Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It looks as though we’ll get an IndyRef poll from the firm

1356

Comments

  • On topic, ICM's a good pollster, but getting to within a fraction of a percent rather than 1% out or whatever is dumb luck. Polling isn't that precise.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @Smarmy

    It's traditional to stop digging when one finds oneself in a big hole.
  • manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited September 2014
    Patrick said:

    Patrick said:

    I thought the Hague / Hattie PMQs today was a disgrace. Seems everyone is lining up to offer more to Scotland. Apparently a 'Scotland Bill' will be forhcoming PDQ. They haven't asked for my consent via an election manifesto or referendum on this. Bastards.

    Why not an 'Equal Devolution Federal UK Act'? More jam for the Jocks? Fcuk the English even harder? The Westminster elite, even at the 11th hour 59 minutes and 59 seconds still do not get it. Gimps.

    Memo to Dave: Offer the jocks WTF you like - but offer the same to England. Or suffer the electoral consequences.

    Don't worry. It just more votes for UKIP. The establishment parties are in perpetual decline now. Their '50 year old chickens' are coming home to roost
    I understand 100% why Labour fear a FUK. But can't for the life of me see why Dave doesn't embrace it all the way to a landslide. It'll happen anyway, of course, if it's YES. And if it's a narrow NO then they'll have 6 months to contemplate the change of mood and English awakening - so the Tory manifesto may belatedly do the right thing. Otherwise (Dominic Raab I'm talking to you) my vote goes to UKIP.
    The answer is in the name of the party. They are the 'Conservative and Unionist Party'. The Unionist bit is the old Scottish Party. It wouldn't say much for him if he just deserted Scottish Unionists now would it? Labour and UKIP would slaughter him.

    The reality is that the establishment parties are stuck between a rock and a hard place on this because for numerous reasons they don't want to devolve the level of power that they would have to satisfy England and give them equal status with the other home nations (i.e. an English Parliament) but not least because you would end up with the sort of stands offs you see in the USA where an English Parliament could effectively block Downing Street on many national issues.

    Therefore they need to restructure along regional lines to make an EP work but to do so the likely proviso would be mandatory withdrawal from the EU to kill the idea that its all a Brussels plot to break up England. The establishment parties have got themselves into what is a lose-lose scenario for them. Whatever happens they are not going to come out of it well.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited September 2014
    I see Prescott whipping up the same old nonsense. Some might say it is carefully planned, I don't know, he just can't turn that routine off.

    I do wonder, does him giving it the old Tory babyeater routine really help or does it just play into SNP spin that it is a Westminster establishment that makes most of the decisions. The choice is you can either get rid of them today or you MAY be able to switch to a different establishment party in a year?
  • My $US portfolio is up to £107,744.25 today. That's about 3 grand on the week - a week where the underlying stock price went nowhere.

    Go Scotland. Really.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I believe carrying on results in The China Syndrome...
    Neil said:

    @Smarmy

    It's traditional to stop digging when one finds oneself in a big hole.

  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Patrick said:

    I thought the Hague / Hattie PMQs today was a disgrace. Seems everyone is lining up to offer more to Scotland. Apparently a 'Scotland Bill' will be forhcoming PDQ. They haven't asked for my consent via an election manifesto or referendum on this. Bastards.

    Why not an 'Equal Devolution Federal UK Act'? More jam for the Jocks? Fcuk the English even harder? The Westminster elite, even at the 11th hour 59 minutes and 59 seconds still do not get it. Gimps.

    Memo to Dave: Offer the jocks WTF you like - but offer the same to England. Or suffer the electoral consequences.

    John Major got it right when he points the finger at the 1999 devolution process. It's "give" to the Celts whilst leaving them free to interfere in England.

    Of course Labour didn't want to face that one and I suspect that's at the heart of the alleged current reluctance to agree hiving off all income tax in Devo Max to Scotland, as then the demands to treat England equitably will grow and long term they know that's not advantageous most of the time to them. The fact that these kind of momentous back of an envelope proposals are being now cooked up on the hoof must have Farage chuckling into his beer down the White Horse in deepest Kent. It's almost as if they want to give the bloke more ammunition (and by the way isn't he quiet at present? Though I suspect the vow of silence will end soon from him either way in the early hours of next Friday).

    Now I can see this from my "double voting" privileged position in Wales ( I get to vote on English schools and hospitals and education, 92% of you don't on mine), so why is it not painfully clear to those that matter that this was and is a time bomb. Nobody would suggest setting up a Parliament south of a line of the Severn to the Wash with a permanent Tory majority, cutting 3p off its tax rates and sucking investment from Wales and the Midlands, whilst retaining full voting rights over everything that happened in Scotland would they?

    Still if the Scots go (and good luck to them if they do as I suspect they're seriously going to need it), I expect to be love bombed with train loads of cash heading westwards in an endless stream from London to convince the citizens of Wales that rUk's really nice really. Wales isn't going anywhere anyway, but I'm sure Carwyn Jones has a nice shopping list ready anyway.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Neil
    Any particular hole Neil?
    We have many on here who think that the people at the bottom of the pile are better off, when underlying statistics show the opposite to be true?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    *wonderful*
    SeanT said:

    This is hilariously desperate. The Guardian is offering "membership" and "patron" status, at £500 a year, to Guardian readers. In return they... get to see the printing presses.


    http://tinyurl.com/oqftjvq

    I hear Heinz are offering a premium Heinz-Associate Gold Club Status, where beans costs eight times as much but you get to see how they are canned.

  • Indeed, but I hope they are expressed with panache!

    Your eloquence has never been in doubt. It would appear, as expected, that I correctly anticipated the Marxist's response to your invective...
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Life_ina_market_town
    Clever old you.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    SeanT said:

    This is hilariously desperate. The Guardian is offering "membership" and "patron" status, at £500 a year, to Guardian readers. In return they... get to see the printing presses.


    http://tinyurl.com/oqftjvq

    I hear Heinz are offering a premium Heinz-Associate Gold Club Status, where beans costs eight times as much but you get to see how they are canned.

    Didn't they try something similar a few years ago, and lose loads of money? Some kind of readers food market in their expensive offices rings a bell.
  • SeanT said:

    This is hilariously desperate. The Guardian is offering "membership" and "patron" status, at £500 a year, to Guardian readers. In return they... get to see the printing presses.

    They can't announce it yet but you get to take one home.
  • Sean_F said:

    James Forsyth ‏@JGForsyth 3m

    Hear that there'll be some much needed morale boosting news for the Union side this afternoon

    Gordon Brown will offer to strip for anyone who agrees to vote No?
    Eek - I'd rather be called a bigot and vote yes if it's all the same...
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    *claps*

    SeanT said:

    This is hilariously desperate. The Guardian is offering "membership" and "patron" status, at £500 a year, to Guardian readers. In return they... get to see the printing presses.

    They can't announce it yet but you get to take one home.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited September 2014


    Or, to put it more plainly, your prejudice is such that, no matter how clear the evidence to the contrary, and completely irrespective of the facts, nothing will shake your irrational belief that the Tories are deliberately harming the poor.

    Richard - Socialism, like all religions, demands belief, not reason, from its adherents.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    There are also hundreds of business leaders who have backed yes but you hear much less about it...

    Titters.

    The "hundreds of business leaders who have back yes" employ, between them, hundreds of people.

    The business leaders who have back No, employ rather more, and represent a significant section of the economy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    My $US portfolio is up to £107,744.25 today. That's about 3 grand on the week - a week where the underlying stock price went nowhere.

    Go Scotland. Really.

    Hi - Must say I'm quite confident on our bet now.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @Plato

    Your mention of "Tales of Topographic Oceans by Yes" takes me back a bit, but not that far. My son has discovered Yes and the last time he was home the House echoed to the sounds of Close to the Edge and especially "No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed", but only when Herself was out. Fortunately, he doesn't seem to have found the need for the chemicals that were de rigueur in our day (though I strongly suspect that my day as at least ten years before yours).
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited September 2014
    @Beverley_C
    Remarkably similar in that respect to those people who believe in the utter insanity of the "market" being infallible?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited September 2014
    How's the Guardian coffee shop going these days? I take it they aren't going to be competing with Starbucks anytime soon, other than in the tax planning stakes.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    Smarmeron said:

    @Neil
    Any particular hole Neil?
    We have many on here who think that the people at the bottom of the pile are better off, when underlying statistics show the opposite to be true?

    Being in work is itself better off than living on benefits. However, I suspect you will never understand that.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    SeanT said:

    This is hilariously desperate. The Guardian is offering "membership" and "patron" status, at £500 a year, to Guardian readers. In return they... get to see the printing presses.


    http://tinyurl.com/oqftjvq

    I hear Heinz are offering a premium Heinz-Associate Gold Club Status, where beans costs eight times as much but you get to see how they are canned.

    £500 a year isn't far off what you'd pay for membership of somewhere like Soho House, or Groucho. Why bother with the Grauniads lacklustre offerings?
  • isam said:

    @TSE

    None of Chelsea, West Ham, QPR or Millwall play in the areas after which they are named. Neither do Everton or Forest for that matter.

    Neither do Arsenal

    Edit to be fair that's because there isn't an area called Arsenal
    They originated in Woolwich and we're originally known as Woolwich Arsenal before crossing the river to annoy Tottenham, who by all accounts will be playing in Wembley, Stratford or Milton Keynes for at least one year.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    UKIP ‏@UKIP 16m
    Rotherham UKIP Cllrs are today tabling a motion calling for Labour Cllrs to stand for reelection in shadow of scandal http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/ukip-motion-calls-for-rotherham-s-labour-councillors-to-stand-for-re-election-1-6831321

    ...and about time! Good move by UKIP but will ii be adopted?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Chief architect of the biggest banking crash in history says vote Yes...

    @iainmartin1: Sir George Mathewson produced by SNP to calm markets was RBS CEO. Architect of expansion. Hired Goodwin. Advocated calamitous ABN Amro deal
  • Socrates said:

    For those interested, the cases of people requiring healthcare for malnutrition have risen to a whopping 0.008% of the population.

    Or, put another way, it is nearly eight people per Westminster Constituency. And that is serious enough cases that require healthcare. It's higher than I would have expected.
  • Manofkent2014

    A FUK is still a UK. There's nothing whatever anti-union about federalism. It's the unequal pandering to the Celtic fringes that will actually kill the union.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited September 2014
    Scott_P said:

    Chief architect of the biggest banking crash in history says vote Yes...

    @iainmartin1: Sir George Mathewson produced by SNP to calm markets was RBS CEO. Architect of expansion. Hired Goodwin. Advocated calamitous ABN Amro deal

    Isn't he one of those London bankers whom malcolmg is always blaming for Scotland's banking woes?

    Eck should have used a local like Tom McKillop. Oh, wait...
  • Patrick said:

    Patrick said:

    I thought the Hague / Hattie PMQs today was a disgrace. Seems everyone is lining up to offer more to Scotland. Apparently a 'Scotland Bill' will be forhcoming PDQ. They haven't asked for my consent via an election manifesto or referendum on this. Bastards.

    Why not an 'Equal Devolution Federal UK Act'? More jam for the Jocks? Fcuk the English even harder? The Westminster elite, even at the 11th hour 59 minutes and 59 seconds still do not get it. Gimps.

    Memo to Dave: Offer the jocks WTF you like - but offer the same to England. Or suffer the electoral consequences.

    Don't worry. It just more votes for UKIP. The establishment parties are in perpetual decline now. Their '50 year old chickens' are coming home to roost
    I understand 100% why Labour fear a FUK. But can't for the life of me see why Dave doesn't embrace it all the way to a landslide. It'll happen anyway, of course, if it's YES. And if it's a narrow NO then they'll have 6 months to contemplate the change of mood and English awakening - so the Tory manifesto may belatedly do the right thing. Otherwise (Dominic Raab I'm talking to you) my vote goes to UKIP.
    you would end up with the sort of stands offs you see in the USA where an English Parliament could effectively block Downing Street on many national issues.
    That's a feature not a bug. Defanging No.10 a bit is a wonderful opportunity.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Smarmeron said:

    @Beverley_C
    Remarkably similar in that respect to those people who believe in the utter insanity of the "market" being infallible?

    Indeed. I regard all religions as dangerous, but some are worse than others. Socialism's various adherents killed over 100 million people last century, a million per year.

    I do not think that the "infallible market" believers have achieved that level of danger yet. No doubt they will keep trying.

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @felix
    Working for basic subsistence, or below that in reality, while other skim the cream and tell you what a bunch of lazy skiving scum you are, tends to lead to a type of resentment eventually.
    It's why so many on this board have failed to grasp why a "yes" vote is entirely possible, and indeed, ever more likely with the level of rebuttal offered on here.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    MikeK said:

    UKIP ‏@UKIP 16m
    Rotherham UKIP Cllrs are today tabling a motion calling for Labour Cllrs to stand for reelection in shadow of scandal http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/ukip-motion-calls-for-rotherham-s-labour-councillors-to-stand-for-re-election-1-6831321

    ...and about time! Good move by UKIP but will ii be adopted?

    If they pull it off watch out Heywood and Middleton!
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited September 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    @felix
    Working for basic subsistence, or below that in reality, while other skim the cream and tell you what a bunch of lazy skiving scum you are, tends to lead to a type of resentment eventually.
    It's why so many on this board have failed to grasp why a "yes" vote is entirely possible, and indeed, ever more likely with the level of rebuttal offered on here.

    Do you really think that a 'Yes' will change that?

    If so, why haven't the big Independence supporting bosses already handed over their empires to the workers?
  • This indyref business is getting too complicated so I have cashed out at a miniscule profit.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited September 2014
    Wouldn't it be just fabulous if a Labour Education Secretary announced his plan to return all schools to LEA control and a deepening of dumbing down and a majority of English MPs could say: Err...no yer not.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I really liked this comment about the United Kingdom from an article elsewhere about Cameron's Eff The Tories quote.
    Margot 1 hour ago

    The family of nations? Yes, of course. Even my French Lycée school book 'Guide Anglais' by Escarpit and Dulck said so. Here's my loose translation-

    " We could compare the United Kingdom to a large family living under the same roof, with each member living independently in his or her own quarters. They visit one another, help one another, they even sometimes share the same resources, but they keep separate. And as in all families, they sometimes fall out and gossip rages. The whipping boy is, of course, the Englishman from England. But make no mistake. This is a united family. And when danger or sorrow strike, they stick together.'

    Well, I hope Messieurs Escarpit and Dulck turn out to be right - and if anyone here would like to see the original French, just let me know and I'll post it. Meanwhile, here's just one bit of it - 'La tête de Turc, bien entendu, c'est ...L'Anglais d"Angleterre.'

    Plus ça change, in other words.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @standardnews: Scottish independence: The decision is for the Scots, but Her Majesty’s feelings are plain http://t.co/2Rwhja79A5 by @theroyaleditor

    Plain enough to settle the market?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @TheWatcher
    It isn't me those opposing independence have to convince.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,986
    Afternoon all :)

    In a blizzard of pro-Union anti-SNP propaganda, this piece from Simon Jenkins in yesterday's Standard caught my eye:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/simon-jenkins-if-the-scots-can-get-taxraising-powers-so-should-london-9720747.html

    The Federal genie is out of the bottle even if Scotland votes NO next week. If cities like New York and Stockhom can set their own tax rates, then why not London ? The end of the period of Westminster centralisation is at hand and with any luck we will see real devolution across the United Kingdom.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    Smarmeron said:

    @felix
    Working for basic subsistence, or below that in reality, while other skim the cream and tell you what a bunch of lazy skiving scum you are, tends to lead to a type of resentment eventually.
    It's why so many on this board have failed to grasp why a "yes" vote is entirely possible, and indeed, ever more likely with the level of rebuttal offered on here.

    Oh dear - projecting your own views onto others doesn't make it real. The relative standard of living in the UK is really very high that's why there's no big rush to Russia/China/Cuba/N Korea. I'm sure you'd be welcome in any of those places. CYA:)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    @Felix

    Oh dear. Yet another example of someone who thinks it's not the Tories' actual policies that are causing the problem, but the way Labour present them.

    Clue: look at when Tory representation in Scotland collapsed and see who was in power.

    Of course, if the Tories had not opposed Labour at the last GE we would still have a Labour government and Scotland's departure from the Union would not be an issue. So actually it's all the Tories' fault.

    More reasonably, all the major parties have alienated voters across the UK, Labour among them. In Scotland they have a chance to do something about it. If the rest of the UK had a chance to stick two fingers up to the Westminster elite, it would too. Thus, in this as in so much more we see just how similar the Scots and Scotland are to the rest of us.
    If a political Union comes to an end over things as small as the bedroom tax, and NHS changes, then in reality, that political Union has been dead for a long time.

  • Patrick said:

    A commitment to equalise public spending per head across the UK.

    The Barnett formula will already do this, provided that the relative populations of different parts of the UK remain stable.

    That is to say that there is already such a commitment and there has been such a commitment for decades - the problem is simply that it is hard to hit a moving target.
  • welshowl said:


    John Major got it right when he points the finger at the 1999 devolution process. It's "give" to the Celts whilst leaving them free to interfere in England.

    Of course Labour didn't want to face that one and I suspect that's at the heart of the alleged current reluctance to agree hiving off all income tax in Devo Max to Scotland, as then the demands to treat England equitably will grow and long term they know that's not advantageous most of the time to them. The fact that these kind of momentous back of an envelope proposals are being now cooked up on the hoof must have Farage chuckling into his beer down the White Horse in deepest Kent. It's almost as if they want to give the bloke more ammunition (and by the way isn't he quiet at present? Though I suspect the vow of silence will end soon from him either way in the early hours of next Friday).

    Now I can see this from my "double voting" privileged position in Wales ( I get to vote on English schools and hospitals and education, 92% of you don't on mine), so why is it not painfully clear to those that matter that this was and is a time bomb. Nobody would suggest setting up a Parliament south of a line of the Severn to the Wash with a permanent Tory majority, cutting 3p off its tax rates and sucking investment from Wales and the Midlands, whilst retaining full voting rights over everything that happened in Scotland would they?

    Still if the Scots go (and good luck to them if they do as I suspect they're seriously going to need it), I expect to be love bombed with train loads of cash heading westwards in an endless stream from London to convince the citizens of Wales that rUk's really nice really. Wales isn't going anywhere anyway, but I'm sure Carwyn Jones has a nice shopping list ready anyway.

    Smug arrogance. At the time the establishment parties still wielded the support 80% of the eligible voting population after forcing through the vast change that the EU (Maastrict) represented largely unharmed. Yes there was grumbling but no real opposition. They thought the post war consensus was unassailable.

    Now they barely represent 50% of the eligible voting population (and we could see it fall below 50% in 2015). The problem has been Westminster is a bubble and its been living 20 years in the past. It has not realised what has been happening on the ground. They didn't see the rise of the SNP and they didn't see the financial crisis coming or the Eurozone crisis or the rise of UKIP. Basically they've had their heads stuck up their own nether regions for two decades!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited September 2014
    UK Awakening ‏@UK_Awakening 41m
    Chester businessman who is great grandson of Labour Party co-founder bids to become Ukip MP http://bit.ly/1rGCjYh

    They are coming over to UKIP from the 4 quarters of British politics.
  • Socrates said:

    For those interested, the cases of people requiring healthcare for malnutrition have risen to a whopping 0.008% of the population.

    Or, put another way, it is nearly eight people per Westminster Constituency. And that is serious enough cases that require healthcare. It's higher than I would have expected.
    8 people suffering from malnutrition per 100,000 people is almost certainly a mental health issue and not an economic issue. I don't know if it includes people who are malnourished due to issues like eating disorders but suspect it must.

    There are more than 8 people on welfare so its not that which is causing it, the problem is individuals actions for whichever reason and not provision of a safety net which is high enough to prevent it. The safety net is high enough to provide for fags and booze and not just food, if people are malnourished its due to their own actions and potentially mental diseases that need special treatment not broad brushed political point scoring.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    edited September 2014
    felix said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @felix
    Working for basic subsistence, or below that in reality, while other skim the cream and tell you what a bunch of lazy skiving scum you are, tends to lead to a type of resentment eventually.
    It's why so many on this board have failed to grasp why a "yes" vote is entirely possible, and indeed, ever more likely with the level of rebuttal offered on here.

    Oh dear - projecting your own views onto others doesn't make it real. The relative standard of living in the UK is really very high that's why there's no big rush to Russia/China/Cuba/N Korea. I'm sure you'd be welcome in any of those places. CYA:)
    You really should get out a bit more, Mr Felix. There is some serious grumbling about on this very point.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337

    Carnyx said:

    I happen to have just rechecked the date of the Edinburgh Agreement when Mr Cameron vetoed Devomax. October 2012. He had almost two years to do it . He could have said "we are going to look at a third option of devomax and we're going to check with the EWNIish and maybe even have a referendum on the constitution and get back to you on that in time for indyref with full details. If they agree, it's three options, else it'll be plain Yes and No." And all that would have been within a single administration at Westminster (and Holyrood for that matter).

    No, that ignores the reasons for the so-called Edinburgh Agreement. It was needed, and as a matter of urgency in 2012, because the Scottish Government was threatening to pass an Act of the Scottish Parliament providing for a referendum on independence. That would inevitably have been tied down in legal challenge for a considerable period. The Edinburgh Agreement was needed in 2012 to provide legal certainty for the whole referendum process. It simply would not have been possible to say to the Scottish Government, "please wait, why we go and consult the rest of the United Kingdom".
    Oh, I absolutely agree for that simple case, which is certainly my (admittedly dimmer) understanding. But would it not have been possible to fix a referendum date on 2014 while specifing two sets of questions, one with 3 and the other 2 options, and which set to be used would be determined later after consultation?

    if not, and of no similar mechanism can be devised, then devomax was never a starter within the respective terms of the Scottish and Westminster parliaments. Not without starting all over again ...!


  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @felix
    The day after a YES vote, Scotland with a land area of a third of mainland Britain will still have half of it's land owned by less that 500 people.
    Maybe if I vote yes, it might be possible to change that?
    "Yes" is looking more and more tempting every time I read PeeBee....you lot really have no idea how most people in the country you profess to love, live.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    If ICM has "Yes" ahead then it is brown trouser time for Ed & Dave.
  • Smarmeron said:

    @felix
    The day after a YES vote, Scotland with a land area of a third of mainland Britain will still have half of it's land owned by less that 500 people.
    Maybe if I vote yes, it might be possible to change that?
    "Yes" is looking more and more tempting every time I read PeeBee....you lot really have no idea how most people in the country you profess to love, live.

    "you lot really have no idea how most people in the country you profess to love, live."

    Care to tell us where you have obtained all of your insight from?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited September 2014
    If Scotland goes independent, how long before they become a republic? I can't see them being happy to have an English head of state in the way Australia and Canada are?
  • stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    In a blizzard of pro-Union anti-SNP propaganda, this piece from Simon Jenkins in yesterday's Standard caught my eye:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/simon-jenkins-if-the-scots-can-get-taxraising-powers-so-should-london-9720747.html

    The Federal genie is out of the bottle even if Scotland votes NO next week. If cities like New York and Stockhom can set their own tax rates, then why not London ? The end of the period of Westminster centralisation is at hand and with any luck we will see real devolution across the United Kingdom.

    That is what worries me. We do not need devolution, we need decentralisation so that our great cities and counties can make the decisions they used to up to the middle of the last century. Councils worked. What we are likely to get is new talking shops in architectural white elephants for gerrymandered "regions".
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    MikeK said:

    UK Awakening ‏@UK_Awakening 41m
    Chester businessman who is great grandson of Labour Party co-founder bids to become Ukip MP http://bit.ly/1rGCjYh

    They are coming over to UKIP from the 4 quarters of British politics.

    Is this the same guy who has been a Tory, Labour and Left Unity member in recent (often very recent) times?

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JosiasJessop
    The way most people gain insight, I listen to what people say, rather than tell them what they should be saying.
    It's a useful trick to learn.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Good afternoon colleagues:

    My heart said to my head YES. My head said to my heart NO. My head won the argument so I have voted NO #indyref

    So that's 2 NO votes in the Easterross household. However I suspect Survation is going to have a solid YES lead.

    Been fascinating seeing the wall-to-wall indyref coverage on Sky. Fatty Prescott really doing his best to secure a YES victory. Telling folks in Rutherglen that Scots should join English to oppose the Germans in a GB football team. He had to be protected in a café until the police could remove him safely. Darling whisked off in a police car.
  • stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    In a blizzard of pro-Union anti-SNP propaganda, this piece from Simon Jenkins in yesterday's Standard caught my eye:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/simon-jenkins-if-the-scots-can-get-taxraising-powers-so-should-london-9720747.html

    The Federal genie is out of the bottle even if Scotland votes NO next week. If cities like New York and Stockhom can set their own tax rates, then why not London ? The end of the period of Westminster centralisation is at hand and with any luck we will see real devolution across the United Kingdom.

    Given London's PESA figures are 30% more per head than the South East and the highest in England, I'm sure those regions surrounding London would welcome London taking much greater responsibility for its budget. They can also pay for Crossrail themselves as well.

  • MikeK said:

    UK Awakening ‏@UK_Awakening 41m
    Chester businessman who is great grandson of Labour Party co-founder bids to become Ukip MP http://bit.ly/1rGCjYh

    They are coming over to UKIP from the 4 quarters of British politics.

    Instead of regurgitating tweets, care to answer the question I asked you this morning? It was in response to your question/statement: "Is it extreme to want a government to think of the indigenous peoples of our island first?"

    Apparently, that should make people want to vote UKIP ...
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Smarmeron said:

    @felix
    The day after a YES vote, Scotland with a land area of a third of mainland Britain will still have half of it's land owned by less that 500 people.
    Maybe if I vote yes, it might be possible to change that?
    "Yes" is looking more and more tempting every time I read PeeBee....you lot really have no idea how most people in the country you profess to love, live.

    Land appropriation as well as debt default. Sounds like Zimbabwe - keep an eye open for Eck downing cocktails with Nicholas Von Hoogstraaten.

    Is the plan to grow potatoes for everyone when Scotland can't borrow any money?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    LBC ‏@LBC 6h
    Farage: Scots aren't voting for independence but to become province in United States of Europe http://l-bc.co/HhzVAK

    ......." no one's made this point. Salmond is not offering the Scots independence. He's offering them to be a province of a United States of Europe. He will have to sign up to the Euro. He will have to keep open uncontrolled immigration.

    "And actually when Yes voters really examine what Salmond is offering them, many of them will change their mind."
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Smarmeron said:

    @felix
    The day after a YES vote, Scotland with a land area of a third of mainland Britain will still have half of it's land owned by less that 500 people.
    Maybe if I vote yes, it might be possible to change that?
    "Yes" is looking more and more tempting every time I read PeeBee....you lot really have no idea how most people in the country you profess to love, live.

    How many people should own the land?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    And then, without the market ever getting close to 2/1 for a Yes the 8 grand that was their has vanished - never matched.

    I wrote a bot that monitored the inplay market for Rugby matches. I really should have made the trivial tweaks to set it up for the Indy market - the money appearing and disappearing is fascinating.
  • Smarmeron said:

    @felix
    Working for basic subsistence, or below that in reality, while other skim the cream and tell you what a bunch of lazy skiving scum you are, tends to lead to a type of resentment eventually.
    It's why so many on this board have failed to grasp why a "yes" vote is entirely possible, and indeed, ever more likely with the level of rebuttal offered on here.

    I think you're largely correct, but the reality is that a Yes vote in Scotland will make it even more difficult for Scots to improve their standards of living. In the end, a vote for Yes - however well intentioned - is a self-harming vote, unless you believe that independence in and of itself is the most important issue (which is the true SNP position because nationalists like creating frontiers and dividing people).

  • tessyCtessyC Posts: 106
    Devolution as we have it now is not really devolution of power closer to people, but rather centralisation of power somewhere different. This has always been the strategic error of devolving power to the nations of the UK, they have become increasingly centralised units, sucking powers from local and national government alike. I understand the agitation for a English Parliament, its fair and as we have the system as it is England needs a voice. It will however not make England a better governed place, the same politicians will make the same decisions and those decisions will be made no closer to the people than they are now. All we are left with is an additional layer of government, looking for reasons to justify their positions and increasingly meddling in our lives.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    Socrates said:

    If Scotland goes independent, how long before they become a republic? I can't see them being happy to have an English head of state in the way Australia and Canada are?

    Soon I hope.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited September 2014

    MikeK said:

    UK Awakening ‏@UK_Awakening 41m
    Chester businessman who is great grandson of Labour Party co-founder bids to become Ukip MP http://bit.ly/1rGCjYh

    They are coming over to UKIP from the 4 quarters of British politics.

    Instead of regurgitating tweets, care to answer the question I asked you this morning? It was in response to your question/statement: "Is it extreme to want a government to think of the indigenous peoples of our island first?"

    Apparently, that should make people want to vote UKIP ...
    "Is it extreme to want a government to think of the indigenous peoples of our island first?"
    NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
    Is that positive enough for you?
  • Nicholas Watt ‏@nicholaswatt 4 hrs
    PM starts #indyref Edinburgh event at Scottish Widows. Closed to public. Down the road @AlexSalmond poses for selfies on street

    Good job no rough Jocks were allowed in for Dave's speech, hearing "If you're fed up with the f-ing Tories, you can give them a kicking" may have been too much of an invitation.
  • The establishment had to try something to address their sudden realization that Yes was wining, but isn't sending the three party leaders separately to promote better together at least a bit ironic?

    Batten down the hatches folks, it's going to be a bumpy ride. You see those zombie banks of ours, you see an economy that's ok on paper but deeply rotten below the surface? Won't take that big a shock to make bits of it fall over. And this is a 20MT shock....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Socrates said:

    If Scotland goes independent, how long before they become a republic? I can't see them being happy to have an English head of state in the way Australia and Canada are?

    England is quite happy to have a monarchy from the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Itajai said:

    Socrates said:

    If Scotland goes independent, how long before they become a republic? I can't see them being happy to have an English head of state in the way Australia and Canada are?

    Soon I hope.
    I dunno, I get the impression that the Scots have a fondness for the Royal Family. Happy to be proved wrong, though, it's only a vague perception.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Anorak
    That's an interesting question that I have discussed with a few owners and gamekeepers.
    No camping signs make great kindling for your evening camp fire BTW, and a good one can supply almost entirely the wood needed for the basic meal if you are careful.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Smarmeron said:

    @Anorak
    That's an interesting question that I have discussed with a few owners and gamekeepers.
    No camping signs make great kindling for your evening camp fire BTW, and a good one can supply almost entirely the wood needed for the basic meal if you are careful.

    Problem is, if everyone owns the land - which I'm guessing is your ideal solution - nobody feels it's their responsibility to care for it.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited September 2014
    An excellent point. The same work being done by more hands.
    tessyC said:

    Devolution as we have it now is not really devolution of power closer to people, but rather centralisation of power somewhere different. This has always been the strategic error of devolving power to the nations of the UK, they have become increasingly centralised units, sucking powers from local and national government alike. I understand the agitation for a English Parliament, its fair and as we have the system as it is England needs a voice. It will however not make England a better governed place, the same politicians will make the same decisions and those decisions will be made no closer to the people than they are now. All we are left with is an additional layer of government, looking for reasons to justify their positions and increasingly meddling in our lives.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    UK Awakening ‏@UK_Awakening 41m
    Chester businessman who is great grandson of Labour Party co-founder bids to become Ukip MP http://bit.ly/1rGCjYh

    They are coming over to UKIP from the 4 quarters of British politics.

    Instead of regurgitating tweets, care to answer the question I asked you this morning? It was in response to your question/statement: "Is it extreme to want a government to think of the indigenous peoples of our island first?"

    Apparently, that should make people want to vote UKIP ...
    "Is it extreme to want a government to think of the indigenous peoples of our island first?"
    NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
    Is that positive enough for you?
    Define indigenous, please.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Alistair said:

    And then, without the market ever getting close to 2/1 for a Yes the 8 grand that was their has vanished - never matched.

    I wrote a bot that monitored the inplay market for Rugby matches. I really should have made the trivial tweaks to set it up for the Indy market - the money appearing and disappearing is fascinating.

    Fascinating, Indeed.

    There doesn't even seem to be a simple bot skimming the overround, which is very surprising.
  • Sporting Index spread on Turnover has just ticked up to 80-81.

    That's still a buy, imo. I'm expecting at least 85%.
  • Apologies if posted before, but betfair have put up a Yes Vote % market

    http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115386267
  • Patrick said:

    Wouldn't it be just fabulous if a Labour Education Secretary announced his plan to return all schools to LEA control and a deepening of dumbing down and a majority of English MPs could say: Err...no yer not.

    If all schools were returned to LEA control, then the elected LEA reps could say no. Governments like centralising power, even when they claim otherwise. That is why people used to complain that the largest LEA in the country was Michael Gove's desk.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Anorak
    If you don't care for the land, you have no right to be on it, That should be part of the school curriculum rather than Shakespeare.
    There is a law being passed (with or without independence) stating this.
    Hedge funds and investors are not happy, but hey? they have money enough to drown their sorrows.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    edited September 2014
    "rel="Theuniondivvie">
    Nicholas Watt ‏@nicholaswatt 4 hrs
    PM starts #indyref Edinburgh event at Scottish Widows. Closed to public. Down the road @AlexSalmond poses for selfies on street

    Good job no rough Jocks were allowed in for Dave's speech, hearing "If you're fed up with the f-ing Tories, you can give them a kicking" may have been too much of an invitation."


    Just the once can't he speak to ordinary Scots ad lib?! Doesn't he realise the PR damage it is doing?!

    Mind you, that's pretty common for a publicity-worthy Better Together event with a pol of MP grade (jim Murphy being a notable exception).

    Even BT had trouble with public meetings. I read a hilarious account by a Yesser trying to attend an ordinary BT meeting in a town hall somewhere. Eve though he was incognito, they wouldn't let him in unless he gave his name and address, supposedly for fire safety reasons. On inspection, the document turned out to be a petition to Save the Union ...



  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited September 2014

    MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    UK Awakening ‏@UK_Awakening 41m
    Chester businessman who is great grandson of Labour Party co-founder bids to become Ukip MP http://bit.ly/1rGCjYh

    They are coming over to UKIP from the 4 quarters of British politics.

    Instead of regurgitating tweets, care to answer the question I asked you this morning? It was in response to your question/statement: "Is it extreme to want a government to think of the indigenous peoples of our island first?"

    Apparently, that should make people want to vote UKIP ...
    "Is it extreme to want a government to think of the indigenous peoples of our island first?"
    NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
    Is that positive enough for you?
    Define indigenous, please.
    Living, or existing naturally in a particular region or environment.
    And I won't be drawn further into this particular matter.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    felix said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @felix
    Working for basic subsistence, or below that in reality, while other skim the cream and tell you what a bunch of lazy skiving scum you are, tends to lead to a type of resentment eventually.
    It's why so many on this board have failed to grasp why a "yes" vote is entirely possible, and indeed, ever more likely with the level of rebuttal offered on here.

    Oh dear - projecting your own views onto others doesn't make it real. The relative standard of living in the UK is really very high that's why there's no big rush to Russia/China/Cuba/N Korea. I'm sure you'd be welcome in any of those places. CYA:)
    You really should get out a bit more, Mr Felix. There is some serious grumbling about on this very point.
    And all the result of 13 years of Labour misrule. Fortunately the current government is doing something about it by getting people back to work for at least part of their living. That's what I hear on the streets but then I don't spend my time hanging out with those who don't want to work.
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    This may be an observation already made, but if the Yes and No camps are level pegging, why is it that No speakers get shouted down on the streets? It seems from the little coverage I've seen that if one were to judge from the streets (Salmond posing for selfies, Cameron in an enclosed environment) Yes was winning by miles. They aren't. Opinion is divided, 50/50.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Apologies if posted before, but betfair have put up a Yes Vote % market

    http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115386267

    So new 0 GBP have been matched so far. Will be very interesting to see what kind of prices will be offered
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    Anorak said:

    Itajai said:

    Socrates said:

    If Scotland goes independent, how long before they become a republic? I can't see them being happy to have an English head of state in the way Australia and Canada are?

    Soon I hope.
    I dunno, I get the impression that the Scots have a fondness for the Royal Family. Happy to be proved wrong, though, it's only a vague perception.
    I agree - HM QE2 is too well regarded. Future is another matter, but it would be best discussed as part of a wider constitutional review down the line from a Yes. My money is on keeping the Crown, not least because it was originally a Scottish rpyal family anyway.

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Carnyx
    For a given definition of Scottish?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    Anorak said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @felix
    The day after a YES vote, Scotland with a land area of a third of mainland Britain will still have half of it's land owned by less that 500 people.
    Maybe if I vote yes, it might be possible to change that?
    "Yes" is looking more and more tempting every time I read PeeBee....you lot really have no idea how most people in the country you profess to love, live.

    How many people should own the land?
    Trouble is smarmy we do know how most people live - by working hard, saving, living within our means and not relying on the state. Otherwise there really would be nothing for those who won't or for whatever reason, cannot work.
  • Socrates said:

    For those interested, the cases of people requiring healthcare for malnutrition have risen to a whopping 0.008% of the population.

    Or, put another way, it is nearly eight people per Westminster Constituency. And that is serious enough cases that require healthcare. It's higher than I would have expected.
    8 people suffering from malnutrition per 100,000 people is almost certainly a mental health issue and not an economic issue. I don't know if it includes people who are malnourished due to issues like eating disorders but suspect it must.

    There are more than 8 people on welfare so its not that which is causing it, the problem is individuals actions for whichever reason and not provision of a safety net which is high enough to prevent it. The safety net is high enough to provide for fags and booze and not just food, if people are malnourished its due to their own actions and potentially mental diseases that need special treatment not broad brushed political point scoring.
    Ah, I hadn't thought of eating disorders.

    A quick search around the internet suggests there are ~160,000 sufferers of Anorexia in the UK, of which about 30,000 will die prematurely as a result - which compares to the ~5,000 people requiring healthcare for malnutrition.

    It's hard to reconcile these figures. Either my source or Socrates source is cobblers, or the figures for "malnutrition" exclude those suffering from Anorexia.

    Incidentally, on your point about the safety net, it is notable that very large numbers of people have their payments stopped - sometimes because they have missed jobcentre appointments to attend job interviews. The increasing use of these welfare sanctions could easily be responsible for a rise in malnutrition for economic, rather than mental health, reasons, though I can't find the evidence to determine either way.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Smarmeron said:

    @Anorak
    If you don't care for the land, you have no right to be on it, That should be part of the school curriculum rather than Shakespeare.
    There is a law being passed (with or without independence) stating this.
    Hedge funds and investors are not happy, but hey? they have money enough to drown their sorrows.

    The right to roam the countryside freely is certainly part of the (very small) intersection of our views :)
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Patrick said:

    Wouldn't it be just fabulous if a Labour Education Secretary announced his plan to return all schools to LEA control and a deepening of dumbing down and a majority of English MPs could say: Err...no yer not.

    If all schools were returned to LEA control, then the elected LEA reps could say no. Governments like centralising power, even when they claim otherwise. That is why people used to complain that the largest LEA in the country was Michael Gove's desk.
    Psst, The results being achieved by LEA primary schools are so fecking awful (see the figures I quoted on here the day before yesterday) that frankly anyone speaking-up for LEAs should be charged with child cruelty.
  • Socrates said:

    For those interested, the cases of people requiring healthcare for malnutrition have risen to a whopping 0.008% of the population.

    Or, put another way, it is nearly eight people per Westminster Constituency. And that is serious enough cases that require healthcare. It's higher than I would have expected.
    8 people suffering from malnutrition per 100,000 people is almost certainly a mental health issue and not an economic issue. I don't know if it includes people who are malnourished due to issues like eating disorders but suspect it must.

    There are more than 8 people on welfare so its not that which is causing it, the problem is individuals actions for whichever reason and not provision of a safety net which is high enough to prevent it. The safety net is high enough to provide for fags and booze and not just food, if people are malnourished its due to their own actions and potentially mental diseases that need special treatment not broad brushed political point scoring.
    Ah, I hadn't thought of eating disorders.

    A quick search around the internet suggests there are ~160,000 sufferers of Anorexia in the UK, of which about 30,000 will die prematurely as a result - which compares to the ~5,000 people requiring healthcare for malnutrition.

    It's hard to reconcile these figures. Either my source or Socrates source is cobblers, or the figures for "malnutrition" exclude those suffering from Anorexia.

    Incidentally, on your point about the safety net, it is notable that very large numbers of people have their payments stopped - sometimes because they have missed jobcentre appointments to attend job interviews. The increasing use of these welfare sanctions could easily be responsible for a rise in malnutrition for economic, rather than mental health, reasons, though I can't find the evidence to determine either way.
    Its not impossible to reconcile the two figures. Not all sufferers of anorexia will be hospitalised.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @felix
    The majority of the "successful" people, are born into it (most of the papers covered this fact recently)
    It's why the establishment worships the Royal family, wealth is a privilege of birth.
    SeanT will be along soon to give you the comfort that it is all down to genetics, but he is batshit insane.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Smarmeron said:

    @Anorak
    That's an interesting question that I have discussed with a few owners and gamekeepers.
    No camping signs make great kindling for your evening camp fire BTW, and a good one can supply almost entirely the wood needed for the basic meal if you are careful.

    I bet Billy Bragg writes songs about you.

    I hope you are eating all that wood only as part of a more varied diet, though. I had no idea times were so hard for the teuchteriat.

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Smarmeron said:

    @Anorak
    If you don't care for the land, you have no right to be on it, That should be part of the school curriculum rather than Shakespeare.
    There is a law being passed (with or without independence) stating this.
    Hedge funds and investors are not happy, but hey? they have money enough to drown their sorrows.

    Would 'everyone' be expected to maintain the land too?

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    felix said:

    felix said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @felix
    Working for basic subsistence, or below that in reality, while other skim the cream and tell you what a bunch of lazy skiving scum you are, tends to lead to a type of resentment eventually.
    It's why so many on this board have failed to grasp why a "yes" vote is entirely possible, and indeed, ever more likely with the level of rebuttal offered on here.

    Oh dear - projecting your own views onto others doesn't make it real. The relative standard of living in the UK is really very high that's why there's no big rush to Russia/China/Cuba/N Korea. I'm sure you'd be welcome in any of those places. CYA:)
    You really should get out a bit more, Mr Felix. There is some serious grumbling about on this very point.
    And all the result of 13 years of Labour misrule. Fortunately the current government is doing something about it by getting people back to work for at least part of their living. That's what I hear on the streets but then I don't spend my time hanging out with those who don't want to work.
    That's not how NHS workers see it.
  • FF42FF42 Posts: 114
    Something I have been meaning to do for a while. I have published some stats on our likely post-independence unemployment rate. I reckon 20%</, up from 6% now and the worst it's been since the 1930's.

    It's here in gory detail, if anyone is interested:
    http://scotlandeconomy.wordpress.com/

    If we vote Yes <b>other Scots will pay for it with their jobs. At least we should go into this with our eyes open.

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Ishmael_X
    Wet climate means a shortage of dry kindling at times, peeling the "paper" from silver birch, and "feathering" deadfall branches takes time.
    Why not make use of the scrap wood that some idiot leaves by the side of the road?
    We look on it as rubbish collecting to improve the look of the environment.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    ukipwebmaster ‏@ukipwebmaster 49m
    @Nigel_Farage - Juncker has got an Englishman to be hangman for the British financial industry:
    http://bit.ly/WThRep
  • MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    UK Awakening ‏@UK_Awakening 41m
    Chester businessman who is great grandson of Labour Party co-founder bids to become Ukip MP http://bit.ly/1rGCjYh

    They are coming over to UKIP from the 4 quarters of British politics.

    Instead of regurgitating tweets, care to answer the question I asked you this morning? It was in response to your question/statement: "Is it extreme to want a government to think of the indigenous peoples of our island first?"

    Apparently, that should make people want to vote UKIP ...
    "Is it extreme to want a government to think of the indigenous peoples of our island first?"
    NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
    Is that positive enough for you?
    It's exceptionally negative, especially as it sounds like you have not considered, or do not care, what it means.

    I wonder if the other UKIPpers on here agree?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    FF42 said:

    Something I have been meaning to do for a while. I have published some stats on our likely post-independence unemployment rate. I reckon 20%</, up from 6% now and the worst it's been since the 1930's.

    It's here in gory detail, if anyone is interested:
    http://scotlandeconomy.wordpress.com/

    If we vote Yes <b>other Scots will pay for it with their jobs. At least we should go into this with our eyes open.

    You you factored in the millions of emigrants fleeing Scotland after the horrors of the 'yes' vote?

This discussion has been closed.