Anyone know if Andy Burnham is one of the 100 Labour MPs being shunted up north in a sealed train to start the Labour revolution? Would be fascinating to hear his views on the NHS.
Me too. Not just on privatization and TTIp, but also on doing things differently in the NHS at all - which hrather misses the point of devolution (his party's policy):
“I would feel really genuinely sad if Scotland votes for independence, not just for our own self-interest and in the extra difficulty we would face getting a Labour government in England but I also don’t want to drive up the M6 and get my passport out or have to drive on the right when I want to drive on the left.” (This is NOT an April Fool. I checked.)
I've heard a couple of 'yes' supporters mention TTIp -don't quite understand how that's an argument for you? We've just heard there will definitely be no EU referendum north of the border if Scotland goes Indy, and as a small member state, that will have to make concessions to get back in, there will quite obviously be no exemption for Scotland from this. So surely it undermines your entire argument about the Scottish NHS?
The whole TTIP / SNP / NHS arguement seems a bit obscure. Under TTIP there is no mechanism for forcing NHS Scotland to be opened up to private competition unless the government there want it.
"Bercero explained that under TTIP “member states do not need to provide access to their markets for foreign companies and even if they do give access they can discriminate between foreign companies and EU / domestic ones”.
The EU commissioner also implied that if Labour wanted to reverse the Health and Social Care Act TTIP shouldn’t limit them from doing so. He explained “if a future UK government, or a public body to which power has been devolved, were to reverse decisions taken under a previous government, for example by discontinuing services provided by a foreign operator, it would be entirely at liberty to do so. However, it would have to respect applicable UK law.”
Quite interesting reading pb.com today. Less than 36 hours ago we were all collectively hyperventilating and thinking it was all over: Scotland was lost.
Today, we're more confident, relaxed and resorting to jokes once more. As well as back to pointing out that just one poll out of dozens has YES ever so slightly ahead, so what we were ever worried about?
Just goes to show how high the stakes are, I guess.
This is about more than betting and money - this time. And it's by no means over yet.
I think I've just resigned myself that we're standing on a precipice whatever the result and - whether DevoMax or Independence - we're looking at a game changer either way as far as the constitutional arrangements of the UK are concerned.
@iainmartin1: Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron. Never seen a serious leader behave like Salmond just did when asked legitimate questions by @bbcnickrobinson
F1: Sirotkin will drive in practice for Sauber at Sochi (the Russian circuit). This increases the chances of him replacing either driver from this year. I think both Sutil and Gutierrez could go. The latter brings money, not sure what Sutil offers (he's a decent driver but not outstanding). If/when markets go up Sirotkin to Sauber is worthy of consideration.
I read elsewhere that Simona de Silvestro seems out of the running as she wouldn't bring money. Maybe short-sighted, as the only woman in F1 would be very marketable (so would bring money post-hiring rather than as she is hired).
@iainmartin1: Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron. Never seen a serious leader behave like Salmond just did when asked legitimate questions by @bbcnickrobinson
Can anybody else see yes going into meltdown here? I've begun backing "yes" % under 40% at big odds...here is my theory...every no voter with a pulse is turning out now, scared witless by yes lead in you gov and predictions of financial armageddon. All the reliable "oldie" voters and respectable middle class people with a job in financial services or a mortgage are turning out to oppose this now. Suddenly it feels no longer like different scare stories between yes and no...third parties (such as bank of england, business leaders) are stepping into the debate (business/markets) etc to indicate mortgages will be harder to get, a recession etc.
In the medium term, this is probably overblown, and Scotland would do fine in the medium term if it voted for independence, but if you were a relatively recently persuaded yes voter - as opposed to a diehard nat who declared your intention to vote yes several months ago when yes was polling in mid-Thirites, are you really going to leave your house and vote for a likely recession? Salmond's breezy dismissal of all unanswered questions as Westminster scare stories just feels less convincing to me by the day.
It's hard enough persuading people to leave their house and make it to a polling station to cast a ballot at any time.
I just can't see a yes now...especially given alot of the yes voters may not be regular election participants etc. The worry of triggering a recession will be the nudge needed to make a lot of recent yes converts stay at home or switch to NO in the privacy of the ballot box while perhaps maintaining a macho pro-independence line to family and friends to avoid looking inconsistent and weak.
If floating voters are persuaded by cries of financial armageddon that a yes vote will mean a recession for Scotland in the short term, or financial issues such as higher prices, transaction costs, mortgage issues, unless you are a die-hard nationalist on principle, can you ignore that, put it to one side, or dismiss it as a Westminster scare story, and go ahead and vote yes?
Not only can I not really see yes winning from here, I can't even see them holding their recent converts in this atmosphere...it felt like a sexy protest vote bandwagon last weekend...by next Thursday, recent yes converts many of whom are too young to have voted before anyway and may not be regular voters, are just not going to get to the point of actually casting a no vote.
I could see an end result like turnout of 73% as declared "yes" voters find an excuse not to make it to the ballot box and a split of actual votes cast like 37%-43% in favour of no. Remember, the polls weren't far from this a few months back.
This view is way out of line of current polling figures and declared certainty to vote intentions and the Quebec turnout, but I can see a "no" landslide from here.
@MarkKleinmanSky: Tesco Bank likely to be next to flag up contingency planning for Scottish referendum 'Yes' vote, following Lloyds, RBS, Clydesdale and TSB.
@iainmartin1: Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron. Never seen a serious leader behave like Salmond just did when asked legitimate questions by @bbcnickrobinson
Anyone know if Andy Burnham is one of the 100 Labour MPs being shunted up north in a sealed train to start the Labour revolution? Would be fascinating to hear his views on the NHS.
Me too. Not just on privatization and TTIp, but also on doing things differently in the NHS at all - which hrather misses the point of devolution (his party's policy):
“I would feel really genuinely sad if Scotland votes for independence, not just for our own self-interest and in the extra difficulty we would face getting a Labour government in England but I also don’t want to drive up the M6 and get my passport out or have to drive on the right when I want to drive on the left.” (This is NOT an April Fool. I checked.)
I've heard a couple of 'yes' supporters mention TTIp -don't quite understand how that's an argument for you? We've just heard there will definitely be no EU referendum north of the border if Scotland goes Indy, and as a small member state, that will have to make concessions to get back in, there will quite obviously be no exemption for Scotland from this. So surely it undermines your entire argument about the Scottish NHS?
The whole TTIP / SNP / NHS arguement seems a bit obscure. Under TTIP there is no mechanism for forcing NHS Scotland to be opened up to private competition unless the government there want it.
"Bercero explained that under TTIP “member states do not need to provide access to their markets for foreign companies and even if they do give access they can discriminate between foreign companies and EU / domestic ones”.
The EU commissioner also implied that if Labour wanted to reverse the Health and Social Care Act TTIP shouldn’t limit them from doing so. He explained “if a future UK government, or a public body to which power has been devolved, were to reverse decisions taken under a previous government, for example by discontinuing services provided by a foreign operator, it would be entirely at liberty to do so. However, it would have to respect applicable UK law.”
As I understand it the EU TTIP rules kick in for the whole of the UK as one, so if for instance the English NHS brings in privatization then the Scottsh NHS has to be willy-nilly. [Edit]. However, if Scotland is a different country this obviously does not apply so long as the NHS is a state responsibility.
Salmond talks of the Westminster politicians as if they're some unelected junta down in London (eg the Westminster politicians are bluffing on currency union).
He's glossing over the fact that there's 60ish million people in rUK who those politicians would represent in the effect of scottish independence (depressing, perhaps, but true). They're not unaccountable. It is public opinion in the rUK which will also drive currency union into the ground, not just the politicians.
As long as the wait for you to either deny or defend your fake flouncing and multiple online personalities?
Scott has a pal, him that does not know what his name is.
What on earth are you dribbling about? Is this a reprisal of your accusation that I'm not who I've said I am? Despite several posters confirming that they've met me, that I am the person in my avatar, and that I am real?
@iainmartin1: Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron. Never seen a serious leader behave like Salmond just did when asked legitimate questions by @bbcnickrobinson
Salmond is really desperate, because this is the only chance Scotland is likely to get to vote for independence. If they lose, the SNP will suffer and lose seats to Labour. Scotland would then need a Labour government with a majority to give them more powers under devomax negotiations.
@iainmartin1: Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron. Never seen a serious leader behave like Salmond just did when asked legitimate questions by @bbcnickrobinson
Can anybody else see yes going into meltdown here? I've begun backing "yes" % under 40% at big odds...here is my theory...every no voter with a pulse is turning out now, scared witless by yes lead in you gov and predictions of financial armageddon. All the reliable "oldie" voters and respectable middle class people with a job in financial services or a mortgage are turning out to oppose this now. Suddenly it feels no longer like different scare stories between yes and no...third parties (such as bank of england, business leaders) are stepping into the debate (business/markets) etc to indicate mortgages will be harder to get, a recession etc.
In the medium term, this is probably overblown, and Scotland would do fine in the medium term if it voted for independence, but if you were a relatively recently persuaded yes voter - as opposed to a diehard nat who declared your intention to vote yes several months ago when yes was polling in mid-Thirites, are you really going to leave your house and vote for a likely recession? Salmond's breezy dismissal of all unanswered questions as Westminster scare stories just feels less convincing to me by the day.
It's hard enough persuading people to leave their house and make it to a polling station to cast a ballot at any time.
I just can't see a yes now...especially given alot of the yes voters may not be regular election participants etc. The worry of triggering a recession will be the nudge needed to make a lot of recent yes converts stay at home or switch to NO in the privacy of the ballot box while perhaps maintaining a macho pro-independence line to family and friends to avoid looking inconsistent and weak.
If floating voters are persuaded by cries of financial armageddon that a yes vote will mean a recession for Scotland in the short term, or financial issues such as higher prices, transaction costs, mortgage issues, unless you are a die-hard nationalist on principle, can you ignore that, put it to one side, or dismiss it as a Westminster scare story, and go ahead and vote yes?
Not only can I not really see yes winning from here, I can't even see them holding their recent converts in this atmosphere...it felt like a sexy protest vote bandwagon last weekend...by next Thursday, recent yes converts many of whom are too young to have voted before anyway and may not be regular voters, are just not going to get to the point of actually casting a no vote.
I could see an end result like turnout of 73% as declared "yes" voters find an excuse not to make it to the ballot box and a split of actual votes cast like 37%-43% in favour of no. Remember, the polls weren't far from this a few months back.
This view is way out of line of current polling figures and declared certainty to vote intentions and the Quebec turnout, but I can see a "no" landslide from here.
I'm close to calling it for No, which is a shame. I dont want to see the break up of the union, but I think Yes will give us all a clean break.
Yes but at a time the UK is just mending the economy after the financial crash, it is not really a time to do it. There are still big decisions to be made on cuts to deal with the nations debts.
Foreign companies thinking of investing in the UK and creating jobs might be put off.
As I understand it the EU TTIP rules kick in for the whole of the UK as one, so if for instance the English NHS brings in privatization then the Scottsh NHS has to be willy-nilly.
Sorry, that just seems a made up fear - is there anyone involved with this who is saying that? The NHS is devolved under UK law and that is what TTIP will have to comply with. Scotland will only risk TTIP if the SNP decide to open up the health market.
@iainmartin1: Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron. Never seen a serious leader behave like Salmond just did when asked legitimate questions by @bbcnickrobinson
Salmond is really desperate, because this is the only chance Scotland is likely to get to vote for independence. If they lose, the SNP will suffer and lose seats to Labour. Scotland would then need a Labour government with a majority to give them more powers under devomax negotiations.
And with Devomax as with the French Quebecois there will be no point in going for full independence thereafter because they already have the best bits, just leaving defence, foreign policy and immigration to Westminster. It's now or never for the Nats.
@iainmartin1: .@RobDotHutton asks ace question. If warnings from firms are of no consequence, why have their share prices gone up? Rude Salmond blusters
Can anybody else see yes going into meltdown here? I've begun backing "yes" % under 40% at big odds...here is my theory...every no voter with a pulse is turning out now, scared witless by yes lead in you gov and predictions of financial armageddon. All the reliable "oldie" voters and respectable middle class people with a job in financial services or a mortgage are turning out to oppose this now. Suddenly it feels no longer like different scare stories between yes and no...third parties (such as bank of england, business leaders) are stepping into the debate (business/markets) etc to indicate mortgages will be harder to get, a recession etc.
It's hard enough persuading people to leave their house and make it to a polling station to cast a ballot at any time.
I just can't see a yes now...especially given alot of the yes voters may not be regular election participants etc. The worry of triggering a recession will be the nudge needed to make a lot of recent yes converts stay at home or switch to NO in the privacy of the ballot box while perhaps maintaining a macho pro-independence line to family and friends to avoid looking inconsistent and weak.
If floating voters are persuaded by cries of financial armageddon that a yes vote will mean a recession for Scotland in the short term, or financial issues such as higher prices, transaction costs, mortgage issues, unless you are a die-hard nationalist on principle, can you ignore that, put it to one side, or dismiss it as a Westminster scare story, and go ahead and vote yes?
Not only can I not really see yes winning from here, I can't even see them holding their recent converts in this atmosphere...it felt like a sexy protest vote bandwagon last weekend...by next Thursday, recent yes converts many of whom are too young to have voted before anyway and may not be regular voters, are just not going to get to the point of actually casting a no vote.
I could see an end result like turnout of 73% as declared "yes" voters find an excuse not to make it to the ballot box and a split of actual votes cast like 37%-43% in favour of no. Remember, the polls weren't far from this a few months back.
This view is way out of line of current polling figures and declared certainty to vote intentions and the Quebec turnout, but I can see a "no" landslide from here.
Sub 40% Yes is a loser I think.
Turnout won't be that low, but I'm certainly not following PtP in his uber bet of turnout at 90%+ based purely on Quebec. I see no real evidence for it.
I suspect we're heading for turnout in the low 80s with a 55-45 NO/YES result.
Quite interesting reading pb.com today. Less than 36 hours ago we were all collectively hyperventilating and thinking it was all over: Scotland was lost.
Today, we're more confident, relaxed and resorting to jokes once more. As well as back to pointing out that just one poll out of dozens has YES ever so slightly ahead, so what we were ever worried about?
Just goes to show how high the stakes are, I guess.
This is about more than betting and money - this time. And it's by no means over yet.
No, we aren't out of the woods yet. But, hopefully, this week will have turned out to be the Unionists' Stalingrad.
I'm close to calling it for No, which is a shame. I dont want to see the break up of the union, but I think Yes will give us all a clean break.
Yes but at a time the UK is just mending the economy after the financial crash, it is not really a time to do it. There are still big decisions to be made on cuts to deal with the nations debts.
Foreign companies thinking of investing in the UK and creating jobs might be put off.
I don't think Scottish separation is going to put investors off in London or Manchester. Edinburgh and Glasgow yes, at least temporarily until Scotland sorts out its own currency and central bank, but I don't see how investment in E&W would reduce even in the short to medium term.
Debt per capita rising by 8% isn't going to cause the economy to come crashing down. Scotland reneging in its international obligations would cause the Scottish economy to crash but not for the rUK.
Christopher Hope @christopherhope · 7 mins Its all kicking off at the Donald Dewar statue on Buchanan Street. Labour MPs taunted as "slaves" by Yes supporters
anyone think it's going to go away and YES will accept the vote after the 19th if it's NO?
The fall out from this could get messy, and someone could end up getting hurt.
Can anybody else see yes going into meltdown here? I've begun backing "yes" % under 40% at big odds...here is my theory...every no voter with a pulse is turning out now, scared witless by yes lead in you gov and predictions of financial armageddon. All the reliable "oldie" voters and respectable middle class people with a job in financial services or a mortgage are turning out to oppose this now. Suddenly it feels no longer like different scare stories between yes and no...third parties (such as bank of england, business leaders) are stepping into the debate (business/markets) etc to indicate mortgages will be harder to get, a recession etc.
It's hard enough persuading people to leave their house and make it to a polling station to cast a ballot at any time.
I just can't see a yes now...especially given alot of the yes voters may not be regular election participants etc. The worry of triggering a recession will be the nudge needed to make a lot of recent yes converts stay at home or switch to NO in the privacy of the ballot box while perhaps maintaining a macho pro-independence line to family and friends to avoid looking inconsistent and weak.
If floating voters are persuaded by cries of financial armageddon that a yes vote will mean a recession for Scotland in the short term, or financial issues such as higher prices, transaction costs, mortgage issues, unless you are a die-hard nationalist on principle, can you ignore that, put it to one side, or dismiss it as a Westminster scare story, and go ahead and vote yes?
Not only can I not really see yes winning from here, I can't even see them holding their recent converts in this atmosphere...it felt like a sexy protest vote bandwagon last weekend...by next Thursday, recent yes converts many of whom are too young to have voted before anyway and may not be regular voters, are just not going to get to the point of actually casting a no vote.
I could see an end result like turnout of 73% as declared "yes" voters find an excuse not to make it to the ballot box and a split of actual votes cast like 37%-43% in favour of no. Remember, the polls weren't far from this a few months back.
This view is way out of line of current polling figures and declared certainty to vote intentions and the Quebec turnout, but I can see a "no" landslide from here.
Sub 40% Yes is a loser I think.
Turnout won't be that low, but I'm certainly not following PtP in his uber bet of turnout at 90%+ based purely on Quebec. I see no real evidence for it.
I suspect we're heading for turnout in the low 80s with a 55-45 NO/YES result.
If turnout is above 80%, I'll buy a round of drinks for all at the next Dirty Dicks!
Got some details on a new market on which of the 32 council areas will have the highest YES vote share. Paddy Power's had a market up first, but our odds are quite different to theirs, so perhaps there is some value somewhere. http://t.co/947fNiya4J
I've backed E.Ayrshire, Clackmannanshire & N.Lanarkshire with PP.
But counterproductive. The bombs depicted causing all the trouble were Warsaw Pact, so clearly the obvious inference was that we needed to get rid of the Warsaw Pact's weapons. The way to do that was to be able to visit the same calamity on them as that film depicted their visiting on us. They'd recognise thereby that there was no point having weapons you don't dare use.
So it was a good argument for deterrence, because the way to ensure the weapons aren;t used against you is to have your own; and a good one against unilateralism - without our own nukes, anyone with nukes could have gone ahead and made the film a reality without fear of consequences.
The makers can't seriously have imagined they were putting forward a compelling argument for unilateralism. Probably they were just KGB agents.
As I understand it the EU TTIP rules kick in for the whole of the UK as one, so if for instance the English NHS brings in privatization then the Scottsh NHS has to be willy-nilly.
Sorry, that just seems a made up fear - is there anyone involved with this who is saying that? The NHS is devolved under UK law and that is what TTIP will have to comply with. Scotland will only risk TTIP if the SNP decide to open up the health market.
Fair enough. There is indeed some uncertainty but this arises from the lack of clarity on the new proposals. There are two related but separate issues -
1. Fiscal pressure through Barnett - the more English health spending becomes direct from patient to private company, the less state spending there is, the more the Scottish budget is reduced.
2. The TTIP agreement is with Westminster with no opt-out for the NHS, and no opt-out apparently possible for Scotland. This would seem to make sense as finance [edit: in the sense of Treasury principles, etc.] and foreign policy are not generally devolved. (If you find a categorical legal statement on this, and not just a promise by a pol, please do let me know as it is of considerable interest to a family member). I would be very surprised, for several reasons, if Westminster permitted an opt-out.
A google for TTIP NHS Scotland will bring up some perspectives, as will one for Allyson Pollock (a very respected health economist) and Philippa Whitford (spelling a bit uncertain in my memory).
The NHS is becoming quite an issue up here - I know some people for which it is the reason to move to Yes (somewhat to my surprise).
Christopher Hope @christopherhope · 7 mins Its all kicking off at the Donald Dewar statue on Buchanan Street. Labour MPs taunted as "slaves" by Yes supporters
anyone think it's going to go away and YES will accept the vote after the 19th if it's NO?
The fall out from this could get messy, and someone could end up getting hurt.
In Glasgow Yes supporters tend to be former Labour supporters - with a particular viewpoint.
Polly Toynbee on Daily politics blaming political correctness and Labour for Rotherham
Rotherham ought to be a wake-up call to tackle this problem elsewhere (and perhaps even pursue the actual rapists). Instead it looks like even more resources will be devoted to a witch hunt.
Eck has cleverly solved the problem of Scottish banks printing pound notes. There will be no Scottish banks...
The Nats are funny on the banks:
6 months ago: "They're bluffing" Today: "It's a 6 month old story"
If the banks are so smart, how come they ain't rich?
Oh.
OK: if the banks can't see a banking-induced worldwide catastrophe happening until it actually happens, why do we take their predictions of politically induced national catastrophes as gospel?
And why does nobody seem to think that the banks might have 1. a political agenda of their own, and/or 2. a political agenda imposed on them by Cameron and Miliband saying how lovely things will be for bankers after next May if they all pull together like good little boys over Scotland?
Polly Toynbee on Daily politics blaming political correctness and Labour for Rotherham
Rotherham ought to be a wake-up call to tackle this problem elsewhere (and perhaps even pursue the actual rapists). Instead it looks like even more resources will be devoted to a witch hunt.
UKIPs Suzanne Evans speaking brilliantly here... Polly is charmed!
And why does nobody seem to think that the banks might have 1. a political agenda of their own, and/or 2. a political agenda imposed on them by Cameron and Miliband saying how lovely things will be for bankers after next May if they all pull together like good little boys over Scotland?
Where do buy your tinfoil hats from? Mine appears to be faulty...
Eck has cleverly solved the problem of Scottish banks printing pound notes. There will be no Scottish banks...
The Nats are funny on the banks:
6 months ago: "They're bluffing" Today: "It's a 6 month old story"
If the banks are so smart, how come they ain't rich?
Oh.
OK: if the banks can't see a banking-induced worldwide catastrophe happening until it actually happens, why do we take their predictions of politically induced national catastrophes as gospel?
And why does nobody seem to think that the banks might have 1. a political agenda of their own, and/or 2. a political agenda imposed on them by Cameron and Miliband saying how lovely things will be for bankers after next May if they all pull together like good little boys over Scotland?
Exactly, and after sleeping on it I still cannot understand why Messrs Cameron et al came up to Scotland for a lovebombing run but forgot to get the ordnance guys to remove the bankers' messages from the bomb bay. Mixed messages, some of which we've seen I forget how many times round. Bankers are not, after all, the most popular profession in the UK, never mind to the working classes of Scotland.
I'm looking forward to TUD's report from the schemes.
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 11/09/2014 12:40 In Clacton. Labour anti-Ukip campaign on NHS is all wrong. Carswell known locally for saving maternity unit -> pic.twitter.com/5wl3OkUQ8t
It seems even the UKIP rally tomorrow in Glasgow is a behind closed doors affair. I was rather hoping for something more entertaining.
Awww. It would have been fun if Labour students from England had run him out of town a second time ... though it didn't stop Mr Farage and some of the media for blaming it on Alex Salmond Mastermind.
I am sure you are correct there is a strong argument for not taking the bank's warnings as gospel, but I guess the relevance of these announcements is the likely impact on referendum voters, particuarly those with a mortgage, or job in financial services etc.
Even if voters aren't sure whether the bank warnings are true, the issue is whether the reward for taking the risk of finding out - a chance to give westminster establishment a bleeding nose, more control over one's destiny, fresh national pride - is worth the potential costs of the banks warning are correct? Many people believe that the vast majority of voters, perhaps sadly for idealists and those of high principles, put their own financial welfare and financial security before romantic ideals and principles. I guess this may be why the financial armageddon warnings from finance/business are so dangerous for Yes. There is an argument that the yes surge was passly based on financial giveaways and appealing to Labour voters through their wallets anyway.
I suspect this consideration applies even if you are correct that the banks do have a political agenda of their own or are on an establishment payroll.
Eck has cleverly solved the problem of Scottish banks printing pound notes. There will be no Scottish banks...
The Nats are funny on the banks:
6 months ago: "They're bluffing" Today: "It's a 6 month old story"
If the banks are so smart, how come they ain't rich?
Oh.
OK: if the banks can't see a banking-induced worldwide catastrophe happening until it actually happens, why do we take their predictions of politically induced national catastrophes as gospel?
And why does nobody seem to think that the banks might have 1. a political agenda of their own, and/or 2. a political agenda imposed on them by Cameron and Miliband saying how lovely things will be for bankers after next May if they all pull together like good little boys over Scotland?
1. Is a fair enough follow through. However there are no plans by anyone in England to decrease the amount of State funding for the NHS or to force people to pay for their own treatment. The SNP may as well say that the Tories are planning to scrap the police service and decrease Scotland's block grant that way. This point just seems to be making up stuff to try and scare people.
2. I'd agree that there does seem to be alot hidden about the precise affects of TTIP in Scotland. My reading of the EU negotiators letter on this is that the relevant public bodies in charge of health systems will be able to organise services the way they want as long as they are consistent and do it in line with the legal situation in their country.
I can accept that on this one though somebody from the EU needs to be clearer in addressing the affect on the devolved governments of the UK,
As I understand it the EU TTIP rules kick in for the whole of the UK as one, so if for instance the English NHS brings in privatization then the Scottsh NHS has to be willy-nilly.
Sorry, that just seems a made up fear - is there anyone involved with this who is saying that? The NHS is devolved under UK law and that is what TTIP will have to comply with. Scotland will only risk TTIP if the SNP decide to open up the health market.
Fair enough. There is indeed some uncertainty but this arises from the lack of clarity on the new proposals. There are two related but separate issues -
1. Fiscal pressure through Barnett - the more English health spending becomes direct from patient to private company, the less state spending there is, the more the Scottish budget is reduced.
2. The TTIP agreement is with Westminster with no opt-out for the NHS, and no opt-out apparently possible for Scotland. This would seem to make sense as finance [edit: in the sense of Treasury principles, etc.] and foreign policy are not generally devolved. (If you find a categorical legal statement on this, and not just a promise by a pol, please do let me know as it is of considerable interest to a family member). I would be very surprised, for several reasons, if Westminster permitted an opt-out.
A google for TTIP NHS Scotland will bring up some perspectives, as will one for Allyson Pollock (a very respected health economist) and Philippa Whitford (spelling a bit uncertain in my memory).
The NHS is becoming quite an issue up here - I know some people for which it is the reason to move to Yes (somewhat to my surprise).
I am sure you are correct there is a strong argument for not taking the bank's warnings as gospel, but I guess the relevance of these announcements is the likely impact on referendum voters, particuarly those with a mortgage, or job in financial services etc.
Even if voters aren't sure whether the bank warnings are true, the issue is whether the reward for taking the risk of finding out - a chance to give westminster establishment a bleeding nose, more control over one's destiny, fresh national pride - is worth the potential costs of the banks warning are correct? Many people believe that the vast majority of voters, perhaps sadly for idealists and those of high principles, put their own financial welfare and financial security before romantic ideals and principles. I guess this may be why the financial armageddon warnings from finance/business are so dangerous for Yes. There is an argument that the yes surge was passly based on financial giveaways and appealing to Labour voters through their wallets anyway.
I suspect this consideration applies even if you are correct that the banks do have a political agenda of their own or are on an establishment payroll.
Eck has cleverly solved the problem of Scottish banks printing pound notes. There will be no Scottish banks...
The Nats are funny on the banks:
6 months ago: "They're bluffing" Today: "It's a 6 month old story"
If the banks are so smart, how come they ain't rich?
Oh.
OK: if the banks can't see a banking-induced worldwide catastrophe happening until it actually happens, why do we take their predictions of politically induced national catastrophes as gospel?
And why does nobody seem to think that the banks might have 1. a political agenda of their own, and/or 2. a political agenda imposed on them by Cameron and Miliband saying how lovely things will be for bankers after next May if they all pull together like good little boys over Scotland?
Point taken, but as Easterross pretty much reminded us this morning, a lot of people don't have the luxury of such financial security of a kind mediated by the banks, and that group just happens to be one of the current key demographics in indyref.
Eck has cleverly solved the problem of Scottish banks printing pound notes. There will be no Scottish banks...
The Nats are funny on the banks:
6 months ago: "They're bluffing" Today: "It's a 6 month old story"
If the banks are so smart, how come they ain't rich?
Oh.
OK: if the banks can't see a banking-induced worldwide catastrophe happening until it actually happens, why do we take their predictions of politically induced national catastrophes as gospel?
And why does nobody seem to think that the banks might have 1. a political agenda of their own, and/or 2. a political agenda imposed on them by Cameron and Miliband saying how lovely things will be for bankers after next May if they all pull together like good little boys over Scotland?
Exactly, and after sleeping on it I still cannot understand why Messrs Cameron et al came up to Scotland for a lovebombing run but forgot to get the ordnance guys to remove the bankers' messages from the bomb bay. Mixed messages, some of which we've seen I forget how many times round. Bankers are not, after all, the most popular profession in the UK, never mind to the working classes of Scotland.
I'm looking forward to TUD's report from the schemes.
Because, and this is a criticism of Labour as well, the poshos who run the country think most people actually have £85,000 stashed away (possibly in each of several banks).
Quite interesting reading pb.com today. Less than 36 hours ago we were all collectively hyperventilating and thinking it was all over: Scotland was lost.
Today, we're more confident, relaxed and resorting to jokes once more. As well as back to pointing out that just one poll out of dozens has YES ever so slightly ahead, so what we were ever worried about?
Just goes to show how high the stakes are, I guess.
This is about more than betting and money - this time. And it's by no means over yet.
A week is a long time in politics. And we've got another 7 days of this.
@BBCDouglasF: Tesco Bank joins Edinburgh-based banks planning to move registration to England if #indyref 'yes': 'no immediate impact' on Scottish jobs
I am sure you are correct there is a strong argument for not taking the bank's warnings as gospel, but I guess the relevance of these announcements is the likely impact on referendum voters, particuarly those with a mortgage, or job in financial services etc.
Eck has cleverly solved the problem of Scottish banks printing pound notes. There will be no Scottish banks...
The Nats are funny on the banks:
6 months ago: "They're bluffing" Today: "It's a 6 month old story"
If the banks are so smart, how come they ain't rich?
Oh.
OK: if the banks can't see a banking-induced worldwide catastrophe happening until it actually happens, why do we take their predictions of politically induced national catastrophes as gospel?
And why does nobody seem to think that the banks might have 1. a political agenda of their own, and/or 2. a political agenda imposed on them by Cameron and Miliband saying how lovely things will be for bankers after next May if they all pull together like good little boys over Scotland?
Point taken, but as Easterross pretty much reminded us this morning, a lot of people don't have the luxury of such financial security of a kind mediated by the banks, and that group just happens to be one of the current key demographics in indyref.
We have two example of previous national Scottish government referenda:
(1) 1979 - to establish a Scottish assembly. The electorate knew there was a 40% rule to back it, yet only 51.6% voted for it on a turnout of 63.76% (2) 1997 - to establish a Scottish parliament, after 18 years of effing 'Tory rule'. You'd think the whole country would have been desperate, yet although 74.3% voted in favour, even fewer turned out at 60.4%
Now, it is different this time. It is epochal and a question of national destiny. It is also very close and plenty of pollsters have suggested turnout in the 80s.
Yet do you really think every last man, woman and beast in Scotland will crawl to the polling station on Thursday next week? Some of whom have never voted in their lives before and are still uncertain which way to go?
Based on past evidence, I'd suggest not. That will disproportionately affect the lower income groups C2/D/E and - therefore - hurt YES more than NO.
As I understand it the EU TTIP rules kick in for the whole of the UK as one, so if for instance the English NHS brings in privatization then the Scottsh NHS has to be willy-nilly.
Sorry, that just seems a made up fear - is there anyone involved with this who is saying that? The NHS is devolved under UK law and that is what TTIP will have to comply with. Scotland will only risk TTIP if the SNP decide to open up the health market.
Fair enough. There is indeed some uncertainty but this arises from the lack of clarity on the new proposals. There are two related but separate issues -
1. Fiscal pressure through Barnett - the more English health spending becomes direct from patient to private company, the less state spending there is, the more the Scottish budget is reduced.
2. The TTIP agreement is with Westminster with no opt-out for the NHS, and no opt-out apparently possible for Scotland. This would seem to make sense as finance [edit: in the sense of Treasury principles, etc.] and foreign policy are not generally devolved. (If you find a categorical legal statement on this, and not just a promise by a pol, please do let me know as it is of considerable interest to a family member). I would be very surprised, for several reasons, if Westminster permitted an opt-out.
A google for TTIP NHS Scotland will bring up some perspectives, as will one for Allyson Pollock (a very respected health economist) and Philippa Whitford (spelling a bit uncertain in my memory).
The NHS is becoming quite an issue up here - I know some people for which it is the reason to move to Yes (somewhat to my surprise).
Point 1 is ridiculous. The threat to Scotland of England spending less on health?
Point two, no opt out for Scotland, fine, but how on earth do you think you'll be securing any sort of opt out when you rejoin the EU as an independent country? It's doubtful you'll even be able to opt out of the euro. Salmond's going to say 'Please can we join -but that massive free trade deal you've been working on -no thanks' is he?
I'm no fan of what I've seen of TTIP -seems like pretty much an excuse for US corporations to rape and pillage to me, but clearly the best hope of any sort of 'opt out' would be to campaign for one within the UK, where a eurosceptic/left wing coalition on this issue would have real clout.
I think it's just a flat out case of misrepresenting the truth to people to be honest. Let's hope enough of them see through it.
Eck has cleverly solved the problem of Scottish banks printing pound notes. There will be no Scottish banks...
The Nats are funny on the banks:
6 months ago: "They're bluffing" Today: "It's a 6 month old story"
If the banks are so smart, how come they ain't rich?
Oh.
OK: if the banks can't see a banking-induced worldwide catastrophe happening until it actually happens, why do we take their predictions of politically induced national catastrophes as gospel?
And why does nobody seem to think that the banks might have 1. a political agenda of their own, and/or 2. a political agenda imposed on them by Cameron and Miliband saying how lovely things will be for bankers after next May if they all pull together like good little boys over Scotland?
Exactly, and after sleeping on it I still cannot understand why Messrs Cameron et al came up to Scotland for a lovebombing run but forgot to get the ordnance guys to remove the bankers' messages from the bomb bay. Mixed messages, some of which we've seen I forget how many times round. Bankers are not, after all, the most popular profession in the UK, never mind to the working classes of Scotland.
I'm looking forward to TUD's report from the schemes.
Because, and this is a criticism of Labour as well, the poshos who run the country think most people actually have £85,000 stashed away (possibly in each of several banks).
The problem with your class war student politics approach is that actually quite a lot of people - especially pensioners who tend to vote - do have those kids of sums and more in the bank, often from a lifetime of doing without. And they do worry if those savings, on which they may well be reliant to live out their days in relative ease, are under threat for whatever reason.
Can anybody else see yes going into meltdown here? I've begun backing "yes" % under 40% at big odds...here is my theory...every no voter with a pulse is turning out now, scared witless by yes lead in you gov and predictions of financial armageddon. All the reliable "oldie" voters and respectable middle class people with a job in financial services or a mortgage are turning out to oppose this now. Suddenly it feels no longer like different scare stories between yes and no...third parties (such as bank of england, business leaders) are stepping into the debate (business/markets) etc to indicate mortgages will be harder to get, a recession etc.
In the medium term, this is probably overblown, and Scotland would do fine in the medium term if it voted for independence, but if you were a relatively recently persuaded yes voter - as opposed to a diehard nat who declared your intention to vote yes several months ago when yes was polling in mid-Thirites, are you really going to leave your house and vote for a likely recession? Salmond's breezy dismissal of all unanswered questions as Westminster scare stories just feels less convincing to me by the day.
It's hard enough persuading people to leave their house and make it to a polling station to cast a ballot at any time.
I just can't see a yes now...especially given alot of the yes voters may not be regular election participants etc. The worry of triggering a recession will be the nudge needed to make a lot of recent yes converts stay at home or switch to NO in the privacy of the ballot box while perhaps maintaining a macho pro-independence line to family and friends to avoid looking inconsistent and weak.
If floating voters are persuaded by cries of financial armageddon that a yes vote will mean a recession for Scotland in the short term, or financial issues such as higher prices, transaction costs, mortgage issues, unless you are a die-hard nationalist on principle, can you ignore that, put it to one side, or dismiss it as a Westminster scare story, and go ahead and vote yes?
Not only can I not really see yes winning from here, I can't even see them holding their recent converts in this atmosphere...it felt like a sexy protest vote bandwagon last weekend...by next Thursday, recent yes converts many of whom are too young to have voted before anyway and may not be regular voters, are just not going to get to the point of actually casting a no vote.
I could see an end result like turnout of 73% as declared "yes" voters find an excuse not to make it to the ballot box and a split of actual votes cast like 37%-43% in favour of no. Remember, the polls weren't far from this a few months back.
This view is way out of line of current polling figures and declared certainty to vote intentions and the Quebec turnout, but I can see a "no" landslide from here.
As long as the wait for you to either deny or defend your fake flouncing and multiple online personalities?
Scott has a pal, him that does not know what his name is.
What on earth are you dribbling about? Is this a reprisal of your accusation that I'm not who I've said I am? Despite several posters confirming that they've met me, that I am the person in my avatar, and that I am real?
Stop being such a tedious turd
As I said you are mental , there are two people in your avatar. Cuckoo
Point taken, but as Easterross pretty much reminded us this morning, a lot of people don't have the luxury of such financial security of a kind mediated by the banks, and that group just happens to be one of the current key demographics in indyref.
I'm sure you are right that this group who sadly have such a small stake are going to be critical. I just wonder if, given how disillusioned they are with politics and how rarely they vote normally, whether they will actually get out on the day to vote "yes", if by then they are believe there is a fair chance that a yes vote could lead to a recession - meaning less government goodies available.
I agree it's questionable whether this demographic will have been persuaded of this view by polling day.
If I was heading the no campaign, I would be taking the Credit Suisse financial report (I think it was Credit Suisse?0 mentioning a likely recession in the aftermath of the vote and saying: "This isn't our campaign saying this, it's an independent financial analyst.
If you vote yes, the markets believe there will be a recession in Scotland, at least in the short term. That will be bad for mortgages and mean less money for the NHS and make it harder for the new Scottish government to do the things it has promised for working people. Perhaps benefits would need to be cut further."
I would just repeat that message relentlessly between now and polling day. I would carry on saying it even if I was accused of being negative or spreading scare stories as I feel it is Yes's weak underbelly at this stage. I accept i am not sure if it No coulld get this message to cut through to the relevant demographic - Salmond is so good he might be able to brush it off as another Westminster/establishment scare story.
But I feel it would be NO's best strategy from here...It's hard to cast a vote if you haven't done so for decades for something that you believe could cut what is already a very difficult income to live on.
Polly Toynbee on Daily politics blaming political correctness and Labour for Rotherham
Rotherham ought to be a wake-up call to tackle this problem elsewhere (and perhaps even pursue the actual rapists). Instead it looks like even more resources will be devoted to a witch hunt.
UKIPs Suzanne Evans speaking brilliantly here... Polly is charmed!
As long as the wait for you to either deny or defend your fake flouncing and multiple online personalities?
Scott has a pal, him that does not know what his name is.
What on earth are you dribbling about? Is this a reprisal of your accusation that I'm not who I've said I am? Despite several posters confirming that they've met me, that I am the person in my avatar, and that I am real?
Stop being such a tedious turd
As I said you are mental , there are two people in your avatar. Cuckoo
I said stop being a tedious turd.
There's a black woman and a white man in my picture. I am white and male; the lady is my favourite singer.
And "him that does not know what his name is [sic]"; my first name is Jonathan, my second is James, hence JonnyJimmy. Surely not too much even for your tiny mind?
It's almost like the whole "we're only supporting democracy" thing is a complete load of bullshit.
What's the timing? Just after Obama said the US can chuck some more bombs around in Iraq and Syria? Putin may be mad but he's no fool.
Putin's not mad. He's just utterly devoid of moral character.
God forbid anyone tell the USA to get stuffed.
The fact that your automatic thought is about great power rivalry rather than the suffering of the people of Syria and Ukraine shows how much you have bought into the Kremlin's propaganda. And that's even before we get to the mass repression in Russia itself.
The great thing about democracy is that you can change your mind. It makes space for spasms of anger as well as cool calculation. Throw out the rascals now and you can reconsider next time if the new lot come to disappoint. The referendum on Scottish independence is different. It leaves no room for buyer’s remorse. Once dissolved, the union cannot be recovered.
Travel beyond Britain’s shores and the persistent question you hear is the simplest one. Why? How can one of the world’s most successful multinational states contemplate such a wilful act of self-harm?
I have not heard a single soul from Washington or Delhi, Brussels or Beijing suggest separation could be good for Scotland or Britain. “God forbid!” said a puzzled Sushma Swaraj, India’s foreign minister, when told this week that Scotland may indeed opt for separation.
In Bradford,we were just getting over the Bradford riots and then these numpty politicians opened the flood gates to more poor unskilled,uneducated people from Eastern Europe,which will lead to future problems,mark my words.
Are we discovering today that charm, guile, engagement and the gift of the gab can take you an awful awful long way in politics - but that when it counts content and a coherent message may prevail?
Eck looking alot like the emperor with no clothes and whimpering, blustering, deflecting. You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.
(People give a very serious shit about being bankrupted and laughing this stuff off is trite beyond belief. They are potentially days away from committing to becoming country with no money. WTF!).
Point 1 is ridiculous. The threat to Scotland of England spending less on health?
Point two, no opt out for Scotland, fine, but how on earth do you think you'll be securing any sort of opt out when you rejoin the EU as an independent country? It's doubtful you'll even be able to opt out of the euro. Salmond's going to say 'Please can we join -but that massive free trade deal you've been working on -no thanks' is he?
I'm no fan of what I've seen of TTIP -seems like pretty much an excuse for US corporations to rape and pillage to me, but clearly the best hope of any sort of 'opt out' would be to campaign for one within the UK, where a eurosceptic/left wing coalition on this issue would have real clout.
I think it's just a flat out case of misrepresenting the truth to people to be honest. Let's hope enough of them see through it.
I think you've misunderstood a couple of points, if I may
1. On budget, check out Barnett Formula: if England budgets x% less because patients are paying suppliers direct for their trusses, etc., then Scotland immediately gets an x% cut pro rata, and has to do without to the same extent (or find the dosh from elsewhere). That applies to privatisation in general, not just TTIP, of course.
2. Scotland cannot get an opt out at all separately from the UK as a whole, as the English NHS is being privatised. If it is separate it can decide to keep the TTIP from affecting its NHS, if that is still publicly funded.
On the wider EU issue, it's already very clear that needs and priorities are different in Scotland from UK as a whole (think fisheries and farming, for one thing, vs City of London). Renegotiation and a review is absolutely necessary anyway as the existing deal probably wouldn't cut it.
The Scottish referendum is looking increasingly close. Clearly there is work to be done if the best result for all is to be achieved. May I ask, plead, even beg, those posters on here who reside in Scotland to use their time more wisely. Stop posting on here and, instead, use the time to persuade your compatriots to vote YES .
There is something wrong with public bodies in S Yorks.
A third person said his 12-year-old granddaughter was arrested for being drunk and disorderly by police officers who let her four adult abusers go free.
The man said: "You [Shaun Wright] were a disgrace, mate. If I had a gun I would shoot you."
1. Is a fair enough follow through. However there are no plans by anyone in England to decrease the amount of State funding for the NHS or to force people to pay for their own treatment. The SNP may as well say that the Tories are planning to scrap the police service and decrease Scotland's block grant that way. This point just seems to be making up stuff to try and scare people.
2. I'd agree that there does seem to be alot hidden about the precise affects of TTIP in Scotland. My reading of the EU negotiators letter on this is that the relevant public bodies in charge of health systems will be able to organise services the way they want as long as they are consistent and do it in line with the legal situation in their country.
I can accept that on this one though somebody from the EU needs to be clearer in addressing the affect on the devolved governments of the UK,
[earlier stuff snipped]
Thanks. On the first point, Mr Cameron's assurance, IIRC, only applies to the current term of Parliament - hardly surprisingly, of course. The issue is the structural legal changes which appear designed to facilitate privatization after May 2015. This is being much discussed well beyond Scotland and the SNP and it's certainly not a SNP-only issue.
Point 1 is ridiculous. The threat to Scotland of England spending less on health?
Point two, no opt out for Scotland, fine, but how on earth do you think you'll be securing any sort of opt out when you rejoin the EU as an independent country? It's doubtful you'll even be able to opt out of the euro. Salmond's going to say 'Please can we join -but that massive free trade deal you've been working on -no thanks' is he?
I'm no fan of what I've seen of TTIP -seems like pretty much an excuse for US corporations to rape and pillage to me, but clearly the best hope of any sort of 'opt out' would be to campaign for one within the UK, where a eurosceptic/left wing coalition on this issue would have real clout.
I think it's just a flat out case of misrepresenting the truth to people to be honest. Let's hope enough of them see through it.
I think you've misunderstood a couple of points, if I may
1. On budget, check out Barnett Formula: if England budgets x% less because patients are paying suppliers direct for their trusses, etc., then Scotland immediately gets an x% cut pro rata, and has to do without to the same extent (or find the dosh from elsewhere). That applies to privatisation in general, not just TTIP, of course.
2. Scotland cannot get an opt out at all separately from the UK as a whole, as the English NHS is being privatised. If it is separate it can decide to keep the TTIP from affecting its NHS, if that is still publicly funded.
On the wider EU issue, it's already very clear that needs and priorities are different in Scotland from UK as a whole (think fisheries and farming, for one thing, vs City of London). Renegotiation and a review is absolutely necessary anyway as the existing deal probably wouldn't cut it.
Carnyx, scrap the Barnett formula. Should have been done donkey's years ago as the man who came up with it has said. Surely it can't survive the current turmoil if the Scots are so stupid as to vote NO.
1. On budget, check out Barnett Formula: if England budgets x% less because patients are paying suppliers direct for their trusses, etc., then Scotland immediately gets an x% cut pro rata, and has to do without to the same extent (or find the dosh from elsewhere). That applies to privatisation in general, not just TTIP, of course.
As logical fallacies go, that one is an absolute humdinger! I suppose, however, that it might explain why Scottish MPs are so keen on voting for money to be wasted.
The Scottish referendum is looking increasingly close. Clearly there is work to be done if the best result for all is to be achieved. May I ask, plead, even beg, those posters on here who reside in Scotland to use their time more wisely. Stop posting on here and, instead, use the time to persuade your compatriots to vote YES .
It is not surprising that English posters on here who back a Scottish Yes tend to be Ukipers or crypto Ukipers who basically are happy to see Scotland commit economic hari-kari to further their real interest which is to pull the rest of the UK out of the EU. I think the recent intervention by big business in the Scottish debate in a mere foretaste of what you'd see with an EU in/out referendum. As hopefully we'll see next week enough nervous middle ground voters will take fright and opt for the status quo (albeit with devo plus in Scotland or whatever concessions DC obtains from our EU partners in that debate).
Surely, this is precisely the time when a voter recall ballot would be needed and carried? But, of course, recall doesn't apply to elected PCCs or MPs.
Shame this government never passed proper legislation on this. If you lose absolute confidence of your constituency, there should be a petition to trigger a recall ballot, followed by the election of somebody new.
Ipsos MORI @IpsosMORI 55m From our archives: How did Britons react to #911 one week later? http://bit.ly/1lVOrYC #911anniversary
Q12 worries me. The Cold War. 3 minutes warning. And things are LESS safe ...
I found a lot of public information films terrifying, as a boy. One I saw was about all the terrible things that could happen to children when they mucked about on farms. One boy stole a tractor which toppled over on him; another slowly drowned in a cess pit.
@MarkKleinmanSky: Tesco Bank likely to be next to flag up contingency planning for Scottish referendum 'Yes' vote, following Lloyds, RBS, Clydesdale and TSB.
Quite interesting reading pb.com today. Less than 36 hours ago we were all collectively hyperventilating and thinking it was all over: Scotland was lost.
Today, we're more confident, relaxed and resorting to jokes once more. As well as back to pointing out that just one poll out of dozens has YES ever so slightly ahead, so what we were ever worried about?
Just goes to show how high the stakes are, I guess.
This is about more than betting and money - this time. And it's by no means over yet.
No, we aren't out of the woods yet. But, hopefully, this week will have turned out to be the Unionists' Stalingrad.
But counterproductive. The bombs depicted causing all the trouble were Warsaw Pact, so clearly the obvious inference was that we needed to get rid of the Warsaw Pact's weapons. The way to do that was to be able to visit the same calamity on them as that film depicted their visiting on us. They'd recognise thereby that there was no point having weapons you don't dare use.
So it was a good argument for deterrence, because the way to ensure the weapons aren;t used against you is to have your own; and a good one against unilateralism - without our own nukes, anyone with nukes could have gone ahead and made the film a reality without fear of consequences.
The makers can't seriously have imagined they were putting forward a compelling argument for unilateralism. Probably they were just KGB agents.
I am sure you are correct there is a strong argument for not taking the bank's warnings as gospel, but I guess the relevance of these announcements is the likely impact on referendum voters, particuarly those with a mortgage, or job in financial services etc.
Eck has cleverly solved the problem of Scottish banks printing pound notes. There will be no Scottish banks...
The Nats are funny on the banks:
6 months ago: "They're bluffing" Today: "It's a 6 month old story"
If the banks are so smart, how come they ain't rich?
Oh.
OK: if the banks can't see a banking-induced worldwide catastrophe happening until it actually happens, why do we take their predictions of politically induced national catastrophes as gospel?
And why does nobody seem to think that the banks might have 1. a political agenda of their own, and/or 2. a political agenda imposed on them by Cameron and Miliband saying how lovely things will be for bankers after next May if they all pull together like good little boys over Scotland?
Point taken, but as Easterross pretty much reminded us this morning, a lot of people don't have the luxury of such financial security of a kind mediated by the banks, and that group just happens to be one of the current key demographics in indyref.
We have two example of previous national Scottish government referenda:
(1) 1979 - to establish a Scottish assembly. The electorate knew there was a 40% rule to back it, yet only 51.6% voted for it on a turnout of 63.76% (2) 1997 - to establish a Scottish parliament, after 18 years of effing 'Tory rule'. You'd think the whole country would have been desperate, yet although 74.3% voted in favour, even fewer turned out at 60.4%
Now, it is different this time. It is epochal and a question of national destiny. It is also very close and plenty of pollsters have suggested turnout in the 80s.
Yet do you really think every last man, woman and beast in Scotland will crawl to the polling station on Thursday next week? Some of whom have never voted in their lives before and are still uncertain which way to go?
Based on past evidence, I'd suggest not. That will disproportionately affect the lower income groups C2/D/E and - therefore - hurt YES more than NO.
So the biggest demographic who have no bank savings or pensions will be hurt by the wishful thinking on banks and so vote NO. Hello
I am sure you are correct there is a strong argument for not taking the bank's warnings as gospel, but I guess the relevance of these announcements is the likely impact on referendum voters, particuarly those with a mortgage, or job in financial services etc.
Eck has cleverly solved the problem of Scottish banks printing pound notes. There will be no Scottish banks...
The Nats are funny on the banks:
6 months ago: "They're bluffing" Today: "It's a 6 month old story"
If the banks are so smart, how come they ain't rich?
Oh.
OK: if the banks can't see a banking-induced worldwide catastrophe happening until it actually happens, why do we take their predictions of politically induced national catastrophes as gospel?
And why does nobody seem to think that the banks might have 1. a political agenda of their own, and/or 2. a political agenda imposed on them by Cameron and Miliband saying how lovely things will be for bankers after next May if they all pull together like good little boys over Scotland?
Point taken, but as Easterross pretty much reminded us this morning, a lot of people don't have the luxury of such financial security of a kind mediated by the banks, and that group just happens to be one of the current key demographics in indyref.
We have two example of previous national Scottish government referenda:
(1) 1979 - to establish a Scottish assembly. The electorate knew there was a 40% rule to back it, yet only 51.6% voted for it on a turnout of 63.76% (2) 1997 - to establish a Scottish parliament, after 18 years of effing 'Tory rule'. You'd think the whole country would have been desperate, yet although 74.3% voted in favour, even fewer turned out at 60.4%
Now, it is different this time. It is epochal and a question of national destiny. It is also very close and plenty of pollsters have suggested turnout in the 80s.
Yet do you really think every last man, woman and beast in Scotland will crawl to the polling station on Thursday next week? Some of whom have never voted in their lives before and are still uncertain which way to go?
Based on past evidence, I'd suggest not. That will disproportionately affect the lower income groups C2/D/E and - therefore - hurt YES more than NO.
Weather forecast for the 18th is for rain showers in the morning, overcast later and rain showers returning in the evening - warm temps though
Comments
Couple of hours here, dunno what it would be in a major SA trial.
The whole TTIP / SNP / NHS arguement seems a bit obscure. Under TTIP there is no mechanism for forcing NHS Scotland to be opened up to private competition unless the government there want it.
"Bercero explained that under TTIP “member states do not need to provide access to their markets for foreign companies and even if they do give access they can discriminate between foreign companies and EU / domestic ones”.
The EU commissioner also implied that if Labour wanted to reverse the Health and Social Care Act TTIP shouldn’t limit them from doing so. He explained “if a future UK government, or a public body to which power has been devolved, were to reverse decisions taken under a previous government, for example by discontinuing services provided by a foreign operator, it would be entirely at liberty to do so. However, it would have to respect applicable UK law.”
http://labourlist.org/2014/07/ttip-the-nhs-will-be-exempt-but-how-will-the-rest-of-the-deal-effect-us/
I read elsewhere that Simona de Silvestro seems out of the running as she wouldn't bring money. Maybe short-sighted, as the only woman in F1 would be very marketable (so would bring money post-hiring rather than as she is hired).
In the medium term, this is probably overblown, and Scotland would do fine in the medium term if it voted for independence, but if you were a relatively recently persuaded yes voter - as opposed to a diehard nat who declared your intention to vote yes several months ago when yes was polling in mid-Thirites, are you really going to leave your house and vote for a likely recession? Salmond's breezy dismissal of all unanswered questions as Westminster scare stories just feels less convincing to me by the day.
It's hard enough persuading people to leave their house and make it to a polling station to cast a ballot at any time.
I just can't see a yes now...especially given alot of the yes voters may not be regular election participants etc. The worry of triggering a recession will be the nudge needed to make a lot of recent yes converts stay at home or switch to NO in the privacy of the ballot box while perhaps maintaining a macho pro-independence line to family and friends to avoid looking inconsistent and weak.
If floating voters are persuaded by cries of financial armageddon that a yes vote will mean a recession for Scotland in the short term, or financial issues such as higher prices, transaction costs, mortgage issues, unless you are a die-hard nationalist on principle, can you ignore that, put it to one side, or dismiss it as a Westminster scare story, and go ahead and vote yes?
Not only can I not really see yes winning from here, I can't even see them holding their recent converts in this atmosphere...it felt like a sexy protest vote bandwagon last weekend...by next Thursday, recent yes converts many of whom are too young to have voted before anyway and may not be regular voters, are just not going to get to the point of actually casting a no vote.
I could see an end result like turnout of 73% as declared "yes" voters find an excuse not to make it to the ballot box and a split of actual votes cast like 37%-43% in favour of no. Remember, the polls weren't far from this a few months back.
This view is way out of line of current polling figures and declared certainty to vote intentions and the Quebec turnout, but I can see a "no" landslide from here.
He's glossing over the fact that there's 60ish million people in rUK who those politicians would represent in the effect of scottish independence (depressing, perhaps, but true). They're not unaccountable. It is public opinion in the rUK which will also drive currency union into the ground, not just the politicians.
Stop being such a tedious turd
6 months ago: "They're bluffing"
Today: "It's a 6 month old story"
It feels like he's losing his rag a little bit. Clear he's unnerved and unsettled. Not projecting confidence at all.
Foreign companies thinking of investing in the UK and creating jobs might be put off.
I suspect we're heading for turnout in the low 80s with a 55-45 NO/YES result.
Debt per capita rising by 8% isn't going to cause the economy to come crashing down. Scotland reneging in its international obligations would cause the Scottish economy to crash but not for the rUK.
Its all kicking off at the Donald Dewar statue on Buchanan Street. Labour MPs taunted as "slaves" by Yes supporters
anyone think it's going to go away and YES will accept the vote after the 19th if it's NO?
The fall out from this could get messy, and someone could end up getting hurt.
I've backed E.Ayrshire, Clackmannanshire & N.Lanarkshire with PP.
So it was a good argument for deterrence, because the way to ensure the weapons aren;t used against you is to have your own; and a good one against unilateralism - without our own nukes, anyone with nukes could have gone ahead and made the film a reality without fear of consequences.
The makers can't seriously have imagined they were putting forward a compelling argument for unilateralism. Probably they were just KGB agents.
1. Fiscal pressure through Barnett - the more English health spending becomes direct from patient to private company, the less state spending there is, the more the Scottish budget is reduced.
2. The TTIP agreement is with Westminster with no opt-out for the NHS, and no opt-out apparently possible for Scotland. This would seem to make sense as finance [edit: in the sense of Treasury principles, etc.] and foreign policy are not generally devolved. (If you find a categorical legal statement on this, and not just a promise by a pol, please do let me know as it is of considerable interest to a family member). I would be very surprised, for several reasons, if Westminster permitted an opt-out.
A google for TTIP NHS Scotland will bring up some perspectives, as will one for Allyson Pollock (a very respected health economist) and Philippa Whitford (spelling a bit uncertain in my memory).
The NHS is becoming quite an issue up here - I know some people for which it is the reason to move to Yes (somewhat to my surprise).
Scotland will be a divided nation after the vote, whichever way it goes.
Oh.
OK: if the banks can't see a banking-induced worldwide catastrophe happening until it actually happens, why do we take their predictions of politically induced national catastrophes as gospel?
And why does nobody seem to think that the banks might have 1. a political agenda of their own, and/or 2. a political agenda imposed on them by Cameron and Miliband saying how lovely things will be for bankers after next May if they all pull together like good little boys over Scotland?
Scotland should apply to join the GCC. They'd have a lot in common with a federation of backward feudal oil-dependent kleptocracies.
Deadline for application: tomorrow
Shortlisting: Monday
Selection: Tuesday
I'm looking forward to TUD's report from the schemes.
11/09/2014 12:40
In Clacton. Labour anti-Ukip campaign on NHS is all wrong. Carswell known locally for saving maternity unit -> pic.twitter.com/5wl3OkUQ8t
Even if voters aren't sure whether the bank warnings are true, the issue is whether the reward for taking the risk of finding out - a chance to give westminster establishment a bleeding nose, more control over one's destiny, fresh national pride - is worth the potential costs of
the banks warning are correct? Many people believe that the vast majority of voters, perhaps sadly for idealists and those of high principles, put their own financial welfare and financial security before romantic ideals and principles. I guess this may be why the financial armageddon warnings from finance/business are so dangerous for Yes. There is an argument that the yes surge was passly based on financial giveaways and appealing to Labour voters through their wallets anyway.
I suspect this consideration applies even if you are correct that the banks do have a political agenda of their own or are on an establishment payroll.
2. I'd agree that there does seem to be alot hidden about the precise affects of TTIP in Scotland. My reading of the EU negotiators letter on this is that the relevant public bodies in charge of health systems will be able to organise services the way they want as long as they are consistent and do it in line with the legal situation in their country.
I can accept that on this one though somebody from the EU needs to be clearer in addressing the affect on the devolved governments of the UK,
(1) 1979 - to establish a Scottish assembly. The electorate knew there was a 40% rule to back it, yet only 51.6% voted for it on a turnout of 63.76%
(2) 1997 - to establish a Scottish parliament, after 18 years of effing 'Tory rule'. You'd think the whole country would have been desperate, yet although 74.3% voted in favour, even fewer turned out at 60.4%
Now, it is different this time. It is epochal and a question of national destiny. It is also very close and plenty of pollsters have suggested turnout in the 80s.
Yet do you really think every last man, woman and beast in Scotland will crawl to the polling station on Thursday next week? Some of whom have never voted in their lives before and are still uncertain which way to go?
Based on past evidence, I'd suggest not. That will disproportionately affect the lower income groups C2/D/E and - therefore - hurt YES more than NO.
@TelePolitics: SNP finance chief confronted by worker who lost £7,000 on Standard Life pension http://t.co/RcBOesuhZC
Salmonomics taking a hammering today
Point two, no opt out for Scotland, fine, but how on earth do you think you'll be securing any sort of opt out when you rejoin the EU as an independent country? It's doubtful you'll even be able to opt out of the euro. Salmond's going to say 'Please can we join -but that massive free trade deal you've been working on -no thanks' is he?
I'm no fan of what I've seen of TTIP -seems like pretty much an excuse for US corporations to rape and pillage to me, but clearly the best hope of any sort of 'opt out' would be to campaign for one within the UK, where a eurosceptic/left wing coalition on this issue would have real clout.
I think it's just a flat out case of misrepresenting the truth to people to be honest. Let's hope enough of them see through it.
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11462547.New_report_says_Bradford_is_most___39_dangerous__39__of_Britain__39_s_ten_most_populous_cities/?ref=mr
I'm sure you are right that this group who sadly have such a small stake are going to be critical. I just wonder if, given how disillusioned they are with politics and how rarely they vote normally, whether they will actually get out on the day to vote "yes", if by then they are believe there is a fair chance that a yes vote could lead to a recession - meaning less government goodies available.
I agree it's questionable whether this demographic will have been persuaded of this view by polling day.
If I was heading the no campaign, I would be taking the Credit Suisse financial report (I think it was Credit Suisse?0 mentioning a likely recession in the aftermath of the vote and saying: "This isn't our campaign saying this, it's an independent financial analyst.
If you vote yes, the markets believe there will be a recession in Scotland, at least in the short term. That will be bad for mortgages and mean less money for the NHS and make it harder for the new Scottish government to do the things it has promised for working people. Perhaps benefits would need to be cut further."
I would just repeat that message relentlessly between now and polling day. I would carry on saying it even if I was accused of being negative or spreading scare stories as I feel it is Yes's weak underbelly at this stage. I accept i am not sure if it No coulld get this message to cut through to the relevant demographic - Salmond is so good he might be able to brush it off as another Westminster/establishment scare story.
But I feel it would be NO's best strategy from here...It's hard to cast a vote if you haven't done so for decades for something that you believe could cut what is already a very difficult income to live on.
There's a black woman and a white man in my picture. I am white and male; the lady is my favourite singer.
And "him that does not know what his name is [sic]"; my first name is Jonathan, my second is James, hence JonnyJimmy. Surely not too much even for your tiny mind?
Eck looking alot like the emperor with no clothes and whimpering, blustering, deflecting. You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.
(People give a very serious shit about being bankrupted and laughing this stuff off is trite beyond belief. They are potentially days away from committing to becoming country with no money. WTF!).
1. On budget, check out Barnett Formula: if England budgets x% less because patients are paying suppliers direct for their trusses, etc., then Scotland immediately gets an x% cut pro rata, and has to do without to the same extent (or find the dosh from elsewhere). That applies to privatisation in general, not just TTIP, of course.
2. Scotland cannot get an opt out at all separately from the UK as a whole, as the English NHS is being privatised. If it is separate it can decide to keep the TTIP from affecting its NHS, if that is still publicly funded.
On the wider EU issue, it's already very clear that needs and priorities are different in Scotland from UK as a whole (think fisheries and farming, for one thing, vs City of London). Renegotiation and a review is absolutely necessary anyway as the existing deal probably wouldn't cut it.
The Scottish referendum is looking increasingly close. Clearly there is work to be done if the best result for all is to be achieved. May I ask, plead, even beg, those posters on here who reside in Scotland to use their time more wisely. Stop posting on here and, instead, use the time to persuade your compatriots to vote YES .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29157337
There is something wrong with public bodies in S Yorks.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/if-i-had-a-gun-i-d-shoot-you-victim-s-granddad-tells-rotherham-crime-tsar-shaun-wright-1-6833820
A third person said his 12-year-old granddaughter was arrested for being drunk and disorderly by police officers who let her four adult abusers go free.
The man said: "You [Shaun Wright] were a disgrace, mate. If I had a gun I would shoot you."
There are some very upset people there.
Shame this government never passed proper legislation on this. If you lose absolute confidence of your constituency, there should be a petition to trigger a recall ballot, followed by the election of somebody new.
Did you see Threads? The BBC drama about an attack centred on St Paul's?
Whoah.
I don't think it was repeated much if at all.
Who would play Salmond?!
Hello