You can pass all the mock exams brilliantly. It's no good if you fail the real thing.
I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it would probably make electoral history to have such a tiny percentage of polls favouring the eventual winner.
RP, as I pointed out in an earlier post what the UK has achieved in the past includes a lot of bloody conquest. It is your side that tries to pretend this never happened and it is your side that seems embarrassed by it all. Rather than embrace the history of the union, it has sought to downplay it whid I believe is a key failing in the No campaign.
No should have focused more on imperial British triumphs of the past? Hmmm. Not sure that would have worked.
Westminster gave the No side nothing to work with. That is the problem. The Devo-max promise should have been on the table months ago. With this and the warnings about the risks of separation we would not be six days away from the break-up of the country. It dod not need to be an option on the ballot paper, but it should have been there from the start as a reason to vote No.
Ignoring our joint history does the Union a massive disservice. Some may not agree personally with the Imperial nature of the joint history of the Union, but no one can deny that it was an achievement. Scottish engineering prowess driving the Royal Navy into uncharted waters to bring back treasure for King/Queen and country.
The manner in which the joint history has been talked about by the No side is a joke, it is just about unnamed "achievements" and a bunch of waffle. Naturally people begin to wonder if we really have done anything worthwhile together as part of a union. Some may not like the Empire but it is absolutely the greatest achievement of the Union. I would not be in this country without it and I genuinely believe that while there was a lot of unnecessary violence, the world would probably be a worse place without it having existed. India definitely would be and Hong Kong would be a random little island off the coast of China rather than one of the greatest cities on the planet.
@MaxPB has a point - Scotland is one of the few places to be governed by Westminster through choice rather than colonisation or conquest. But its this successful past together that I was talking about - the British Empire, our subsequent place in the world, our prosperity - all of that would have been significantly weaker without union with Scotland.
Its this we should have been talking about, not because we can reminisce about an empire where the sun never set, but by showing that we are the same. OK not the same, but there are endless divisions amongst the English in England as well - we are as alike as people can get
@.state_go_away - you need a list of who has abused the Yes arguments? Really? The No camp's core message is that Yes are stupid. They can't have the pound, they can't have Eastenders, there isn't any oil unless they stay in which case its going to pay for a rosy future together, and milk will cost more in Asda.
The response of business over the last couple of days has been mind blowing. Some supermarkets saying they may have to put up prices. Instead of their current practice of putting up prices. And businesses may relocate. Like they do now. And all that oil investment will go away because they will decide its too difficult to drill post independence.
Even the pound argument is cobblers. Even if the rUK refuses a formal union (and I remain to be convinced), an informal one would still mirror a 1:1 ratio as Manx, Guernsey and Jersey Pounds do, as the Irish Punt did. And having a foreign issued currency from a foreign central bank makes it impossible to function and you not to be sovereign? Someone better tell France then. Yes it would be risker than staying in the UK - and I want them to. But seriously, if you think the pound is stable and low risk and the UK finances in a good state, then perhaps its not just the SNP in fantasy land.
A referendum before the big crash would have made yes a massive risk. But now the UK economy remains sluggish and poorly, with a veneer of paper good performance and most people feeling broke, where is the risk? Reports are that its the disposessed and never posessed registering and supporting no - tell people in the parts of Scotland that are poor and have been for generations that leaving the UK is high risk. They're already poor!
I think the vote will be Yes. The odds, as many have said below, are inconsistent with the polling. All the value is with yes, still at 4.5 on Betfair.
The SNP have created a new reality. They have said again and again (i) how rich and successful Scotland is (i.e. we can go alone) and (ii) look at all these benefits you will get when we are independent (i.e. we should go alone). Saying it often and consistently enough has made enough people believe it...
...it is nonsense, of course, none of their sums add up and many of their arguments are ludicrous (my favourite, little remarked upon, is their estimate of just 200m to setup a whole new state! In the real world, 200m will, perhaps, pay for a moderately large IT system).
The UK's breakup will be long and painful. There will be enormous shock & anger in England / the rUK at the outcome.
It will cost Scotland £billions to rebuild the apparatus of state, as they could well discover in the next few years.
It will be up to their politicians to explain why that money is being diverted from health and welfare.
Yes. I wonder at the next steps after a YES vote. Part of me thinks it won't happen as the population realises just how mislead they have been... ... but most of me thinks it will proceed and Scotland will be independent. The SNP runs a tight ship, the reality will be disguised for a long time, and the English can be blamed for the new state's troubles...
In any case, it's the 65+ keeping the No vote afloat - they won't be around for long..
They only need to be around for another week !
You really think with a close No vote this issue is going away? There is open rebellion across the poor communities of Scotland. People are becoming politicised. And as austerity kicks in and UK threatens to leave the EU and Farage becomes depute PM and with Labour voters deserting that party for independence how long do you think it will take until the next referendum? My guess is max 5 years and by then many in the strongest pro-Union constituency will be in purgatory
I don't want to be rude about Wales, or the Welsh, but there is no way you could ever make a functioning individual country without a lot of hardship.
Not rude, just 100% correct.
It pains me to say so but I agree. This doesn't mean that I don't want to see an independent Wales though - just that we have a long way to go before it would be viable.
The comparison with apartheid is not only stupendously offensive both to England and to people who suffered under apartheid, but is just so thuddingly spoiled, entitled, and ignorant. Were the last 3 SA presidents before apartheid ended either black or of black descent? Did black South Africans enjoy greater democratic representation than their white neighbours? Or have more public money spent upon them? Was black nationalism encouraged, endorsed and subsidised by public bodies?
Eh? Whit did I say? It would be so out of character for Mr Salmond to reduce indy to Scottish vs English, too, so I had a check: this seems to be the passage in question, no?
"Last Monday … I saw people queueing up – and it was not a short queue, a long queue – in Dundee to register to vote, almost reminiscent of the scenes in South Africa when some of a certain age remember 20 years or so ago people queued to vote in the first free elections.
I saw people were queuing up to put in their registration forms to vote, people who frankly could not give a stuff about political parties or any politicians and are engaged joyfully in this process [...]" [this para obviously about Scotland]
All Mr S is doing is comparing, partially , the registration queues in Scotland to the ones in SA which he evidently regards as a shining example. No mention of race, no mention of English, no mention of apartheid. Another example of partial misquotation and running with it, it would seem. The Graun wouldn't have let him get away with the sort of thing you imply, and I see it is only some outlets which picked up the story and slanted it. Worst he could be accused of is something easily misinterpreted by his opponents.
This seems perfectly benign to me in the context of life on the peripheral schemees and given the sheer importance to Scottish civic society and democracy of the registration of hitherto disfranchised voters who had dropped out of our democracy or never even taken part. I was astounded to see that so many people had to be shown exactly how to vote - if only to make sure they didn't make mistakes on the day. For heaven's sake, the situation was shameful. The turnouts used to be absolutely awful, making a mockery of democracy - even PBers complained regularly about this and even IDS would surely agree with that, above all from his own visits to the schemes.
Incidentally, I think the registration pushes with the help of Yes and No are absolutely splendid and I hope that this partcipation will carry on into the future. And insofar as a social division is involved it has to be one of class within Scotland/Uk, not nationality (whatever English and Scttish mean), so you'll forgive me if I don't respond to your specific points.
Heh, the shy No theory may have some marginal traction however far more interesting is that the poor and the young - far more likely to vote Yes - don't have landlines. Add that to the fact that those newly registered are poor and young and you start to see a pattern of likely Yes votes not being picked up by polling methodologies.
It has been interesting reading the take on here which seems pretty much Tory and little England for the most part. Many Scots, including myself, feel that the average Scot will be far better off if we didn't have to subsidise the South and especially London.
Britain is broke and reduced to money printing. Government debt is being sold to banks who are creating money out of thin air and that is what is financing Westminster. That's why the broke banks and the broke government are trying to terrorise Scots - because it's future oil income which is guaranteeing government debt repayments to markets. And that's only where there is a market for Uk debt and no merely currency swaps with the other money printers such as the US in order to pretend that market exists.
We want out before the Titanic sinks and surely taking the oil with us will mean rUK will be on the ropes along with Spain and Italy and Scotland heading in the direction of fabulously wealthy Norway..
The southern myths of their own enduring wealth and the dependency of the native colonies is a fantastic source for jokes but it's sort of sad in a way.
In any case, it's the 65+ keeping the No vote afloat - they won't be around for long..
Uhm, virtually all polls show that the young: 16-24 - are more likely to vote NO.
Also, ICM now uses a mix of landline and mobile numbers.
The rest of your post is interesting psychologically, but less so, economically.
Much of that post by BlackDouglas goes beyond psychology and into the realms of psychiatry. These are seriously dangerous delusions.
Get the impression that the Westminster elite didn't expect the Yes vote to be any higher than about 40% and they're a bit shell-shocked that it looks like it will be higher than that, even if No wins.
As for the Scottish vote I am split. My heart wants a Yes vote. My head tells me that the best result for Wales would be a very narrow No vote. The worst result for Wales would be a strong No vote.
The income from oil for the government includes corporation tax and there is also the small matter of the jobs it underwrites. However, the income from oil is set to grow as prices expand and lets face it, the UK is only paying it's interest off (the debt rises exponentially..) - without the oil borrowing will increase and rUK's ratings will nosedive.
However what happens to those corporate profits after tax? They go into the banking system and cover the capital ratios of the banks allowing for huge volumes of leverage and ergo financial speculation. It also allows for the purchase of guilts.
The patients do need to keep up!
Taking BP as an example, the UK government gets taxes from BP plc at a corporate level, from various UK domiciled UK operating companies, and from the field level via the Petroleum Revenue Tax.
In the event of a separation of UK and Scotland, BP plc would remain a UK domiciled company, and the vast bulk of UK operating businesses would remain domiciled as they are now. There would be certain operating companies who would directly own Scottish assets (whether oil fields, refining or retail) and which would pay corporation tax to Edinburgh. Petroleum Revenue Tax would be the big one and would largely end up going to Edinburgh (although it is worth remembering that Wytch Farm is in England and is the largest producing on-shore oil field in Europe; PRT from Wytch Farm would go to London, not Edinburgh).
Nevertheless, your contention that without oil money the UK's borrowing would go up substantially is incorrect. Petroleum Revenue Tax raised a fairly miserly £1.7bn last fiscal year (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/249324/UKCS_Tax_Table_Oct_2013.pdf) because oil companies are incentivised to invest in finding new fields and can lower their PRT bill by drilling wells. Therefore, the removal of PRT from rUK would have next to no effect on the UK's government deficit.
The Scottish government can always remove this incentive, to increase near-term tax take; however, this will be at the expense of oil companies drilling fewer wells, lowering long-term oil production, and reducing employment.
Your contention about oil company profits is also inaccurate: both Shell and BP have net debt.
Don't despair. The tectonic plates of British politics are shifting so profoundly right now that it is surely difficult to know what the polls signify.
Dear God..... and he is the Number Two in the SNP?
No. Not at all. It's like a journalist writing an article on the policies of Mrs Thatcher's second term in office based on asking Ted Heath's views on politics. Just like that. Messrs Sillars and Salmond split long ago on major policy issues and Mr Sillars' activity is best seen as just one thread amongst many in the Yes campaign.
Edit: Mr S is the recent widower of the late Margo McDonald, who became an independent MSP after splitting with the SNP (can't remember if before or after she was elected).
Fair enough that he's split with Salmond - didn't know that so thanks - but, genuine question, surely you can see there's a danger of the damage this kind of talk is doing to Scotland? If I'm BP I might be studying the map of Alberta rather than Aberdeen for my next investment now, or if I'm a Dutch (say) widget manufacturer looking for a "British" site for my factory I might now start looking at Middlesborough rather than Musselburgh. It's the mood music, and it really really isn't good to outsiders.
As I say there's a perfectly respectable "independence and to hell with the cost" point of view, but I for one would be really worried if I lived up there.
Fair enough - but in return I would suggest that it is like quoting the SWP, or perhaps more fairly, a Militant Tendency person or individual Labour Party member, as an example of mainstream Labour policy when Jim Callaghan was in charge, or you can fill in your own examples [not being sarcastic - I get a bit hazy on pre-Thatcher regimes in detail]. . That's mischievous journalism in the first instance and that is what is doing the damage. The SNP are far more business friendly than that.
You can pass all the mock exams brilliantly. It's no good if you fail the real thing.
I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it would probably make electoral history to have such a tiny percentage of polls favouring the eventual winner.
Isn't the reason for the jitters based on the Scottish parliament election of 2011?
The polls had shown Labour ahead for yonks. But there was a late swing to the SNP, that was picked up in the polls during the last 2 weeks, and this swing was actually exceeded (I think) by the magnitude of the final result?
And don't forget MaxPB, that without the North Sea oil and Gas rUK's imports will increase dramatically causing a huge outflow of sterling.
This is just one reanesses and real estate by London speculators does give me the shivers.
ROFL
so when the price of oil has drop 15% in the last 3 months you think that's good news ? It.s excellent news for rUK as a net importer but may give IScotland a few issues.
BTW when exactly did Scots become innumerate ?
So prices fluctuate - so what? The long term trend is that prices are going up and that is what is holding up the UK's ratings - it's called economics not accountancy. Global reserves are falling while North Sea discoveries are increasing - a fact that is proven by the number of announcements West of Shetland and elsewhere with untapped reserves in the West of Scotland considered to be more than the North Sea. The last quarter is an irrelevance - those who buy gilts look forward decades as any economics A-level student could tell ye. Again though, you have ignored the income from corporation tax from the North Sea accounting for a large percentage of UK's total take. Post independence those will go to Scotland. AND, profits will go into Scottish registered banks which will experience healthy asset ratios - the capital flight will head North. And again, importing oil will mean an outflow of sterling placing further pressure on the currency and political pressure on Carney to print yet more pounds - eventually the markets will stop buying them and the bond market will collapse. I hope the Scottish dollar will be established by that point! Never mind, you'll still have some foreign owned football teams to watch while rUK is being turned into an offshore tax haven for foreign investors..
Even more fun.
Prices have spiked since 2002 because of a risk premium from oil coming from unstable places run by nutters ( see Scotland post Indy ). In the intervening 12 years however a lot has happened not least the USA has become self sufficient and is now in the position where it can start to export oil again. Current legislation in the USA from 1973 stops oil exports but the US weakened this stance just two weeks ago and as the oil momentum builds up a nation with a major current account deficit is going to be looking to cut its bills.
At that point the oil risk premium will start to decline, chuck in the growth of renewables and it all looks a bit Newtonian - what goes up must come down, or as Sheikh Yamani put it; the stone age didn;t end because we ran out of stones and the oil age will end with oil in the ground.
Remind me never to recruit anyone scottish with an economics A level
Westminster politics polls and pundits are pointless for the next week. As frankly are the betting markets. Puzzlement as to why the odds seem so heavily against Yes despite the polls - isn't it the same answer as the shock and awe response to neck and neck polls?
We English - especially establishment types - didn't take the Scots viewpoints on anything seriously, didn't understand that they are a separate nation, assumed that with a bit of hectoring they would get back in line and promptly forgot about it. The betting markets simply reflect of complacent arrogance.
Its now so close that I'm forming the view that yes or no Westminster politics are about to change significantly. A yes obviously is the 20MT option that should sink Cameron and may take the government with him in the short term, and may sink Milliband and Labour in the medium term. But a narrow no won't be much better, with the constitution dominating the autumn as a hurried fix is saught. Note how Farage proposed a federal UK earlier - its been my strong personal preference for a long time, and frankly will seem like the sensible solution to both give the Scots most of what they want and also win over trad Tories not looking for revolution but up for an English parliament. Its another masterstroke.
Still think Yes will win. Still desperately hope I'm wrong.
Utter rubbish about English arrogance. The scots get a vote on being independent from the rest of us (we don't) and we get called arrogant. Jesus it shows how the English left really don't like England if that is what you can come up with in your 'analysis'
Would England (and Wales) have been on the winning side in either (or both) of WWI or WWII with a neutral Scotland?
This is another aspect of history that the No campaign have failed to laud. As I said the history of the union is very bloody and predisposed towards imperial conquest but there were massive achievements in that. Edinburgh's financial services industry and even the City would be greatly diminished without the Union. Our global reach culturally and industrially would be a fraction of what it is today without that joint history. The way I would put it is a RN ship with an English captain and a Scottish navigator leading the way into dangerous and unknown waters.
As for the Scottish vote I am split. My heart wants a Yes vote. My head tells me that the best result for Wales would be a very narrow No vote. The worst result for Wales would be a strong No vote.
I disagree, paradoxically the best result for Wales could be a yes vote. Less of a lead for more powers for the numpties in Cardiff bay. My preferred outcome in such a case would be a referendum where Wales is forced to choose between independence, or back to complete integration, with England and Wales county devolution. The clear result would be for the union.
I believe that the Scottish Government is already allowed to borrow an extra 2.5 billion which is not guaranteed by the UK - has any such borrowing taken place?
So prices fluctuate - so what? The long term trend is that prices are going up and that is what is holding up the UK's ratings - it's called economics not accountancy. Global reserves are falling while North Sea discoveries are increasing - a fact that is proven by the number of announcements West of Shetland and elsewhere with untapped reserves in the West of Scotland considered to be more than the North Sea.
You can pass all the mock exams brilliantly. It's no good if you fail the real thing.
I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it would probably make electoral history to have such a tiny percentage of polls favouring the eventual winner.
Isn't the reason for the jitters based on the Scottish parliament election of 2011?
The polls had shown Labour ahead for yonks. But there was a late swing to the SNP, that was picked up in the polls during the last 2 weeks, and this swing was actually exceeded (I think) by the magnitude of the final result?
People fear the same could happen here again.
Virtually all the polls in the final month put the SNP ahead:
So people are very sure the DK's will break for the status quo. I can understand why that is the case, the argument is simple. But why then is that not the case with the Scottish Devolution referendum in 1997 where DK's broke more towards Devo than Status Quo.
Good point. But Devo was a fairly low risk option, with a big upside. Indy is an entirely different kettle of carp.
Also worth noting that unweighted, the ICM figures broke
NO: 429 YES: 365
After weighting:
NO: 401 YES: 377
So without weighting it is 54% to 46%. Why can none of the pollsters find enough Yes voters? Is there a historical basis for this?
My guess would be that it's harder for pollsters to reach younger voters and poorer voters, so they have to weight them up more heavily.
So prices fluctuate - so what? The long term trend is that prices are going up and that is what is holding up the UK's ratings - it's called economics not accountancy. Global reserves are falling while North Sea discoveries are increasing - a fact that is proven by the number of announcements West of Shetland and elsewhere with untapped reserves in the West of Scotland considered to be more than the North Sea.
It isn';t a question of agree or disagree, it is fact. The economy of Wales (it barely deserves that title) is so state orientated that it would make a soviet bloc satellite blush.
I think all the warnings about economic woe are a bit counterproductive because they are interpreted by many as an attack on Scottish pride/prestige/etc. Especially for poorer voters, who have been newly-registered in large numbers.
BREAK: Chancellor and Mark Carney cancel G20 trip to Australia next week, given potential economic risks if yes vote in Scottish referendum.
Because if the vote is a Yes, the Better Together camp's argument about the strength of the pound will be visually demonstrated as it falls off a cliff taking bank share prices with it.....
In the intervening 12 years however a lot has happened not least the USA has become self sufficient and is now in the position where it can start to export oil again.
US oil production is c. 8m barrels of oil per day (although slightly more if you include natural gas liquid) US oil consumption is c 16m barrels a day.
So the US is still consuming a lot more than it is producing. However, imports have gone from 12m barrels a day o 8m.
So prices fluctuate - so what? The long term trend is that prices are going up and that is what is holding up the UK's ratings - it's called economics not accountancy. Global reserves are falling while North Sea discoveries are increasing - a fact that is proven by the number of announcements West of Shetland and elsewhere with untapped reserves in the West of Scotland considered to be more than the North Sea.
if it has lots of numbers in it don't bother - he's a Nat. He's a man who is predicting the collapse of Sterling but supporting a currency union with it before it goes.
I read on here yesterday that Galloway had likened the SNP to Nazis in the big big debate. Yet either it was edited out or he never said such a thing. Sounds like more dissembling from our Nationalist friends on here. Whatever the truth of that story the Labour run No campaign have been guilty of believing too much Nationalist spin. That includes hiding Tories away from the campaign. People always resent people who appear to sit in ivory towers or are stand-offish more. Dave will have an important job to do on Monday.
I'm a Speyside man essentially, however. I have been since I walked the Speyside Way
If you haven't already, you should try Highland Park's Orkney neighbour Scapa. Amazingly smooth, richly sweet -fantastic with food.
@Luckyguy1983 - I was thinking about Scapa myself when I typed that. I haven't had it for a long time (first was a pouring wet day ashore from a yacht in Kirkwall) as I find HP so good, but perhaps I ought to refresh my acquaintance (and myself) sometime.
@taffys - I find them milder - for me - than Islays which I often find rather peaty (horses for courses, nothing wrong with that sometimes).
I can sympathise. I've got a bottle from the Scottish Whisky Society in my cupboard which tastes exactly like distilled essence of rhubarb - and not one I like at all, alas. Can't recall which distillery as my dad has the decoder for the number on the bottle!
@MaxPB - In my view invoking the glories of Empire would have been a huge error, even though I agree it was an extraordinary achievement. History is history. This referendum is about the present and the future.
No is losing because the Scots are like so many of the rest of us - sick and tired of being taken for granted by the Westminster machine and politicians who have no experience of real life. Unlike us, though, they have been given a chance to do something about it. By ignoring Devomax Westminster allowed the SNP to take the initiative in setting the tone for the campaign and failed to provide Better Together with any meaningful tools except issuing warnings. Even though most of these are entirely credible, they do not address the aspirations of Scottish voters and so are falling on too many deaf ears.
The Yes side has run a brilliant campaign designed solely to win the referendum. It can claim anything, knowing that once Yes wins it does not matter. It's a simple strategy, it is brilliant and it is entirely dishonest, but it will succeed because the Westminster elite has created the conditions in which it can thrive.
Bizarrely Betfair has moved TOWARDS NO and away from YES, following the ICM poll.
Back YES: 4.8
Back NO: 1.25
Either there's a lot of supersmart people with insider info, or the Betfair markets are deluded. I suspect a mix of both, but more of the latter.
That's because of the very high level of undecideds, which (historically) have broken very heavily for the status quo. Including them at 75:25 to 'no' gives you about 58:42. Add in the shy no's (won't says), and you get to about 60:40 for no.
I think I watched Lawrence of Arabia too much as a kid, but I still associate Saudis with superb manners and dignity. Sure they've got some very peculiar views on women and retribution - and financing all sorts of dubious things, but I don't worry about them as individuals.
Funny how views can stick. I developed a serious dislike of most Arabs [North African mostly] back in the 80s when I had a load of mouthy hot-heads working for me. They were nothing but a pain in the arse.
I'm sure there's a handful of decent Saudi liberals that would be an asset to this country, but I somehow doubt that's who's coming here if it's 20,000 a year. Mass immigration of people with appalling views is a massive recipe for social dysfunction down the road. It amazes me how blind our elite is to this. The doctrine of political correctness really blinds them to the reality.
I was given it as a prized gift by my husband and so felt obliged to drink some of it.
YUCK.
Eventually, I had to confess it was horrid. I tried everything with the 80% of the bottle left. I put it in gravy and sauces - and all we could taste was dog ends. I tried hiding it in punch with orange juice and a load of other stuff, and the dog ends were still there.
I finally poured the last 1/3 down the sink.
Only Campari is less drinkable. And I can manage Sarsons.
I'm a Speyside man essentially, however. I have been since I walked the Speyside Way
If you haven't already, you should try Highland Park's Orkney neighbour Scapa. Amazingly smooth, richly sweet -fantastic with food.
@Luckyguy1983 - I was thinking about Scapa myself when I typed that. I haven't had it for a long time (first was a pouring wet day ashore from a yacht in Kirkwall) as I find HP so good, but perhaps I ought to refresh my acquaintance (and myself) sometime.
@taffys - I find them milder - for me - than Islays which I often find rather peaty (horses for courses, nothing wrong with that sometimes).
I don't like Jura. I have a half bottle in my cupboard (I think it's 'Supersition'), and its not my favourite at all.
I visited the Isle of Arran distillery and got a bottle of their 10 yr old, and another finished in Amarone. That's almost pink...
Bizarrely Betfair has moved TOWARDS NO and away from YES, following the ICM poll.
Back YES: 4.8
Back NO: 1.25
Either there's a lot of supersmart people with insider info, or the Betfair markets are deluded. I suspect a mix of both, but more of the latter.
Why's it bizarre? Maybe punters were looking for Yes to be ahead in order to bet on Yes. Since No are ahead, however close, they bet on No. Results are more important than momentum in the end.
I read on here yesterday that Galloway had likened the SNP to Nazis in the big big debate. Yet either it was edited out or he never said such a thing. Sounds like more dissembling from our Nationalist friends on here. Whatever the truth of that story the Labour run No campaign have been guilty of believing too much Nationalist spin. That includes hiding Tories away from the campaign. People always resent people who appear to sit in ivory towers or are stand-offish more. Dave will have an important job to do on Monday.
I read on here yesterday that Galloway had likened the SNP to Nazis in the big big debate. Yet either it was edited out or he never said such a thing. Sounds like more dissembling from our Nationalist friends on here. Whatever the truth of that story the Labour run No campaign have been guilty of believing too much Nationalist spin. That includes hiding Tories away from the campaign. People always resent people who appear to sit in ivory towers or are stand-offish more. Dave will have an important job to do on Monday.
It was edited out, it seems - as commented on by people who attended it. (Actually I think he said Germany would have won if the Scots were independent, or something like that.).
But as for Donaldson - he was let out soon after when it was realised that he'd been arrested on false information, was he not? For real help and succour to our enemies leading to arrest and imprisonment one has to look elsewhere than the SNP.
So prices fluctuate - so what? The long term trend is that prices are going up and that is what is holding up the UK's ratings - it's called economics not accountancy. Global reserves are falling while North Sea discoveries are increasing - a fact that is proven by the number of announcements West of Shetland and elsewhere with untapped reserves in the West of Scotland considered to be more than the North Sea.
Those numbers need to be taken with a truckload of salt.
Well, yes: in the Middle East there has been a tendency to exaggerate reserves because OPEC quotas were based on them. However, as the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques that have been used in the US will be applicable in other parts of the world, it is not unreasonable to assume that in the long-run Saudi (and other lightly populated parts of the world) will see reserves rise.
Bizarrely Betfair has moved TOWARDS NO and away from YES, following the ICM poll.
Back YES: 4.8
Back NO: 1.25
Either there's a lot of supersmart people with insider info, or the Betfair markets are deluded. I suspect a mix of both, but more of the latter.
That's because of the very high level of undecideds, which (historically) have broken very heavily for the status quo. Including them at 75:25 to 'no' gives you about 58:42. Add in the shy no's (won't says), and you get to about 60:40 for no.
In the intervening 12 years however a lot has happened not least the USA has become self sufficient and is now in the position where it can start to export oil again.
US oil production is c. 8m barrels of oil per day (although slightly more if you include natural gas liquid) US oil consumption is c 16m barrels a day.
So the US is still consuming a lot more than it is producing. However, imports have gone from 12m barrels a day o 8m.
And if what I read the other day holds, the trend for US production is on the up so that certain oil types will become exportable. Chuck in we're friends with Iran again and the Chinese car market is probably the best hope for petrol heads.
The BetFair odds are now out to 4.85 for a YES. It doesn't make sense; surely (at best) 60% chance of NO, 40% YES would be fair? (as opposed to the ~80% NO implied by the current odds).
@MaxPB - In my view invoking the glories of Empire would have been a huge error, even though I agree it was an extraordinary achievement. History is history. This referendum is about the present and the future.
I think imperial dreams would have been a mistake, but our shared achievements in constitutionalism, literature, philosophy, science, arts and industry could certainly have been talked about more.
It isn';t a question of agree or disagree, it is fact. The economy of Wales (it barely deserves that title) is so state orientated that it would make a soviet bloc satellite blush.
Like I said - I agree. The only way that the Welsh economy can be turned around is by kicking Welsh Labour out and replacing it with a centre right business friendly Welsh friendly party (which doesn't exist), which is not constrained by Westminster policies. the only way to achieve that is through independence, but which would bankrupt us in the short term. Either way we are f###ed.
I'm a Speyside man essentially, however. I have been since I walked the Speyside Way
If you haven't already, you should try Highland Park's Orkney neighbour Scapa. Amazingly smooth, richly sweet -fantastic with food.
Not tried Scapa but whisky with food can be rather good. I once had dinner with a senior bod who whistled up a bottle of Laphroaig to go with the fish course. It worked surprisingly well, but I have never repeated the experiment.
Big risk! Certainly not one I'd have paired with fish! Chocolate and cheese are the classic match with whisky -there's a cheese called Applewood smoked cheddar (available in most supermarkets) that's amazing with a smoky whisky like Talisker.
But try Scapa -you'll thank me.
I shall get the nice lady at the local booze shop to order me a bottle.
The classic combination of whisky with food is I reckon is fruitcake (Dundee cake for preference, but most will do) and with a creamy, crumbly but strongish cheese (Wensleydale is superb) all washed down with a single malt whisky of your choice (I am an Islay man for preference, but not dogmatic on the issue). The mix of textures and flavours makes the combination fit for the Gods.
@MaxPB - In my view invoking the glories of Empire would have been a huge error, even though I agree it was an extraordinary achievement. History is history. This referendum is about the present and the future.
No is losing because the Scots are like so many of the rest of us - sick and tired of being taken for granted by the Westminster machine and politicians who have no experience of real life. Unlike us, though, they have been given a chance to do something about it. By ignoring Devomax Westminster allowed the SNP to take the initiative in setting the tone for the campaign and failed to provide Better Together with any meaningful tools except issuing warnings. Even though most of these are entirely credible, they do not address the aspirations of Scottish voters and so are falling on too many deaf ears.
The Yes side has run a brilliant campaign designed solely to win the referendum. It can claim anything, knowing that once Yes wins it does not matter. It's a simple strategy, it is brilliant and it is entirely dishonest, but it will succeed because the Westminster elite has created the conditions in which it can thrive.
I completely agree that the Yes campaign has been dishonest but also very very well designed to engender a Yes vote and get Scottish men to put two fingers up at the consequences.
However I don't think invoking our joint imperial past would have been an error. Every time pur great achievements are discussed Labour shy away from it because of embarrassment and the Tories keep quiet because their supporters are all converted anyway. It allows the SNP to devalue that history and claim that Scotland's industries and jobs all appeared from nowhere. RBS was born out of the Union and would not exist without it. Regardless of the failures of the modern bank that is RBS to pretend that the union had no hand in it and that financing the growth of the Empire had no hand in its success means people are basically unaware of what the Union has achieved.
In the intervening 12 years however a lot has happened not least the USA has become self sufficient and is now in the position where it can start to export oil again.
US oil production is c. 8m barrels of oil per day (although slightly more if you include natural gas liquid) US oil consumption is c 16m barrels a day.
So the US is still consuming a lot more than it is producing. However, imports have gone from 12m barrels a day o 8m.
And if what I read the other day holds, the trend for US production is on the up so that certain oil types will become exportable. Chuck in we're friends with Iran again and the Chinese car market is probably the best hope for petrol heads.
The US will overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia as the biggest oil producer in the world in the next five years. Canada is also dramatically growing its production right now, as SAGD replaces mining in the oil sands. I am also optimistic about Australia.
There is quite a lot of opportunity for Europe to increase its on-shore oil and gas production too: gas in Poland looks moderately interesting. Off-shore Ireland (the South West bit) might be the next North Sea; there have been a number of discoveries there and Exxon has been aggresively buying up acreage. All these things are (a) good for the West in general, (b) bad for a putative country with lots of very expensive, mature, declining off-shore fields.
@MaxPB - In my view invoking the glories of Empire would have been a huge error, even though I agree it was an extraordinary achievement. History is history. This referendum is about the present and the future.
No is losing because the Scots are like so many of the rest of us - sick and tired of being taken for granted by the Westminster machine and politicians who have no experience of real life. Unlike us, though, they have been given a chance to do something about it. By ignoring Devomax Westminster allowed the SNP to take the initiative in setting the tone for the campaign and failed to provide Better Together with any meaningful tools except issuing warnings. Even though most of these are entirely credible, they do not address the aspirations of Scottish voters and so are falling on too many deaf ears.
The Yes side has run a brilliant campaign designed solely to win the referendum. It can claim anything, knowing that once Yes wins it does not matter. It's a simple strategy, it is brilliant and it is entirely dishonest, but it will succeed because the Westminster elite has created the conditions in which it can thrive.
Tbh we can only go by the polls which say it's too close to call so as a good LD I'm bound to say the most important thing is simply to work hard and get the No vote out. If as Malcolm said to me yesterday the Yes supporters are more fired up to vote than the No side then it will be lost without those boots on the ground and on the phones.
In the intervening 12 years however a lot has happened not least the USA has become self sufficient and is now in the position where it can start to export oil again.
US oil production is c. 8m barrels of oil per day (although slightly more if you include natural gas liquid) US oil consumption is c 16m barrels a day.
So the US is still consuming a lot more than it is producing. However, imports have gone from 12m barrels a day o 8m.
And if what I read the other day holds, the trend for US production is on the up so that certain oil types will become exportable. Chuck in we're friends with Iran again and the Chinese car market is probably the best hope for petrol heads.
The US will overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia as the biggest oil producer in the world in the next five years. Canada is also dramatically growing its production right now, as SAGD replaces mining in the oil sands. I am also optimistic about Australia.
There is quite a lot of opportunity for Europe to increase its on-shore oil and gas production too: gas in Poland looks moderately interesting. Off-shore Ireland (the South West bit) might be the next North Sea; there have been a number of discoveries there and Exxon has been aggresively buying up acreage. All these things are (a) good for the West in general, (b) bad for a putative country with lots of very expensive, mature, declining off-shore fields.
(c) good for a country which has become a net oil importer. :-)
@MaxPB - In my view invoking the glories of Empire would have been a huge error, even though I agree it was an extraordinary achievement. History is history. This referendum is about the present and the future.
I think imperial dreams would have been a mistake, but our shared achievements in constitutionalism, literature, philosophy, science, arts and industry could certainly have been talked about more.
The concern for labour in that poll is the UKIP total - 15%....
That's a big reservoir of potential tories, if Cameron can get his offering right.
Whats he going to offer? To withdraw from the EU, implement universal immigration quotas, scrap the green energy policies, scrap his Foreign Aid policy, abandon HS2, commit to an English Parliament, reverse same-sex marriage and on top of that realise he is personally Kipper repellant and resign? And that's just for starters.
Stop kidding yourself Taffys. The Kipper 7th cavalry ain't coming to Dave's rescue......
In the intervening 12 years however a lot has happened not least the USA has become self sufficient and is now in the position where it can start to export oil again.
US oil production is c. 8m barrels of oil per day (although slightly more if you include natural gas liquid) US oil consumption is c 16m barrels a day.
So the US is still consuming a lot more than it is producing. However, imports have gone from 12m barrels a day o 8m.
And if what I read the other day holds, the trend for US production is on the up so that certain oil types will become exportable. Chuck in we're friends with Iran again and the Chinese car market is probably the best hope for petrol heads.
The US will overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia as the biggest oil producer in the world in the next five years. Canada is also dramatically growing its production right now, as SAGD replaces mining in the oil sands. I am also optimistic about Australia.
There is quite a lot of opportunity for Europe to increase its on-shore oil and gas production too: gas in Poland looks moderately interesting. Off-shore Ireland (the South West bit) might be the next North Sea; there have been a number of discoveries there and Exxon has been aggresively buying up acreage. All these things are (a) good for the West in general, (b) bad for a putative country with lots of very expensive, mature, declining off-shore fields.
(c) good for a country which has become a net oil importer. :-)
Yes :-)
You need to be careful... before long you'll get me started on one of my hobby horses - the potential of GTL, that is the conversion of natural gas into liquid fuels. In other words, plentiful gas can be converted - with very low energy conversion losses - into more scarce oil. (Well, technically low-sulfur diesel.)
Get the impression that the Westminster elite didn't expect the Yes vote to be any higher than about 40% and they're a bit shell-shocked that it looks like it will be higher than that, even if No wins.
As SeanT pointed out in one of his articles the Westminster Establishment was writing self-congratulatory articles about Yes barely being able to scrape 30% when at the exact same time the polls were putting them at 35%+.
Eh, you might note that with only 9% of the population, Scots accounted for over 20% of war dead thanks to policy in London. Our industrial base around the Clyde Basin was the kernal of Britain's war effort - we made the tanks, ammo and so on that protected Britain during both wars. Our input into the war effort was per capital much more valuable than any other part of Britain. And yet we now see cabinet papers which showed that there were plans to give up Scotland and protect England if Germany invaded.. Indeed it was a highland industrialist that went around Britain before WW2 investing in factories so that they could quickly be turned into war manufacturing plants for items such as spitfires. Then there was the John Logie Baird's input into the development of radar - both of these latter incidences led to Britain winning the Battle of Britain and prevented the German land invasion.
As someone who's grandfather died on D-Day - a royal marine commando - after being shot in the head by a German sniper, I really take offence at this comment and wonder why it hasn't been moderated out?
I've always taken the next day off after big elections and all my friends thought I was insane.
The poor lady who just delivered my Tesco shopping got my unexpurgated views on SIndy...!! I suspect she has no idea where Catalonia is given the look on her face :^ )
I love the way the same poll is open to such different interpretations / spin, depending on the angle you come at things from...for example:
ft.com: Second Scots poll gives No campaign lead ICM survey backs claims that Yes surge has been halted
elswhere: "Neck and neck" "still too close to call" "everything to play for" etc etc...
Neck and neck et al will surely sell more papers
Thing is, both interpretations are valid.
It is neck and neck: scrotum-tighteningly close.
Yet I can't help feeling (perhaps optimistically) that at the height of the Salmond Leap, last weekend, when YES seemed to be sweeping to victory, this same ICM poll might have shown YES ahead.
Now we've just got to sit it out and wait for the next nerve wracker. I understand we have 36 hours to actually do some work, isn't that right? Opinium/Observer is the next poll: tomorrow night.
I'm sure TSE will confirm this, if so.
And now I am actually going to do some of that work.
They are indeed.
I think though, from a frank position, the papers must love such events as this. Don't blame them of course!
These polls, tweets are ruining my nerves. My usual cool exterior close to cracking!
If that's the case now, next Thursday overnight will be truly horrendous for what's left of my nerves!
I've already warned my Wife to expect me to still be up when she awakes for work. I've taken a long weekend just for the referendum.
Not necessarily. There is a third way. Westminster could put Wales on a diet. It could announce the public money subsidy to Wales will fall steadily over a 25-year period to zero, and that by then Wales will be expected to stand on its own two feet.
Eh, you might note that with only 9% of the population, Scots accounted for over 20% of war dead thanks to policy in London. Our industrial base around the Clyde Basin was the kernal of Britain's war effort - we made the tanks, ammo and so on that protected Britain during both wars. Our input into the war effort was per capital much more valuable than any other part of Britain. And yet we now see cabinet papers which showed that there were plans to give up Scotland and protect England if Germany invaded.. Indeed it was a highland industrialist that went around Britain before WW2 investing in factories so that they could quickly be turned into war manufacturing plants for items such as spitfires. Then there was the John Logie Baird's input into the development of radar - both of these latter incidences led to Britain winning the Battle of Britain and prevented the German land invasion.
As someone who's grandfather died on D-Day - a royal marine commando - after being shot in the head by a German sniper, I really take offence at this comment and wonder why it hasn't been moderated out?
I quite sympathise. I was gong to point out the very many war dead but didn't want to feed the trolls, nor did I want to name the convicted and imprisoned (on the non-SNP side) as I have no idea if their families are still around.
Bizarrely Betfair has moved TOWARDS NO and away from YES, following the ICM poll.
Back YES: 4.8
Back NO: 1.25
Either there's a lot of supersmart people with insider info, or the Betfair markets are deluded. I suspect a mix of both, but more of the latter.
That's because of the very high level of undecideds, which (historically) have broken very heavily for the status quo. Including them at 75:25 to 'no' gives you about 58:42. Add in the shy no's (won't says), and you get to about 60:40 for no.
Robert that logic doesn't apply this time. It is reckoned as of yesterday that with the electorate at 4.25 million for next week, that is 98% of the potential maximum. The vast majority of these new voters (apart from the 60,000 or so 16/17 yr olds) are people who have never voted before and never taken part in the democratic process. These people sadly have not registered to vote No. They have registered to vote YES. It is the YES canvassers doing door-to-door round all the large, supposedly socially deprived, council estates in Central Scotland who have identified most of these people and got them to register. The higher the turnout the greater likelihood of a YES victory.
I believe that the Scottish Government is already allowed to borrow an extra 2.5 billion which is not guaranteed by the UK - has any such borrowing taken place?
No because the powers dont come into effect until 2015.
The BetFair odds are now out to 4.85 for a YES. It doesn't make sense; surely (at best) 60% chance of NO, 40% YES would be fair? (as opposed to the ~80% NO implied by the current odds).
You discount my explanation that punters see just one poll putting Yes ahead so far and take that to mean they can't win however close they might get?
Bizarrely Betfair has moved TOWARDS NO and away from YES, following the ICM poll.
Back YES: 4.8
Back NO: 1.25
Either there's a lot of supersmart people with insider info, or the Betfair markets are deluded. I suspect a mix of both, but more of the latter.
That's because of the very high level of undecideds, which (historically) have broken very heavily for the status quo. Including them at 75:25 to 'no' gives you about 58:42. Add in the shy no's (won't says), and you get to about 60:40 for no.
But what about the point, made downthread, that undecideds broke for YES in the Devo ballot? Not the status quo?
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, just pointing out the imponderables.
I still think NO will just edge it, just for the reasons you say, though it's all to play for.
Your dreams of 60/40 NO/YES are just that: dreams. But I hope I am the one buying the champagne next month.
Bloody hell it's hard to focus on work with this going on.
Yep.
I see four potential explanations for the disconnect: - The 'Shy NOs' i.e. underestimate NOs. I struggle with this for online polls, less so for those with person-to-person interaction i.e. telephone / face-to-face polls. - In this campaign, the polls seem to be saying that Don't Know's are swinging to YES. - Looking at other campaigns, Don't Know's tend to swing to the status-quo i.e. NO. - The likely very high turnout. Would argue that this would cause the polls to underestimate YES as those new voters more likely to be poorer.
Looking through these, its seems a wash i.e. some reasons to think NO too low but also some to think YES underestimated. Which doesn't explain why the odds aren't reflecting the polls i.e. too close to call.
Eh, you might note that with only 9% of the population, Scots accounted for over 20% of war dead thanks to policy in London. Our industrial base around the Clyde Basin was the kernal of Britain's war effort - we made the tanks, ammo and so on that protected Britain during both wars. Our input into the war effort was per capital much more valuable than any other part of Britain. And yet we now see cabinet papers which showed that there were plans to give up Scotland and protect England if Germany invaded.. Indeed it was a highland industrialist that went around Britain before WW2 investing in factories so that they could quickly be turned into war manufacturing plants for items such as spitfires. Then there was the John Logie Baird's input into the development of radar - both of these latter incidences led to Britain winning the Battle of Britain and prevented the German land invasion.
As someone who's grandfather died on D-Day - a royal marine commando - after being shot in the head by a German sniper, I really take offence at this comment and wonder why it hasn't been moderated out?
As you are new, you may have missed my previous posts, where I have described Scotland as being backbone of the British Army for centuries, and my love of Black Watch.
The war strategy would have also given up parts of England, if Germany had invaded, I believe the plan for the government to move to Worcester and concede London and the South.
I'm sorry that the comments and plans of a future leader of the SNP offends you, but as I keep on telling people, criticising the Nats is not a synonym for criticising Scotland.
So prices fluctuate - so what? The long term trend is that prices are going up and that is what is holding up the UK's ratings - it's called economics not accountancy. Global reserves are falling while North Sea discoveries are increasing - a fact that is proven by the number of announcements West of Shetland and elsewhere with untapped reserves in the West of Scotland considered to be more than the North Sea.
Those numbers need to be taken with a truckload of salt.
Well, yes: in the Middle East there has been a tendency to exaggerate reserves because OPEC quotas were based on them. However, as the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques that have been used in the US will be applicable in other parts of the world, it is not unreasonable to assume that in the long-run Saudi (and other lightly populated parts of the world) will see reserves rise.
Saudi reserves will not be impacted by fracking as they are high permeability and high porosity already - they simply don't need frack stimulation to achieve higher flow rates. Gas or water reinjection could drive enhanced oil recovery for some of the older fields but they're expressly not seeking to increase flow but rather ultimate recovery.
The thing that will impact Saudi reserves up or down more than anything is the price of oil.
Eh, you might note that with only 9% of the population, Scots accounted for over 20% of war dead thanks to policy in London. Our industrial base around the Clyde Basin was the kernal of Britain's war effort - we made the tanks, ammo and so on that protected Britain during both wars. Our input into the war effort was per capital much more valuable than any other part of Britain. And yet we now see cabinet papers which showed that there were plans to give up Scotland and protect England if Germany invaded.. Indeed it was a highland industrialist that went around Britain before WW2 investing in factories so that they could quickly be turned into war manufacturing plants for items such as spitfires. Then there was the John Logie Baird's input into the development of radar - both of these latter incidences led to Britain winning the Battle of Britain and prevented the German land invasion.
As someone who's grandfather died on D-Day - a royal marine commando - after being shot in the head by a German sniper, I really take offence at this comment and wonder why it hasn't been moderated out?
off to a cracking start there Dougie.
Now you're demanding the moderator imposes censorship. Welcome to PB by the way ;-)
Bizarrely Betfair has moved TOWARDS NO and away from YES, following the ICM poll.
Back YES: 4.8
Back NO: 1.25
Either there's a lot of supersmart people with insider info, or the Betfair markets are deluded. I suspect a mix of both, but more of the latter.
That's because of the very high level of undecideds, which (historically) have broken very heavily for the status quo. Including them at 75:25 to 'no' gives you about 58:42. Add in the shy no's (won't says), and you get to about 60:40 for no.
Robert that logic doesn't apply this time. It is reckoned as of yesterday that with the electorate at 4.25 million for next week, that is 98% of the potential maximum. The vast majority of these new voters (apart from the 60,000 or so 16/17 yr olds) are people who have never voted before and never taken part in the democratic process. These people sadly have not registered to vote No. They have registered to vote YES. It is the YES canvassers doing door-to-door round all the large, supposedly socially deprived, council estates in Central Scotland who have identified most of these people and got them to register. The higher the turnout the greater likelihood of a YES victory.
I'm sorry, my point is simply that a lot of people are saying they are undecided.
It's like when a salesperson asks you: "Do you want to buy this.", if you say 'Yes' it means yes. If you say 'maybe' it means almost certainly no.
Congrats. But it's a pity you had to get so many points when you had that guy with the dodgy action!
Good job it took the authorities so long to sniff that out when apparently his elbow extension was at 40 degrees. Spin department looks very thin for next season with Moeen in the test team. No doubt straight back down again again....
The BetFair odds are now out to 4.85 for a YES. It doesn't make sense; surely (at best) 60% chance of NO, 40% YES would be fair? (as opposed to the ~80% NO implied by the current odds).
You discount my explanation that punters see just one poll putting Yes ahead so far and take that to mean they can't win however close they might get?
Its clear the market thinks the Scot's will vote NO, quite possibly partly for the reason you mention. I wonder whether the odds reflect the English view that independence is a terrible idea & that they will eventually come to their senses, so to speak. But I don't think this will happen; the SNP have created a new reality and enough people seem ready to believe it...
Back to the odds. YES looks very very good value right now. Seriously mis-priced.
So prices fluctuate - so what? The long term trend is that prices are going up and that is what is holding up the UK's ratings - it's called economics not accountancy. Global reserves are falling while North Sea discoveries are increasing - a fact that is proven by the number of announcements West of Shetland and elsewhere with untapped reserves in the West of Scotland considered to be more than the North Sea.
Those numbers need to be taken with a truckload of salt.
Well, yes: in the Middle East there has been a tendency to exaggerate reserves because OPEC quotas were based on them. However, as the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques that have been used in the US will be applicable in other parts of the world, it is not unreasonable to assume that in the long-run Saudi (and other lightly populated parts of the world) will see reserves rise.
Saudi reserves will not be impacted by fracking as they are high permeability and high porosity already - they simply don't need frack stimulation to achieve higher flow rates. Gas or water reinjection could drive enhanced oil recovery for some of the older fields but they're expressly not seeking to increase flow but rather ultimate recovery.
The thing that will impact Saudi reserves up or down more than anything is the price of oil.
But surely the original source rocks are below the Saudi fields and might be susceptible to hydraulic fracturing... (Given a high enough oil price.)
Maybe it's a relic of my schooling, but we were proud of our Empire and the pink bits of the map.
I was a young teen when it became very fashionable for our colonies to declare independence. Our atlases were going out of date every month or so, or that's how it felt.
I have no guilt about it at all. We did a great deal of good. Sure it wasn't perfect, but I think on the whole we were as good as the Romans when it came to leaving behind a positive legacy.
Years ago , I listened to a fascinating R4 prog about Mr Douglas - the explorer. IIRC he brought home lupins and rhododendrons - and has fir named after him. That's what *being British* means to me.
RP, as I pointed out in an earlier post what the UK has achieved in the past includes a lot of bloody conquest. It is your side that tries to pretend this never happened and it is your side that seems embarrassed by it all. Rather than embrace the history of the union, it has sought to downplay it whid I believe is a key failing in the No campaign.
No should have focused more on imperial British triumphs of the past? Hmmm. Not sure that would have worked.
Westminster gave the No side nothing to work with. That is the problem. The Devo-max promise should have been on the table months ago. With this and the warnings about the risks of separation we would not be six days away from the break-up of the country. It dod not need to be an option on the ballot paper, but it should have been there from the start as a reason to vote No.
Ignoring our joint history does the Union a massive disservice. Some may not agree personally with the Imperial nature of the joint history of the Union, but no one can deny that it was an achievement. Scottish engineering prowess driving the Royal Navy into uncharted waters to bring back treasure for King/Queen and country.
The manner in which the joint history has been talked about by the No side is a joke, it is just about unnamed "achievements" and a bunch of waffle. Naturally people begin to wonder if we really have done anything worthwhile together as part of a union. Some may not like the Empire but it is absolutely the greatest achievement of the Union. I would not be in this country without it and I genuinely believe that while there was a lot of unnecessary violence, the world would probably be a worse place without it having existed. India definitely would be and Hong Kong would be a random little island off the coast of China rather than one of the greatest cities on the planet.
So prices fluctuate - so what? The long term trend is that prices are going up and that is what is holding up the UK's ratings - it's called economics not accountancy. Global reserves are falling while North Sea discoveries are increasing - a fact that is proven by the number of announcements West of Shetland and elsewhere with untapped reserves in the West of Scotland considered to be more than the North Sea.
Those numbers need to be taken with a truckload of salt.
Well, yes: in the Middle East there has been a tendency to exaggerate reserves because OPEC quotas were based on them. However, as the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques that have been used in the US will be applicable in other parts of the world, it is not unreasonable to assume that in the long-run Saudi (and other lightly populated parts of the world) will see reserves rise.
Saudi reserves will not be impacted by fracking as they are high permeability and high porosity already - they simply don't need frack stimulation to achieve higher flow rates. Gas or water reinjection could drive enhanced oil recovery for some of the older fields but they're expressly not seeking to increase flow but rather ultimate recovery.
The thing that will impact Saudi reserves up or down more than anything is the price of oil.
But surely the original source rocks are below the Saudi fields and might be susceptible to hydraulic fracturing... (Given a high enough oil price.)
Nope. The Kitchen for the oil will probably not be susceptible to fracking since most of the oil will have been driven out by the higher temperatures/pressures into the source rocks. There will be carbonaceous material left behind but most of the usable stuff will already have migrated into the reservoir.
Our input into the war effort was per capital much more valuable than any other part of Britain.
Indeed nice one Dougie. its good to know you think the Scots are more valuable than my grandparents who both worked in the Woolwich Arsenal or my mother who preferred being with her family in London during the Blitz as a young teenager than being evacuated to the west country or my father who also was in the Marines and landed on D-day in France or indeed the three Uncles of mine who thankfully survived Dunkirk.
Clearly you know how to win friends and influence people.......!
So prices fluctuate - so what? The long term trend is that prices are going up and that is what is holding up the UK's ratings - it's called economics not accountancy. Global reserves are falling while North Sea discoveries are increasing - a fact that is proven by the number of announcements West of Shetland and elsewhere with untapped reserves in the West of Scotland considered to be more than the North Sea.
Those numbers need to be taken with a truckload of salt.
Well, yes: in the Middle East there has been a tendency to exaggerate reserves because OPEC quotas were based on them. However, as the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques that have been used in the US will be applicable in other parts of the world, it is not unreasonable to assume that in the long-run Saudi (and other lightly populated parts of the world) will see reserves rise.
Saudi reserves will not be impacted by fracking as they are high permeability and high porosity already - they simply don't need frack stimulation to achieve higher flow rates. Gas or water reinjection could drive enhanced oil recovery for some of the older fields but they're expressly not seeking to increase flow but rather ultimate recovery.
The thing that will impact Saudi reserves up or down more than anything is the price of oil.
But surely the original source rocks are below the Saudi fields and might be susceptible to hydraulic fracturing... (Given a high enough oil price.)
Nope. The Kitchen for the oil will probably not be susceptible to fracking since most of the oil will have been driven out by the higher temperatures/pressures into the source rocks. There will be carbonaceous material left behind but most of the usable stuff will already have migrated into the reservoir.
I've always taken the next day off after big elections and all my friends thought I was insane.
The poor lady who just delivered my Tesco shopping got my unexpurgated views on SIndy...!! I suspect she has no idea where Catalonia is given the look on her face :^ )
I love the way the same poll is open to such different interpretations / spin, depending on the angle you come at things from...for example:
ft.com: Second Scots poll gives No campaign lead ICM survey backs claims that Yes surge has been halted
elswhere: "Neck and neck" "still too close to call" "everything to play for" etc etc...
Neck and neck et al will surely sell more papers
Thing is, both interpretations are valid.
It is neck and neck: scrotum-tighteningly close.
Yet I can't help feeling (perhaps optimistically) that at the height of the Salmond Leap, last weekend, when YES seemed to be sweeping to victory, this same ICM poll might have shown YES ahead.
Now we've just got to sit it out and wait for the next nerve wracker. I understand we have 36 hours to actually do some work, isn't that right? Opinium/Observer is the next poll: tomorrow night.
I'm sure TSE will confirm this, if so.
And now I am actually going to do some of that work.
They are indeed.
I think though, from a frank position, the papers must love such events as this. Don't blame them of course!
These polls, tweets are ruining my nerves. My usual cool exterior close to cracking!
If that's the case now, next Thursday overnight will be truly horrendous for what's left of my nerves!
I've already warned my Wife to expect me to still be up when she awakes for work. I've taken a long weekend just for the referendum.
Politics has been my 'hidden' indulgence since I was about 18/19 (now 30). I'm not from a massively political background.
Though as you say, my friends also think I'm nuts! I've decided to no longer hide my love of all things Political
The concern for labour in that poll is the UKIP total - 15%....
That's a big reservoir of potential tories, if Cameron can get his offering right.
Whats he going to offer? To withdraw from the EU, implement universal immigration quotas, scrap the green energy policies, scrap his Foreign Aid policy, abandon HS2, commit to an English Parliament, reverse same-sex marriage and on top of that realise he is personally Kipper repellant and resign? And that's just for starters.
Stop kidding yourself Taffys. The Kipper 7th cavalry ain't coming to Dave's rescue......
I don't think he'd have to do all that. For me, the Tories would probably get my vote if their manifesto included:
(1) A pledge to substantial reduction in unskilled non-EU immigration and spelled out the mechanisms for doing that (2) A strong starting point for what they want to negotiate back from the EU, including parts on CAP, CET and free movement. I accept not all of this will be achieved, but the stronger your starting point the closer the end deal will be to your position (3) A renewed focus on civil liberties, including a British bill of rights and bringing in judicial warrants for all searches by GCHQ
To me, none of that is unreasonable for the Conservatives to do, and the vast majority of the party could sign up to it. It's only a small circle of Matthew Parris types around David Cameron that would object.
I've always taken the next day off after big elections and all my friends thought I was insane.
The poor lady who just delivered my Tesco shopping got my unexpurgated views on SIndy...!! I suspect she has no idea where Catalonia is given the look on her face :^ )
I love the way the same poll is open to such different interpretations / spin, depending on the angle you come at things from...for example:
ft.com: Second Scots poll gives No campaign lead ICM survey backs claims that Yes surge has been halted
elswhere: "Neck and neck" "still too close to call" "everything to play for" etc etc...
Neck and neck et al will surely sell more papers
Thing is, both interpretations are valid.
It is neck and neck: scrotum-tighteningly close.
Yet I can't help feeling (perhaps optimistically) that at the height of the Salmond Leap, last weekend, when YES seemed to be sweeping to victory, this same ICM poll might have shown YES ahead.
Now we've just got to sit it out and wait for the next nerve wracker. I understand we have 36 hours to actually do some work, isn't that right? Opinium/Observer is the next poll: tomorrow night.
I'm sure TSE will confirm this, if so.
And now I am actually going to do some of that work.
They are indeed.
I think though, from a frank position, the papers must love such events as this. Don't blame them of course!
These polls, tweets are ruining my nerves. My usual cool exterior close to cracking!
If that's the case now, next Thursday overnight will be truly horrendous for what's left of my nerves!
I've already warned my Wife to expect me to still be up when she awakes for work. I've taken a long weekend just for the referendum.
Politics has been my 'hidden' indulgence since I was about 18/19 (now 30). I'm not from a massively political background.
Though as you say, my friends also think I'm nuts! I've decided to no longer hide my love of all things Political
It's fun to watch vintage election night programmes on YouTube.
Comments
The manner in which the joint history has been talked about by the No side is a joke, it is just about unnamed "achievements" and a bunch of waffle. Naturally people begin to wonder if we really have done anything worthwhile together as part of a union. Some may not like the Empire but it is absolutely the greatest achievement of the Union. I would not be in this country without it and I genuinely believe that while there was a lot of unnecessary violence, the world would probably be a worse place without it having existed. India definitely would be and Hong Kong would be a random little island off the coast of China rather than one of the greatest cities on the planet.
Its this we should have been talking about, not because we can reminisce about an empire where the sun never set, but by showing that we are the same. OK not the same, but there are endless divisions amongst the English in England as well - we are as alike as people can get
@.state_go_away - you need a list of who has abused the Yes arguments? Really? The No camp's core message is that Yes are stupid. They can't have the pound, they can't have Eastenders, there isn't any oil unless they stay in which case its going to pay for a rosy future together, and milk will cost more in Asda.
The response of business over the last couple of days has been mind blowing. Some supermarkets saying they may have to put up prices. Instead of their current practice of putting up prices. And businesses may relocate. Like they do now. And all that oil investment will go away because they will decide its too difficult to drill post independence.
Even the pound argument is cobblers. Even if the rUK refuses a formal union (and I remain to be convinced), an informal one would still mirror a 1:1 ratio as Manx, Guernsey and Jersey Pounds do, as the Irish Punt did. And having a foreign issued currency from a foreign central bank makes it impossible to function and you not to be sovereign? Someone better tell France then. Yes it would be risker than staying in the UK - and I want them to. But seriously, if you think the pound is stable and low risk and the UK finances in a good state, then perhaps its not just the SNP in fantasy land.
A referendum before the big crash would have made yes a massive risk. But now the UK economy remains sluggish and poorly, with a veneer of paper good performance and most people feeling broke, where is the risk? Reports are that its the disposessed and never posessed registering and supporting no - tell people in the parts of Scotland that are poor and have been for generations that leaving the UK is high risk. They're already poor!
I wonder at the next steps after a YES vote.
Part of me thinks it won't happen as the population realises just how mislead they have been...
... but most of me thinks it will proceed and Scotland will be independent. The SNP runs a tight ship, the reality will be disguised for a long time, and the English can be blamed for the new state's troubles...
If I don't respond to you straight away, I'm off out for the rest of the day and night.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/09/scottish-independence-alex-salmond-poll-lead-yes-disintegration-pro-union
"Last Monday … I saw people queueing up – and it was not a short queue, a long queue – in Dundee to register to vote, almost reminiscent of the scenes in South Africa when some of a certain age remember 20 years or so ago people queued to vote in the first free elections.
I saw people were queuing up to put in their registration forms to vote, people who frankly could not give a stuff about political parties or any politicians and are engaged joyfully in this process [...]" [this para obviously about Scotland]
All Mr S is doing is comparing, partially , the registration queues in Scotland to the ones in SA which he evidently regards as a shining example. No mention of race, no mention of English, no mention of apartheid. Another example of partial misquotation and running with it, it would seem. The Graun wouldn't have let him get away with the sort of thing you imply, and I see it is only some outlets which picked up the story and slanted it. Worst he could be accused of is something easily misinterpreted by his opponents.
This seems perfectly benign to me in the context of life on the peripheral schemees and given the sheer importance to Scottish civic society and democracy of the registration of hitherto disfranchised voters who had dropped out of our democracy or never even taken part. I was astounded to see that so many people had to be shown exactly how to vote - if only to make sure they didn't make mistakes on the day. For heaven's sake, the situation was shameful. The turnouts used to be absolutely awful, making a mockery of democracy - even PBers complained regularly about this and even IDS would surely agree with that, above all from his own visits to the schemes.
Incidentally, I think the registration pushes with the help of Yes and No are absolutely splendid and I hope that this partcipation will carry on into the future. And insofar as a social division is involved it has to be one of class within Scotland/Uk, not nationality (whatever English and Scttish mean), so you'll forgive me if I don't respond to your specific points.
In the event of a separation of UK and Scotland, BP plc would remain a UK domiciled company, and the vast bulk of UK operating businesses would remain domiciled as they are now. There would be certain operating companies who would directly own Scottish assets (whether oil fields, refining or retail) and which would pay corporation tax to Edinburgh. Petroleum Revenue Tax would be the big one and would largely end up going to Edinburgh (although it is worth remembering that Wytch Farm is in England and is the largest producing on-shore oil field in Europe; PRT from Wytch Farm would go to London, not Edinburgh).
Nevertheless, your contention that without oil money the UK's borrowing would go up substantially is incorrect. Petroleum Revenue Tax raised a fairly miserly £1.7bn last fiscal year (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/249324/UKCS_Tax_Table_Oct_2013.pdf) because oil companies are incentivised to invest in finding new fields and can lower their PRT bill by drilling wells. Therefore, the removal of PRT from rUK would have next to no effect on the UK's government deficit.
The Scottish government can always remove this incentive, to increase near-term tax take; however, this will be at the expense of oil companies drilling fewer wells, lowering long-term oil production, and reducing employment.
Your contention about oil company profits is also inaccurate: both Shell and BP have net debt.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/mi5-file-links-former-snp-leader-to-nazi-plan-1-1103305
Don't despair. The tectonic plates of British politics are shifting so profoundly right now that it is surely difficult to know what the polls signify.
That's how I console myself, anyhow!
The polls had shown Labour ahead for yonks. But there was a late swing to the SNP, that was picked up in the polls during the last 2 weeks, and this swing was actually exceeded (I think) by the magnitude of the final result?
People fear the same could happen here again.
Prices have spiked since 2002 because of a risk premium from oil coming from unstable places run by nutters ( see Scotland post Indy ). In the intervening 12 years however a lot has happened not least the USA has become self sufficient and is now in the position where it can start to export oil again. Current legislation in the USA from 1973 stops oil exports but the US weakened this stance just two weeks ago and as the oil momentum builds up a nation with a major current account deficit is going to be looking to cut its bills.
At that point the oil risk premium will start to decline, chuck in the growth of renewables and it all looks a bit Newtonian - what goes up must come down, or as Sheikh Yamani put it; the stone age didn;t end because we ran out of stones and the oil age will end with oil in the ground.
Remind me never to recruit anyone scottish with an economics A level
Can I suggest you acquaint yourself with the BP Statistical Review of World Energy: http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Scottish_Parliament_election,_2011
BREAK: Chancellor and Mark Carney cancel G20 trip to Australia next week, given potential economic risks if yes vote in Scottish referendum.
It isn';t a question of agree or disagree, it is fact. The economy of Wales (it barely deserves that title) is so state orientated that it would make a soviet bloc satellite blush.
US oil consumption is c 16m barrels a day.
So the US is still consuming a lot more than it is producing. However, imports have gone from 12m barrels a day o 8m.
The concern for labour in that poll is the UKIP total - 15%....
That's a big reservoir of potential tories, if Cameron can get his offering right.
No is losing because the Scots are like so many of the rest of us - sick and tired of being taken for granted by the Westminster machine and politicians who have no experience of real life. Unlike us, though, they have been given a chance to do something about it. By ignoring Devomax Westminster allowed the SNP to take the initiative in setting the tone for the campaign and failed to provide Better Together with any meaningful tools except issuing warnings. Even though most of these are entirely credible, they do not address the aspirations of Scottish voters and so are falling on too many deaf ears.
The Yes side has run a brilliant campaign designed solely to win the referendum. It can claim anything, knowing that once Yes wins it does not matter. It's a simple strategy, it is brilliant and it is entirely dishonest, but it will succeed because the Westminster elite has created the conditions in which it can thrive.
http://rt.com/news/saudi-women-molestation-poll-268/
I'm sure there's a handful of decent Saudi liberals that would be an asset to this country, but I somehow doubt that's who's coming here if it's 20,000 a year. Mass immigration of people with appalling views is a massive recipe for social dysfunction down the road. It amazes me how blind our elite is to this. The doctrine of political correctness really blinds them to the reality.
YUCK.
Eventually, I had to confess it was horrid. I tried everything with the 80% of the bottle left. I put it in gravy and sauces - and all we could taste was dog ends. I tried hiding it in punch with orange juice and a load of other stuff, and the dog ends were still there.
I finally poured the last 1/3 down the sink.
Only Campari is less drinkable. And I can manage Sarsons.
Is both reasoning possible?
But as for Donaldson - he was let out soon after when it was realised that he'd been arrested on false information, was he not? For real help and succour to our enemies leading to arrest and imprisonment one has to look elsewhere than the SNP.
SKY has just announced that George Osborne and Mark Carney have cancelled a trip to Australia next week because of the IndyRef. Squeaky bum time.
Is Sean T sitting in his counting house counting all his Canadian dollars and South African rand
It's been product placed along with Johnnie Walker Blue label in a US TV show I watch.
I couldn't really tell the difference between JW Black and Blue. A tiny bit smoother but not much in it. I like JW most.
However I don't think invoking our joint imperial past would have been an error. Every time pur great achievements are discussed Labour shy away from it because of embarrassment and the Tories keep quiet because their supporters are all converted anyway. It allows the SNP to devalue that history and claim that Scotland's industries and jobs all appeared from nowhere. RBS was born out of the Union and would not exist without it. Regardless of the failures of the modern bank that is RBS to pretend that the union had no hand in it and that financing the growth of the Empire had no hand in its success means people are basically unaware of what the Union has achieved.
There is quite a lot of opportunity for Europe to increase its on-shore oil and gas production too: gas in Poland looks moderately interesting. Off-shore Ireland (the South West bit) might be the next North Sea; there have been a number of discoveries there and Exxon has been aggresively buying up acreage. All these things are (a) good for the West in general, (b) bad for a putative country with lots of very expensive, mature, declining off-shore fields.
Stop kidding yourself Taffys. The Kipper 7th cavalry ain't coming to Dave's rescue......
You need to be careful... before long you'll get me started on one of my hobby horses - the potential of GTL, that is the conversion of natural gas into liquid fuels. In other words, plentiful gas can be converted - with very low energy conversion losses - into more scarce oil. (Well, technically low-sulfur diesel.)
As someone who's grandfather died on D-Day - a royal marine commando - after being shot in the head by a German sniper, I really take offence at this comment and wonder why it hasn't been moderated out?
The poor lady who just delivered my Tesco shopping got my unexpurgated views on SIndy...!! I suspect she has no idea where Catalonia is given the look on her face :^ )
I am organising as much work as I can away from the keyboard. I have had so many meetings this week and I am just back from one and having a coffee.
Not necessarily. There is a third way. Westminster could put Wales on a diet. It could announce the public money subsidy to Wales will fall steadily over a 25-year period to zero, and that by then Wales will be expected to stand on its own two feet.
Disagree completely. There are a stack of kipper votes in play, I reckon.
I see four potential explanations for the disconnect:
- The 'Shy NOs' i.e. underestimate NOs. I struggle with this for online polls, less so for those with person-to-person interaction i.e. telephone / face-to-face polls.
- In this campaign, the polls seem to be saying that Don't Know's are swinging to YES.
- Looking at other campaigns, Don't Know's tend to swing to the status-quo i.e. NO.
- The likely very high turnout. Would argue that this would cause the polls to underestimate YES as those new voters more likely to be poorer.
Looking through these, its seems a wash i.e. some reasons to think NO too low but also some to think YES underestimated. Which doesn't explain why the odds aren't reflecting the polls i.e. too close to call.
Clinically sane Melanie on the warpath.
The war strategy would have also given up parts of England, if Germany had invaded, I believe the plan for the government to move to Worcester and concede London and the South.
I'm sorry that the comments and plans of a future leader of the SNP offends you, but as I keep on telling people, criticising the Nats is not a synonym for criticising Scotland.
The thing that will impact Saudi reserves up or down more than anything is the price of oil.
Now you're demanding the moderator imposes censorship. Welcome to PB by the way ;-)
It's like when a salesperson asks you: "Do you want to buy this.", if you say 'Yes' it means yes. If you say 'maybe' it means almost certainly no.
Outstanding post, Black Douglas. Says more about this issue in a few sentences than the reams of stuff I've read in recent days and weeks.
I'm not sure its an argument for breaking up the union though...
Back to the odds. YES looks very very good value right now. Seriously mis-priced.
I was a young teen when it became very fashionable for our colonies to declare independence. Our atlases were going out of date every month or so, or that's how it felt.
I have no guilt about it at all. We did a great deal of good. Sure it wasn't perfect, but I think on the whole we were as good as the Romans when it came to leaving behind a positive legacy.
Years ago , I listened to a fascinating R4 prog about Mr Douglas - the explorer. IIRC he brought home lupins and rhododendrons - and has fir named after him. That's what *being British* means to me.
Our input into the war effort was per capital much more valuable than any other part of Britain.
Indeed nice one Dougie. its good to know you think the Scots are more valuable than my grandparents who both worked in the Woolwich Arsenal or my mother who preferred being with her family in London during the Blitz as a young teenager than being evacuated to the west country or my father who also was in the Marines and landed on D-day in France or indeed the three Uncles of mine who thankfully survived Dunkirk.
Clearly you know how to win friends and influence people.......!
Though as you say, my friends also think I'm nuts! I've decided to no longer hide my love of all things Political
(1) A pledge to substantial reduction in unskilled non-EU immigration and spelled out the mechanisms for doing that
(2) A strong starting point for what they want to negotiate back from the EU, including parts on CAP, CET and free movement. I accept not all of this will be achieved, but the stronger your starting point the closer the end deal will be to your position
(3) A renewed focus on civil liberties, including a British bill of rights and bringing in judicial warrants for all searches by GCHQ
To me, none of that is unreasonable for the Conservatives to do, and the vast majority of the party could sign up to it. It's only a small circle of Matthew Parris types around David Cameron that would object.