Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) 10/09/2014 09:20 “@GuidoFawkes: In The Times this morning Matthew Parris says Ted Heath was a closet homosexual.” Breaking...
Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) 10/09/2014 09:20 “@GuidoFawkes: In The Times this morning Matthew Parris says Ted Heath was a closet homosexual.” Breaking...
Breaking?
Perhaps he's hoping that pointing out Heath ( that arch europhile) was a chutney ferret might ingratiate himself again with the Tory/UKIP waverers?
Campaigners want to overturn laws targeting "insulting words and behaviour". Just how safe is it to scorn others?
British public life has a lengthy and noble tradition of well-crafted insults..... But not all barbs are quite so erudite. For every Churchillian bon mot, many more are made to abuse, intimidate and frighten.
For decades the law has sought to regulate the latter categories. In 1986, section five of the Public Order Act made it illegal to engage in "insulting words or behaviour" in England and Wales.
But a backlash has been brewing amid concerns that efforts to protect the public's sensibilities have gone too far.
A campaign called Feel Free To Insult Me has been launched to lobby for section five's repeal, citing a series of cases when the legislation attracted criticism and ridicule.
Nonetheless, opponents fear that the public has become inhibited from speaking openly.
The campaign against section five has forged some unlikely alliances, with left-wing human rights activist Peter Tatchell backing it alongside Conservative MP David Davis and Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. Also lending their support are both the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.
Got a feeling Yes is going to do it. Salmond is just an absolute master - looking at him last night, calm, funny, relaxed, charismatic. You would never know that he was on the brink of completing his life's work. In another strata of talent to our lot.
Good point. In addition to what I said below, Salmond is *funny*. He told a couple of jokes that got coverage on the news last night (e.g. I'd give them the "bus fare") I really didn't want to find him funny, and laugh along, but I did. He has a (irritatingly) effective TV presence that no other politican can match.
However, he's also starting to look a bit knackered (the campaign is gruelling) so it'll be interesting to see if he can keep that stamina up until the end. Probable, but not certain - he may slip up in the next week.
Tiredness did get him in the first Darling/Salmond debate, he's just admitted.
One other very important factor is that he has led a team which has run Scotland in the Scottish Pmt pretty well, and rather better than the previous Lab-LD coalition, despite active obstruction by Lab, LD and Tories during the first minority administration. By 'well', I mean they did it well enough to be elected with an increased vote, a significant number of whom will be voting No as we keep being told here.
He's also had the sense/confidence to establish/allow an even more popular successor in waiting - Nicola Sturgeon.
Apart from what that says about him, it also reassures people that the initial administration of an independent Scotland would be reasonably competent.
Now to see what is happening with his London oppos ...
Nicola Sturgeon is even more popular? Really?
Why? She seems entirely humourless and charmless to me.
Generally I reserve the term "scum" for people being highly abusive unprovoked (calling others racist without merit etc...), or wanton criminals. Most nationalists aren't like that, except for the scum in Settler Watch.
Whilst I can see Alonso wanting to leave Ferrari, I wouldn't want to go to McLaren now. Williams, Mercedes or Red Bull, perhaps. But the first two have teams sorted for next year (barring very serious problems between Rosberg and Hamilton).
It really is absurd for John Major to get on his high horse about Scottish Independence because if anyone killed the Union, it was him.
The refusal of the Conservatives to participate in the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the early 90s left the way clear for Labour, the Liberal Democrats and others to frame what it prodiced and when Major led the Tories to their catastrophic rout in 1997 and a Labour Government followed (including people like Robin Cook and Donald Dewar, both much lamented), it was inevitable that the new Government would then move to set up the Scottish Parliament which, with only the Conservatives opposed, was always going to happen.
Indeed, I don't recall that many people being opposed to the idea back then - even the Conservatives saw the Parliament as their way back into Scottish political life following the 1997 election. The initial leadership of Scotland - Dewar and Jim Wallace, had worked together in the Constitutional Convention and in effect the Lab-LD Coalition which governed for two terms.
The problem was, put bluntly, that nothing lasts forever and when (inevitably) the Lab-LD bloc became unpopular, the only alternative was the SNP who had withdrawn from the Convention but had happily supported it as a step toward independence.
The comments in the Times that are all pre-moderated are about 90% Bugger Off Scotland, We've Had Enough Of Your Moaning. It's just getting more and more noticeable as the IndyRef draws near.
A lot of resentment about their unfair deal re devolution, Barnett etc and the hubris of Salmond. And a great sense that Scotland is about to make a serious mistake that it can't move back from once the Cult of King Alex of Braveheart is over.
So....it looks like the YESSERS may win after all. And the rest of us are turnips. Okeydoke.
But...ultimately the joke is on them.
Scotland looks to be in deep trouble now. The mood in England is very clearly rapidly becoming a firm 'screw you then'. The negotiations will be awful - and Scotland will emerge into the world with its largest customer and the country whose money it will use being very very pissed off. If they are foolish enough to stick to the debt share threat then England may become outright hostile in other ways. The actual separation will cause huge instability, costs and resentments across the whole UK. The political dynamic in England will certainly be to ensure that Scotland bears the brunt of that. Generosity and neighbourly cheer will be in terminally short supply. The sensible half of Scotland must be in deep deep despair.
Outside a core of vindictive extremists, I think most people would be sad to see Scotland go, but would wish them well in their endeavours. And rightly so.
Go to any Scotland article in the Guardian, Telegraph, Mail, Evening Standard, Spectator, Independent, Guido - pretty much the whole web in fact - and read the comments sections. It is not my imagining but my observation. England is angry. And awake.
If Mike were to hold a vote on PB.com this morning as regards the outcome of the Indy referendum, my guess is that a clear majority, perhaps two thirds would vote for a Yes win. Yet a No result continues to be the short odds-on favourite at 2/5 pretty much right across the board. Are we exceptionally clever, simply ahead of the curve, or just plain wrong?
Very creepy. Think I'll look up the Insult Me campaign - a good bit of mockery never did anyone any harm.
Does no one remember the expression Sticks And Stones?
The use of insulting words or behaviour liable to cause harassment, alarm or distress ceased to be an offence on 1 February 2014 when s. 57(2) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 entered into force. While this amendment to s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is to be welcomed, the problem with the change is that it has rendered the remaining provisions of s. 5 of that Act more legitimate. Moreover, the use of insulting words or behaviour intentionally to cause harassment, alarm or distress remains an offence contrary to section 4A of the 1986 Act, and even carries a prison sentence.
Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) 10/09/2014 09:20 “@GuidoFawkes: In The Times this morning Matthew Parris says Ted Heath was a closet homosexual.” Breaking...
Breaking?
Perhaps he's hoping that pointing out Heath ( that arch europhile) was a chutney ferret might ingratiate himself again with the Tory/UKIP waverers?
I attended a UKIP meeting with a friend who teaches politics, one way to raise the roof was to mention Ted Heath, and use words like traitor. It was very much out of an old pantomine tradition. I can almost hear Farage saying.
So Ted Heath wasn't a homosexual. Oh Yes he was. On No he isn't.
Mr. Divvie, point of order: you can't praise or criticise predictions because we don't know the result yet. Could very much go either way.
I'll criticise a 'prediction' that the referendum will turn on BT being even more negative about Salmond because it's self evidently a load of bullpucky.
There is a howl of anguish in the Times from former Tory prime minister John Major.
He only just avoids using the words 'I told you so'. Because, remember, two decades ago, he did.
He did say devolution will lead to separation. He pleaded with people not to back the model of devolution that was on offer at the time and he does feel 'I told you so, this is what I said would happen'.
His warning, to Scots as well as to the rest of the UK, is that independence will undermine the role of both nations in the world.
It is a sign of real shock running through the establishment in London about what they fear might be about to happen.
What was the alternative?
Let's say all 3 main Westminster parties (to this day) had denied any form of Scottish devolution. Where would we have ended up?
We have some sense from Ireland. Virtually all MPs ended up being nationalists and there were rebellions and civil disorder. Sooner or later (as in Victorian/Edwardian England) they would have held the balance of power at Westminster and forced the issue.
Then you'd have full, absolute independence guaranteed. The real solution to maintaining the Union is for London and the media to stop ignoring Scotland, consult, listen, respect and pay attention. Also to consider a revised Union model that would be fit for the remainder of the 21st Century.
If Mike were to hold a vote on PB.com this morning as regards the outcome of the Indy referendum, my guess is that a clear majority, perhaps two thirds would vote for a Yes win. Yet a No result continues to be the short odds-on favourite at 2/5 pretty much right across the board. Are we exceptionally clever, simply ahead of the curve, or just plain wrong?
I'm considering backing yes in the expectancy of a fox Paz of some sort from one of the three stooges today
Campaigners want to overturn laws targeting "insulting words and behaviour". Just how safe is it to scorn others?
British public life has a lengthy and noble tradition of well-crafted insults..... But not all barbs are quite so erudite. For every Churchillian bon mot, many more are made to abuse, intimidate and frighten.
For decades the law has sought to regulate the latter categories. In 1986, section five of the Public Order Act made it illegal to engage in "insulting words or behaviour" in England and Wales.
But a backlash has been brewing amid concerns that efforts to protect the public's sensibilities have gone too far.
A campaign called Feel Free To Insult Me has been launched to lobby for section five's repeal, citing a series of cases when the legislation attracted criticism and ridicule.
Nonetheless, opponents fear that the public has become inhibited from speaking openly.
The campaign against section five has forged some unlikely alliances, with left-wing human rights activist Peter Tatchell backing it alongside Conservative MP David Davis and Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. Also lending their support are both the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.
very creepy bit of law. Gives police and courts powers to basically invent an arrest if they feel like it.
The country should not be so thick as to not be able to distinguish between a threat, intimidation and an insult.
Same goes for the creepy religious hatred laws . Why should it be illegal to hate or insult a belief you don't believe in and is plainly mumbo jumbo
There's a deleted scene in Jurassic Park 2 where Pete Postlethwaite is trying to start a fight with an American in a bar and comes up with the line:
"you, sir, are no gentlemen" "is that supposed to be an insult?" "I can think of none greater" "buzz off you old man" "what do I have to do to pick a fight with you, bring your mother into it?"
It's not really that relevant but it's great. And I do worry that we're completely incapable of seeing the difference between threat, intimidation, insult, whatever.
The key weakness of the Yes campaign is Salmond. He has become the Yes Campaign and the No should target him. Enough people don't trust or like him. When I mentioned this to the Yes voter he then started to waver. Would he go against Labour and vote Salmond. He went away to think about that.
You are an idiot - that's exactly what BT have been doing over the last two years and what Scottish Labour have been doing for the last 10.
In 2007 Labour made the Scottish election about Alex Salmond. The SNP won and formed a minority government.
Learning from their mistake - in 2011 Labour made the election all about Alex Salmond, who at the time had net favorable/unfavorable of above 30%. The SNP won a majority in a system designed to prevent majorities.
Sensibly Better Together has fundamentally been a Labour campaign and building on their experience of two failed campaigns in Scotland they have made the bold step of making the Independence debate about Alex Salmond.
Salmond has net positive favorable ratings in Scotland, the only politicians with higher favorables in Scotland are Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie - the other faces of the Yes campaign.
Morning all It really is absurd for John Major to get on his high horse about Scottish Independence because if anyone killed the Union, it was him............
No. No. No. John Major is a Conservative Leader that I rate as almost as bad as Heath. But on the point you make you are wrong and unfair. Major predicted that devolution as proposed and installed by the Lib/Lab/Nat group, would lead to the break up of the UK. I thought (mistakenly) that Major was wrong at the time. Looking back, it is clear that feeding the beast of Scot nationalism AND an anti-Westminster/English line that it projected within Scotland, has led to independence becoming inevitable, be it now or within the next 10 years.
Dr. Spyn, never heard of religiously aggravated assault prior to that attack. It's as deranged as 'hate crime'. If you murder someone because they're black it doesn't make them more dead than if you do it because they slept with your wife. And if it's found to be 'hate crime' and later proven not to be, surely you'd get your sentence reduced?
Very creepy. Think I'll look up the Insult Me campaign - a good bit of mockery never did anyone any harm.
Does no one remember the expression Sticks And Stones?
I find myself in a dilemma here - yes, Freedom of Speech includes by definition the Freedom to Offend (given that libel and slander are already catered for under existing legislation).
What bothers me is Fairness of Speech by which I mean the means by which individuals can express themselves and be accountable for what they say. The advent of anonymous Twitter "trolling" seems to me to take the concept of the right to offend beyond a reasonable level. All too often, individuals are verbally hunted and harrassed by a pack of those willing to use the most cruel and abusive language.
So much for "the wisdom of crowds" - yes, of course, the well-crafted insult must always have a place and yes all creeds can and must be challenged but the line between said well-crafted insult and anonymous threats of physical and sexual violence can't simply be blurred by notions of Freedom of Speech.
I don't know where the line is or should be but I do know it's something to be discussed and considered thoughtfully.
Plato and Patrick. The growing backlash within England towards Scotland is also inevitable. Cameron may be making another fatal mistake which could further boost UKIP.
There is a howl of anguish in the Times from former Tory prime minister John Major.
He only just avoids using the words 'I told you so'. Because, remember, two decades ago, he did.
He did say devolution will lead to separation. He pleaded with people not to back the model of devolution that was on offer at the time and he does feel 'I told you so, this is what I said would happen'.
His warning, to Scots as well as to the rest of the UK, is that independence will undermine the role of both nations in the world.
It is a sign of real shock running through the establishment in London about what they fear might be about to happen.
Even though I'm sure he's upset about what's going on, it must be personally satisfying watching all Blair/Brown/Mandy-Campbell's chickens coming home to roost last few years...
Campaigners want to overturn laws targeting "insulting words and behaviour". Just how safe is it to scorn others?
British public life has a lengthy and noble tradition of well-crafted insults..... But not all barbs are quite so erudite. For every Churchillian bon mot, many more are made to abuse, intimidate and frighten.
For decades the law has sought to regulate the latter categories. In 1986, section five of the Public Order Act made it illegal to engage in "insulting words or behaviour" in England and Wales.
But a backlash has been brewing amid concerns that efforts to protect the public's sensibilities have gone too far.
A campaign called Feel Free To Insult Me has been launched to lobby for section five's repeal, citing a series of cases when the legislation attracted criticism and ridicule.
Nonetheless, opponents fear that the public has become inhibited from speaking openly.
The campaign against section five has forged some unlikely alliances, with left-wing human rights activist Peter Tatchell backing it alongside Conservative MP David Davis and Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. Also lending their support are both the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.
very creepy bit of law. Gives police and courts powers to basically invent an arrest if they feel like it.
The country should not be so thick as to not be able to distinguish between a threat, intimidation and an insult.
Same goes for the creepy religious hatred laws . Why should it be illegal to hate or insult a belief you don't believe in and is plainly mumbo jumbo
There's a deleted scene in Jurassic Park 2 where Pete Postlethwaite is trying to start a fight with an American in a bar and comes up with the line:
"you, sir, are no gentlemen" "is that supposed to be an insult?" "I can think of none greater" "buzz off you old man" "what do I have to do to pick a fight with you, bring your mother into it?"
It's not really that relevant but it's great. And I do worry that we're completely incapable of seeing the difference between threat, intimidation, insult, whatever.
It's the second best line in the film, after "RAAAAAAARGH".
Plato and Patrick. The growing backlash within England towards Scotland is also inevitable. Cameron may be making another fatal mistake which could further boost UKIP.
I think so to. Quite why I don't know. It might be sad but not a disaster for the Tories to see Scotland go . He should just have stuck to ' we want you to stay' mode but no begging and concessions like this
Got a feeling Yes is going to do it. Salmond is just an absolute master - looking at him last night, calm, funny, relaxed, charismatic. You would never know that he was on the brink of completing his life's work. In another strata of talent to our lot.
Good point. In addition to what I said below, Salmond is *funny*. He told a couple of jokes that got coverage on the news last night (e.g. I'd give them the "bus fare") I really didn't want to find him funny, and laugh along, but I did. He has a (irritatingly) effective TV presence that no other politican can match.
However, he's also starting to look a bit knackered (the campaign is gruelling) so it'll be interesting to see if he can keep that stamina up until the end. Probable, but not certain - he may slip up in the next week.
Tiredness did get him in the first Darling/Salmond debate, he's just admitted.
One other very important factor is that he has led a team which has run Scotland in the Scottish Pmt pretty well, and rather better than the previous Lab-LD coalition, despite active obstruction by Lab, LD and Tories during the first minority administration. By 'well', I mean they did it well enough to be elected with an increased vote, a significant number of whom will be voting No as we keep being told here.
He's also had the sense/confidence to establish/allow an even more popular successor in waiting - Nicola Sturgeon.
Apart from what that says about him, it also reassures people that the initial administration of an independent Scotland would be reasonably competent.
Now to see what is happening with his London oppos ...
Nicola Sturgeon is even more popular? Really? Why? She seems entirely humourless and charmless to me.
The key weakness of the Yes campaign is Salmond. He has become the Yes Campaign and the No should target him. Enough people don't trust or like him. When I mentioned this to the Yes voter he then started to waver. Would he go against Labour and vote Salmond. He went away to think about that.
You are an idiot - that's exactly what BT have been doing over the last two years and what Scottish Labour have been doing for the last 10.
In 2007 Labour made the Scottish election about Alex Salmond. The SNP won and formed a minority government.
Learning from their mistake - in 2011 Labour made the election all about Alex Salmond, who at the time had net favorable/unfavorable of above 30%. The SNP won a majority in a system designed to prevent majorities.
Sensibly Better Together has fundamentally been a Labour campaign and building on their experience of two failed campaigns in Scotland they have made the bold step of making the Independence debate about Alex Salmond.
Salmond has net positive favorable ratings in Scotland, the only politicians with higher favorables in Scotland are Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie - the other faces of the Yes campaign.
Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) 10/09/2014 09:20 “@GuidoFawkes: In The Times this morning Matthew Parris says Ted Heath was a closet homosexual.” Breaking...
Breaking?
Perhaps he's hoping that pointing out Heath ( that arch europhile) was a chutney ferret might ingratiate himself again with the Tory/UKIP waverers?
Parris was the slime ball who spoke on Newsnight about Mandelson's private preferences.
What bothers me is Fairness of Speech by which I mean the means by which individuals can express themselves and be accountable for what they say. The advent of anonymous Twitter "trolling" seems to me to take the concept of the right to offend beyond a reasonable level. All too often, individuals are verbally hunted and harrassed by a pack of those willing to use the most cruel and abusive language.
So much for "the wisdom of crowds" - yes, of course, the well-crafted insult must always have a place and yes all creeds can and must be challenged but the line between said well-crafted insult and anonymous threats of physical and sexual violence can't simply be blurred by notions of Freedom of Speech.
I don't know where the line is or should be but I do know it's something to be discussed and considered thoughtfully.
If an individual pursues a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another, or which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other, he is guilty of an offence, and liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months and/or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s. 2). A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions, and is liable, on conviction on indictment, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years (Ibid, s. 4). That would seem to cover the cases that trouble you, and negate the need for the series of thought crimes currently on the statute book.
Why? She seems entirely humourless and charmless to me.
Oh yes, my impression is that she is consistently one of the best scoring major politicians in Scotland with the public. Competence, I expect. High in a party which is trusted to run the country, which is much the same thing. And she seems to have improved her image a bit in recent weeks.
Mr S's relative decrease in popularity is probably partly due to the Emmanuel Goldstein style campaign agaisnt him in the media and from other parties, to be fair. And polls differ in scoring and ranking. But the pair together, and Patrick Harvie of the Greens, seem to be on the whole more popular/trusted/seen as competent than the unionists whether at Holyrood or Westminster, in general.
Put it this way, I'd be more than happy to take an evens bet that she'd win over Mr Miliband on any particular day, and usually over Mr Cameron. As Yes/No is about 1:1 at the moment, that is quite an interesting indicator.
I suspect she's been considerably underestimated down south as a factor, especially as she has been doing a much less publicised equivalent to Jim Murphy and, rather less shoutily, going round scores of town halls and meeting places for open public meetings while Mr S does the TV - no doubt a matter of horses for courses.
I'm an just old enough to remember 1983 well. I'd say that and Yes2AV were worse, only just mind.
1983 was just hilarious. Even as a very young teenager I was WTF are they doing? Yes2AV was killed at birth by the Electoral Commissions very *helpful* leaflet.
That made me LOL when it came through the door. One short page on FPTP, and SIX on AV [that simple system many of us nerds didn't understand after thousands of posts about it].
One in particular by @SimonStClare stuck in my mind - it was a horse-racing analogy and perfectly described the flaws inherent it it.
Plato and Patrick. The growing backlash within England towards Scotland is also inevitable. Cameron may be making another fatal mistake which could further boost UKIP.
Cameron know's he has to pull Scotland back from the brink or he's be a goner anyway,
If Mike were to hold a vote on PB.com this morning as regards the outcome of the Indy referendum, my guess is that a clear majority, perhaps two thirds would vote for a Yes win. Yet a No result continues to be the short odds-on favourite at 2/5 pretty much right across the board. Are we exceptionally clever, simply ahead of the curve, or just plain wrong?
I think that we are giving momentum a (considerably) larger weighting than others, and so are ahead of the curve (or just wrong). I also think that there is a natural bias in assumption towards No due to a large complacency bias to the status quo.
Perhaps, just perhaps some form or legislation should be held in reserve in case the Scots having voted for independence then ultimately decide to change their minds. As StJohn of this parish often use to remind us: "And always keep a-hold of Nurse; For fear of finding something worse."
It *may* also be wise to prevent certain types of books getting to certain types of criminals.
But it is a wholly different matter to what these authors are doing.
We have free speech in this country, and the authors are mocking a stupid authoritarian policy from an authoritarian Secretary of State. Good on them.
As for the first point, it is surely right that prisoners should be encouraged to engage in the life of contemplation while serving time, which, as Aristotle observes in Ethics Bk.X, is superior to the life of activity. That means reading. Unless a book is per se unlawful, as tending to stir up racial hatred or corrupting public morals for example, or otherwise undermines prison security, it should be permitted.
Agree with the second paragraph: note the *may* conditional in my text. It is something that should only be done in certain circumstances.
Disagree about the first. Firstly, do you believe that freedom of speech has no limits?
Plato and Patrick. The growing backlash within England towards Scotland is also inevitable. Cameron may be making another fatal mistake which could further boost UKIP.
Cameron know's he has to pull Scotland back from the brink or he's be a goner anyway,
Cameron always performs when he's a cornered underdog, Salmond flops when he's the overdog.
Dr. Spyn, never heard of religiously aggravated assault prior to that attack. It's as deranged as 'hate crime'. If you murder someone because they're black it doesn't make them more dead than if you do it because they slept with your wife. And if it's found to be 'hate crime' and later proven not to be, surely you'd get your sentence reduced?
Motive is plainly relevant to sentence. For instance, a murder motivated by a desire to prevent a witness from testifying in a serious criminal case will rightly be subject to a heavier sentence than an "ordinary domestic murder". There is no separate offence of racially aggravated murder. The more intractable question is whether motive should affect liability. Those who favour individual liberty tend to think not, because one can commit the same act with the same intention as a person entitled to an acquittal, but be convicted on the basis of motive. That is generally regarded as a thought crime. Sections 28-32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are by no means the most pernicious example on the statute book. Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 creates a thought crime which exposes the offender to potential imprisonment for life.
The key weakness of the Yes campaign is Salmond. He has become the Yes Campaign and the No should target him. Enough people don't trust or like him. When I mentioned this to the Yes voter he then started to waver. Would he go against Labour and vote Salmond. He went away to think about that.
You are an idiot - that's exactly what BT have been doing over the last two years and what Scottish Labour have been doing for the last 10.
In 2007 Labour made the Scottish election about Alex Salmond. The SNP won and formed a minority government.
Learning from their mistake - in 2011 Labour made the election all about Alex Salmond, who at the time had net favorable/unfavorable of above 30%. The SNP won a majority in a system designed to prevent majorities.
Sensibly Better Together has fundamentally been a Labour campaign and building on their experience of two failed campaigns in Scotland they have made the bold step of making the Independence debate about Alex Salmond.
Salmond has net positive favorable ratings in Scotland, the only politicians with higher favorables in Scotland are Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie - the other faces of the Yes campaign.
Not very clever, attack a strong point frontally, keep reinforcing weakness, and all that.
A dyed to the socks Labour friend is now a very firm Yes voter (which still astounds me, months later). He said to me that he was furious at the No campaign's claims that Salmond was trying to be dictator for life, etc. etc., not least because it was so insulting to a majority* of Scots. "We're not stupid. We voted Salmond [and Sturgeon and Harvie, I'd add] in to run the country and we'll vote him out again when we want!"
*not absolute, but electoral - and much higher than Mr Cameron or anyone else got in other UK parliaments.
Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) 10/09/2014 09:20 “@GuidoFawkes: In The Times this morning Matthew Parris says Ted Heath was a closet homosexual.” Breaking...
Breaking?
Bizarre - One wonders where Mr Parrish has been hiding for the past 30 years...
John Major getting a bit shouty and quavery on R4 just now. He's definitely bought a ticket for the hysteria bus.
Major was all over the place, waffling about 'politics' and 'constitution'. Sounded very much like he was more worried about the Westminster apple cart being turned over, and power being decentralised to the regions than anything else. Why not, if it's what people want? He's gone down in my estimations for that.
The key weakness of the Yes campaign is Salmond. He has become the Yes Campaign and the No should target him. Enough people don't trust or like him. When I mentioned this to the Yes voter he then started to waver. Would he go against Labour and vote Salmond. He went away to think about that.
You are an idiot - that's exactly what BT have been doing over the last two years and what Scottish Labour have been doing for the last 10.
In 2007 Labour made the Scottish election about Alex Salmond. The SNP won and formed a minority government.
Learning from their mistake - in 2011 Labour made the election all about Alex Salmond, who at the time had net favorable/unfavorable of above 30%. The SNP won a majority in a system designed to prevent majorities.
Sensibly Better Together has fundamentally been a Labour campaign and building on their experience of two failed campaigns in Scotland they have made the bold step of making the Independence debate about Alex Salmond.
Salmond has net positive favorable ratings in Scotland, the only politicians with higher favorables in Scotland are Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie - the other faces of the Yes campaign.
Not very clever, attack a strong point frontally, keep reinforcing weakness, and all that.
A dyed to the socks Labour friend is now a very firm Yes voter (which still astounds me, months later). He said to me that he was furious at the No campaign's claims that Salmond was trying to be dictator for life, etc. etc., not least because it was so insulting to a majority* of Scots. "We're not stupid. We voted Salmond [and Sturgeon and Harvie, I'd add] in to run the country and we'll vote him out again when we want!"
*not absolute, but electoral - and much higher than Mr Cameron or anyone else got in other UK parliaments.
The twitter style summary I have seen criticising BT's psychotic focus on Salmond is "It's like advising me not to buy a new house because the curtains are ugly"
I don't somehow believe that Cameron will hold much sway North of the Border. If anyone is to save the World Scots, it will surely have to be Gordon Brown.
So....it looks like the YESSERS may win after all. And the rest of us are turnips. Okeydoke.
But...ultimately the joke is on them.
Scotland looks to be in deep trouble now. The mood in England is very clearly rapidly becoming a firm 'screw you then'. The negotiations will be awful - and Scotland will emerge into the world with its largest customer and the country whose money it will use being very very pissed off. If they are foolish enough to stick to the debt share threat then England may become outright hostile in other ways. The actual separation will cause huge instability, costs and resentments across the whole UK. The political dynamic in England will certainly be to ensure that Scotland bears the brunt of that. Generosity and neighbourly cheer will be in terminally short supply. The sensible half of Scotland must be in deep deep despair.
Just stick the repudiated debt on Englands balance sheet as an asset and veto Scotland's membership of the EU, UN, NATO, visa waiver programme, etc until it is repaid. And charge a defaulter's interest rate - say 10%
It is quite simple. Until there is an agreement over the separation, Westminster would not pass the legislation to end the union with Scotland. The referendum and legislation for it, does not set a date for separation in the event of a YES vote.
Although Scotland can then declare UDI. And we lose all moral authority in dealing with the Spanish, Argentinians and Irish.
I don't somehow believe that Cameron will hold much sway North of the Border. If anyone is to save the World Scots, it will surely have to be Gordon Brown.
It's unlikely to be Ed Miliband....who has worse ratings than Cameron in Scotland....
Mr. Putney, Brown is very happy promising to throw more power at Scotland. He may understand Scotland, but I suspect it'll just provoke resentment from the English (assuming Westminster continues to fail to ask, let alone answer, the West Lothian Question).
The key weakness of the Yes campaign is Salmond. He has become the Yes Campaign and the No should target him. Enough people don't trust or like him. When I mentioned this to the Yes voter he then started to waver. Would he go against Labour and vote Salmond. He went away to think about that.
You are an idiot - that's exactly what BT have been doing over the last two years and what Scottish Labour have been doing for the last 10.
In 2007 Labour made the Scottish election about Alex Salmond. The SNP won and formed a minority government.
Learning from their mistake - in 2011 Labour made the election all about Alex Salmond, who at the time had net favorable/unfavorable of above 30%. The SNP won a majority in a system designed to prevent majorities.
Sensibly Better Together has fundamentally been a Labour campaign and building on their experience of two failed campaigns in Scotland they have made the bold step of making the Independence debate about Alex Salmond.
Salmond has net positive favorable ratings in Scotland, the only politicians with higher favorables in Scotland are Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie - the other faces of the Yes campaign.
Not very clever, attack a strong point frontally, keep reinforcing weakness, and all that.
A dyed to the socks Labour friend is now a very firm Yes voter (which still astounds me, months later). He said to me that he was furious at the No campaign's claims that Salmond was trying to be dictator for life, etc. etc., not least because it was so insulting to a majority* of Scots. "We're not stupid. We voted Salmond [and Sturgeon and Harvie, I'd add] in to run the country and we'll vote him out again when we want!"
*not absolute, but electoral - and much higher than Mr Cameron or anyone else got in other UK parliaments.
The twitter style summary I have seen criticising BT's psychotic focus on Salmond is "It's like advising me not to buy a new house because the curtains are ugly"
Ah, exactly. Esepcially as the battlefront has widened far beyond the SNP, enever mind Mr Salmond - the focus on Mr Salmond is like the Germans trying to recapture Stalingrad when Operation Bagration is in full flow elsewhere. (Or a Roman thinking he is winning by holding the Carthaginian centre at Cannae.)
If Mike were to hold a vote on PB.com this morning as regards the outcome of the Indy referendum, my guess is that a clear majority, perhaps two thirds would vote for a Yes win. Yet a No result continues to be the short odds-on favourite at 2/5 pretty much right across the board. Are we exceptionally clever, simply ahead of the curve, or just plain wrong?
If that's true, why is the market not moving then? Many of the most serious political punters read or post on this website. The loudest on here (as elsewhere) have been the nats. We have three regular Scots unionists, I think. One excellent quietly confident poster, one despondent one who's given up hope and another who posts irregularly.
I understand from Shadsy that it's English money supporting the NO price, Scottish gamblers are overwhelming betting on a YES landslide. But is that English ignorance or Scottish nationalist over optimism, where many may be betting with the hearts (and the posters they see) ?
I suspect it's a bit of both, the truth is somewhere in between and, with the polls still showing it's neck and neck, the real answer is probably the same.
It feels like NO should be around a 60% chance on Betfair (or 1.65 - 1.7) whilst YES should be around 2.5
They're not at the moment, so I think YES still represents a bit of value, so I'm betting on that basis despite not wanting YES to win.
Plato and Patrick. The growing backlash within England towards Scotland is also inevitable. Cameron may be making another fatal mistake which could further boost UKIP.
Cameron know's he has to pull Scotland back from the brink or he's be a goner anyway,
Cameron always performs when he's a cornered underdog, Salmond flops when he's the overdog.
Small indirect indication: RedBox (the e-Times briefing) did a snap YouGov poll (which appears to beon what people thought of Brown's DevoMax plan. 32% thought it likely to help No, 14% thought it would hurt No. Scots were reportedly strongly in favour (no figures given) though in England only Londoners were and nationally it was an even split.
Morning all. I don't doubt that there will be turmoil in the case of a 'Yes' vote. However, I do think it's yet another example of what a great nation we are. We are prepared to let the Scots go their own way, in a reasonably civilised fashion. What other country would be so saintly?
There have been lots of examples: Czechoslovakia is a recent one; the Baltic States were able to split off too without any very serious hassle despite genuinely deep reciprocal dislike among many on both sides; Denmark/Norway, etc. The Balkans were an aberration.
Although the Norwegians *still* don't like the Swedes...
Disagree about the first. Firstly, do you believe that freedom of speech has no limits?
Of course there are limits to free speech. If it can be demonstrated that the authors are defaming Grayling (good luck with that), he is entitled to damages and injunctive relief against further publication. If no tort has been committed, however, should the authors be carted off to gaol for naming villains after a Minster of the Crown? It is entirely a matter of taste, i.e. of free speech, and although you are entitled to disagree with it, there are no proper grounds for prohibiting it.
Clearly a YES lead. A NO lead would not be "sensational".
If it is I'm calling it for YES.
And then it's time to batten down the hatches. An appalling result for both main parties, for the entire British Establishment, but possibly rather good for rightwingers who want England run by a Tory-UKIP government.
I will enjoy the angst of the luvvies when they realise this.
But let's hope I am totally wrong on the potential economic fall-out.
I fear you are not wrong on the economic fallout. The proverbial is about to hit the fan bigtime
Although Scotland can then declare UDI. And we lose all moral authority in dealing with the Spanish, Argentinians and Irish.
The question is whether the Scots would be prepared to defy their own courts, whose judges are appointed by Her Majesty on the First Minister's nomination.
Mr. Stodge, a threat of physical violence or incitement of it is an entirely different kettle of fish to calling someone an idiot.
Indeed, Mr Dancer, and if that's all it ever was, fine. The problem is (and you can see this in many pubs and clubs on a Friday or Saturday night) how that isn't the end but the start and the escalation of abuse is fascinating to observe until the verbal becomes the physical.
The anonymity of Twitter and similar allows the escalation to take place. A calls B an idiot, C calls B something worse and before long K is threatening to beat up J and H claiming "I know where you live". Such has it always been and we know that simple disputes over a spilt pint or a chance remark have ended with lives lost or irrevocably altered.
I don't somehow believe that Cameron will hold much sway North of the Border. If anyone is to save the World Scots, it will surely have to be Gordon Brown.
Brown. The sight of that man offering to spend even more of our money without consultation, was more than enough to make anyone's blood boil.
Much as I dislike him, Heffer sums it all up perfectly.
There may be something romantic in the idea of Scottish nationalism with visions of Braveheart. But has anyone considered what will happen if it leads to English Nationalism? A much uglier animal. I don't get visions of Braveheart but ugly ones of Nick Griffin and Oswald Moseley.
I think the problem is that, because the English unless riled are quite placid, it's only the ugly ones that get noticed.
If English nationalism becomes mainsteam it will also be more tolerant than the BDP or the BUF(?)
You say that English nationalism is somehow an ugly, violent, terrible thing.
Could I most cordially invite you to FCUK OFF.
Lefty gimp. The left's hatred and fear of decent middle England is an indictment of the left - not of England. England is among the most decent, temperate, tolerant beneficial cultures the world has known. You demean yourself.
I see that those two intellectual titans Billy Bragg and Owen Jones have become outraged on Twitter by John Major's comments. Have they books to sell?
IF the vote is lost it looks like there will be recriminations between Tories and Labour as to who is most to blame for this fiasco. Meanwhile I and other LD supporters been emailed by Willie Rennie to see if we can phone voters this weekend on behalf of the No campaign. Perhaps I will as the prospect of a surge of English nationalism and Kippery doesn't exactly enthrall me.
I instinctively mistrust nationalism - most nationalist movements play on convincing people that all their problems are caused by someone else. UKIP and SNP are both fall into this category, one scapegoats the EU, the other scapegoats the rUK.
Blaming someone else for your problems then often spills over into hatred and racism. Much as I would regret seeing the union split I would relish watching Salmond deliver over the next decade when the prop of blaming someone else for all your problems is removed.
Ironically, if he wins, I think there is a fair chance Salmond would rapidly become the most hated figure in Scotland.
Assuming "yes", there will be some short term market reaction, but the fundamental economics are all in England's favour. Most major businesses will relocate their HQ's to England, thus providing England most of the current tax raising base over a smaller population. No need to subsidise Scotland anymore, so another c£20bn a year back in the tills. England remains worlds 6th largest economy without Scottish turnover.
Hey and all our kids will be able to go to Scottish Uni's for free just like the rest of Europe's do!
hat-tip Betfair horseracing forum -- page 6 has the card for the last ever Manchester meeting, with Scobie Breasley two wins ahead of Lester in the final day of the jockey's championship.
When the Survation boss describes his poll as "quite something" what does he mean? I've been pondering that for hours.
The same as YouGov
Better for YES than YouGov
Better for NO than YouGov
Any thoughts?
I'm not sure - when I was thinking about it, I was trying to work out what result would lead to him not being able to claim that - and think that he could pretty much say it whatever it is. Large No lead - change of momentum. Small No lead - still everything to play for / confirms recent movement. Any Yes lead - Independence might actually happen.
When the Survation boss describes his poll as "quite something" what does he mean? I've been pondering that for hours.
The same as YouGov
Better for YES than YouGov
Better for NO than YouGov
Any thoughts?
Where did this "sensational" quote come from?
Worth bearing in mind that the "sensational" quote, as far as I know, is from Mike Smithson; Survation said the poll was "quite something". Nevertheless, I'll take a punt at Yes +6. Just don't believe that a "No" lead would be described in this way.
Assuming "yes", there will be some short term market reaction, but the fundamental economics are all in England's favour. Most major businesses will relocate their HQ's to England, thus providing England most of the current tax raising base over a smaller population. No need to subsidise Scotland anymore, so another c£20bn a year back in the tills. England remains worlds 6th largest economy without Scottish turnover.
Hey and all our kids will be able to go to Scottish Uni's for free just like the rest of Europe's do!
Still cannot see the problem with a split.
The Westminster apple cart will be overturned? One suspect that's the underlying problem for many politicians.
I instinctively mistrust nationalism - most nationalist movements play on convincing people that all their problems are caused by someone else. UKIP and SNP are both fall into this category, one scapegoats the EU, the other scapegoats the rUK.
Blaming someone else for your problems then often spills over into hatred and racism. Much as I would regret seeing the union split I would relish watching Salmond deliver over the next decade when the prop of blaming someone else for all your problems is removed.
Ironically, if he wins, I think there is a fair chance Salmond would rapidly become the most hated figure in Scotland.
Given that most of UKIP's voters' top concern is the level of immigration to the UK, it's perfectly reasonable to blame the EU for uncontrolled immigration, because we can't do anything about that 45% of it. It's not scapegoating when it's accurate.
When the Survation boss describes his poll as "quite something" what does he mean? I've been pondering that for hours.
The same as YouGov
Better for YES than YouGov
Better for NO than YouGov
Any thoughts?
Same as YouGov is not "quite something" better No than YouGov isn't "quite something" unless it is a better No than the previous Survation poll - in which case it would be pretty sensational rather than just 'something'
A 1 point better Yes I think would be "quite something" in my view as they would be a radical shift from last Survation poll.
Very creepy. Think I'll look up the Insult Me campaign - a good bit of mockery never did anyone any harm.
Does no one remember the expression Sticks And Stones?
I find myself in a dilemma here - yes, Freedom of Speech includes by definition the Freedom to Offend (given that libel and slander are already catered for under existing legislation).
What bothers me is Fairness of Speech by which I mean the means by which individuals can express themselves and be accountable for what they say. The advent of anonymous Twitter "trolling" seems to me to take the concept of the right to offend beyond a reasonable level. All too often, individuals are verbally hunted and harrassed by a pack of those willing to use the most cruel and abusive language.
So much for "the wisdom of crowds" - yes, of course, the well-crafted insult must always have a place and yes all creeds can and must be challenged but the line between said well-crafted insult and anonymous threats of physical and sexual violence can't simply be blurred by notions of Freedom of Speech.
I don't know where the line is or should be but I do know it's something to be discussed and considered thoughtfully.
Threats are not insults. There's also a difference between an insult in a particular conversation and an ongoing campaign of insults, which would constitute harassment.
On Rotherham: Look North gave the grilling of Thacker, Wright and the present and former chief constables top billing. It was pretty blunt stuff (the Committee told two people they should resign and, I think, all of them their evidence was not credible). Vaz has written to May asking for a new law so Wright can be forced out.
Whilst the referendum is of huge importance we shouldn't let saturation coverage of it distract from the unforgivable disgrace that happened at Rotherham, and quite possibly elsewhere.
Dr. Spyn, never heard of religiously aggravated assault prior to that attack. It's as deranged as 'hate crime'. If you murder someone because they're black it doesn't make them more dead than if you do it because they slept with your wife. And if it's found to be 'hate crime' and later proven not to be, surely you'd get your sentence reduced?
Actions can be crimes, not attitudes.
I think there's a difference in that a hate crime could easily kick-off broader social disorder, so it is thus prudent that there's an extra punishment attached.
And the £ likely to plunge again tomorrow along with Scottish shares, if another clear Yes lead, if the Scots plunge us back into recession through all this I don't know if the English will ever forgive them
When the Survation boss describes his poll as "quite something" what does he mean? I've been pondering that for hours.
The same as YouGov
Better for YES than YouGov
Better for NO than YouGov
Any thoughts?
Where did this "sensational" quote come from?
Worth bearing in mind that the "sensational" quote, as far as I know, is from Mike Smithson; Survation said the poll was "quite something". Nevertheless, I'll take a punt at Yes +6. Just don't believe that a "No" lead would be described in this way.
You forgot to include that all important exclamation mark after the words "quite something". In pollster speak, "quite something!" is well on the way towards meaning "sensational".
Assuming "yes", there will be some short term market reaction, but the fundamental economics are all in England's favour. Most major businesses will relocate their HQ's to England, thus providing England most of the current tax raising base over a smaller population. No need to subsidise Scotland anymore, so another c£20bn a year back in the tills. England remains worlds 6th largest economy without Scottish turnover.
Hey and all our kids will be able to go to Scottish Uni's for free just like the rest of Europe's do!
Still cannot see the problem with a split.
Yeah, but you've been repeatedly telling us it's going to be 60-40 No, Nostradamus.
The key weakness of the Yes campaign is Salmond. He has become the Yes Campaign and the No should target him. Enough people don't trust or like him. When I mentioned this to the Yes voter he then started to waver. Would he go against Labour and vote Salmond. He went away to think about that.
Yeah, that's really been the No campaign's failing, not mentioning Salmond enough. If only they'd done it a bit more, they wouldn't have lost a 30 pt lead in a year.
Your Indy predictions & insights on here have been some of the most hilariously half baked around; considering some of the competition, that's some going.
To be fair he was playing his flute whilst posting
Just spent an hour discussing Sindy with a colleague from Aberdeen. A smart cookie and a firm YES.
He fully fully understands the grief Scotland will go through. And doesn't care. He is 'eyes wide open' and voting with is heart. I can only admire that.
In the game of competitive fear-mongering, the yes campaign is winning when it creates a feeling of equivalent risk everywhere, so that voters are made dizzy with numbers, their eyes glazing over at another data-laden argument about economics and institutions. Then the advantage goes to the campaign with romance on its side. Because if there are mistakes to be made either way, it feels right to take the path of indigenously Scottish mistakes.
I instinctively mistrust nationalism - most nationalist movements play on convincing people that all their problems are caused by someone else. UKIP and SNP are both fall into this category, one scapegoats the EU, the other scapegoats the rUK.
Blaming someone else for your problems then often spills over into hatred and racism. Much as I would regret seeing the union split I would relish watching Salmond deliver over the next decade when the prop of blaming someone else for all your problems is removed.
Ironically, if he wins, I think there is a fair chance Salmond would rapidly become the most hated figure in Scotland.
Given that most of UKIP's voters' top concern is the level of immigration to the UK, it's perfectly reasonable to blame the EU for uncontrolled immigration, because we can't do anything about that 45% of it. It's not scapegoating when it's accurate.
Doesn't alter the fact that UKIP's main mantra is that everything is the fault of the EU and if we got out we'd all be living in 1950's England again and milk and honey would flow endlessly
Disagree about the first. Firstly, do you believe that freedom of speech has no limits?
Of course there are limits to free speech. If it can be demonstrated that the authors are defaming Grayling (good luck with that), he is entitled to damages and injunctive relief against further publication. If no tort has been committed, however, should the authors be carted off to gaol for naming villains after a Minster of the Crown? It is entirely a matter of taste, i.e. of free speech, and although you are entitled to disagree with it, there are no proper grounds for prohibiting it.
I don't think I ever said it should be prohibited. Just that I'm not sure Nick should find it amusing: surely it's exactly the kind of politics he despises?
After all, someone might write a novel where a Midlands ex-MP called 'Nick Palmer' was (say) a rapist, and say that the character was named after the real Mr Palmer. I'm sure he'd find that funny and unactionable.
When the Survation boss describes his poll as "quite something" what does he mean? I've been pondering that for hours.
The same as YouGov
Better for YES than YouGov
Better for NO than YouGov
Any thoughts?
Any of the above are possible, but the motivation to drum up hits on his firm's website and to sell his client's newspaper should not be discounted! My heart tells me "quite something" will mean "No" is comfortably ahead, but the head suggests it will show a similar position to YouGov, or possibly "Yes" with a greater lead.
The key weakness of the Yes campaign is Salmond. He has become the Yes Campaign and the No should target him. Enough people don't trust or like him. When I mentioned this to the Yes voter he then started to waver. Would he go against Labour and vote Salmond. He went away to think about that.
You are an idiot - that's exactly what BT have been doing over the last two years and what Scottish Labour have been doing for the last 10.
In 2007 Labour made the Scottish election about Alex Salmond. The SNP won and formed a minority government.
Learning from their mistake - in 2011 Labour made the election all about Alex Salmond, who at the time had net favorable/unfavorable of above 30%. The SNP won a majority in a system designed to prevent majorities.
Sensibly Better Together has fundamentally been a Labour campaign and building on their experience of two failed campaigns in Scotland they have made the bold step of making the Independence debate about Alex Salmond.
Salmond has net positive favorable ratings in Scotland, the only politicians with higher favorables in Scotland are Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie - the other faces of the Yes campaign.
Not very clever, attack a strong point frontally, keep reinforcing weakness, and all that.
A dyed to the socks Labour friend is now a very firm Yes voter (which still astounds me, months later). He said to me that he was furious at the No campaign's claims that Salmond was trying to be dictator for life, etc. etc., not least because it was so insulting to a majority* of Scots. "We're not stupid. We voted Salmond [and Sturgeon and Harvie, I'd add] in to run the country and we'll vote him out again when we want!"
*not absolute, but electoral - and much higher than Mr Cameron or anyone else got in other UK parliaments.
The twitter style summary I have seen criticising BT's psychotic focus on Salmond is "It's like advising me not to buy a new house because the curtains are ugly"
No more daft than voting Yes because you do not like the curtains in Westminster.
And the £ likely to plunge again tomorrow along with Scottish shares, if another clear Yes lead, if the Scots plunge us back into recession through all this I don't know if the English will ever forgive them
U turn will be with us soon, CU here we come
Won't happen. You can use it, but there won't be a lender of last resort.
Incidentally, do you realise where all the Scottish notes are printed?
Plato and Patrick. The growing backlash within England towards Scotland is also inevitable. Cameron may be making another fatal mistake which could further boost UKIP.
Cameron know's he has to pull Scotland back from the brink or he's be a goner anyway,
It *may* also be wise to prevent certain types of books getting to certain types of criminals.
But it is a wholly different matter to what these authors are doing.
We have free speech in this country, and the authors are mocking a stupid authoritarian policy from an authoritarian Secretary of State. Good on them.
As for the first point, it is surely right that prisoners should be encouraged to engage in the life of contemplation while serving time, which, as Aristotle observes in Ethics Bk.X, is superior to the life of activity. That means reading. Unless a book is per se unlawful, as tending to stir up racial hatred or corrupting public morals for example, or otherwise undermines prison security, it should be permitted.
You obviously don't live in the UK then. Try and make a "racist" tweet, or publish certain cartoons and the thought police will soon be round.
Comments
Not sure how well that would work - SLAB don't have any separate identity anyway judging from how little authority Ms Lamont has (e.g. over Falkirk).
Does no one remember the expression Sticks And Stones?
I'm too young to remember Labour 1983, but it surely ranks with Labour 1992, Conservative 2001 and Labour/Conservative (for different reasons) 2010?
Not sure it's quite as bad as the worst campaign I've ever seen though, which was YES2AV - That was the absolute dreg's of a campaign.
What do we think? Somewhere between Labour 1992 and YES2AV?
Why? She seems entirely humourless and charmless to me.
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/the-driver-market-5/
Whilst I can see Alonso wanting to leave Ferrari, I wouldn't want to go to McLaren now. Williams, Mercedes or Red Bull, perhaps. But the first two have teams sorted for next year (barring very serious problems between Rosberg and Hamilton).
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/racially_or_religiously_aggravated_common_assault/
It really is absurd for John Major to get on his high horse about Scottish Independence because if anyone killed the Union, it was him.
The refusal of the Conservatives to participate in the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the early 90s left the way clear for Labour, the Liberal Democrats and others to frame what it prodiced and when Major led the Tories to their catastrophic rout in 1997 and a Labour Government followed (including people like Robin Cook and Donald Dewar, both much lamented), it was inevitable that the new Government would then move to set up the Scottish Parliament which, with only the Conservatives opposed, was always going to happen.
Indeed, I don't recall that many people being opposed to the idea back then - even the Conservatives saw the Parliament as their way back into Scottish political life following the 1997 election. The initial leadership of Scotland - Dewar and Jim Wallace, had worked together in the Constitutional Convention and in effect the Lab-LD Coalition which governed for two terms.
The problem was, put bluntly, that nothing lasts forever and when (inevitably) the Lab-LD bloc became unpopular, the only alternative was the SNP who had withdrawn from the Convention but had happily supported it as a step toward independence.
A lot of resentment about their unfair deal re devolution, Barnett etc and the hubris of Salmond. And a great sense that Scotland is about to make a serious mistake that it can't move back from once the Cult of King Alex of Braveheart is over.
Yet a No result continues to be the short odds-on favourite at 2/5 pretty much right across the board.
Are we exceptionally clever, simply ahead of the curve, or just plain wrong?
I can almost hear Farage saying.
So Ted Heath wasn't a homosexual.
Oh Yes he was.
On No he isn't.
I'll criticise a 'prediction' that the referendum will turn on BT being even more negative about Salmond because it's self evidently a load of bullpucky.
Let's say all 3 main Westminster parties (to this day) had denied any form of Scottish devolution. Where would we have ended up?
We have some sense from Ireland. Virtually all MPs ended up being nationalists and there were rebellions and civil disorder. Sooner or later (as in Victorian/Edwardian England) they would have held the balance of power at Westminster and forced the issue.
Then you'd have full, absolute independence guaranteed. The real solution to maintaining the Union is for London and the media to stop ignoring Scotland, consult, listen, respect and pay attention. Also to consider a revised Union model that would be fit for the remainder of the 21st Century.
In 2007 Labour made the Scottish election about Alex Salmond. The SNP won and formed a minority government.
Learning from their mistake - in 2011 Labour made the election all about Alex Salmond, who at the time had net favorable/unfavorable of above 30%. The SNP won a majority in a system designed to prevent majorities.
Sensibly Better Together has fundamentally been a Labour campaign and building on their experience of two failed campaigns in Scotland they have made the bold step of making the Independence debate about Alex Salmond.
Salmond has net positive favorable ratings in Scotland, the only politicians with higher favorables in Scotland are Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie - the other faces of the Yes campaign.
What bothers me is Fairness of Speech by which I mean the means by which individuals can express themselves and be accountable for what they say. The advent of anonymous Twitter "trolling" seems to me to take the concept of the right to offend beyond a reasonable level. All too often, individuals are verbally hunted and harrassed by a pack of those willing to use the most cruel and abusive language.
So much for "the wisdom of crowds" - yes, of course, the well-crafted insult must always have a place and yes all creeds can and must be challenged but the line between said well-crafted insult and anonymous threats of physical and sexual violence can't simply be blurred by notions of Freedom of Speech.
I don't know where the line is or should be but I do know it's something to be discussed and considered thoughtfully.
Mr S's relative decrease in popularity is probably partly due to the Emmanuel Goldstein style campaign agaisnt him in the media and from other parties, to be fair. And polls differ in scoring and ranking. But the pair together, and Patrick Harvie of the Greens, seem to be on the whole more popular/trusted/seen as competent than the unionists whether at Holyrood or Westminster, in general.
Put it this way, I'd be more than happy to take an evens bet that she'd win over Mr Miliband on any particular day, and usually over Mr Cameron. As Yes/No is about 1:1 at the moment, that is quite an interesting indicator.
I suspect she's been considerably underestimated down south as a factor, especially as she has been doing a much less publicised equivalent to Jim Murphy and, rather less shoutily, going round scores of town halls and meeting places for open public meetings while Mr S does the TV - no doubt a matter of horses for courses.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/06/snp-nicola-sturgeon-alex-salmond-scottish-independence-referendum
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/05/nicola-sturgeon-salmond-deputy-brink-power
1983 was just hilarious. Even as a very young teenager I was WTF are they doing? Yes2AV was killed at birth by the Electoral Commissions very *helpful* leaflet.
That made me LOL when it came through the door. One short page on FPTP, and SIX on AV [that simple system many of us nerds didn't understand after thousands of posts about it].
One in particular by @SimonStClare stuck in my mind - it was a horse-racing analogy and perfectly described the flaws inherent it it.
"And always keep a-hold of Nurse; For fear of finding something worse."
Disagree about the first. Firstly, do you believe that freedom of speech has no limits?
A dyed to the socks Labour friend is now a very firm Yes voter (which still astounds me, months later). He said to me that he was furious at the No campaign's claims that Salmond was trying to be dictator for life, etc. etc., not least because it was so insulting to a majority* of Scots. "We're not stupid. We voted Salmond [and Sturgeon and Harvie, I'd add] in to run the country and we'll vote him out again when we want!"
*not absolute, but electoral - and much higher than Mr Cameron or anyone else got in other UK parliaments.
Mr. Putney, Brown is very happy promising to throw more power at Scotland. He may understand Scotland, but I suspect it'll just provoke resentment from the English (assuming Westminster continues to fail to ask, let alone answer, the West Lothian Question).
I understand from Shadsy that it's English money supporting the NO price, Scottish gamblers are overwhelming betting on a YES landslide. But is that English ignorance or Scottish nationalist over optimism, where many may be betting with the hearts (and the posters they see) ?
I suspect it's a bit of both, the truth is somewhere in between and, with the polls still showing it's neck and neck, the real answer is probably the same.
It feels like NO should be around a 60% chance on Betfair (or 1.65 - 1.7) whilst YES should be around 2.5
They're not at the moment, so I think YES still represents a bit of value, so I'm betting on that basis despite not wanting YES to win.
The anonymity of Twitter and similar allows the escalation to take place. A calls B an idiot, C calls B something worse and before long K is threatening to beat up J and H claiming "I know where you live". Such has it always been and we know that simple disputes over a spilt pint or a chance remark have ended with lives lost or irrevocably altered.
Much as I dislike him, Heffer sums it all up perfectly.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2750071/Why-don-t-tell-Scots-shove-In-personal-view-Mail-disagrees-SIMON-HEFFER-says-fear-English-people-think.html
If English nationalism becomes mainsteam it will also be more tolerant than the BDP or the BUF(?)
You say that English nationalism is somehow an ugly, violent, terrible thing.
Could I most cordially invite you to FCUK OFF.
Lefty gimp. The left's hatred and fear of decent middle England is an indictment of the left - not of England. England is among the most decent, temperate, tolerant beneficial cultures the world has known. You demean yourself.
The same as YouGov
Better for YES than YouGov
Better for NO than YouGov
Any thoughts?
Blaming someone else for your problems then often spills over into hatred and racism.
Much as I would regret seeing the union split I would relish watching Salmond deliver over the next decade when the prop of blaming someone else for all your problems is removed.
Ironically, if he wins, I think there is a fair chance Salmond would rapidly become the most hated figure in Scotland.
Hey and all our kids will be able to go to Scottish Uni's for free just like the rest of Europe's do!
Still cannot see the problem with a split.
http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?nid=GGgVawPscysC&dat=19631109&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
hat-tip Betfair horseracing forum -- page 6 has the card for the last ever Manchester meeting, with Scobie Breasley two wins ahead of Lester in the final day of the jockey's championship.
A 1 point better Yes I think would be "quite something" in my view as they would be a radical shift from last Survation poll.
On Rotherham: Look North gave the grilling of Thacker, Wright and the present and former chief constables top billing. It was pretty blunt stuff (the Committee told two people they should resign and, I think, all of them their evidence was not credible). Vaz has written to May asking for a new law so Wright can be forced out.
Whilst the referendum is of huge importance we shouldn't let saturation coverage of it distract from the unforgivable disgrace that happened at Rotherham, and quite possibly elsewhere.
In pollster speak, "quite something!" is well on the way towards meaning "sensational".
He fully fully understands the grief Scotland will go through. And doesn't care. He is 'eyes wide open' and voting with is heart. I can only admire that.
Made me think this will be a YES.
On a serious note, there is no desire for a currency union down here.
After all, someone might write a novel where a Midlands ex-MP called 'Nick Palmer' was (say) a rapist, and say that the character was named after the real Mr Palmer. I'm sure he'd find that funny and unactionable.
Incidentally, do you realise where all the Scottish notes are printed?
You obviously don't live in the UK then.
Try and make a "racist" tweet, or publish certain cartoons and the thought police will soon be round.