Of course you can keep the pound, but in order to hang on to enough pounds you will need to generate a large of amount services and products people need and want.
Scotland doesn't. Oil will help, but as Venezuela shows, it is not enough of itself. You will need large and prosperous businesses and an entrepreneurial culture.
You don't have either. The businesses you do have are being treated with incredible hostility.
your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic. We will do OK , you worry about whether sheep and leeks will keep you gainfully employed.
He's right. I run a business in Scotland. Like thousands of similar businesses our important customers are English. Customers may or may not be always right, but they always pay the wages. People like to do business with firms in their own country. Investors decide where to place their operations.They are the other important people. Investment had already dried up on Scotland in the past few months.
If we become foreign we leave behind a lot of prosperity and jobs and say "hello" to a lot of .poverty. I'm not making a political point. It's just how it is.
On another point, the Orangemen are assembling outside my house. Although they are not people I normally give much thought to, I think it's nice that someone is making an emotional case for the union. Of its yes we shouldn't go gentle into the night.
They have some cool plastic flags: union on one side; saltire on the other
I still wonder how any country manages to export goods based on your theory. Other countries seem to be very prosperous all over the world and did not fall to pieces on independence. Why would Scotland be unique in the world. If the price is right people will buy from anywhere, hence we get so much tat imported from China. It is nothing to do with "foreign" as you put it , when I buy goods I look for quality and price , not where made, unless goods are in a similar price range or are better quality I would buy local, will pay a small premium for local if quality is similar.
except Scotland doesn't trade much with the rest of the world, it does nearly all its trade with rUK.
They will need to get their finger out Alan and find other markets then, sell more at home and abroad.
ah well that's that problem solved then, perhaps you can just pass a law and it will happen.
The simple solution to Faslane is simply for it to become sovereign UK territory. No nuclear weapons on Scottish soil and no problem for rUK
The MoD (Mr Hammond?) actually proposed that - and it was withdrawn by No 10 within hours when the incipient reaction became apparent. It was reported in the Graun at the time, so should still be on their website.
I'm generally pro 'Yes' but some of the comments coming from business and politicians are so overdone now as to look ridiculous, and I think they risk undermining No e.g. suggesting that Scotland might be heading for a Great Depression.
It's beginning to remind me of the Y2K farce.
Y2K wasn't a farce.
Oh David, I normally have such respect for your views. People flap about change and fear of the unknown, Y2K being a classic example. Yes work was done to prevent it, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the whole thing was a mass panic: planes falling from the sky, electrical appliances failing; the entire western economy collapsing. Ooooh look they're flapping again: this time about Scotland being independent.
Scotland would be fine on its own. Not necessarily economically 'better,' but it will get over the teething problems and turn out just fine.
Sure, remedy.
still alive.
The only remote similar precedent we have for what Scotland is contemplating is the "velvet divorce" of Czechia and Slovakia.
In that case the Slovakian economy crashed by 4% in the first year after separation, and at one point they had to seal the border with armed guards to prevent Slovaks fleeing with cash.
And that was two small, less developed, countries, nowhere near as interdependent as Scotland and England, with no EU/NATO questions to bedevil things, no massive shared institutions like the BBC, no financial sector ready to up sticks and leave one side for another, no 300 year history of foreign investment into the two countries relying on a brand of unified stability, etc etc etc. Plus we have grave debt and deficit problems.
So, yes, when we wake up on Friday, if it is a YES vote, the sun will still rise and the Shard will still glitter. But then the pain will begin. Inevitably. And I reckon it will get worse over time, for quite a long time.
And there is a small but non-negligible risk that YES will actually start a ghastly chain reaction, that leads to an actual Depression.
No one knows how bad it might be. We just know it will be bad.
Slovakia have gone from a GDP of about 1/3 of Czech one to almost parity and are doing very nicely thank you. Freed of the crushing weight of their larger bullying partner they are flourishing.
SeanT - I will be British in the sense that I am European. It will be a far smaller part of me than it has been. English is what I will be - and proud of it.
I am afraid I agree with you about the institutional Left. I am sick of it. Triangulating, lazy, backward looking, complacent and remote. I cannot defend it. It needs to start again. I guess the break-up of the UK will be the opportunity.
One sad feature of the last 4 years has been the demonisation of the LDs on the left because they went into coalition. As a Conservative I feel they made many mistakes not least the desire to be both government and quasi-opposition at the same time but their punsihment has allowed Labour to adopt the 35% strategy leaving them beholden to the more left-wing elements in the TUs. Labour is currently not remotely centrist in tone and maybe not even in substance. Arguably the rise of UKIP may be doing as much damage to the Conservatives. Either way such polarisation is not pleasant to behold even if in my case it is from afar.
They deserve all they get for being unprincipled liars.
I don't recall reading anything much about 'Orange walks' in England and I've certainly never seen one - Wiki has a long write up for Ireland, Scotland and Canada etc, but only has this to say: - "Orange Walks also exist in England, particularly in Liverpool." er that's it.
Apparently there was one in London in 2007, but can anyone remember any other 'walks' taking place around the country?
[I should add, by 'country' I mean England]
Portsmouth and Corby have quite substantial parades.
Cheers Mr Fear - did a quick on-line search wrt Portsmouth 'O.Ws' and there appears to be zero media reporting of events by national press. - perhaps they are much smaller affairs than in other cities, or simply do not arouse such a large following/antipathy here in the south.
In Glasgow/West Scotland they are as numerous as buses in the marching season , usually by now they are back in their caves for the winter. Costs millions to police and clear up the debris after their rampages.
wow,! rampages ! those sad old gits must really know how to party !
They always empty the bottles before they start chucking them.
This seemed to last for about 60 years before Mrs Thatcher came along. To my mind the most depressing lesson of that period was the idea that economic democracy had failed and that we needed to put those who owned the capital in full control (they being the wealth creators). A victory for the establishment.
There's nothing wrong with the owners of the capital being in control.
The problem is that the owners aren't in control, the people in control are the executive oligarchs. Who then put their own interests ahead of those of the owners.
A similar situation exists in the public sector where their branch of the executive oligarchy places their interests above those of the public sector's 'owners' ie the citizens.
I suspect some of the code I wrote for Y2K might not work in 2100, since 2100 isn't a leap year.
When I was an MP I had a letter from a constituent ticking off the Government for failing to require that Y2K solutions should also cover 5-digit years, i.e. still work in 10,000 AD. I sent a po-faced reply saying that we had decided to leave this issue to the next Government to tackle.
I don't recall reading anything much about 'Orange walks' in England and I've certainly never seen one - Wiki has a long write up for Ireland, Scotland and Canada etc, but only has this to say: - "Orange Walks also exist in England, particularly in Liverpool." er that's it.
Apparently there was one in London in 2007, but can anyone remember any other 'walks' taking place around the country?
[I should add, by 'country' I mean England]
Portsmouth and Corby have quite substantial parades.
Cheers Mr Fear - did a quick on-line search wrt Portsmouth 'O.Ws' and there appears to be zero media reporting of events by national press. - perhaps they are much smaller affairs than in other cities, or simply do not arouse such a large following/antipathy here in the south.
In Glasgow/West Scotland they are as numerous as buses in the marching season , usually by now they are back in their caves for the winter. Costs millions to police and clear up the debris after their rampages.
wow,! rampages ! those sad old gits must really know how to party !
They always empty the bottles before they start chucking them.
I don't recall reading anything much about 'Orange walks' in England and I've certainly never seen one - Wiki has a long write up for Ireland, Scotland and Canada etc, but only has this to say: - "Orange Walks also exist in England, particularly in Liverpool." er that's it.
Apparently there was one in London in 2007, but can anyone remember any other 'walks' taking place around the country?
[I should add, by 'country' I mean England]
Portsmouth and Corby have quite substantial parades.
Cheers Mr Fear - did a quick on-line search wrt Portsmouth 'O.Ws' and there appears to be zero media reporting of events by national press. - perhaps they are much smaller affairs than in other cities, or simply do not arouse such a large following/antipathy here in the south.
In Glasgow/West Scotland they are as numerous as buses in the marching season , usually by now they are back in their caves for the winter. Costs millions to police and clear up the debris after their rampages.
wow,! rampages ! those sad old gits must really know how to party !
They always empty the bottles before they start chucking them.
l wonder how any country manages to export goods based on your theory. Other countries seem to be very prosperous all over the world and did not fall to pieces on independence. Why would Scotland be unique in the world. If the price is right people will buy from anywhere, hence we get so much tat imported from China. It is nothing to do with "foreign" as you put it , when I buy goods I look for quality and price , not where made, unless goods are in a similar price range or are better quality I would buy local, will pay a small premium for local if quality is similar.
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
Of course you can keep the pound, but in order to hang on to enough pounds you will need to generate a large of amount services and products people need and want.
Scotland doesn't. Oil will help, but as Venezuela shows, it is not enough of itself. You will need large and prosperous businesses and an entrepreneurial culture.
You don't have either. The businesses you do have are being treated with incredible hostility.
your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic. We will do OK , you worry about whether sheep and leeks will keep you gainfully employed.
He's right. I run a business in Scotland. Like thousands of similar businesses our important customers are English. Customers may or may not be always right, but they always pay the wages. People like to do business with firms in their own country. Investors decide where to place their operations.They are the other important people. Investment had already dried up on Scotland in the past few months.
If we become foreign we leave behind a lot of prosperity and jobs and say "hello" to a lot of .poverty. I'm not making a political point. It's just how it is.
On another point, the Orangemen are assembling outside my house. Although they are not people I normally give much thought to, I think it's nice that someone is making an emotional case for the union. Of its yes we shouldn't go gentle into the night.
They have some cool plastic flags: union on one side; saltire on the other
I still wonder how any country manages to export goods based on your theory. Other countries seem to be very prosperous all over the world and did not fall to pieces on independence. Why would Scotland be unique in the world. If the price is right people will buy from anywhere, hence we get so much tat imported from China. It is nothing to do with "foreign" as you put it , when I buy goods I look for quality and price , not where made, unless goods are in a similar price range or are better quality I would buy local, will pay a small premium for local if quality is similar.
except Scotland doesn't trade much with the rest of the world, it does nearly all its trade with rUK.
They will need to get their finger out Alan and find other markets then, sell more at home and abroad.
ah well that's that problem solved then, perhaps you can just pass a law and it will happen.
Hard work Alan and the levers of power will sort that out
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
well whatever happens I just hope he doesn't lead the negotiations he'd be totally crap at it.
maybe we could bring Tebbit out of retirement for a few months.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
Of course you can keep the pound, but in order to hang on to enough pounds you will need to generate a large of amount services and products people need and want.
Scotland doesn't. Oil will help, but as Venezuela shows, it is not enough of itself. You will need large and prosperous businesses and an entrepreneurial culture.
You don't have either. The businesses you do have are being treated with incredible hostility.
your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic. We will do OK , you worry about whether sheep and leeks will keep you gainfully employed.
He's right. I run a business in Scotland. Like thousands of similar businesses our important customers are English. Customers may or may not be always right, but they always pay the wages. People like to do business with firms in their own country. Investors decide where to place their operations.They are the other important people. Investment had already dried up on Scotland in the past few months.
If we become foreign we leave behind a lot of prosperity and jobs and say "hello" to a lot of .poverty. I'm not making a political point. It's just how it is.
On another point, the Orangemen are assembling outside my house. Although they are not people I normally give much thought to, I think it's nice that someone is making an emotional case for the union. Of its yes we shouldn't go gentle into the night.
They have some cool plastic flags: union on one side; saltire on the other
I still wonuy local, will pay a small premium for local if quality is similar.
except Scotland doesn't trade much with the rest of the world, it does nearly all its trade with rUK.
They will need to get their finger out Alan and find other markets then, sell more at home and abroad.
ah well that's that problem solved then, perhaps you can just pass a law and it will happen.
Hard work Alan and the levers of power will sort that out
I rather understood Scotland had given up on hard work.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
I agree with this. At the very least the heart will go out of his premiership. He'll want to get out.
We all know why the bookies have daft adds, they are trying to balance the books, so they don't lose a fortune on the wrong result.
But Betfair remains stridently convinced it will be NO.
That means there's either a lot of rich, stupid bettors, or a lot of rich, clever bettors who believe (rightly or wrongly) they have superior information to the rest of us.
There's certainly a lot of bettors one way or another: the market's just topped £7.25m matched. I'd be surprised if it doesn't hit £10m by the declaration.
Unlike a Parliamentary election where superior knowledge about seats can count. Where every vote is literally equal, unless people have access to canvass returns [ who can guarantee that they are accurate as every losing side knows to their cost ], it is far more difficult to assess.
Having said that, major population centres will have a more proportionate impact. So Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen will more or less decide the issue.
I don't recall reading anything much about 'Orange walks' in England and I've certainly never seen one - Wiki has a long write up for Ireland, Scotland and Canada etc, but only has this to say: - "Orange Walks also exist in England, particularly in Liverpool." er that's it.
Apparently there was one in London in 2007, but can anyone remember any other 'walks' taking place around the country?
[I should add, by 'country' I mean England]
Portsmouth and Corby have quite substantial parades.
Cheers Mr Fear - did a quick on-line search wrt Portsmouth 'O.Ws' and there appears to be zero media reporting of events by national press. - perhaps they are much smaller affairs than in other cities, or simply do not arouse such a large following/antipathy here in the south.
In Glasgow/West Scotland they are as numerous as buses in the marching season , usually by now they are back in their caves for the winter. Costs millions to police and clear up the debris after their rampages.
Morning MrG - While doing a little research on the subject, Glasgow was obviously mentioned several times; apparently there was talk of banning them some years ago, based on a poll which found 53% in favour. – local council poll, caveat emptor etc..
Simon, Imagine it would be higher nowadays, they do not make themselves popular. Last one had a thirteen year old bottled, though I fail to understand why her parents had not run a mile rather than be in the vicinity. Between that and gardens used as toilets , bins etc it tends to cause a bit of upset when people here they have had the luck to be chosen to be on the route.
I'm generally pro 'Yes' but some of the comments coming from business and politicians are so overdone now as to look ridiculous, and I think they risk undermining No e.g. suggesting that Scotland might be heading for a Great Depression.
It's beginning to remind me of the Y2K farce.
Y2K wasn't a farce.
Oh David, I normally have such respect for your views. People flap about change and fear of the unknown, Y2K being a classic example. Yes work was done to prevent it, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the whole thing was a mass panic: planes falling from the sky, electrical appliances failing; the entire western economy collapsing. Ooooh look they're flapping again: this time about Scotland being independent.
Scotland would be fine on its own. Not necessarily economically 'better,' but it will get over the teething problems and turn out just fine.
Sure, an independent Scotland could do fine by itself. Ultimately, success rests on the decisions and actions of a people and its leaders, collectively and individually; not on where it's governed from (unless that government is excessively stifling). That said, a badly managed transition could set it back ten years or more.
However, re Y2K, I was on that project for the company I still work for and can assure you that it wasn't a mass panic based on nothing in particular. Had that work not been done, financial institutions could have failed (which could have led to "the entire western economy collapsing"). It didn't, because it was a relatively simple issue to deal with, if a deeply and repeatedly embedded one, and the work was completed and tested successfully. The hysteria - to the extent that it existed - was a consequence of the media playing up the risk without counterbalancing it with the remedy.
Some of the spreadsheets I still use at work are pre Y2K compliant.
Then again some of the machinery is pre computers.
I suspect some of the code I wrote for Y2K might not work in 2100, since 2100 isn't a leap year.
Good try David but I don't think it works: On an ACCA basis, off the top of my head, I rate your three pre-conditions as follows:
Yes referendum vote ............................... 4/1 Narrow Labour win in popular vote ......... 2/1 Differential Impact re: polling shifts ........ 5/1
A treble based on the above produces combined winning odds of 89/1, some way longer than the bookie's offering of 66/1. The great unknown here in terms of assessing the likely odds is the third element, where I have had a guess at 5/1. I don't think most would argue greatly with the odds I have attributed to the other two elements. For the 66/1 price to be justified on this basis, the odds against the third part of the accumulator would need to reduce from 5/1 to 7/2, considerably too short in my opinion. Conversely if one were to lengthen the odds by the same one and a half points from 5/1 to 13/2, the combined odds stretch out to 111/1.
You rate a Scottish Yes much lower than I do. I think it's about a 6/4 prospect. I wish I had the money to place on what for me seems ludicrously long odds but right now, I don't. If it is 6/4, then that makes the overall price 44/1.
Of course you can keep the pound, but in order to hang on to enough pounds you will need to generate a large of amount services and products people need and want.
Scotland doesn't. Oil will help, but as Venezuela shows, it is not enough of itself. You will need large and prosperous businesses and an entrepreneurial culture.
You don't have either. The businesses you do have are being treated with incredible hostility.
your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic. We will do OK , you worry about whether sheep and leeks will keep you gainfully employed.
He's right. I run a business in Scotland. Like thousands of similar businesses our important customers are English. Customers may or may not be always right, but they always pay the wages. People like to do business with firms in their own country. Investors decide where to place their operations.They are the other important people. Investment had already dried up on Scotland in the past few months.
If we become foreign we leave behind a lot of prosperity and jobs and say "hello" to a lot of .poverty. I'm not making a political point. It's just how it is.
On another point, the Orangemen are assembling outside my house. Although they are not people I normally give much thought to, I think it's nice that someone is making an emotional case for the union. Of its yes we shouldn't go gentle into the night.
They have some cool plastic flags: union on one side; saltire on the other
I still wonuy local, will pay a small premium for local if quality is similar.
except Scotland doesn't trade much with the rest of the world, it does nearly all its trade with rUK.
They will need to get their finger out Alan and find other markets then, sell more at home and abroad.
ah well that's that problem solved then, perhaps you can just pass a law and it will happen.
Hard work Alan and the levers of power will sort that out
I rather understood Scotland had given up on hard work.
Some of the themes about a reduction in the efficiency of the Labour vote and an overall increase in the efficiency of the Tory vote seem very familiar! But the key to this bet is Scotland. If there is a yes I still don't believe that there will be Scottish MPs elected in 2015. If there isn't a major part of the efficiency of the Labour vote will be lost at a stroke making the bet more plausible if still unlikely. Would it be voided though if the number of seats were changed in this way?
I am going to be spending most of the day doing my best to ensure this particular risk does not come to pass.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
well whatever happens I just hope he doesn't lead the negotiations he'd be totally crap at it.
maybe we could bring Tebbit out of retirement for a few months.
Teresa May? Would scupper Boris's chances I guess.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
I'm not sure the tone was right. He has the tendency to come across all Hugh Grant, a bit foppish. I suspect a more Colin Firth type stoicism might work better in Scotland.
I'm generally pro 'Yes' but some of the comments coming from business and politicians are so overdone now as to look ridiculous, and I think they risk undermining No e.g. suggesting that Scotland might be heading for a Great Depression.
It's beginning to remind me of the Y2K farce.
Y2K wasn't a farce.
Oh David, I normally have such respect for your views. People flap about change and fear of the unknown, Y2K being a classic example. Yes work was done to prevent it, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the whole thing was a mass panic: planes falling from the sky, electrical appliances failing; the entire western economy collapsing. Ooooh look they're flapping again: this time about Scotland being independent.
Scotland would be fine on its own. Not necessarily economically 'better,' but it will get over the teething problems and turn out just fine.
Sure, an independent Scotland could do fine by itself. Ultimately, success rests on the decisions and actions of a people and its leaders, collectively and individually; not on where it's governed from (unless that government is excessively stifling). That said, a badly managed transition could set it back ten years or more.
However, re Y2K, I was on that project for the company I still work for and can assure you that it wasn't a mass panic based on nothing in particular. Had that work not been done, financial institutions could have failed (which could have led to "the entire western economy collapsing"). It didn't, because it was a relatively simple issue to deal with, if a deeply and repeatedly embedded one, and the work was completed and tested successfully. The hysteria - to the extent that it existed - was a consequence of the media playing up the risk without counterbalancing it with the remedy.
What do you mean 'on' that project? Are you a senior IT specialist? Loads of us were 'on' the issue David, including my father-in-law who was involved at a reasonable level, and it reeked of panic from the word go. Some systems needed an upgrade to ensure it didn't bug. Wow, big deal. There have been, and are, much greater threats.
This is one of the occasions when if they vote 'Yes' everyone will wake up the next morning and realise they are still alive.
I am an IT specialist, yes. At the time, I was a Business Analyst and working closely with those recoding and testing. The Y2K threat was not overblown except in the perception put out by the media that it was not being properly handled.
I simply cannot believe that the UK parties won't split post independence. Easterross has already made this point. Why are Scottish Labour, Tories and Lib Dems going to commit suicide by attaching themselves to Westminster parties determined to get the best possible deal for rUK? It won't happen. Scotland has 59 MPs. The rest of the UK has 591. There's no reason why there cannot be a majority that doesn't involve Scottish MPs. It may mean a short term Labour/Tory coalition but if that is what is needed, so be it.
I was absolutely amazed to see Diane Abbott on This Week taking seriously the idea that we could delay the general election for a year. I almost wanted to throw something at the screen. You might expect it from a Tory MP but a Labour one? Left wing voters in England and Wales want this government gone as soon as they can vote on it. If Labour collude in delaying the election, those voters will go beserk. It's ludicrous. If I'm remembering correctly I think she also said that it wouldn't necessarily be a good time to come into government. So let's keep the coalition in power for another year and let them deal with the fallout of the disunion. When the going gets tough the Labour party goes missing - or so the voters will see it. Hopefully wiser heads will prevail in the party.
Diane is principally a TV pundit these days, and TV pundits, like newspaper journalists, prosper by being provocative. The idea of a delayed election is ridiculous, and if the Government tried it on they'd be massacred when it did come round.
Watched Formula E this morning, but as there's nothing on here I shan't post spoilers. I think there are highlights on at 6pm (probably ITV4). A fair amount of overtaking, and the last lap was... interesting.
Good try David but I don't think it works: On an ACCA basis, off the top of my head, I rate your three pre-conditions as follows:
Yes referendum vote ............................... 4/1 Narrow Labour win in popular vote ......... 2/1 Differential Impact re: polling shifts ........ 5/1
A treble based on the above produces combined winning odds of 89/1, some way longer than the bookie's offering of 66/1. The great unknown here in terms of assessing the likely odds is the third element, where I have had a guess at 5/1. I don't think most would argue greatly with the odds I have attributed to the other two elements. For the 66/1 price to be justified on this basis, the odds against the third part of the accumulator would need to reduce from 5/1 to 7/2, considerably too short in my opinion. Conversely if one were to lengthen the odds by the same one and a half points from 5/1 to 13/2, the combined odds stretch out to 111/1.
You rate a Scottish Yes much lower than I do. I think it's about a 6/4 prospect. I wish I had the money to place on what for me seems ludicrously long odds but right now, I don't. If it is 6/4, then that makes the overall price 44/1.
David, I said very same thing when it was 7-1 and 8-1, it always seemed crazy odds.
Well said. I worked for Mercury Communications in the early run up to Y2k and their entire billing system wasn't compliant.
BT had similar terrible issues about almost every aspect of their service. BT had what was known as *The Bunker* to maintain critical comms on 31st Dec and key staff were drafted in just in case the project team had missed something that caused the whole thing to fall over.
I'm generally pro 'Yes' but some of the comments coming from business and politicians are so overdone now as to look ridiculous, and I think they risk undermining No e.g. suggesting that Scotland might be heading for a Great Depression.
It's beginning to remind me of the Y2K farce.
Y2K wasn't a farce.
Oh David, I normally have such respect for your views. People flap about change and fear of the unknown, Y2K being a classic example. Yes work was done to prevent it, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the whole thing was a mass panic: planes falling from the sky, electrical appliances failing; the entire western economy collapsing. Ooooh look they're flapping again: this time about Scotland being independent.
Scotland would be fine on its own. Not necessarily economically 'better,' but it will get over the teething problems and turn out just fine.
Sure, an independent Scotland could do fine by itself. Ultimately, success rests on the decisions and actions of a people and its leaders, collectively and individually; not on where it's governed from (unless that government is excessively stifling). That said, a badly managed transition could set it back ten years or more.
However, re Y2K, I was on that project for the company I still work for and can assure you that it wasn't a mass panic based on nothing in particular. Had that work not been done, financial institutions could have failed (which could have led to "the entire western economy collapsing"). It didn't, because it was a relatively simple issue to deal with, if a deeply and repeatedly embedded one, and the work was completed and tested successfully. The hysteria - to the extent that it existed - was a consequence of the media playing up the risk without counterbalancing it with the remedy.
SeanT - I will be British in the sense that I am European. It will be a far smaller part of me than it has been. English is what I will be - and proud of it.
I am afraid I agree with you about the institutional Left. I am sick of it. Triangulating, lazy, backward looking, complacent and remote. I cannot defend it. It needs to start again. I guess the break-up of the UK will be the opportunity.
One sad feature of the last 4 years has been the demonisation of the LDs on the left because they went into coalition. As a Conservative I feel they made many mistakes not least the desire to be both government and quasi-opposition at the same time but their punsihment has allowed Labour to adopt the 35% strategy leaving them beholden to the more left-wing elements in the TUs. Labour is currently not remotely centrist in tone and maybe not even in substance. Arguably the rise of UKIP may be doing as much damage to the Conservatives. Either way such polarisation is not pleasant to behold even if in my case it is from afar.
They deserve all they get for being unprincipled liars.
Oh dear - You'll soon find out a lot about unprincipled liars if yes win - and I ain't talking LDs.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
A repeating feature of Cameron is his poor knowledge of life outside of his privileged circle and a lack of intellectual curiosity. The Notting Hill dinner party mentality.
Examples of this were his blithe complacency of the economy after Northern Rock and the misguided Conservative electoral strategy of 2010.
Regarding Scotland, I suspect Cameron's knowledge consists of little beyond Edinburgh professionals (Morningside dinner parties) and some posh folk in Perthshire and the Borders (the equivalent of the Chipping Norton set).
He has now discovered, much to his surprise, that the vast majority of Scots fit into neither of those categories.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
I agree with this. At the very least the heart will go out of his premiership. He'll want to get out.
Whatever he decides to do he will be a significantly diminished figure. What will foreign leaders make of the man who could not hold his country together? When Yes wins, Dave's place in history will be secured. He will be the PM who lost the Union and will be remembered for nothing else. Of course, EdM should also stand down, as should Clegg.
I'm generally pro 'Yes' but some of the comments coming from business and politicians are so overdone now as to look ridiculous, and I think they risk undermining No e.g. suggesting that Scotland might be heading for a Great Depression.
It's beginning to remind me of the Y2K farce.
Y2K wasn't a farce.
Oh David, I normally have such respect for your views. People flap about change and fear of the unknown, Y2K being a classic example. Yes work was done to prevent it, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the whole thing was a mass panic: planes falling from the sky, electrical appliances failing; the entire western economy collapsing. Ooooh look they're flapping again: this time about Scotland being independent.
Scotland would be fine on its own. Not necessarily economically 'better,' but it will get over the teething problems and turn out just fine.
Sure, remedy.
still alive.
The only remote similar precedent we have for what Scotland is contemplating is the "velvet divorce" of Czechia and Slovakia.
So, yes, when we wake up on Friday, if it is a YES vote, the sun will still rise and the Shard will still glitter. But then the pain will begin. Inevitably. And I reckon it will get worse over time, for quite a long time.
And there is a small but non-negligible risk that YES will actually start a ghastly chain reaction, that leads to an actual Depression.
No one knows how bad it might be. We just know it will be bad.
Freed of the crushing weight of their larger bullying partner they are flourishing.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
You know, malcolmg, I am beyond caring whether you believe any of this or not. I am almost beyond caring about the referendum. I doubt that anything said by anyone will now influence things, we are too far gone for that. The people must decide.
I'm just giving you the probabilities.
Sean , however your possibilities are always doom and gloom for Scotland, I on the other hand can see sunshine and happiness but expect to end up somewhere in the middle. The sky will not fall in , we WILL be in the EU for good or bad, and we will at least initially be using the pound. Stop fretting and upsetting yourself , rump UK will also survive.
A very good post, Mr. O. Whilst I agree with your substantive points where I must part company with you is over the passion for the Union. I will be marginally sad to see it go but no more than that and I suspect a large proportion of the English, perhaps even the majority, feel much the same.
For whatever reasons, and they really don't matter, the two countries have grown apart and are largely looking for different solutions. These things happen and, as with a marriage, sometimes its best to let it go as continuing to try and force compromises on both sides is more cruel than going through the pain of the split. The Better Together campaign is often criticised, not least on here, for not presenting a positive case for the Union. Well, perhaps they haven't done that because in reality there is no such case to be made.
So I hope for a Yes vote on Thursday and I will wish the Scots well and expect my government to get the best possible deal for rUK in the subsequent negotiations.
My country is being taken away from me on the back of Westminster complacency and SNP lies. It does make me angry. But maybe others are more sanguine. We shall see. In terms of negotiation, the rUK has every single card in its hands.
Well the UK certainly isn't my country. England is my country. The UK is the state comprising two separate countries.
The country I live in will remain England. The country I do much of my work in will remain Scotland. Both are great places now and will remain great places if Scotland wins Independence.
I see nothing to be upset about about the prospect of a friendly neighbour to the North as opposed to a sullen and truculent family member.
We differ. I am English and British. I am about to have one of my identities taken away. That matters to me. We'll have to see how friendly things are. I cannot believe that the SNP will not be blaming Westminster and the rUK generally when their lies are exposed.
Of course we English will get the blame for everything that is wrong in Scotland but that won't actually be a change, will it? What will, hopefully, change is that English politicians will feel under no obligation to do something about the complaints.
flock of sheep and lambs Mr L
if you're going to keep getting the blame make sure it's for something worthwhile.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
well whatever happens I just hope he doesn't lead the negotiations he'd be totally crap at it.
maybe we could bring Tebbit out of retirement for a few months.
There really should not be much negotiating. The Scots have very few cards to play.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
well whatever happens I just hope he doesn't lead the negotiations he'd be totally crap at it.
maybe we could bring Tebbit out of retirement for a few months.
There really should not be much negotiating. The Scots have very few cards to play.
Out by March 2015 if it's a yes. Then a new rUK election in May.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
well whatever happens I just hope he doesn't lead the negotiations he'd be totally crap at it.
maybe we could bring Tebbit out of retirement for a few months.
Teresa May? Would scupper Boris's chances I guess.
Teresa May, you mean the Home secretary who has done nothing about a police force collaberating with child rapists ?
A very good post, Mr. O. Whilst I agree with your substantive points where I must part company with you is over the passion for the Union. I will be marginally sad to see it go but no more than that and I suspect a large proportion of the English, perhaps even the majority, feel much the same.
For whatever reasons, and they really don't matter, the two countries have grown apart and are largely looking for different solutions. These things happen and, as with a marriage, sometimes its best to let it go as continuing to try and force compromises on both sides is more cruel than going through the pain of the split. The Better Together campaign is often criticised, not least on here, for not presenting a positive case for the Union. Well, perhaps they haven't done that because in reality there is no such case to be made.
So I hope for a Yes vote on Thursday and I will wish the Scots well and expect my government to get the best possible deal for rUK in the subsequent negotiations.
My country is being taken away from me on the back of Westminster complacency and SNP lies. It does make me angry. But maybe others are more sanguine. We shall see. In terms of negotiation, the rUK has every single card in its hands.
Well the UK certainly isn't my country. England is my country. The UK is the state comprising two separate countries.
The country I live in will remain England. The country I do much of my work in will remain Scotland. Both are great places now and will remain great places if Scotland wins Independence.
I see nothing to be upset about about the prospect of a friendly neighbour to the North as opposed to a sullen and truculent family member.
I agree with you
When I saw Scotland playing so well against Germany last week I was really rooting for them, and thought maybe they meant more to me than I thought....
But on reflection, I would have been equally behind Rep of Ireland.
Not that I dislike Germany, but it's always fun to see an underdog having a go
I don't really get southern Englishman who are worked up about it to be honest, I couldn't care less, and don't feel I'm entitled to a say, it's not my country. I will still like Scotland, but I'm English, why should I care?
That said I feel the same about anywhere outside the South East!
I'm generally pro 'Yes' but some of the comments coming from business and politicians are so overdone now as to look ridiculous, and I think they risk undermining No e.g. suggesting that Scotland might be heading for a Great Depression.
It's beginning to remind me of the Y2K farce.
Y2K wasn't a farce.
Oh David, I normally have such respect for your views. People flap about change and fear of the unknown, Y2K being a classic example. Yes work was done to prevent it, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the whole thing was a mass panic: planes falling from the sky, electrical appliances failing; the entire western economy collapsing. Ooooh look they're flapping again: this time about Scotland being independent.
Scotland would be fine on its own. Not necessarily economically 'better,' but it will get over the teething problems and turn out just fine.
Sure, remedy.
still alive.
The only remote similar precedent we have for what Scotland is contemplating is the "velvet divorce" of Czechia and Slovakia.
So, yes, when we wake up on Friday, if it is a YES vote, the sun will still rise and the Shard will still glitter. But then the pain will begin. Inevitably. And I reckon it will get worse over time, for quite a long time.
And there is a small but non-negligible risk that YES will actually start a ghastly chain reaction, that leads to an actual Depression.
No one knows how bad it might be. We just know it will be bad.
Freed of the crushing weight of their larger bullying partner they are flourishing.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
You know, malcolmg, I am beyond caring whether you believe any of this or not. I am almost beyond caring about the referendum. I doubt that anything said by anyone will now influence things, we are too far gone for that. The people must decide.
I'm just giving you the probabilities.
Sean , however your possibilities are always doom and gloom for Scotland, I on the other hand can see sunshine and happiness but expect to end up somewhere in the middle. The sky will not fall in , we WILL be in the EU for good or bad, and we will at least initially be using the pound. Stop fretting and upsetting yourself , rump UK will also survive.
Of course you can keep the pound, but in order to hang on to enough pounds you will need to generate a large of amount services and products people need and want.
Scotland doesn't. Oil will help, but as Venezuela shows, it is not enough of itself. You will need large and prosperous businesses and an entrepreneurial culture.
You don't have either. The businesses you do have are being treated with incredible hostility.
your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic. We will do OK , you worry about whether sheep and leeks will keep you gainfully employed.
He's right. I run a business in Scotland. Like thousands of similar businesses our important customers are English. Customers may or may not be always right, but they always pay the wages. People like to do business with firms in their own country. Investors decide where to place their operations.They are the other important people. Investment had already dried up on Scotland in the past few months.
If we become foreign we leave behind a lot of prosperity and jobs and say "hello" to a lot of .poverty. I'm not making a political point. It's just how it is.
On another point, the Orangemen are assembling outside my house. Although they are not people I normally give much thought to, I think it's nice that someone is making an emotional case for the union. Of its yes we shouldn't go gentle into the night.
They have some cool plastic flags: union on one side; saltire on the other
SeanT - I will be British in the sense that I am European. It will be a far smaller part of me than it has been. English is what I will be - and proud of it.
I am afraid I agree with you about the institutional Left. I am sick of it. Triangulating, lazy, backward looking, complacent and remote. I cannot defend it. It needs to start again. I guess the break-up of the UK will be the opportunity.
One sad feature of the last 4 years has been the demonisation of the LDs on the left because they went into coalition. As a Conservative I feel they made many mistakes not least the desire to be both government and quasi-opposition at the same time but their punsihment has allowed Labour to adopt the 35% strategy leaving them beholden to the more left-wing elements in the TUs. Labour is currently not remotely centrist in tone and maybe not even in substance. Arguably the rise of UKIP may be doing as much damage to the Conservatives. Either way such polarisation is not pleasant to behold even if in my case it is from afar.
They deserve all they get for being unprincipled liars.
Oh dear - You'll soon find out a lot about unprincipled liars if yes win - and I ain't talking LDs.
Felix , have had them at Westminster all my life so it cannot be any worse. For sure there will certainly be few if any LD's to worry about though, they have gone a porky too far.
I'm generally pro 'Yes' but some of the comments coming from business and politicians are so overdone now as to look ridiculous, and I think they risk undermining No e.g. suggesting that Scotland might be heading for a Great Depression.
It's beginning to remind me of the Y2K farce.
Y2K wasn't a farce.
Oh David, I normally have such respect for your views. People flap about change and fear of the unknown, Y2K being a classic example. Yes work was done to prevent it, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the whole thing was a mass panic: planes falling from the sky, electrical appliances failing; the entire western economy collapsing. Ooooh look they're flapping again: this time about Scotland being independent.
Scotland would be fine on its own. Not necessarily economically 'better,' but it will get over the teething problems and turn out just fine.
Sure, an independent Scotland could do fine by itself. Ultimately, success rests on the decisions and actions of a people and its leaders, collectively and individually; not on where it's governed from (unless that government is excessively stifling). That said, a badly managed transition could set it back ten years or more.
However, re Y2K, I was on that project for the company I still work for and can assure you that it wasn't a mass panic based on nothing in particular. Had that work not been done, financial institutions could have failed (which could have led to "the entire western economy collapsing"). It didn't, because it was a relatively simple issue to deal with, if a deeply and repeatedly embedded one, and the work was completed and tested successfully. The hysteria - to the extent that it existed - was a consequence of the media playing up the risk without counterbalancing it with the remedy.
Some of the spreadsheets I still use at work are pre Y2K compliant.
Then again some of the machinery is pre computers.
I suspect some of the code I wrote for Y2K might not work in 2100, since 2100 isn't a leap year.
Future contract for you there Alan
That's how IT works, you make your money fixing bugs that you created.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
For the reasons I posted last week, I don't think anyone would want him to go before GE2015. Not Miliband, not the Conservatives themselves, nor the Lib Dems.
If we get a Yes, it will be interesting to see which of us is right. However, I think you are right on one thing: if he does choose to go, it will be his decision based on his personal feelings.
David: One point you have not mentioned and as a Tory it is perhaps difficult for you to accept is that Tories will also lose votes disproportionately in the North East. It already is like Scotland. Will become even more so. We for get Tories only have 2 seats in the entire North East.
Similarly, Labour also will not gain too many votes in the South East.
A partition of sorts is taking place in this country.
I don't recall reading anything much about 'Orange walks' in England and I've certainly never seen one - Wiki has a long write up for Ireland, Scotland and Canada etc, but only has this to say: - "Orange Walks also exist in England, particularly in Liverpool." er that's it.
Apparently there was one in London in 2007, but can anyone remember any other 'walks' taking place around the country?
[I should add, by 'country' I mean England]
Portsmouth and Corby have quite substantial parades.
Cheers Mr Fear - did a quick on-line search wrt Portsmouth 'O.Ws' and there appears to be zero media reporting of events by national press. - perhaps they are much smaller affairs than in other cities, or simply do not arouse such a large following/antipathy here in the south.
In Glasgow/West Scotland they are as numerous as buses in the marching season , usually by now they are back in their caves for the winter. Costs millions to police and clear up the debris after their rampages.
wow,! rampages ! those sad old gits must really know how to party !
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
well whatever happens I just hope he doesn't lead the negotiations he'd be totally crap at it.
maybe we could bring Tebbit out of retirement for a few months.
Why do you think he'd be 'totally crap at it'?
After all, he's managed to keep a coalition government together.
SeanT - I will be British in the sense that I am European. It will be a far smaller part of me than it has been. English is what I will be - and proud of it.
I am afraid I agree with you about the institutional Left. I am sick of it. Triangulating, lazy, backward looking, complacent and remote. I cannot defend it. It needs to start again. I guess the break-up of the UK will be the opportunity.
One sad feature of the last 4 years has been the demonisation of the LDs on the left because they went into coalition. As a Conservative I feel they made many mistakes not least the desire to be both government and quasi-opposition at the same time but their punsihment has allowed Labour to adopt the 35% strategy leaving them beholden to the more left-wing elements in the TUs. Labour is currently not remotely centrist in tone and maybe not even in substance. Arguably the rise of UKIP may be doing as much damage to the Conservatives. Either way such polarisation is not pleasant to behold even if in my case it is from afar.
They deserve all they get for being unprincipled liars.
Oh dear - You'll soon find out a lot about unprincipled liars if yes win - and I ain't talking LDs.
Felix , have had them at Westminster all my life so it cannot be any worse. For sure there will certainly be few if any LD's to worry about though, they have gone a porky too far.
Mr Felix, you might wish to recall - if of course you don't know already - that the LDs tried the coalition experiment before, with Labour in Scotland. I can't recall the details for LDs alone but it didn't work too well electorally for the two combined.
Of course you can keep the pound, but in order to hang on to enough pounds you will need to generate a large of amount services and products people need and want.
Scotland doesn't. Oil will help, but as Venezuela shows, it is not enough of itself. You will need large and prosperous businesses and an entrepreneurial culture.
You don't have either. The businesses you do have are being treated with incredible hostility.
your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic. We will do OK , you worry about whether sheep and leeks will keep you gainfully employed.
He's right. I run a business in Scotland. Like thousands of similar businesses our important customers are English. Customers may or may not be always right, but they always pay the wages. People like to do business with firms in their own country. Investors decide where to place their operations.They are the other important people. Investment had already dried up on Scotland in the past few months.
If we become foreign we leave behind a lot of prosperity and jobs and say "hello" to a lot of .poverty. I'm not making a political point. It's just how it is.
On another point, the Orangemen are assembling outside my house. Although they are not people I normally give much thought to, I think it's nice that someone is making an emotional case for the union. Of its yes we shouldn't go gentle into the night.
They have some cool plastic flags: union on one side; saltire on the other
They are actually crap , the BT mob had them at Commonwealth games to try and pretend they were Scottish , this mob are the same they prefer the butcher's apron when they are not trying to pretend to be Scottish. They are just so bitter and twisted that they cannot just use the Saltire.
I don't recall reading anything much about 'Orange walks' in England and I've certainly never seen one - Wiki has a long write up for Ireland, Scotland and Canada etc, but only has this to say: - "Orange Walks also exist in England, particularly in Liverpool." er that's it.
Apparently there was one in London in 2007, but can anyone remember any other 'walks' taking place around the country?
[I should add, by 'country' I mean England]
Portsmouth and Corby have quite substantial parades.
Cheers Mr Fear - did a quick on-line search wrt Portsmouth 'O.Ws' and there appears to be zero media reporting of events by national press. - perhaps they are much smaller affairs than in other cities, or simply do not arouse such a large following/antipathy here in the south.
In Glasgow/West Scotland they are as numerous as buses in the marching season , usually by now they are back in their caves for the winter. Costs millions to police and clear up the debris after their rampages.
wow,! rampages ! those sad old gits must really know how to party !
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
It is a known phenomenon that borders, however transparent and theoretical, reduce trade. iScotland can expect reduced trade with The FUK. Which means relative impoverishment all round.
Read your piece in the Spectator, Sean.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
It is a known phenomenon that borders, however transparent and theoretical, reduce trade. iScotland can expect reduced trade with The FUK. Which means relative impoverishment all round.
Read your piece in the Spectator, Sean.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
Bit of poetic licence methinks, one side was Italian. They may perhaps have had some similar traits and customs as the Austrians but were Italians.
O/T but relevant to indyref and NHS worries - Earl Howe pretty much insists that health will come under TTIP. Ergo worries about NHS privatization are not absurd.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
[...]
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
What would the time table for a Conservative leadership election be like? If Cameron resigned on October 1st, would his successor be in place before Christmas, or not until April?
Without knowing the exact dates, I can see two potential problems: the Christmas post, and manifesto writing time.
Trying to hold a postal ballot of party members in December could easily go badly wrong, votes getting held up by the flood of Christmas cards. In principle, the Royal Mail should be able to speed the postal ballots through, but that risks stories about photogenic children not getting their eagerly awaited cards and presents because of the Conservative party's leadership election.
The new leader will need some time to rewrite the manifesto, putting their stamp on it, and taking account of developments during the leadership campaign. Thus, it would be no good Cameron's successor taking charge the week before the General Election starts. They'll probably need at least a month, which also gives the new cabinet time to get to grips with its briefs.
Together, these factors may make the timetable for a leadership election pretty tight. How serious would these potential problems actually be, and how much leeway is there in the timetable?
I say all that as an English man that's not bothered, but I would think it a bit unfair if we had said we wanted to leave and not given the Scottish people a vote.... Oh I don't know!!
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
well whatever happens I just hope he doesn't lead the negotiations he'd be totally crap at it.
maybe we could bring Tebbit out of retirement for a few months.
Why do you think he'd be 'totally crap at it'?
After all, he's managed to keep a coalition government together.
He doesn't strike me as someone who would take a hard stance nor as someone who'd want to spend much time looking at the detail.
Those who feel left behind by the post-industrial economic order are the Scottish counterparts of the voters being wooed by Ukip in England. Everywhere, those who feel they have no stake in the current system are turning away from conventional politics. Indeed, this trend is even more dramatic in other countries. Scottish independence is a far less shocking prospect when you consider, for example, that the polls have the National Front’s Marine Le Pen beating the French President François Hollande in a run-off for the Élysée.
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
It is a known phenomenon that borders, however transparent and theoretical, reduce trade. iScotland can expect reduced trade with The FUK. Which means relative impoverishment all round.
Read your piece in the Spectator, Sean.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
Bit of poetic licence methinks, one side was Italian. They may perhaps have had some similar traits and customs as the Austrians but were Italians.
they were Austrians up to 1919. Then Mussolini decided to Italianise the place and dumped Italians in places like Bozen and Meran. But the Austrians are still in the majority and have their own political representation. Italy isn't offering them a referendum - it would lose.
(Another lurker (10+ years), coming in from the cold.
Welcome inside to another lurker - the referendum is having the excellent effect of encouraging more contributors.
FWIW I think you overestimate the salience of the Scottish issue to most English voters. The SeanTs who feel passionately about it, or the West Lothian Question, or EV4EL, are a minority who are mostly already committed to a party - that's why the Tories, who would gain most from EV4EL, haqven't been pushing it. I also think that few people see palatable change from anyone, unfortunately - no sign whatever that young people are rushing to back the Tories, but also not anyone else. The Greens and UKIP benefit from that, as they purport to offer a simple solution, so some are inclined to give them a spin.
Thanks to Nick, Patrick, Charles and rotten borough for the welcome. Looking back, 10 years has gone very quickly....
I agree in part, Nick. Uneven political representation can work, and go unnoticed by all but us political geeks, but if groups who receive a disproportionate amount (power and or central govt funding) are seen to be grasping for more, it can permeate the popular consciousness. Hence post-92 EU settlement there has been more popular agitation against Brussels creep....
I simply cannot believe that the UK parties won't split post independence. Easterross has already made this point. Why are Scottish Labour, Tories and Lib Dems going to commit suicide by attaching themselves to Westminster parties determined to get the best possible deal for rUK? It won't happen. Scotland has 59 MPs. The rest of the UK has 591. There's no reason why there cannot be a majority that doesn't involve Scottish MPs. It may mean a short term Labour/Tory coalition but if that is what is needed, so be it.
I was absolutely amazed to see Diane Abbott on This Week taking seriously the idea that we could delay the general election for a year. I almost wanted to throw something at the screen. You might expect it from a Tory MP but a Labour one? Left wing voters in England and Wales want this government gone as soon as they can vote on it. If Labour collude in delaying the election, those voters will go beserk. It's ludicrous. If I'm remembering correctly I think she also said that it wouldn't necessarily be a good time to come into government. So let's keep the coalition in power for another year and let them deal with the fallout of the disunion. When the going gets tough the Labour party goes missing - or so the voters will see it. Hopefully wiser heads will prevail in the party.
Diane is principally a TV pundit these days, and TV pundits, like newspaper journalists, prosper by being provocative. The idea of a delayed election is ridiculous, and if the Government tried it on they'd be massacred when it did come round.
She is not a Labour loyalist in the accepted meaning of the expression. She wouldn't have made such fuss over private education and then send her son to one.
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
It is a known phenomenon that borders, however transparent and theoretical, reduce trade. iScotland can expect reduced trade with The FUK. Which means relative impoverishment all round.
Read your piece in the Spectator, Sean.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
Those who feel left behind by the post-industrial economic order are the Scottish counterparts of the voters being wooed by Ukip in England. Everywhere, those who feel they have no stake in the current system are turning away from conventional politics. Indeed, this trend is even more dramatic in other countries. Scottish independence is a far less shocking prospect when you consider, for example, that the polls have the National Front’s Marine Le Pen beating the French President François Hollande in a run-off for the Élysée.
Personally I find the actions and ambitions of the Scottish Nationalists more dangerous and shocking than those of their sister French party under Le Pen.
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
It is a known phenomenon that borders, however transparent and theoretical, reduce trade. iScotland can expect reduced trade with The FUK. Which means relative impoverishment all round.
Read your piece in the Spectator, Sean.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
Bit of poetic licence methinks, one side was Italian. They may perhaps have had some similar traits and customs as the Austrians but were Italians.
they were Austrians up to 1919. Then Mussolini decided to Italianise the place and dumped Itlaians in places like Bozen and Meran. But the Austrians are still in the majority and have their own political representation. Italy isn't offering them a referendum - it would lose.
They are just confused by the continual change, but lucky where they live all the same it is beautiful around there.
Those who feel left behind by the post-industrial economic order are the Scottish counterparts of the voters being wooed by Ukip in England. Everywhere, those who feel they have no stake in the current system are turning away from conventional politics. Indeed, this trend is even more dramatic in other countries. Scottish independence is a far less shocking prospect when you consider, for example, that the polls have the National Front’s Marine Le Pen beating the French President François Hollande in a run-off for the Élysée.
Personally I find the actions and ambitions of the Scottish Nationalists more dangerous and shocking than those of their sister French party under Le Pen.
That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea.
(Another lurker (10+ years), coming in from the cold.
Welcome inside to another lurker - the referendum is having the excellent effect of encouraging more contributors.
FWIW I think you overestimate the salience of the Scottish issue to most English voters. The SeanTs who feel passionately about it, or the West Lothian Question, or EV4EL, are a minority who are mostly already committed to a party - that's why the Tories, who would gain most from EV4EL, haqven't been pushing it. I also think that few people see palatable change from anyone, unfortunately - no sign whatever that young people are rushing to back the Tories, but also not anyone else. The Greens and UKIP benefit from that, as they purport to offer a simple solution, so some are inclined to give them a spin.
Thanks to Nick, Patrick, Charles and rotten borough for the welcome. Looking back, 10 years has gone very quickly....
I agree in part, Nick. Uneven political representation can work, and go unnoticed by all but us political geeks, but if groups who receive a disproportionate amount (power and or central govt funding) are seen to be grasping for more, it can permeate the popular consciousness. Hence post-92 EU settlement there has been more popular agitation against Brussels creep....
Yeah, the old ladies in front of my local Sainsbury's are talking of nothing else - only Brussels creep ! The price of Sprouts is more important to them.
Those who feel left behind by the post-industrial economic order are the Scottish counterparts of the voters being wooed by Ukip in England. Everywhere, those who feel they have no stake in the current system are turning away from conventional politics. Indeed, this trend is even more dramatic in other countries. Scottish independence is a far less shocking prospect when you consider, for example, that the polls have the National Front’s Marine Le Pen beating the French President François Hollande in a run-off for the Élysée.
Personally I find the actions and ambitions of the Scottish Nationalists more dangerous and shocking than those of their sister French party under Le Pen.
Oh, you'd better tell all the English and other people born outwith Scotland who are in the SNP and Yes campaign. And the English Scots for Indy Group, and so on.
Not to mention the FN. [edit] I'm sure they would be terribly upset by the comparison.
Have you had a look at the voting blocs in the European Pmt?
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
It is a known phenomenon that borders, however transparent and theoretical, reduce trade. iScotland can expect reduced trade with The FUK. Which means relative impoverishment all round.
Read your piece in the Spectator, Sean.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
Bit of poetic licence methinks, one side was Italian. They may perhaps have had some similar traits and customs as the Austrians but were Italians.
they were Austrians up to 1919. Then Mussolini decided to Italianise the place and dumped Itlaians in places like Bozen and Meran. But the Austrians are still in the majority and have their own political representation. Italy isn't offering them a referendum - it would lose.
They are just confused by the continual change, but lucky where they live all the same it is beautiful around there.
no they're just living the wrong side of a linguistic border.
Those who feel left behind by the post-industrial economic order are the Scottish counterparts of the voters being wooed by Ukip in England. Everywhere, those who feel they have no stake in the current system are turning away from conventional politics. Indeed, this trend is even more dramatic in other countries. Scottish independence is a far less shocking prospect when you consider, for example, that the polls have the National Front’s Marine Le Pen beating the French President François Hollande in a run-off for the Élysée.
Personally I find the actions and ambitions of the Scottish Nationalists more dangerous and shocking than those of their sister French party under Le Pen.
Oh, you'd better tell all the English and other people born outwith Scotland who are in the SNP and Yes campaign. And the English Scots for Indy Group, and so on.
Not to mention the FN. [edit] I'm sure they would be terribly upset by the comparison.
Have you had a look at the voting blocs in the European Pmt?
O/T but relevant to indyref and NHS worries - Earl Howe pretty much insists that health will come under TTIP. Ergo worries about NHS privatization are not absurd.
Let us assume for the purposes of the argument that TTIP is agreed, and that it will result in the privatisation of the National Health Service. It will form part of the law of the European Union. At the moment, EU law has direct effect in Scotland by virtue of s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, and any Act of the Scottish Parliament which is contrary to EU law is outwith the legislative competence of that Parliament. Suppose that Scotland becomes an independent country. Clause 24 of the draft Scottish Independence Bill, published by the Scottish Government, provides that 'Directly effective EU law forms part of Scots law' and that 'Scots law is of no effect so far as it is inconsistent with EU law'. Ergo unless Scotland left the European Union, independence has no relevance to the issue at hand.
Those who feel left behind by the post-industrial economic order are the Scottish counterparts of the voters being wooed by Ukip in England. Everywhere, those who feel they have no stake in the current system are turning away from conventional politics. Indeed, this trend is even more dramatic in other countries. Scottish independence is a far less shocking prospect when you consider, for example, that the polls have the National Front’s Marine Le Pen beating the French President François Hollande in a run-off for the Élysée.
Personally I find the actions and ambitions of the Scottish Nationalists more dangerous and shocking than those of their sister French party under Le Pen.
That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea.
French Nationalism, bad. English Nationalism, bad. Scottish Nationalism, good. Who's the racist?
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
well whatever happens I just hope he doesn't lead the negotiations he'd be totally crap at it.
maybe we could bring Tebbit out of retirement for a few months.
Why do you think he'd be 'totally crap at it'?
After all, he's managed to keep a coalition government together.
He doesn't strike me as someone who would take a hard stance nor as someone who'd want to spend much time looking at the detail.
Yet the coalition has lasted for over four years. That has taken not a little negotiation and skill, by Cameron, Clegg and the respective party hierarchies. And it's not just the man at the top that counts, but the team around him.
Then again I would say that, as I think the coalition has worked remarkably well. I was just a lurker back then, but I well remember all the threaders and comments asking when the coalition would break up. The vast majority of those predictions were wrong. For the most part, whether you agree with the policies or not, the coalition has been relatively mature with little dummy-spitting (especially when compared to the fractious internal rivalries of the Brown years).
If there is a Yes, what EW&NI require is someone who will look after their interests first. I'm not sure internal Labour politics will allow that; the people who negotiated and held together the coalition might well be able to.
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
It is a known phenomenon that borders, however transparent and theoretical, reduce trade. iScotland can expect reduced trade with The FUK. Which means relative impoverishment all round.
Read your piece in the Spectator, Sean.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
Bit of poetic licence methinks, one side was Italian. They may perhaps have had some similar traits and customs as the Austrians but were Italians.
they were Austrians up to 1919. Then Mussolini decided to Italianise the place and dumped Itlaians in places like Bozen and Meran. But the Austrians are still in the majority and have their own political representation. Italy isn't offering them a referendum - it would lose.
They are just confused by the continual change, but lucky where they live all the same it is beautiful around there.
no they're just living the wrong side of a linguistic border.
Those who feel left behind by the post-industrial economic order are the Scottish counterparts of the voters being wooed by Ukip in England. Everywhere, those who feel they have no stake in the current system are turning away from conventional politics. Indeed, this trend is even more dramatic in other countries. Scottish independence is a far less shocking prospect when you consider, for example, that the polls have the National Front’s Marine Le Pen beating the French President François Hollande in a run-off for the Élysée.
Personally I find the actions and ambitions of the Scottish Nationalists more dangerous and shocking than those of their sister French party under Le Pen.
That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea.
French Nationalism, bad. English Nationalism, bad. Scottish Nationalism, good. Who's the racist?
You are not right in the head, fixated is probably a good description, get some dolls or monopoly or something and get a life
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
well whatever happens I just hope he doesn't lead the negotiations he'd be totally crap at it.
maybe we could bring Tebbit out of retirement for a few months.
Why do you think he'd be 'totally crap at it'?
After all, he's managed to keep a coalition government together.
He doesn't strike me as someone who would take a hard stance nor as someone who'd want to spend much time looking at the detail.
Yet the coalition has lasted for over four years. That has taken not a little negotiation and skill, by Cameron, Clegg and the respective party hierarchies. And it's not just the man at the top that counts, but the team around him.
Then again I would say that, as I think the coalition has worked remarkably well. I was just a lurker back then, but I well remember all the threaders and comments asking when the coalition would break up. The vast majority of those predictions were wrong. For the most part, whether you agree with the policies or not, the coalition has been relatively mature with little dummy-spitting (especially when compared to the fractious internal rivalries of the Brown years).
If there is a Yes, what EW&NI require is someone who will look after their interests first. I'm not sure internal Labour politics will allow that; the people who negotiated and held together the coalition might well be able to.
I just wouldn't put Cameron in to a negotiation. He would give too may things away upfront and in all probability thibk his job was to complete a negotiation come what may rather than get the best deal for the country. I'd even put Osborne in before Cameron.
Then again I would say that, as I think the coalition has worked remarkably well. I was just a lurker back then, but I well remember all the threaders and comments asking when the coalition would break up. The vast majority of those predictions were wrong. For the most part, whether you agree with the policies or not, the coalition has been relatively mature with little dummy-spitting (especially when compared to the fractious internal rivalries of the Brown years).
Yup, it's quite impressive; I'm too young to remember anything before Thatcher but her government, Major's government, Blair's government and Brown's government were all far more fractious than the current one.
O/T but relevant to indyref and NHS worries - Earl Howe pretty much insists that health will come under TTIP. Ergo worries about NHS privatization are not absurd.
Let us assume for the purposes of the argument that TTIP is agreed, and that it will result in the privatisation of the National Health Service. It will form part of the law of the European Union. At the moment, EU law has direct effect in Scotland by virtue of s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, and any Act of the Scottish Parliament which is contrary to EU law is outwith the legislative competence of that Parliament. Suppose that Scotland becomes an independent country. Clause 24 of the draft Scottish Independence Bill, published by the Scottish Government, provides that 'Directly effective EU law forms part of Scots law' and that 'Scots law is of no effect so far as it is inconsistent with EU law'. Ergo unless Scotland left the European Union, independence has no relevance to the issue at hand.
Thank you. As I understand the situation, as it has been reported, the individual countries of the EU can opt out in such sectors as they wish to remain wholly public, such as health/NHS. So that would apply in independent Scotland should its then government so wish.
However, the UK would be treated as a single state under the regulations, and opening up TTIP to the English NHS (as seems even more likely, from the above report) would open the other NHS in the UK up to TTIP. This need not be the case in an independent Scotland.
You seriously think Scotland will not have a currency, the only independent country in the world to be in that position. Sounds a bit odd to me.
We need to define terms here.
CURRENCY UNION This has two important things 1) An agreement that banks can replenish its ATMs/used notes with a given currency from the central bank/mint, and 2) a government can issue debts in that given currency and print them to meet any shortfall
CURRENCY PEG A commitment by a government to exchange any amount of one currency for its currency at a fixed rate.
TENDER A private arrangent between buyer and seller about what currency they will use to complete the sale. For example, buying beans in a shop.
Nobody can stop the population of iScotland using GBP for tender. Nobody can stop the government of iScotland running a currency peg pegging its currency (SCP?) to GBP. You can have your own currency (SCP?) if you want (in fact, I fervently recommend it): nobody can stop you. You can operate a peg if you want: nobody can stop you.
But you can't have a currency union without rUK consent.
RUK can stop the government/banks of iScotland printing GBP to pay its debts, it can refuse to supply new GBP notes to the government/banks in iScotland, and it can prevent the government/banks of iScotland designating any paper it prints as being GBP. So iScotland won't be able to pay debts in GBP, print new GBP to cover them, or issue GBP from its cash machines, unless rUK permits.
You can print all the banknotes you want. But without rUK consent, it won't be GBP.
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
It is a known phenomenon that borders, however transparent and theoretical, reduce trade. iScotland can expect reduced trade with The FUK. Which means relative impoverishment all round.
Read your piece in the Spectator, Sean.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
Bit of poetic licence methinks, one side was Italian. They may perhaps have had some similar traits and customs as the Austrians but were Italians.
they were Austrians up to 1919. Then Mussolini decided to Italianise the place and dumped Itlaians in places like Bozen and Meran. But the Austrians are still in the majority and have their own political representation. Italy isn't offering them a referendum - it would lose.
They are just confused by the continual change, but lucky where they live all the same it is beautiful around there.
no they're just living the wrong side of a linguistic border.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Can anyone doubt, after seeing his heartfelt and almost tearful defence of the Union, last week in Scotland, that he really feels a heavy responsibility for this?
I believe he does. I believe it is sincere. He is a unionist before he is a Tory. And he lost the Union on his watch?
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
well whatever happens I just hope he doesn't lead the negotiations he'd be totally crap at it.
maybe we could bring Tebbit out of retirement for a few months.
Why do you think he'd be 'totally crap at it'?
After all, he's managed to keep a coalition government together.
He doesn't strike me as someone who would take a hard stance nor as someone who'd want to spend much time looking at the detail.
Yet the coalition has lasted for over four years. That has taken not a little negotiation and skill, by Cameron, Clegg and the respective party hierarchies. And it's not just the man at the top that counts, but the team around him.
Then again I would say that, as I think the coalition has worked remarkably well. I was just a lurker back then, but I well remember all the threaders and comments asking when the coalition would break up. The vast majority of those predictions were wrong. For the most part, whether you agree with the policies or not, the coalition has been relatively mature with little dummy-spitting (especially when compared to the fractious internal rivalries of the Brown years).
If there is a Yes, what EW&NI require is someone who will look after their interests first. I'm not sure internal Labour politics will allow that; the people who negotiated and held together the coalition might well be able to.
Its ending in the political equivalent of divorce with neither side actively co-operating except on the most minimalist level. They are just waiting for the decree absolute to come through and the only reason why its been dragged out for so long is because both are terrified of their prospects at the next general election. That's not skill that's base survival instincts.
And as for their trustworthiness to look after our interests as much as I trusted them to provide this nation with a referendum on the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Trivial question, Sean.
The real question is what will be left of the Conservative Party.
If the Conservatives cannot conserve the Union, what is left to conserve?
Something that puzzles me is why Cameron or the Tories wish to have Scotland in the Union in any case. I mean, without Scotland we'll have permanent Tory Government. The answer might be that there is genuine emotional attachment to the Union. Perhaps it is a legacy of Empire, which was British, after all. That might explain why the Tories aren't so upset about N.Ireland (or the Republic) leaving, but dead against Scotland leaving.
Incidentally, I am reminded about Cameron's general recklessness. He has put the churches under threat of legal action due to gay 'marriage'. Even if the referendum goes No, he has unnecessarily put another Union in jeopardy.
Cameron is simply too young and too inexperienced for the job.
Thank you. As I understand the situation, as it has been reported, the individual countries of the EU can opt out in such sectors as they wish to remain wholly public, such as health/NHS. So that would apply in independent Scotland should its then government so wish.
However, the UK would be treated as a single state under the regulations, and opening up TTIP to the English NHS (as seems even more likely, from the above report) would open the other NHS in the UK up to TTIP. This need not be the case in an independent Scotland.
So independence would seem to be relevant?
The provision of health in Scotland at the present time is not wholly public, and no party in the Scottish Parliament proposes that it should be.
O/T but relevant to indyref and NHS worries - Earl Howe pretty much insists that health will come under TTIP. Ergo worries about NHS privatization are not absurd.
Let us assume for the purposes of the argument that TTIP is agreed, and that it will result in the privatisation of the National Health Service. It will form part of the law of the European Union. At the moment, EU law has direct effect in Scotland by virtue of s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, and any Act of the Scottish Parliament which is contrary to EU law is outwith the legislative competence of that Parliament. Suppose that Scotland becomes an independent country. Clause 24 of the draft Scottish Independence Bill, published by the Scottish Government, provides that 'Directly effective EU law forms part of Scots law' and that 'Scots law is of no effect so far as it is inconsistent with EU law'. Ergo unless Scotland left the European Union, independence has no relevance to the issue at hand.
Thank you. As I understand the situation, as it has been reported, the individual countries of the EU can opt out in such sectors as they wish to remain wholly public, such as health/NHS. So that would apply in independent Scotland should its then government so wish.
However, the UK would be treated as a single state under the regulations, and opening up TTIP to the English NHS (as seems even more likely, from the above report) would open the other NHS in the UK up to TTIP. This need not be the case in an independent Scotland.
So independence would seem to be relevant?
How on earth do they define "wholly public". GPs are private organisations. Even excluding this Scotland already has some private provision in the NHS.
I can understand its use for nationalised state monopolies will well defined responsibilities - a nationalised railway, a nationalised energy sector etc etc. But "the NHS" is surely far too varied and ill defined in what it provides to allow any such simplistic definition?
Thank you. As I understand the situation, as it has been reported, the individual countries of the EU can opt out in such sectors as they wish to remain wholly public, such as health/NHS. So that would apply in independent Scotland should its then government so wish.
However, the UK would be treated as a single state under the regulations, and opening up TTIP to the English NHS (as seems even more likely, from the above report) would open the other NHS in the UK up to TTIP. This need not be the case in an independent Scotland.
So independence would seem to be relevant?
The provision of health in Scotland at the present time is not wholly public, and no party in the Scottish Parliament proposes that it should be.
No, but not on the levels proposed elsewhere in the UK it would seem. Many thanks anyway - very useful food for thought.
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
Trivial question, Sean.
The real question is what will be left of the Conservative Party.
If the Conservatives cannot conserve the Union, what is left to conserve?
Something that puzzles me is why Cameron or the Tories wish to have Scotland in the Union in any case. I mean, without Scotland we'll have permanent Tory Government.
Whether this is true or not (seems a ridiculous claim to me), why would anyone really see permanent Govt of any stripe as desirable? Maybe you might have near permanent "right wing" Governments, but that is not the same thing. Some might argue we do anyway!
O/T but relevant to indyref and NHS worries - Earl Howe pretty much insists that health will come under TTIP. Ergo worries about NHS privatization are not absurd.
Let us assume for the purposes of the argument that TTIP is agreed, and that it will result in the privatisation of the National Health Service. It will form part of the law of the European Union. At the moment, EU law has direct effect in Scotland by virtue of s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, and any Act of the Scottish Parliament which is contrary to EU law is outwith the legislative competence of that Parliament. Suppose that Scotland becomes an independent country. Clause 24 of the draft Scottish Independence Bill, published by the Scottish Government, provides that 'Directly effective EU law forms part of Scots law' and that 'Scots law is of no effect so far as it is inconsistent with EU law'. Ergo unless Scotland left the European Union, independence has no relevance to the issue at hand.
Thank you. As I understand the situation, as it has been reported, the individual countries of the EU can opt out in such sectors as they wish to remain wholly public, such as health/NHS. So that would apply in independent Scotland should its then government so wish.
However, the UK would be treated as a single state under the regulations, and opening up TTIP to the English NHS (as seems even more likely, from the above report) would open the other NHS in the UK up to TTIP. This need not be the case in an independent Scotland.
So independence would seem to be relevant?
How on earth do they define "wholly public". GPs are private organisations. Scotland already has some private provision in the NHS.
I can understand its use for nationalised state monopolies will well defined responsibilities - a nationalised railway, a nationalised energy sector etc etc. But "the NHS" is surely far too varied and ill defined in what it provides to allow any such simplistic definition?
I agree entirely that it's obvious that there is a mixed economy in hearing aids, podiatry and surgery to name just a few areas. However, the worry is as I understand it more to do with the intention that large companies be given the legal right to shoulder aside state organisations such as hospitals, or for that matter GP trusts. How things are defined will be very important and that is no doubt one reason for worry.
Those who feel left behind by the post-industrial economic order are the Scottish counterparts of the voters being wooed by Ukip in England. Everywhere, those who feel they have no stake in the current system are turning away from conventional politics. Indeed, this trend is even more dramatic in other countries. Scottish independence is a far less shocking prospect when you consider, for example, that the polls have the National Front’s Marine Le Pen beating the French President François Hollande in a run-off for the Élysée.
Personally I find the actions and ambitions of the Scottish Nationalists more dangerous and shocking than those of their sister French party under Le Pen.
That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea.
French Nationalism, bad. English Nationalism, bad. Scottish Nationalism, good. Who's the racist?
You seriously think Scotland will not have a currency, the only independent country in the world to be in that position. Sounds a bit odd to me.
We need to define terms here.
CURRENCY UNION This has two important things 1) An agreement that banks can replenish its ATMs/used notes with a given currency from the central bank/mint, and 2) a government can issue debts in that given currency and print them to meet any shortfall
CURRENCY PEG A commitment by a government to exchange any amount of one currency for its currency at a fixed rate.
TENDER A private arrangent between buyer and seller about what currency they will use to complete the sale. For example, buying beans in a shop.
Nobody can stop the population of iScotland using GBP for tender. Nobody can stop the government of iScotland running a currency peg pegging its currency (SCP?) to GBP. You can have your own currency (SCP?) if you want (in fact, I fervently recommend it): nobody can stop you. You can operate a peg if you want: nobody can stop you.
But you can't have a currency union without rUK consent.
RUK can stop the government/banks of iScotland printing GBP to pay its debts, it can refuse to supply new GBP notes to the government/banks in iScotland, and it can prevent the government/banks of iScotland designating any paper it prints as being GBP. So iScotland won't be able to pay debts in GBP, print new GBP to cover them, or issue GBP from its cash machines, unless rUK permits.
You can print all the banknotes you want. But without rUK consent, it won't be GBP.
This is supposed to be a pleasant site to debate politics, not an online brawl. I'm loath to stand in the way of free speech but enough is enough, all this is just in this thread.
"You are not right in the head, fixated is probably a good description, get some dolls or monopoly or something and get a life...."
"That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea...."
"Whinge whinge whinge , the English disease, always imagining you are victims..."
"your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic"
"You really are thick then , I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but see you are a ramping cretinous halfwit, bye"
"Another wittering halfwit,"
"Why not Switzerland or Denmark, another sad visionless unionist viewpoint. Worry about your own shithole as you beg for more alms from your master."
"What can one expect from a bigoted dinosaur. Sad sacks like you are on the way out and hopefully we will be rid of you soon. You accurately portray the nasty BT mentality."
"Sad fanny writes gibberish, bet you are great at crushing grapes"
"Another thick fanny who must be either barking or on drugs"
"So says a big girls blouse"
"Civilised honest debate needs honest sensible people, not idiots that spread propaganda and lies as facts."
"Another blind Tory who likes to write drivel and pontificate and ridicule people's opinions but has skin as thin as rice paper when called out on her lies and delusions. Another of the stupid frothers on here who have limited horizons and cannot see beyond their narrow viewpoints and are unable to take any opposite opinions as anything other than an insult."
"Another thick Daily Mail reading halfwit spouts diahorrea."
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
Comments
Freed of the crushing weight of their larger bullying partner they are flourishing.
http://tinyurl.com/qxjgk4t
The problem is that the owners aren't in control, the people in control are the executive oligarchs. Who then put their own interests ahead of those of the owners.
A similar situation exists in the public sector where their branch of the executive oligarchy places their interests above those of the public sector's 'owners' ie the citizens.
maybe we could bring Tebbit out of retirement for a few months.
He should have been a diplomat.
I rather understood Scotland had given up on hard work.
I agree with this. At the very least the heart will go out of his premiership. He'll want to get out.
Having said that, major population centres will have a more proportionate impact. So Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen will more or less decide the issue.
Between that and gardens used as toilets , bins etc it tends to cause a bit of upset when people here they have had the luck to be chosen to be on the route.
One commenter notes, interestingly, that No campaign poster colours are Labour ones (red and yellow) - a very good point.
Watched Formula E this morning, but as there's nothing on here I shan't post spoilers. I think there are highlights on at 6pm (probably ITV4). A fair amount of overtaking, and the last lap was... interesting.
BT had similar terrible issues about almost every aspect of their service. BT had what was known as *The Bunker* to maintain critical comms on 31st Dec and key staff were drafted in just in case the project team had missed something that caused the whole thing to fall over.
It was massive.
Examples of this were his blithe complacency of the economy after Northern Rock and the misguided Conservative electoral strategy of 2010.
Regarding Scotland, I suspect Cameron's knowledge consists of little beyond Edinburgh professionals (Morningside dinner parties) and some posh folk in Perthshire and the Borders (the equivalent of the Chipping Norton set).
He has now discovered, much to his surprise, that the vast majority of Scots fit into neither of those categories.
I'm a great believer in Don't Get Mad, Get Even.
When I saw Scotland playing so well against Germany last week I was really rooting for them, and thought maybe they meant more to me than I thought....
But on reflection, I would have been equally behind Rep of Ireland.
Not that I dislike Germany, but it's always fun to see an underdog having a go
I don't really get southern Englishman who are worked up about it to be honest, I couldn't care less, and don't feel I'm entitled to a say, it's not my country. I will still like Scotland, but I'm English, why should I care?
That said I feel the same about anywhere outside the South East!
If we get a Yes, it will be interesting to see which of us is right. However, I think you are right on one thing: if he does choose to go, it will be his decision based on his personal feelings.
Similarly, Labour also will not gain too many votes in the South East.
A partition of sorts is taking place in this country.
After all, he's managed to keep a coalition government together.
They are just so bitter and twisted that they cannot just use the Saltire.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
Severin Carrell @severincarrell 5m
Proud Brit Loyalists from #Liverpool - Colonel Saunderson's Memorial with #union jack suits #indyref http://tinyurl.com/oe4sx4g
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29181332
Without knowing the exact dates, I can see two potential problems: the Christmas post, and manifesto writing time.
Trying to hold a postal ballot of party members in December could easily go badly wrong, votes getting held up by the flood of Christmas cards. In principle, the Royal Mail should be able to speed the postal ballots through, but that risks stories about photogenic children not getting their eagerly awaited cards and presents because of the Conservative party's leadership election.
The new leader will need some time to rewrite the manifesto, putting their stamp on it, and taking account of developments during the leadership campaign. Thus, it would be no good Cameron's successor taking charge the week before the General Election starts. They'll probably need at least a month, which also gives the new cabinet time to get to grips with its briefs.
Together, these factors may make the timetable for a leadership election pretty tight. How serious would these potential problems actually be, and how much leeway is there in the timetable?
twitter.com/matthewhoulihan/status/510737846907707392/photo/1
I say all that as an English man that's not bothered, but I would think it a bit unfair if we had said we wanted to leave and not given the Scottish people a vote.... Oh I don't know!!
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/510732350796615680/photo/1
I agree in part, Nick. Uneven political representation can work, and go unnoticed by all but us political geeks, but if groups who receive a disproportionate amount (power and or central govt funding) are seen to be grasping for more, it can permeate the popular consciousness. Hence post-92 EU settlement there has been more popular agitation against Brussels creep....
I loved it all. Though the Swiss German cuisine left rather a lot to be desired if you didn't fancy a fried egg with everything...
That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea.
Oh, you'd better tell all the English and other people born outwith Scotland who are in the SNP and Yes campaign. And the English Scots for Indy Group, and so on.
Not to mention the FN. [edit] I'm sure they would be terribly upset by the comparison.
Have you had a look at the voting blocs in the European Pmt?
Not to mention the FN. [edit] I'm sure they would be terribly upset by the comparison.
Have you had a look at the voting blocs in the European Pmt?
Some of my best friends are.......
French Nationalism, bad. English Nationalism, bad. Scottish Nationalism, good. Who's the racist?
Then again I would say that, as I think the coalition has worked remarkably well. I was just a lurker back then, but I well remember all the threaders and comments asking when the coalition would break up. The vast majority of those predictions were wrong. For the most part, whether you agree with the policies or not, the coalition has been relatively mature with little dummy-spitting (especially when compared to the fractious internal rivalries of the Brown years).
If there is a Yes, what EW&NI require is someone who will look after their interests first. I'm not sure internal Labour politics will allow that; the people who negotiated and held together the coalition might well be able to.
You are not right in the head, fixated is probably a good description, get some dolls or monopoly or something and get a life
However, the UK would be treated as a single state under the regulations, and opening up TTIP to the English NHS (as seems even more likely, from the above report) would open the other NHS in the UK up to TTIP. This need not be the case in an independent Scotland.
So independence would seem to be relevant?
CURRENCY UNION
This has two important things 1) An agreement that banks can replenish its ATMs/used notes with a given currency from the central bank/mint, and 2) a government can issue debts in that given currency and print them to meet any shortfall
CURRENCY PEG
A commitment by a government to exchange any amount of one currency for its currency at a fixed rate.
TENDER
A private arrangent between buyer and seller about what currency they will use to complete the sale. For example, buying beans in a shop.
Nobody can stop the population of iScotland using GBP for tender. Nobody can stop the government of iScotland running a currency peg pegging its currency (SCP?) to GBP. You can have your own currency (SCP?) if you want (in fact, I fervently recommend it): nobody can stop you. You can operate a peg if you want: nobody can stop you.
But you can't have a currency union without rUK consent.
RUK can stop the government/banks of iScotland printing GBP to pay its debts, it can refuse to supply new GBP notes to the government/banks in iScotland, and it can prevent the government/banks of iScotland designating any paper it prints as being GBP. So iScotland won't be able to pay debts in GBP, print new GBP to cover them, or issue GBP from its cash machines, unless rUK permits.
You can print all the banknotes you want. But without rUK consent, it won't be GBP.
And as for their trustworthiness to look after our interests as much as I trusted them to provide this nation with a referendum on the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty.
The real question is what will be left of the Conservative Party.
If the Conservatives cannot conserve the Union, what is left to conserve?
Something that puzzles me is why Cameron or the Tories wish to have Scotland in the Union in any case. I mean, without Scotland we'll have permanent Tory Government. The answer might be that there is genuine emotional attachment to the Union. Perhaps it is a legacy of Empire, which was British, after all. That might explain why the Tories aren't so upset about N.Ireland (or the Republic) leaving, but dead against Scotland leaving.
Incidentally, I am reminded about Cameron's general recklessness. He has put the churches under threat of legal action due to gay 'marriage'. Even if the referendum goes No, he has unnecessarily put another Union in jeopardy.
Cameron is simply too young and too inexperienced for the job.
I can understand its use for nationalised state monopolies will well defined responsibilities - a nationalised railway, a nationalised energy sector etc etc. But "the NHS" is surely far too varied and ill defined in what it provides to allow any such simplistic definition?
http://tinyurl.com/k2o5z9c
http://tinyurl.com/mc5gyoa
One Party states are not good things.
I saw an interesting comment in The Times "Patriotism is when you love your people first, nationalism is when you hate someone else more." French Nationalism, bad. English Nationalism, bad. Scottish Nationalism, good. Who's the racist?
I really can't see why some refuse to see this very simple point. If any nation could just photocopy another country's currency - we'd all be at.
But we can't. It's a total no brainer.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.