all, and it seems pretty much over. I had hoped a FederalUK might entice people back, but I don't see why that would appeal to the 45+% considering voting Yes.
If you are 25-40 and have a chance to make history it's going to be hard to resist now it seems like it could actually happen
It was funny watching Darling confirm in the second debate that the Tories had increased NHS spending, shame he forgot to mention that Labour run Wales has cut NHS spending by 7 %.
@dhothersall: FT headline tomorrow: 'Investors pull cash from Scotland'. What are you going to call "fearmongering" now it's actually started happening?
I don't think many would argue that this governments reputation for being heartless bastards and the reason why Scotland want independence is down to the policies of IDS.
Instead of all this genuflecting in front of King Alex why cant they just send his disembodied head up instead?
I always thought that the main difference between Gibraltar and the Falklands and the disputed claims was that Argentina maintains that the Islands are theirs and should always have been, whereas Spain acknowledges they ceded Gibraltar (although exact dimensions and various bits of the treaty being abided by may well be disputable), and their desire to get it back is a political wish, not an argument on the legality as Argentina's is (regarding being the successor state in the region in addition to geography and so on. But I confess my history is a bit hazy on those points.
There is an argument that the United Kingdom has contravened Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, in which the British Monarch did agree 'that no leave shall be given under any pretence whatsoever, either to Jews or Moors, to reside or have their dwellings in the said town of Gibraltar'. Accordingly, it is said that, as the British having contravened their treaty obligations, the Spanish have no need to respect the said agreement.
Have to admit I love this new line from PBTories about how the Scottish referendum swing is Labour's fault
In my view Labour could have stopped this whole mess from happening. The effects of the Tory policies on things north of the border may have ratcheted up resentment of all things south of the border, but Labour could have stemmed this problem. They did not.
Instead what they came up with was a one-sided system which seemed to be designed to keep Scotland under the control of one party (Labour) and to give their Scottish MPs influence in Westminster by ensuring that they had influence over issues that were none of their concern. It was all about Labour trying to slant the system so that in power or out of power they would have disproportionate influence.
They did not seem to care about anything or anyone else. This was raw self-interest to which everything else was subjugated. They even ensured that the government following them had a poisoned chalice by doing their best to bankrupt the country so that the coalition had to implement massive austerity programs which Labour could look good by criticising. They were gleeful about it "There's no money left" went the note in the treasury.
Of course, the whole thing back-fired when the SNP used the one-party-controls-all mechanism of the Scottish parliament and then that durned coalition had the bad grace to actually turn the economy around.
Make no mistake, the tories started this ball rolling back in the late 80s but Labour could have stopped it if it had not been obsessed with cementing itself into eternal power.
Scotland has unwittingly shone a light onto this very unattractive coalition and the rest of the UK are waking up to what a very ugly government we have at the moment.
Scotland has unwittingly shone a light onto this very unattractive coalition and the rest of the UK are waking up to what a very ugly government we have at the moment.
So Tories to take the lead tomorrow with YouGov....
Have to admit I love this new line from PBTories about how the Scottish referendum swing is Labour's fault
In my view Labour could have stopped this whole mess from happening. The effects of the Tory policies on things north of the border may have ratcheted up resentment of all things south of the border, but Labour could have stemmed this problem. They did not.
Instead what they came up with was a one-sided system which seemed to be designed to keep Scotland under the control of one party (Labour) and to give their Scottish MPs influence in Westminster by ensuring that they had influence over issues that were none of their concern. It was all about Labour trying to slant the system so that in power or out of power they would have disproportionate influence.
They did not seem to care about anything or anyone else. This was raw self-interest to which everything else was subjugated. They even ensured that the government following them had a poisoned chalice by doing their best to bankrupt the country so that the coalition had to implement massive austerity programs which Labour could look good by criticising. They were gleeful about it "There's no money left" went the note in the treasury.
Of course, the whole thing back-fired when the SNP used the one-party-controls-all mechanism of the Scottish parliament and then that durned coalition had the bad grace to actually turn the economy around.
Make no mistake, the tories started this ball rolling back in the late 80s but Labour could have stopped it if it had not been obsessed with cementing itself into eternal power.
The Scottish Parliament was fiddled by Labour to stop one party controlling all - it was the SNP that smashed that additional barrier. (It's a much harder position to achieve than in Westminster.) But that doesn't really change your analysis much!
No its not, and its been noticeable weakness for the Labour party for weeks now! Scottish Labour politicians are telling the Indy Ref debate that NHS funding has increased under this Coalition Government while their party is attempting to send an entirely different message down South. And the tweet from a Labour supporter that I saw earlier being reweeted by an SNP/Yes supporter tonight neatly sums up the mess the Labour party has got themselves into over the issue of the NHS as a campaign tool in the run up to the next GE. I am just surprised that no one else has yet raised this point before now this summer.
This guy really is the gift that keeps giving to the Labour party's opponents.
Twitter Dr Éoin Clarke @LabourEoin 25m Absolutely crucial for Labour PPCs in marginal English seats that Scottish Labour tell the truth about the NHS. Tories have cut NHS Spending
If anyone has any doubts about just how dysfunctional the Labour party has become at the top, you only have to look at their less than smart strategy of trying to use dishonest scare stories about the need to protect the NHS from the Tories as one of the main planks of their campaign for the next GE at the same time as they are trying to defend the Union.
No one should have then been surprised up here in Scotland, least of all the Labour party when the SNP/Yes played them at their own game. And yes, used dishonest scared stories about needing to protect the Scottish NHS from Westminster as a reason to vote Yes in the Indy Ref. For weeks now, we have watched Scottish Labour politicians defending the Coalition Government's increased funding of the NHS at Westminster, and while they try to campaign on the opposite being the case South of the border.
This was reweeted by an SNP/Yes supporter...... Twitter Dr Éoin Clarke @LabourEoin 25m Absolutely crucial for Labour PPCs in marginal English seats that Scottish Labour tell the truth about the NHS. Tories have cut NHS Spending
What a perverse argument - it's your party that are doing the cutting. How other parties present that is ancillary to the actual act
'My point is I don't think the surge in the "Yes" vote has been caused by Labour "scaremongering" -- I think it's been caused by the actual policies that the Tories have put in place themselves.'
Strange then that the surge in the 'Yes' vote came a few days after Miliband's visit to Scotland and as polls have show he's more unpopular in Scotland than Cameron.
I always thought that the main difference between Gibraltar and the Falklands and the disputed claims was that Argentina maintains that the Islands are theirs and should always have been, whereas Spain acknowledges they ceded Gibraltar (although exact dimensions and various bits of the treaty being abided by may well be disputable), and their desire to get it back is a political wish, not an argument on the legality as Argentina's is (regarding being the successor state in the region in addition to geography and so on. But I confess my history is a bit hazy on those points.
There is an argument that the United Kingdom has contravened Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, in which the British Monarch did agree 'that no leave shall be given under any pretence whatsoever, either to Jews or Moors, to reside or have their dwellings in the said town of Gibraltar'. Accordingly, it is said that, as the British having contravened their treaty obligations, the Spanish have no need to respect the said agreement.
Yes, thought it might be a provision like that. From a public relations point of view perhaps hard to argue on that basis, but legally if that's what it says, it has to be fairly solid on the face of it. Although if memory serves Spain did try to take the place back by force a couple of times notwithstanding the treaty stating they had given it up 'forever', would that not have any impact in questioning any British breaches of the Treaty, I mean Spain have also breached it by seeking to conquer it back, surely?
I always thought that the main difference between Gibraltar and the Falklands and the disputed claims was that Argentina maintains that the Islands are theirs and should always have been, whereas Spain acknowledges they ceded Gibraltar (although exact dimensions and various bits of the treaty being abided by may well be disputable), and their desire to get it back is a political wish, not an argument on the legality as Argentina's is (regarding being the successor state in the region in addition to geography and so on. But I confess my history is a bit hazy on those points.
There is an argument that the United Kingdom has contravened Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, in which the British Monarch did agree 'that no leave shall be given under any pretence whatsoever, either to Jews or Moors, to reside or have their dwellings in the said town of Gibraltar'. Accordingly, it is said that, as the British having contravened their treaty obligations, the Spanish have no need to respect the said agreement.
Are there any Jews or Moors residing in Gib, Mr. Town? Further how do you think that aspect of the treaty would/should be interpreted in light of the ECHR?
Comments
Scotland's financial services will move south
Followed by some of the service industries and govt jobs
And if their farmers aren't in the CAP then the orders go to beef farmers in Ireland or dairy farmers in the west country. Which of course also brings the EU angle of 28 nations looking at a desperate man and saying what can we screw out of him ?
Why would Spaniards not demand more access to fishing zones or Croats who have had to jump through hoops for the Euro not expect Scotland to do the same. Most EU nations are driven by self interest and don't have soft-headed PMs seeking to do the decent thing.
Remember - for all the lefty, greeny talk, what is being ignited here is nationalism. And those lighting the blue touchpaper bear a heavy responsibility for the subsequent blaze.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/
I wonder if Ladbrokes head office will intervene at some point and ask Shadsy to try balance his book?
However, best Yes price still Betfair: 11/5
Best No price: 4/9 (Betfred)
Tipping point
On the surface, the assumption is that gamblers are recreational and that the financial markets are more efficient, see, for example the FT here: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/marketslive/2014-09-08/
However, if you put a gun to my head, I think I would have to predict that BF would be more accurate in forecasting this election than financial markets if they ever took a signficant difference of opinion. They don't have as much experience in looking at polls etc, geopolitical risk, isn't really their speciality. They have just tuned into the issue etc...where as politics punters have seen surprise results and poll swings day in, day out for more than a decade.
If there was a conflict between the financial markets implied probability of yes, I think one would need to assume BF was likely to be more the reliable guide.
Saying that, I don't think there has been much commentary on here about the current BF price on "yes", in the circumstnaces. For me, the TNS poll confirmed that this is currently neck and neck amoung voters - at this moment. we are out of rogue poll territory now.
The BF market is telling us, I feel, that even though it's neck and neck right now, they believe "no" will move ahead between now and the result. Perhaps because of a Quebec style polling booth step back from the brink or for another reason? I don't know.
But it seems quite clear to me, that the BF price is not consistent with the current polling evidence. Of course, BF may well be right. Punters have probably thought through the next stage in this playing out. But the BF market is clearly saying, we don't believe the current polling evidence is likely to reflect the outcome on the day. Polls aren't everything!
For example, there almost seems to be a majority assumption on this board among contributors that Yes is more likely to win than not - while on BF the price of a "no" victory remains shorter than 4/9. That feels like something of a paradox given the expertise here...
"Cameron's Scottish lineage is far stronger than the vast majority of the YES folks who shout about Braveheart and the English" is also rather unfortunately worded, very unusually for Mr Easterross, and not just because it is only the No side which keep going on about Braveheart and the English.
The most likely outcome is a hung parliament with the Social Democrats the largest party, despite a poor result for them.
The Sweden Democrats (UKIP-ish) will almost certainly hold the balance of power, so this is a great election for the centre-right to lose. PM Löfven will be crippled from day one by the Left Party fruitcakes and the Swedish Kippers.
Whatever happens, the near century-long period of Social Democrat hegemony is now very firmly a closed chapter in Sweden's political history.
A Scottish no vote will be the end of the union http://fb.me/3xja3gv2H
Interesting critique of Mr Brown (and his past form) by Lesley Riddoch, acknowledging the failure to resolve the 92% problem as well.
When you look at something like Betfair the situation is even less related to the actual chances of an event taking place. Punters have holding positions, trading positions and God knows what besides. The gamblers are there to make money not to predict outcomes. They will most often come out with a profit because they are betting with their heads against people who are betting with their hearts.
Now did I count five, or six? Do you feel lucky, punk?
I can never understand why Fredrik polls so well as PM, but the Moderates are doing so badly. If the Alliance do cling on I guess the Moderates probably won't even get to 25%. Strange.
Two Clacton Tory councillors defect to Ukip
"We both feel like the Conservative Party is increasingly the private property of people like Matthew Parris, rather than local people
http://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/11462031.Two_Clacton_Tory_councillors_defect_to_Ukip/
The Queen takes the view that the fate of Scotland - to stay in the union or leave - is in the hands of its people, a Buckingham Palace spokesman has said.
After reports over the weekend claimed the Queen was growing increasingly concerned about Scotland breaking away, a Palace spokesman stressed any suggestion the head of state wanted to influence the referendum vote was "categorically wrong".
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/queen-happy-for-scots-to-decide-their-own-future-1-3536254
Residents' fury at former Tory MP's Clacton slur
http://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/north_essex_news/11460663.Residents__fury_at_former_Tory_MP_s_Clacton_slur/?ref=mr
I know why, but I feel disinclined to discuss in public.
http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=12394
For now, this chap must be getting a little worried ...
http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/incoming/ukip-paul-nuttall-offers-eat-6845852
No one should have then been surprised up here in Scotland, least of all the Labour party when the SNP/Yes played them at their own game. And yes, used dishonest scared stories about needing to protect the Scottish NHS from Westminster as a reason to vote Yes in the Indy Ref. For weeks now, we have watched Scottish Labour politicians defending the Coalition Government's increased funding of the NHS at Westminster, and while they try to campaign on the opposite being the case South of the border.
This was reweeted by an SNP/Yes supporter......
Twitter
Dr Éoin Clarke @LabourEoin 25m
Absolutely crucial for Labour PPCs in marginal English seats that Scottish Labour tell the truth about the NHS. Tories have cut NHS Spending
Dick is of course a common Scottish surname. e.g. Sir Thomas Dick Lauder of the Grange. Dick Lauder wrote a fascinating book on the Moray floods of, I think, 1830.
Cluck cluck.
Suggested wording:
"Should Scotland cease to be an independent country?"
DevoMax is all well and good, but the natural progression from that is independence. Devolution did not kill off the nationalist sentiment, even though the Labour Party hoped it would.
I wish we weren't at this stage, but I feel we've crossed a line now. As I said this morning, perhaps it is better that it is done now rather than a few years down the line when we've had constitutional turmoil and backbiting over DevoMax.
I am glad of that because I am sure that any solution he comes up with would be over-complicated, biased and designed to make sure that he gets one over on his political enemies.
I hope you all appreciate the fact, I've cancelled my night out, so I can bring you that poll as it appears on the Times website.
The behaviour of our political "leaders" today has been shameful.
I agree. I said much the same on the previous thread I do not see how all the bile, resentment and unpleasantness that has been stirred up can be ignored in the event of a NO vote. In the event of a YES vote, I feel that the parting will be acrimonious.
And of course a Tory poll lead would give another boost to the "Yes" camp...
http://www.scoop.it/t/referendum-2014/p/4026333304/2014/08/15/privatisation-of-the-nhs-allyson-pollock-at-tedxexeter-youtube
"DAVID Cameron's plans to show Scotland the UK is better together by flying the Scottish flag didn't go to plan today - as it fell down halfway through being raised."
You couldn't make it up could you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeb_J0uHnSk&app=desktop
It was funny watching Darling confirm in the second debate that the Tories had increased NHS spending, shame he forgot to mention that Labour run Wales has cut NHS spending by 7 %.
Instead of all this genuflecting in front of King Alex why cant they just send his disembodied head up instead?
Sun Politics @Sun_Politics 35s
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up one, now six points ahead: CON 30%, LAB 36%, LD 8%, UKIP 16%
Mr Monbiot again. I thought Lesley Riddoch had been critical of Mr Brown, but this ...!
And for light relief a rather charming Scottie, redolent of a Wodehouse novel, which may or may not appeal to cat-lovers:
http://www.petsfuryes.org/wp-content/gallery/upload-pets/2014-07-31_11-53-22-7dfad166f1a430f55a8674861d0827a1c5698125.png
Anyway, goodnight all.
Crossover looking further away
Only one poll but comes after a 5% lead yesterday - maybe suggests public blaming Con for possible break-up of UK?
Instead what they came up with was a one-sided system which seemed to be designed to keep Scotland under the control of one party (Labour) and to give their Scottish MPs influence in Westminster by ensuring that they had influence over issues that were none of their concern. It was all about Labour trying to slant the system so that in power or out of power they would have disproportionate influence.
They did not seem to care about anything or anyone else. This was raw self-interest to which everything else was subjugated. They even ensured that the government following them had a poisoned chalice by doing their best to bankrupt the country so that the coalition had to implement massive austerity programs which Labour could look good by criticising. They were gleeful about it "There's no money left" went the note in the treasury.
Of course, the whole thing back-fired when the SNP used the one-party-controls-all mechanism of the Scottish parliament and then that durned coalition had the bad grace to actually turn the economy around.
Make no mistake, the tories started this ball rolling back in the late 80s but Labour could have stopped it if it had not been obsessed with cementing itself into eternal power.
"Tory Voters taking one for the Union"
Scotland has unwittingly shone a light onto this very unattractive coalition and the rest of the UK are waking up to what a very ugly government we have at the moment.
We've got the Macbeths having their plebiscite, we've got conference season coming up, we've got UKIP winning Clacton in a calendar month's time.
This guy really is the gift that keeps giving to the Labour party's opponents.
Twitter
Dr Éoin Clarke @LabourEoin 25m
Absolutely crucial for Labour PPCs in marginal English seats that Scottish Labour tell the truth about the NHS. Tories have cut NHS Spending
'My point is I don't think the surge in the "Yes" vote has been caused by Labour "scaremongering" -- I think it's been caused by the actual policies that the Tories have put in place themselves.'
Strange then that the surge in the 'Yes' vote came a few days after Miliband's visit to Scotland and as polls have show he's more unpopular in Scotland than Cameron.