If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
Have another referendum about what those counties wish to do.
Three things: 3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Cameron says today:
There is no option of keeping our heads down that would make us safe. The problem would merely get worse, as it has done over recent months. Not just for us, but for Europe and for the world.
We cannot just walk on by if we are to keep this country safe. We have to confront this menace.
Step by step, we must drive back, dismantle and ultimately destroy Isil and what it stands for.
Are you saying that should this aim be achieved, Cameron should nonetheless be condemned for not having labelled ISIL as Muslim?
The quote that's doing the rounds today from Cameron on ISIS is this one: "They are not Muslims, they are monsters."
My point is that they are Muslims if they say they are, and it is not for Cameron to deny it. It's the same false logic that gets used in this country to decry football supporters who behave in a way that does not please the authorities: time and again we hear "they are not real football supporters. They are hooligans." It's a false dichotomy. People can be BOTH monsters and Muslim in the same way they can be football supporters and hooligans.
Cameron is rightly saying that we should ultimately destroy ISIL because they are monsters, not because they are Muslims. In your original comment you demand that politicians address Islam head on, would you suggest that all football supporters should be addressed head on in order to deal with hooliganism? If so, what do you have in mind by "head on"?
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
It is looking like a supermajority (Borders) will be No. But I expect the SNP will say that self determination within the UK is all dandy, just not within Scotland.
Unless things change we can presume that they will be in iScotland.
I agree - but when Sindy starts to go pear shaped some of those Scots are gonna start squealing very loud - I presume by them the country will have been renamed Salmonland!
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
Have another referendum about what those counties wish to do.
The Schleswig-Holstein solution?
The Germans invade and it becomes part of Germany ?
Ming Campbell talking about how Scotland will get new powers in a No vote "and that will surely be matched by new powers for the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland assembly".
WHAT ABOUT ENGLAND?
Do the Welsh (as opposed to their politicians) want new powers? They haven't done a great job with the ones they've got and might not appreciate giving the Welsh Assembly new tax raising powers.
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
Have another referendum about what those counties wish to do.
The Schleswig-Holstein solution?
The Germans invade and it becomes part of Germany ?
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
Have another referendum about what those counties wish to do.
The Schleswig-Holstein solution?
The Germans invade and it becomes part of Germany ?
That would seem to be the logical conclusion...
But if it joins the EU the Germans will own it anyway ;-)
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
They'll be pretty unhappy, but will have to adjust to the new reality and no doubt will come to accept it as there will be no way back.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
"Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has said there is "little basis" for "fear-mongering" over the economy of an independent Scotland. Mr Stiglitz countered the view of fellow Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently said in the New York Times that Scotland would face "huge risks" if it voted for independence and told Scots to "be very afraid". In an article published in the Sunday Herald and the Scotsman Mr Stiglitz said that while there would be risks in the event of a "Yes" vote, the risks of Scotland remaining in the union and the UK leaving the EU would be "significantly greater".
I don't get the logic here. How can a risk of a yes vote (which guarantees leaving the EU) be less than the risk of a "no" vote and possibly leaving the EU?
Yes, the NO campaign hasn't made nearly enough of this.
If you vote NO there is a risk, fairly slight, that the UK will get a vote to leave the EU in 2017 (if Cameron gets a majority!) and then vote out. It's really very improbable, about a 2% chance, but it might just happen.
If you vote YES then you are out of the EU. 100% chance. Certainty. By 2016.
Scotland would be out of the EU but desperate to get back in without any of the safeguards that we have already negotiated. We are not in the Euro and its clear that under Cameron we will not be. Furthermore as a new entrant it would be in Schengen or not at all.
I can see the EU backing down on Schengen so there's a separate Schengen for Scotland-Ireland-UK. I can see that being acceptable to them. What they won't do is back down on the Euro membership.
And with Euro membership comes ever closer union financial and hence political. So much for 'independence'. All this just as Cameron, provoided he is elected is about to keep us out of closer union. I expect Scotland to Vote NO I hope they do but if they vote YES then frankly I expect if Osborn were appointed tory minister in charge of looking after rUK interests in the resulting process then it ought to be a vote winner.
Eh? How's that going to cause a problem for a Labour Govt backed by Scottish MPs? If Labour English MPs are in favour of a bill they are hardly going to vote away their majority to pass it by declaring it "English"!
It's extraordinary how difficult it is to explain the nature of the most simple morality to some Labour supporters. You actually think a Miliband govt would seek to use the votes of Scottish Labour MPs after a referendum Yes to subvert the will of the English on English only issues. Have you really no sense of how awful that sounds? I know that Ed sets a pretty low bar when it comes to decency but really.
"They maybe used our city because some US citizens might have heard of it. "
Watched The Bourne Identity last nite. Good film. Enjoyed it.
The opening sequences are shot in some some famous locations, all of which are helpfully labelled - 'Moscow, Russia; Turin, Italy; Paris, France; London, England.' Mercifully, they spared us New York, USA, figuring no doubt most of us were smart enough to know which country New York is in.
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
If you think the English are going to accept being carved up you can Foxtrot Oscar with that EU rubbish.
There is zero support for a balkanised England, I'm Cornish, which is the most likely area to "secede" and support for Cornish independence is probably about 2%. A bit more devolution, yes, but indy - nonsense.
.
Well said. I know everyone hates Westminster, but quite where this idea of carving England up even further came from, as a solution, baffles me, as there seems no support for such radical ideas.
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
They become part of an independent Scotland if it's a 'yes'.
I thought the Nat argument was why do you want to be stuck with a load of people who don't want to be part of you ? ;-)
A 'no' vote is an expression of a preference for Scotland being in the UK not a preference for the region to be in rUK over an independent Scotland.
I mentioned late last night following a comment by Roger on here that when Scotland is eventually allowed to rejoin the EU that it appears that zero rated items such as books, food and childrens clothing there will be subject to a minimum of 5% VAT because that is the lowest rate of VAT allowed in the EU. The UK obtained these zero rated concessions in the pre EU days and if she was to give them up voluntarily she couldn't say at a later date hang on we made a mistake there and ask for them back. Ironically a regressive food tax disproportionately hits those poor voters that the SNP mafia have been conning.
"Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has said there is "little basis" for "fear-mongering" over the economy of an independent Scotland. Mr Stiglitz countered the view of fellow Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently said in the New York Times that Scotland would face "huge risks" if it voted for independence and told Scots to "be very afraid". In an article published in the Sunday Herald and the Scotsman Mr Stiglitz said that while there would be risks in the event of a "Yes" vote, the risks of Scotland remaining in the union and the UK leaving the EU would be "significantly greater".
I don't get the logic here. How can a risk of a yes vote (which guarantees leaving the EU) be less than the risk of a "no" vote and possibly leaving the EU?
Yes, the NO campaign hasn't made nearly enough of this.
If you vote NO there is a risk, fairly slight, that the UK will get a vote to leave the EU in 2017 (if Cameron gets a majority!) and then vote out. It's really very improbable, about a 2% chance, but it might just happen.
If you vote YES then you are out of the EU. 100% chance. Certainty. By 2016.
Scotland would be out of the EU but desperate to get back in without any of the safeguards that we have already negotiated. We are not in the Euro and its clear that under Cameron we will not be. Furthermore as a new entrant it would be in Schengen or not at all.
I can see the EU backing down on Schengen so there's a separate Schengen for Scotland-Ireland-UK. I can see that being acceptable to them. What they won't do is back down on the Euro membership.
add the Social Chapter to that.
We don't have a social chapter opt-out. Blair got rid of it.
This should remind people of the dangers of letting Labour take charge of our EU relations.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if e HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
And totallyle.
It can be really simple.
England only issues, only English MP's can vote, sit on committees, be ministers.
Defence, foreign affairs, all of them can vote.
Why's that difficult?
How do yt happens if there is a Welsh only bill in the House of Commons?
Easy. All MP's vote to decide if it is an English only bill. Problem fixed....
Eh? How's that going to cause a problem for a Labour Govt backed by Scottish MPs? If Labour English MPs are in favour of a bill they are hardly going to vote away their majority to pass it by declaring it "English"!
It would surely be quite easy to tack some amendment or provision onto an almost totally English issue that would impact in some small way on Scotland. The temptation to use such a tactic would be irresistible, particularly if a Labour gov had no Lab majority or even largest party status in England.
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
They'll be pretty unhappy, but will have to adjust to the new reality and no doubt will come to accept it as there will be no way back.
Oh I don't know I can see the local politicos making a song and dance about it. The same happened in O&S despite claims no-one would ask to move from Edinburgh
My Bugger You gene is very active. I can understand why many Scots play a similar card when they feel coerced - either by A Sworn Enemy or by Yessers.
It provokes a most visceral reaction in my otherwise fairly sang froid attitude to things! If I had a nice side, you wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of it :^ )
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
Nick
Over the years I have heard politicians of all colours, call terrorists from all over the world as cowards.
Whatever they are, I would not use that word to describe them.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
Breivik was a lone lunatic, there is no comparison.
But thank you for the party line on what we should believe about muslims and ISIS.
I'm not convinced by your reasoning about '1,000 years' of unitary government in England. In fact, down to 1653 most government was devolved to the Counties Palatine, and from 1653-60 it was devolved to major generals in the provinces. I don't have the complete list of the palatinates, but they included at various times Wessex, Cheshire, Shrewsbury, Kent, Devon, Nottingham, Ely, Lincoln, Lancaster, Richmondshire, Yorkshire, Westmoreland and Northumberland - the longest lasting was of course Durham, which lasted from the Saxon age down to the Restoration. There is no reason in theory why such a system couldn't be revived. In practice, the English have repeatedly shown that they agree with you and they don't want it.
With regard to EVFEL, it will never work. Too many things simply cross borders. University funding is a classic example. In theory, it's a devolved matter, which is why there is a dog's breakfast of different prices, fees and repayments systems depending on where you live, where you study, what you study and what your inside leg measurement is (incidentally, it is a real problem that the Glasgow-based Student Loan Company is far too corrupt and incompetent to administer this system effectively). In practice, the funding levels themselves are set by block grants to the research councils. These are decided at Westminster for England, and because the money for each university is decided by head, the Welsh and Scottish equivalents more or less have to follow their lead.
Schools are another case in point. GCSE and A-level reform, in theory, goes ahead only in England. In practice, no way on God's green earth will a separate system be run for Wales - too small, too expensive. So that has been effectively forced on them despite the trenchant opposition of 75% of the Welsh assembly, who want to keep the old system (in my view a misguided position, but it should be theirs to take).
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
Have another referendum about what those counties wish to do.
The Schleswig-Holstein solution?
The Germans invade and it becomes part of Germany ?
That would seem to be the logical conclusion...
Why just the Germans?
Anybody with a half decent army might fancy a crack. The Islamic State are probably eying it up as I write.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
You don't need to believe in lumping them all in together to believe they still count as Muslims. Was Joseph Stalin not a socialist because he was a genocidal bastards and most socialists are decent (if misguided) people?
(Andres Breivik described himself as not very religious, for what it's worth.)
So how about being really radical? Five assemblies in the UK - Scotland, England outside London, London, Wales and Northern Ireland. All elected on the mix of FPTP and top-up that we have now. Three days a week, they meet in their own capitals, pass their own laws, appoint their FMs and Cabinets. Then, two days a week, the FPTP members meet in London or possibly Sheffield (more central) or even on a rolling basis to debate UK-wide matters, and select a Cabinet from all of them to run the country as a whole.
Alternatively - and this would be less fun to watch but probably more workable - have unicameral parliaments for each of the above regions, but a single unicameral chamber above them all, scrutinising legislation from the regions and legislating directly for defence, foreign affairs and certain fiscal laws.
You never know, it might work. What clearly won't work is devomax for Scotland without drastic reform at the centre.
@Smarmeron You mentioned the Alex Harvey band on another thread and seemed to know your onions. Are you a music buff?
I'm looking for recommendations to add to my collection. I totted up my own selfie tape and it's at 317 artists so far, and know there's oodles I've never tripped across. My big brother had a few Alex Harvey tunes, but never took any notice of them.
Incidentally I found the "here are no NO voters, just deferred YES ones" as a funny joke rather than a serious statement.
I'm in-between on that. It doesn't seem like a joke at all, it's not really funny, but neither is it literally what he believes, obviously, it's just a cutesy way of encouraging the Yes campaigners through all these decades that over time a lot of former No's have gone Yes, and so never give up trying.
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
They'll be pretty unhappy, but will have to adjust to the new reality and no doubt will come to accept it as there will be no way back.
Oh I don't know I can see the local politicos making a song and dance about it. The same happened in O&S despite claims no-one would ask to move from Edinburgh
Eh? How's that going to cause a problem for a Labour Govt backed by Scottish MPs? If Labour English MPs are in favour of a bill they are hardly going to vote away their majority to pass it by declaring it "English"!
@Alex It's extraordinary how difficult it is to explain the nature of the most simple morality to some Labour supporters. You actually think a Miliband govt would seek to use the votes of Scottish Labour MPs after a referendum Yes to subvert the will of the English on English only issues. Have you really no sense of how awful that sounds? I know that Ed sets a pretty low bar when it comes to decency but really.
I (almost) give up.
I'm talking generally about the difficulties of EV4EL. The difficulties apply equally whether there is a "Yes" vote or a "No vote".
The only relevance as far as a "Yes" vote is concerned is that some people seem to think that all bills passed post 19th September should not be regarded as applying to Scotland and therefore their MPs should not get a vote. Even though they WILL apply to their constituents until the date of Independence. (ie. there are no new "English only" issues created as a result of a Yes vote).
I agree that there may be many issues upon which Ed will find it difficult between "Yes" and Independence to pass on the back of Scottish MP votes. But that is different to trying to produce legislation to forbid it.
I pointed out that legislation (as opposed to "moral pressure") for EV4EL founders on the definition of "English Laws". Because any Govt would be able to circumvent it by pork barrelling non-English legislation into otherwise English Bills. And somehow defining English Laws by allowing MPs to vote on it in advance (as was suggested) is pointless since that vote would always depend on whether the English MPs in the majority party were in favour of the Bill.
I have never voted Labour in my life, not that it has any relevance.
So how about being really radical? Five assemblies in the UK - Scotland, England outside London, London, Wales and Northern Ireland. All elected on the mix of FPTP and top-up that we have now. Three days a week, they meet in their own capitals, pass their own laws, appoint their FMs and Cabinets. Then, two days a week, the FPTP members meet in London or possibly Sheffield (more central) or even on a rolling basis to debate UK-wide matters, and select a Cabinet from all of them to run the country as a whole.
Alternatively - and this would be less fun to watch but probably more workable - have unicameral parliaments for each of the above regions, but a single unicameral chamber above them all, scrutinising legislation from the regions and legislating directly for defence, foreign affairs and certain fiscal laws.
You never know, it might work. What clearly won't work is devomax for Scotland without drastic reform at the centre.
I live in London and don't want to be separated from the rest of my country.
"Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has said there is "little basis" for "fear-mongering" over the economy of an independent Scotland. Mr Stiglitz countered the view of fellow Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently said in the New York Times that Scotland would face "huge risks" if it voted for independence and told Scots to "be very afraid". In an article published in the Sunday Herald and the Scotsman Mr Stiglitz said that while there would be risks in the event of a "Yes" vote, the risks of Scotland remaining in the union and the UK leaving the EU would be "significantly greater".
I don't get the logic here. How can a risk of a yes vote (which guarantees leaving the EU) be less than the risk of a "no" vote and possibly leaving the EU?
Yes, the NO campaign hasn't made nearly enough of this.
If you vote NO there is a risk, fairly slight, that the UK will get a vote to leave the EU in 2017 (if Cameron gets a majority!) and then vote out. It's really very improbable, about a 2% chance, but it might just happen.
If you vote YES then you are out of the EU. 100% chance. Certainty. By 2016.
Scotland would be out of the EU but desperate to get back in without any of the safeguards that we have already negotiated. We are not in the Euro and its clear that under Cameron we will not be. Furthermore as a new entrant it would be in Schengen or not at all.
I can see the EU backing down on Schengen so there's a separate Schengen for Scotland-Ireland-UK. I can see that being acceptable to them. What they won't do is back down on the Euro membership.
And with Euro membership comes ever closer union financial and hence political. So much for 'independence'. All this just as Cameron, provoided he is elected is about to keep us out of closer union. I expect Scotland to Vote NO I hope they do but if they vote YES then frankly I expect if Osborn were appointed tory minister in charge of looking after rUK interests in the resulting process then it ought to be a vote winner.
The same Osborne who made a big song and dance about lending billions to a broke Ireland?
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
If you think the English are going to accept being carved up you can Foxtrot Oscar with that EU rubbish.
There is zero support for a balkanised England, I'm Cornish, which is the most likely area to "secede" and support for Cornish independence is probably about 2%. A bit more devolution, yes, but indy - nonsense.
Westminster is our English parliament and has been for 1000 years and this is not going to change. Whether Scots Labour MPs leave it in 2015 or 2016 is moot, but they will leave, only attending for Federal questions - or not at all.
I suspect that if Scotland does go indy we will just carry on with FUK as it is now. The influence of Welsh and Ulster MPs is so negligible it won't bother the English that Devolution is asymmetric. I also suspect that after a YES Scots Labour MPs will come under irresistible pressure not to vote on English affairs. Some might succumb, some will resist to the bitter end.
The Tories will of course make Ed Miliband try and use those MPs, to embarrass and damage him politically. Labour are headed for implosion after a YES vote.
It really is appalling: I agree 100% with Sean Thomas. Must lie down.
Whether IS are proper muslims or not seems unimportant, so long as far far too many either think they are perfectly in accordance with Islam, or do not despise them enough for not being so to do anything about it, or even actively aid them in spite of their unislamic behaviours.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
Breivik was a lone lunatic, there is no comparison.
But thank you for the party line on what we should believe about muslims and ISIS.
The Mormons think they are Christians... Are they?
Mr. 1000, my RS teacher (a Methodist laypreacher) said no, on the basis that where the Bible and Book of Mormon diverge they take the latter as the senior authority.
Three things: 3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Cameron says today:
There is no option of keeping our heads down that would make us safe. The problem would merely get worse, as it has done over recent months. Not just for us, but for Europe and for the world.
We cannot just walk on by if we are to keep this country safe. We have to confront this menace.
Step by step, we must drive back, dismantle and ultimately destroy Isil and what it stands for.
Are you saying that should this aim be achieved, Cameron should nonetheless be condemned for not having labelled ISIL as Muslim?
The quote that's doing the rounds today from Cameron on ISIS is this one: "They are not Muslims, they are monsters."
My point is that they are Muslims if they say they are, and it is not for Cameron to deny it. It's the same false logic that gets used in this country to decry football supporters who behave in a way that does not please the authorities: time and again we hear "they are not real football supporters. They are hooligans." It's a false dichotomy. People can be BOTH monsters and Muslim in the same way they can be football supporters and hooligans.
Cameron is rightly saying that we should ultimately destroy ISIL because they are monsters, not because they are Muslims. In your original comment you demand that politicians address Islam head on, would you suggest that all football supporters should be addressed head on in order to deal with hooliganism? If so, what do you have in mind by "head on"?
Cameron is saying that ISIS are not Muslims. That's a false statement which detracts from anything else he says on the matter, which is not good given that he's leading the debate. Re 'head-on' I would like politicians to debate whether there is a link between the ideology in the Koran and the behaviour of those who follow it. If that's happened already, I must have missed it.
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
If you think the English are going to accept being carved up you can Foxtrot Oscar with that EU rubbish.
There is zero support for a balkanised England, I'm Cornish, which is the most likely area to "secede" and support for Cornish independence is probably about 2%. A bit more devolution, yes, but indy - nonsense.
Westminster is our English parliament and has been for 1000 years and this is not going to change. Whether Scots Labour MPs leave it in 2015 or 2016 is moot, but they will leave, only attending for Federal questions - or not at all.
I suspect that if Scotland does go indy we will just carry on with FUK as it is now. The influence of Welsh and Ulster MPs is so negligible it won't bother the English that Devolution is asymmetric. I also suspect that after a YES Scots Labour MPs will come under irresistible pressure not to vote on English affairs. Some might succumb, some will resist to the bitter end.
The Tories will of course make Ed Miliband try and use those MPs, to embarrass and damage him politically. Labour are headed for implosion after a YES vote.
It really is appalling: I agree 100% with Sean Thomas. Must lie down.
Monsters or Muslims, what are we *actually* doing about them?
-Can anyone point me to any serious efforts to cut off their funding, both from KSA and from their own entrepreneurial efforts? -Has anyone, either from the US, or the UK, in Government, taken steps, or even publicly called, for Turkey to shut its porous border with Syria -through which it has been letting in (allegedly after training) Islamist terrorists from the beginning of this conflict? -Have we explored working with Assad, as people like Nigel Rifkind has said is the best option to combat ISIS, and as the Assad government has publicly offered?
No, No, and No.
What have we done?
-Minimal bombing raids, seemingly more to support the Iraqi Kurds and deter ISIS from Erbil rather than to eliminate ISIS itself -Proposed an independent Kurdistan and a new Sunni state from bits of Iraq & Syria -in other words exactly what ISIS is fighting for. -Agreed with KSA that they will train MORE militants -this time supposedly to fight ISIS -I mean really wtf? -Continued to choose the FSA, who have now declared a truce with ISIS, as our partner in Syria -Proposed bombing both in Iraq and within Syria; exactly the activity that was rejected by the UK parliament (as Phillip Hammond rightly said), but is now being brought back to the table with the added impetus of the ISIS bogeyman
Mr. 1000, my RS teacher (a Methodist laypreacher) said no, on the basis that where the Bible and Book of Mormon diverge they take the latter as the senior authority.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if e HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
And totallyle.
It can be really simple.
England only issues, only English MP's can vote, sit on committees, be ministers.
Defence, foreign affairs, all of them can vote.
Why's that difficult?
How do yt happens if there is a Welsh only bill in the House of Commons?
Easy. All MP's vote to decide if it is an English only bill. Problem fixed....
Eh? How's that going to cause a problem for a Labour Govt backed by Scottish MPs? If Labour English MPs are in favour of a bill they are hardly going to vote away their majority to pass it by declaring it "English"!
It would surely be quite easy to tack some amendment or provision onto an almost totally English issue that would impact in some small way on Scotland. The temptation to use such a tactic would be irresistible, particularly if a Labour gov had no Lab majority or even largest party status in England.
So how about being really radical? Five assemblies in the UK - Scotland, England outside London, London, Wales and Northern Ireland. All elected on the mix of FPTP and top-up that we have now. Three days a week, they meet in their own capitals, pass their own laws, appoint their FMs and Cabinets. Then, two days a week, the FPTP members meet in London or possibly Sheffield (more central) or even on a rolling basis to debate UK-wide matters, and select a Cabinet from all of them to run the country as a whole.
Alternatively - and this would be less fun to watch but probably more workable - have unicameral parliaments for each of the above regions, but a single unicameral chamber above them all, scrutinising legislation from the regions and legislating directly for defence, foreign affairs and certain fiscal laws.
You never know, it might work. What clearly won't work is devomax for Scotland without drastic reform at the centre.
I live in London and don't want to be separated from the rest of my country.
Socrates you will not be helping the Yorkshire Independence Movement then ?
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
If you think the English are going to accept being carved up you can Foxtrot Oscar with that EU rubbish.
There is zero support for a balkanised England, I'm Cornish, which is the most likely area to "secede" and support for Cornish independence is probably about 2%. A bit more devolution, yes, but indy - nonsense.
Westminster is our English parliament and has been for 1000 years and this is not going to change. Whether Scots Labour MPs leave it in 2015 or 2016 is moot, but they will leave, only attending for Federal questions - or not at all.
I suspect that if Scotland does go indy we will just carry on with FUK as it is now. The influence of Welsh and Ulster MPs is so negligible it won't bother the English that Devolution is asymmetric. I also suspect that after a YES Scots Labour MPs will come under irresistible pressure not to vote on English affairs. Some might succumb, some will resist to the bitter end.
The Tories will of course make Ed Miliband try and use those MPs, to embarrass and damage him politically. Labour are headed for implosion after a YES vote.
It really is appalling: I agree 100% with Sean Thomas. Must lie down.
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
If you think the English are going to accept being carved up you can Foxtrot Oscar with that EU rubbish.
There is zero support for a balkanised England, I'm Cornish, which is the most likely area to "secede" and support for Cornish independence is probably about 2%. A bit more devolution, yes, but indy - nonsense.
Westminster is our English parliament and has been for 1000 years and this is not going to change. Whether Scots Labour MPs leave it in 2015 or 2016 is moot, but they will leave, only attending for Federal questions - or not at all.
I suspect that if Scotland does go indy we will just carry on with FUK as it is now. The influence of Welsh and Ulster MPs is so negligible it won't bother the English that Devolution is asymmetric. I also suspect that after a YES Scots Labour MPs will come under irresistible pressure not to vote on English affairs. Some might succumb, some will resist to the bitter end.
The Tories will of course make Ed Miliband try and use those MPs, to embarrass and damage him politically. Labour are headed for implosion after a YES vote.
It really is appalling: I agree 100% with Sean Thomas. Must lie down.
He's really very perceptive when he doesn't let himself get carried away with the hyperbole and flowery prose (though the latter is far more entertaining).
Strange how devoid the site has been of insults (beyond being called a Labour supporter/Pinkie) has been this afternoon. Wonder what changed?
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
Breivik was a lone lunatic, there is no comparison.
But thank you for the party line on what we should believe about muslims and ISIS.
The Mormons think they are Christians... Are they?
I couldn't give a damn.
No one is trying to lump them all together but a Venn diagram of ISIS and muslims and non-muslims isn't going to be very complicated.
Eh? How's that going to cause a problem for a Labour Govt backed by Scottish MPs? If Labour English MPs are in favour of a bill they are hardly going to vote away their majority to pass it by declaring it "English"!
@Alex It's extraordinary how difficult it is to explain the nature of the most simple morality to some Labour supporters. You actually think a Miliband govt would seek to use the votes of Scottish Labour MPs after a referendum Yes to subvert the will of the English on English only issues. Have you really no sense of how awful that sounds? I know that Ed sets a pretty low bar when it comes to decency but really.
I (almost) give up.
I'm talking generally about the difficulties of EV4EL. The difficulties apply equally whether there is a "Yes" vote or a "No vote".
The only relevance as far as a "Yes" vote is concerned is that some people seem to think that all bills passed post 19th September should not be regarded as applying to Scotland and therefore their MPs should not get a vote. Even though they WILL apply to their constituents until the date of Independence. (ie. there are no new "English only" issues created as a result of a Yes vote).
I agree that there may be many issues upon which Ed will find it difficult between "Yes" and Independence to pass on the back of Scottish MP votes. But that is different to trying to produce legislation to forbid it.
I pointed out that legislation (as opposed to "moral pressure") for EV4EL founders on the definition of "English Laws". Because any Govt would be able to circumvent it by pork barrelling non-English legislation into otherwise English Bills. And somehow defining English Laws by allowing MPs to vote on it in advance (as was suggested) is pointless since that vote would always depend on whether the English MPs in the majority party were in favour of the Bill.
I have never voted Labour in my life, not that it has any relevance.
Ok - None of that was said by me - but you seem to be assuming that Labour will automatically seek to subvert the process and use their redundant Scots MPs as much as possible on matters pertaining to England. I think to do so would be political suicide which I'm all in favour of so I'll leave it at that.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
Breivik was a lone lunatic, there is no comparison.
But thank you for the party line on what we should believe about muslims and ISIS.
The Mormons think they are Christians... Are they?
Of course they are. They believe Jesus Christ is their saviour and follow what they believe his teachings are.
OK, this is interesting, and make of it what you will, and caveat emptor..
Remember the new Scots guy, my informant, who told me the results of the YouGov poll a few hours before it came out? (I think it was YouGov but it was a poll anyway). I didn't pass on his actual figures as I had no idea if he was reliable, or bonkers, or gaming me.
It turned out he was bang on.
He's now told me that he met some VERY drunk, senior Yes activists in a pub. They admitted that the YES campaign's canvass returns indicated that NO was going to win, 55:45. Their confidence is chutzpah.
Again, make of that what you will. It could very very easily be total, utter bollocks. Or a ploy. But this was the same guy who called that poll right, hours before it leaked.
I wonder if it is inside info like this which is keeping the NO price so mean and YES at about 3/1.
OK, this is interesting, and make of it what you will, and caveat emptor..
Remember the new Scots guy, my informant, who told me the results of the YouGov poll a few hours before it came out? (I think it was YouGov but it was a poll anyway). I didn't pass on his actual figures as I had no idea if he was reliable, or bonkers, or gaming me.
It turned out he was bang on.
He's now told me that he met some VERY drunk, senior Yes activists in a pub. They admitted that the YES campaign's canvass returns indicated that NO was going to win, 55:45. Their confidence is chutzpah.
Again, make of that what you will. It could very very easily be total, utter bollocks. Or a ploy. But this was the same guy who called that poll right, hours before it leaked.
I wonder if it is inside info like this which is keeping the NO price so mean and YES at about 3/1.
And now I must go and tup my beloved. Anon.
Pretty much fits in with my prediction, which is nice:
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
If you think the English are going to accept being carved up you can Foxtrot Oscar with that EU rubbish.
There is zero support for a balkanised England, I'm Cornish, which is the most likely area to "secede" and support for Cornish independence is probably about 2%. A bit more devolution, yes, but indy - nonsense.
Westminster is our English parliament and has been for 1000 years and this is not going to change. Whether Scots Labour MPs leave it in 2015 or 2016 is moot, but they will leave, only attending for Federal questions - or not at all.
I suspect that if Scotland does go indy we will just carry on with FUK as it is now. The influence of Welsh and Ulster MPs is so negligible it won't bother the English that Devolution is asymmetric. I also suspect that after a YES Scots Labour MPs will come under irresistible pressure not to vote on English affairs. Some might succumb, some will resist to the bitter end.
The Tories will of course make Ed Miliband try and use those MPs, to embarrass and damage him politically. Labour are headed for implosion after a YES vote.
It really is appalling: I agree 100% with Sean Thomas. Must lie down.
He's really very perceptive when he doesn't let himself get carried away with the hyperbole and flowery prose (though the latter is far more entertaining).
Strange how devoid the site has been of insults (beyond being called a Labour supporter/Pinkie) has been this afternoon. Wonder what changed?
Even a bipolar must have moments of equanimity on the way up or down. That magic moment must be late Sunday afternoon.
I wonder if that ICM poll was an MI5 stunt to produce a big YES lead to galvanise NO voters. It was a very odd poll, with small sampling, and strange weighting. And commissioned by the ultra-unionist Telegraph. I'm only half joking.
If there had been four polls on one day all showing a NO lead then complacency might have crept back in.
I have zero reputation in the political world et al but, I mused the same point (to an effect), yesterday.
Three things: 3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Cameron says today:
There is no option of keeping our heads down that would make us safe. The problem would merely get worse, as it has done over recent months. Not just for us, but for Europe and for the world.
We cannot just walk on by if we are to keep this country safe. We have to confront this menace.
Step by step, we must drive back, dismantle and ultimately destroy Isil and what it stands for.
Are you saying that should this aim be achieved, Cameron should nonetheless be condemned for not having labelled ISIL as Muslim?
The quote that's doing the rounds today from Cameron on ISIS is this one: "They are not Muslims, they are monsters."
My point is that they are Muslims if they say they are, and it is not for Cameron to deny it. It's the same false logic that gets used in this country to decry football supporters who behave in a way that does not please the authorities: time and again we hear "they are not real football supporters. They are hooligans." It's a false dichotomy. People can be BOTH monsters and Muslim in the same way they can be football supporters and hooligans.
Cameron is rightly saying that we should ultimately destroy ISIL because they are monsters, not because they are Muslims. In your original comment you demand that politicians address Islam head on, would you suggest that all football supporters should be addressed head on in order to deal with hooliganism? If so, what do you have in mind by "head on"?
Cameron is saying that ISIS are not Muslims. That's a false statement which detracts from anything else he says on the matter, which is not good given that he's leading the debate. Re 'head-on' I would like politicians to debate whether there is a link between the ideology in the Koran and the behaviour of those who follow it. If that's happened already, I must have missed it.
I get it, you want this to be about Muslims... Cameron rightly wishes to focus on those committing the barbaric acts we see and is keen not to foster a wider conflict against a religion...
Ok - None of that was said by me - but you seem to be assuming that Labour will automatically seek to subvert the process and use their redundant Scots MPs as much as possible on matters pertaining to England. I think to do so would be political suicide which I'm all in favour of so I'll leave it at that.
Then we can agree.
This all started because of the suggestion that Osborne would try to introduce legislation to prevent a Labour Govt in 2015 passing a budget. I think this is crazy and totally unworkable. More generally Miliband will find it difficult to use Scottish MPs to pass issues which have little to do with Scotland and even less post Independence. But then i think that (unless they decide to implode) a "Yes" vote will lead to a Tory landslide in England.
EV4EL in the event of a "No". That is more complex.
Three things: 3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Cameron says today:
There is no option of keeping our heads down that would make us safe. The problem would merely get worse, as it has done over recent months. Not just for us, but for Europe and for the world.
We cannot just walk on by if we are to keep this country safe. We have to confront this menace.
Step by step, we must drive back, dismantle and ultimately destroy Isil and what it stands for.
Are you saying that should this aim be achieved, Cameron should nonetheless be condemned for not having labelled ISIL as Muslim?
The quote that's doing the rounds today from Cameron on ISIS is this one: "They are not Muslims, they are monsters."
My point is that they are Muslims if they say they are, and it is not for Cameron to deny it. It's the same false logic that gets used in this country to decry football supporters who behave in a way that does not please the authorities: time and again we hear "they are not real football supporters. They are hooligans." It's a false dichotomy. People can be BOTH monsters and Muslim in the same way they can be football supporters and hooligans.
Cameron is rightly saying that we should ultimately destroy ISIL because they are monsters, not because they are Muslims. In your original comment you demand that politicians address Islam head on, would you suggest that all football supporters should be addressed head on in order to deal with hooliganism? If so, what do you have in mind by "head on"?
Cameron is saying that ISIS are not Muslims. That's a false statement which detracts from anything else he says on the matter, which is not good given that he's leading the debate. Re 'head-on' I would like politicians to debate whether there is a link between the ideology in the Koran and the behaviour of those who follow it. If that's happened already, I must have missed it.
I get it, you want this to be about Muslims... Cameron rightly wishes to focus on those committing the barbaric acts we see and is keen not to foster a wider conflict against a religion...
Well isn't that possible without also getting into what is a pretty pointless argument about whether their specific beliefs and actions mean they are not muslim? Distressing numbers of people seem to have no problem believing they are, and people stating they are wrong to think that doesn't seem to make any difference.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
Breivik was a lone lunatic, there is no comparison.
But thank you for the party line on what we should believe about muslims and ISIS.
The Mormons think they are Christians... Are they?
Of course they are. They believe Jesus Christ is their saviour and follow what they believe his teachings are.
I don't agree. I think whether you use Christian terminology or not, if you have your own holy book (the book of Mormon), then you're not Christian. Jesus is a figure in Islam too. That doesn't make them Christian. Christians revere the whole Jewish Torah (Old Testament), but no-one would call it Judaism.
I wonder if that ICM poll was an MI5 stunt to produce a big YES lead to galvanise NO voters. It was a very odd poll, with small sampling, and strange weighting. And commissioned by the ultra-unionist Telegraph. I'm only half joking.
If there had been four polls on one day all showing a NO lead then complacency might have crept back in.
Anyone else getting "Apply for an Australian visa" ads on the Scotland threads?
I'm getting an ad from ecovision mocking me for "still buying oil"
I'm getting adverts for power tools.
Poor, Greg.
Was my favourite player as a young lad. He was getting towards the end of his time at the top when I saw him but loved him all the same. I remember as a 12 year old, being distraught at his 1996 collapse in the Masters.
Ok - None of that was said by me - but you seem to be assuming that Labour will automatically seek to subvert the process and use their redundant Scots MPs as much as possible on matters pertaining to England. I think to do so would be political suicide which I'm all in favour of so I'll leave it at that.
But then i think that (unless they decide to implode) a "Yes" vote will lead to a Tory landslide in England..
I think an implosion is still more likely (and probably among Labour as well, although I have more confidence in them being able to stall it, knowing they will have a year's government to try and encourage an rUK majority too), but in any case, I can't see a Tory landslide in England - even Scotland leaving and Labour in crisis won't make the Tories seem appealing in swathes of the North and other areas. Retaining their lead in England on seats will be challenge enough, but is an achievable aim.
If it's a close Yes then the UK government will do a reverse ferret like France/Ireland did for "wrong results" in Euro Referendums.
1) Say they respect the result that negotiations on seperation should start. 2) Say the close result implies some confusion, so they'll conduct polling to clarify. 3) Identify confusion about currency and jobs. 4) Publish a separation white paper outlining the butchers bill (oh. lets see: no currency union, all MOD jobs go south, close rosyth, close ship building, no glasgow tax jobs, UK government position on EU accession (6 years, must take Euro). 5) Require Scots to vote again.
Remember the current referendum is advisory. Whatever people say, it isn't binding on the UK government to accept the timescale or the SNP's list of demands. London still has its hands on the control levers.
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
If you think the English are going to accept being carved up you can Foxtrot Oscar with that EU rubbish.
I'm English and there are lots of things that I think could be usefully devolved from Westminster to regional capitals such as York, Manchester, Birmingham, etc.
You don't have a monopoly on what it is to be English.
It also has nothing to do with the EU - I'd see it as a good idea whether we are in the EU or not.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
Breivik was a lone lunatic, there is no comparison.
But thank you for the party line on what we should believe about muslims and ISIS.
The Mormons think they are Christians... Are they?
Of course they are. They believe Jesus Christ is their saviour and follow what they believe his teachings are.
I don't agree. I think whether you use Christian terminology or not, if you have your own holy book (the book of Mormon), then you're not Christian. Jesus is a figure in Islam too. That doesn't make them Christian. Christians revere the whole Jewish Torah (Old Testament), but no-one would call it Judaism.
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.
If it's a close Yes then the UK government will do a reverse ferret like France/Ireland did for "wrong results" in Euro Referendums.
1) Say they respect the result that negotiations on seperation should start. 2) Say the close result implies some confusion, so they'll conduct polling to clarify. 3) Identify confusion about currency and jobs. 4) Publish a separation white paper outlining the butchers bill (oh. lets see: no currency union, all MOD jobs go south, close rosyth, close ship building, no glasgow tax jobs, UK government position on UE accession (6 years, must take Euro). 5) Require Scots to vote again.
Remember the current referendum is advisory. Whatever people say, it isn't binding on the UK government top accept the timescale or the SNP's list of demands. London still has its hands on the control levers.
I wouldnt advise voting 'yes' in order to test your hypothesis.
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
If you think the English are going to accept being carved up you can Foxtrot Oscar with that EU rubbish.
I'm English and there are lots of things that I think could be usefully devolved from Westminster to regional capitals such as York, Manchester, Birmingham, etc.
You don't have a monopoly on what it is to be English.
It also has nothing to do with the EU - I'd see it as a good idea whether we are in the EU or not.
Blimmin' cheek. You started off talking about regionsYorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall and then changed to cities York, Manchester, Birmingham.
For the first time, I'm starting to think UKIP could win the Heywood & Middleton byelection. Apparently the Labour candidate is likely to be Miriam O'Reilly, the woman who sued the BBC for age discrimination. If there's anything that can make a northern working-class constituency turn away from Labour, then imposing a middle-class BBCer with no local links is undoubtedly it.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
Breivik was a lone lunatic, there is no comparison.
But thank you for the party line on what we should believe about muslims and ISIS.
The Mormons think they are Christians... Are they?
Of course they are. They believe Jesus Christ is their saviour and follow what they believe his teachings are.
I don't agree. I think whether you use Christian terminology or not, if you have your own holy book (the book of Mormon), then you're not Christian. Jesus is a figure in Islam too. That doesn't make them Christian. Christians revere the whole Jewish Torah (Old Testament), but no-one would call it Judaism.
Mormons have two holy books: the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Before the Council of Nicea, there was no Bible at all, and various Christian groups used different Christian writings. Were all of them Christians, or none of them?
As for the Old Testament, some Christians accept it as the word of God and some do not. But (virtually) none of them identify as Jewish. This is of course more complicated than the Christian case because Jewishness is an ethnicity as well as a religion. But I would say that anyone that believes they follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth count as Christian, in the same way as anyone that believes they follow the supposed revelations of Mohammed is a Muslim.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
Breivik was a lone lunatic, there is no comparison.
But thank you for the party line on what we should believe about muslims and ISIS.
The Mormons think they are Christians... Are they?
Of course they are. They believe Jesus Christ is their saviour and follow what they believe his teachings are.
I don't agree. I think whether you use Christian terminology or not, if you have your own holy book (the book of Mormon), then you're not Christian. Jesus is a figure in Islam too. That doesn't make them Christian. Christians revere the whole Jewish Torah (Old Testament), but no-one would call it Judaism.
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely?
Even that isn't true. The Arians and Unitarian Christians were still Christians.
I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because: a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.
Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.
I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).
Or they were told that if they read the speech then they would be let go
If it's a close Yes then the UK government will do a reverse ferret like France/Ireland did for "wrong results" in Euro Referendums.
1) Say they respect the result that negotiations on seperation should start. 2) Say the close result implies some confusion, so they'll conduct polling to clarify. 3) Identify confusion about currency and jobs. 4) Publish a separation white paper outlining the butchers bill (oh. lets see: no currency union, all MOD jobs go south, close rosyth, close ship building, no glasgow tax jobs, UK government position on EU accession (6 years, must take Euro). 5) Require Scots to vote again.
Remember the current referendum is advisory. Whatever people say, it isn't binding on the UK government to accept the timescale or the SNP's list of demands. London still has its hands on the control levers.
An interesting point. On balance though I think they would accept a close Yes. They've been pretty blunt about the risks, even if they have not been 'scare-mongering' to the degree Yes claim (their definition includes mentioning there might be any risks, not just where there have been outright or implicit threats), and totally clear that this is it. Either people understand the position now and accept it, or they do not. If they narrowly vote Yes and then people start to see that it might well be more difficult than they thought and they start getting second thoughts, it's too late, they were warned.
While I wanted the No campaign to be more positive and emotional, the focus on technical details and risks from No will have made clear to all that there is at least the chance things could get really ugly really fast. As such, anyone voting Yes accepts that as a possibility willingly, even if they did not believe it would happen. In such a situation, would rUK demand another vote? I cannot see it. They laid out their position and it would have been rejected, and they will need to start preparing for the next constitutional mess. The core Yes vote, and probably more, would also be incensed at any hint of delay even in the event of a close vote, and the result would probably be more decisive next time.
For the first time, I'm starting to think UKIP could win the Heywood & Middleton byelection. Apparently the Labour candidate is likely to be Miriam O'Reilly, the woman who sued the BBC for age discrimination. If there's anything that can make a northern working-class constituency turn away from Labour, then imposing a middle-class BBCer with no local links is undoubtedly it.
Interesting. What are the odds? Pretty high I suspect.
For the first time, I'm starting to think UKIP could win the Heywood & Middleton byelection. Apparently the Labour candidate is likely to be Miriam O'Reilly, the woman who sued the BBC for age discrimination. If there's anything that can make a northern working-class constituency turn away from Labour, then imposing a middle-class BBCer with no local links is undoubtedly it.
Is the Conservative candidate in Clacton not a television actor? Is this a new trend, either because performers know how to present a good image to selection panels, or because some guru or other reckons we'll vote blindly for Z-list celebs off the telly?
Remember the current referendum is advisory. Whatever people say, it isn't binding on the UK government to accept the timescale or the SNP's list of demands. London still has its hands on the control levers.
It is true, as a matter of law, or domestic law at least, that the referendum is merely consultative, and that the constitutional settlement will remain the same regardless of the content of the Chief Counting Officer's certificate on September 19. The political consequences, however, will be significant. If Scotland votes "Yes", it will become an independent country in due course. If it votes "No", it will remain part of the United Kingdom.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Re 3: the whole British Muslim establishment has issued a withering denunciation of ISIS - they say they're unislamic, not a state and contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam. They suggest that it be nicknamed the Unislamic Unstate.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
Breivik was a lone lunatic, there is no comparison.
But thank you for the party line on what we should believe about muslims and ISIS.
The Mormons think they are Christians... Are they?
Of course they are. They believe Jesus Christ is their saviour and follow what they believe his teachings are.
I don't agree. I think whether you use Christian terminology or not, if you have your own holy book (the book of Mormon), then you're not Christian. Jesus is a figure in Islam too. That doesn't make them Christian. Christians revere the whole Jewish Torah (Old Testament), but no-one would call it Judaism.
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely?
Even that isn't true. The Arians and Unitarian Christians were still Christians.
Clearly my knowledge of early christian sects is lacking. As I recall there was some really diverse thinking even in the earliest days, which does make proscriptive definitions of Christianity as a whole harder.
For the first time, I'm starting to think UKIP could win the Heywood & Middleton byelection. Apparently the Labour candidate is likely to be Miriam O'Reilly, the woman who sued the BBC for age discrimination. If there's anything that can make a northern working-class constituency turn away from Labour, then imposing a middle-class BBCer with no local links is undoubtedly it.
Is the Conservative candidate in Clacton not a television actor? Is this a new trend, either because performers know how to present a good image to selection panels, or because some guru or other reckons we'll vote blindly for Z-list celebs off the telly?
For the first time, I'm starting to think UKIP could win the Heywood & Middleton byelection. Apparently the Labour candidate is likely to be Miriam O'Reilly, the woman who sued the BBC for age discrimination. If there's anything that can make a northern working-class constituency turn away from Labour, then imposing a middle-class BBCer with no local links is undoubtedly it.
Is the Conservative candidate in Clacton not a television actor? Is this a new trend, either because performers know how to present a good image to selection panels, or because some guru or other reckons we'll vote blindly for Z-list celebs off the telly?
He's been a Tory councillor in the area since 2007 apparently, so being an actor is probably secondary to other reasons for selecting him. C and D listers trying to go straight to being an MP or Mayor or something would seem to fit any such trend better than him it seems. If he was so great a presenting himself due to actor experience he'd probably have been standing in a seat before now, not working with the rank and file as a councillor.
For the first time, I'm starting to think UKIP could win the Heywood & Middleton byelection. Apparently the Labour candidate is likely to be Miriam O'Reilly, the woman who sued the BBC for age discrimination. If there's anything that can make a northern working-class constituency turn away from Labour, then imposing a middle-class BBCer with no local links is undoubtedly it.
Interesting. What are the odds? Pretty high I suspect.
No bookies have odds, yet. I offered 5/2 on UKIP (with me laying a UKIP victory) a couple of days ago. Would probably still offer that for a modest sum.
In other news I have spent the whole date on GOTV. Until my second last house of the entire day I had not had anyone who had been no or even uncertain who were then voting Yes (other than a slightly odd couple who had already decided that one would vote yes and one no to cancel each other out. Surprisingly, this is not as rare as you might think). I managed to persuade about a dozen who had previously been "don't know" to voting no. At least another dozen, more like 20 had made their decisions on their own, all turning to no.
So either (a) I am the world's best canvasser (not); (b) very lucky (even less likely); (c) the polls are total defecation or (d) the canvassers (multiple) who had dealt with these areas previously were seriously cautious in their assessments.
So Scottish people shouldnt be allowed a say on the taxes they will be forced to pay in 2015/16? No wonder so many of them are looking for independence.
On the other hand, why should MPs representing a country on its way out have any say at all in long-term decisions of the UK government
Because to the extent that they impact on the UK as a whole they impact on Scotland. To the extent that they dont impact on Scotland then you can blame the current constitutional settlement which would apply whatever the result on Thursday. To the extent that these are long term issues then rUK can revisit them after independence should they wish. A 'yes' vote isnt an excuse to suspend democracy.
And why should rUK MPs have any say over Scottish issues.
The first order of business is to devolve virtually all powers to Holyrood. SMPs would then only get to vote on very limited areas, such as defence and foreign affairs.
I suppose Labour losing H&M would be about the only positive news Cameron could hope for on his birthday, in politics at least, if he's still around by then. Seems a tougher challenge, understandably.
Comments
Only a few days to go now.. will it be jubilation or bitterness as former friends become resentful foes?
Yes, the Singapore Grand Prix is next weekend. Not live on BBC TV, due to the Judas Iscariot approach to coverage adopted a few years ago.
Clearly ISIS think they're Muslims, in the same way that Anders Breivik thinks he's a Christian. But although I find all religions mysterious, I don't think one can seriously lump everyone who follows one around the world into some sort of collective responsibility for each other.
I expect Scotland to Vote NO I hope they do but if they vote YES then frankly I expect if Osborn were appointed tory minister in charge of looking after rUK interests in the resulting process then it ought to be a vote winner.
Eh? How's that going to cause a problem for a Labour Govt backed by Scottish MPs? If Labour English MPs are in favour of a bill they are hardly going to vote away their majority to pass it by declaring it "English"!
It's extraordinary how difficult it is to explain the nature of the most simple morality to some Labour supporters. You actually think a Miliband govt would seek to use the votes of Scottish Labour MPs after a referendum Yes to subvert the will of the English on English only issues. Have you really no sense of how awful that sounds? I know that Ed sets a pretty low bar when it comes to decency but really.
"They maybe used our city because some US citizens might have heard of it. "
Watched The Bourne Identity last nite. Good film. Enjoyed it.
The opening sequences are shot in some some famous locations, all of which are helpfully labelled - 'Moscow, Russia; Turin, Italy; Paris, France; London, England.' Mercifully, they spared us New York, USA, figuring no doubt most of us were smart enough to know which country New York is in.
The yellow taxis were of course a help though.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shetland-orkney-and-the-outer-hebrides-demand-independence-referendums-of-their-own-if-scotland-votes-yes-9217514.html
It provokes a most visceral reaction in my otherwise fairly sang froid attitude to things! If I had a nice side, you wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of it :^ )
Over the years I have heard politicians of all colours, call terrorists from all over the world
as cowards.
Whatever they are, I would not use that word to describe them.
But thank you for the party line on what we should believe about muslims and ISIS.
Nah nothing's that funny
I'm not convinced by your reasoning about '1,000 years' of unitary government in England. In fact, down to 1653 most government was devolved to the Counties Palatine, and from 1653-60 it was devolved to major generals in the provinces. I don't have the complete list of the palatinates, but they included at various times Wessex, Cheshire, Shrewsbury, Kent, Devon, Nottingham, Ely, Lincoln, Lancaster, Richmondshire, Yorkshire, Westmoreland and Northumberland - the longest lasting was of course Durham, which lasted from the Saxon age down to the Restoration. There is no reason in theory why such a system couldn't be revived. In practice, the English have repeatedly shown that they agree with you and they don't want it.
With regard to EVFEL, it will never work. Too many things simply cross borders. University funding is a classic example. In theory, it's a devolved matter, which is why there is a dog's breakfast of different prices, fees and repayments systems depending on where you live, where you study, what you study and what your inside leg measurement is (incidentally, it is a real problem that the Glasgow-based Student Loan Company is far too corrupt and incompetent to administer this system effectively). In practice, the funding levels themselves are set by block grants to the research councils. These are decided at Westminster for England, and because the money for each university is decided by head, the Welsh and Scottish equivalents more or less have to follow their lead.
Schools are another case in point. GCSE and A-level reform, in theory, goes ahead only in England. In practice, no way on God's green earth will a separate system be run for Wales - too small, too expensive. So that has been effectively forced on them despite the trenchant opposition of 75% of the Welsh assembly, who want to keep the old system (in my view a misguided position, but it should be theirs to take).
Anybody with a half decent army might fancy a crack. The Islamic State are probably eying it up as I write.
(Andres Breivik described himself as not very religious, for what it's worth.)
Some odd trolling tweets from Rupe though.
Alternatively - and this would be less fun to watch but probably more workable - have unicameral parliaments for each of the above regions, but a single unicameral chamber above them all, scrutinising legislation from the regions and legislating directly for defence, foreign affairs and certain fiscal laws.
You never know, it might work. What clearly won't work is devomax for Scotland without drastic reform at the centre.
I'm looking for recommendations to add to my collection. I totted up my own selfie tape and it's at 317 artists so far, and know there's oodles I've never tripped across. My big brother had a few Alex Harvey tunes, but never took any notice of them.
All suggestions welcome.
I'm talking generally about the difficulties of EV4EL. The difficulties apply equally whether there is a "Yes" vote or a "No vote".
The only relevance as far as a "Yes" vote is concerned is that some people seem to think that all bills passed post 19th September should not be regarded as applying to Scotland and therefore their MPs should not get a vote. Even though they WILL apply to their constituents until the date of Independence. (ie. there are no new "English only" issues created as a result of a Yes vote).
I agree that there may be many issues upon which Ed will find it difficult between "Yes" and Independence to pass on the back of Scottish MP votes. But that is different to trying to produce legislation to forbid it.
I pointed out that legislation (as opposed to "moral pressure") for EV4EL founders on the definition of "English Laws". Because any Govt would be able to circumvent it by pork barrelling non-English legislation into otherwise English Bills. And somehow defining English Laws by allowing MPs to vote on it in advance (as was suggested) is pointless since that vote would always depend on whether the English MPs in the majority party were in favour of the Bill.
I have never voted Labour in my life, not that it has any relevance.
Might I recommend Sir Edric's Temple, a delightful fantasy comedy recently picked up for publication (currently self-published)?
[Sir Edric's Treasure, the second comedy in the series, will also be published but is not yet available].
-Can anyone point me to any serious efforts to cut off their funding, both from KSA and from their own entrepreneurial efforts?
-Has anyone, either from the US, or the UK, in Government, taken steps, or even publicly called, for Turkey to shut its porous border with Syria -through which it has been letting in (allegedly after training) Islamist terrorists from the beginning of this conflict?
-Have we explored working with Assad, as people like Nigel Rifkind has said is the best option to combat ISIS, and as the Assad government has publicly offered?
No, No, and No.
What have we done?
-Minimal bombing raids, seemingly more to support the Iraqi Kurds and deter ISIS from Erbil rather than to eliminate ISIS itself
-Proposed an independent Kurdistan and a new Sunni state from bits of Iraq & Syria -in other words exactly what ISIS is fighting for.
-Agreed with KSA that they will train MORE militants -this time supposedly to fight ISIS -I mean really wtf?
-Continued to choose the FSA, who have now declared a truce with ISIS, as our partner in Syria
-Proposed bombing both in Iraq and within Syria; exactly the activity that was rejected by the UK parliament (as Phillip Hammond rightly said), but is now being brought back to the table with the added impetus of the ISIS bogeyman
http://www.godsowncounty.co.uk/yorkshire/yorkshire-independence-movement/
Strange how devoid the site has been of insults (beyond being called a Labour supporter/Pinkie) has been this afternoon. Wonder what changed?
No one is trying to lump them all together but a Venn diagram of ISIS and muslims and non-muslims isn't going to be very complicated.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fBxvVgbyO_msx2eJxVbUlh6MubdD4-fZ-UIBFkwNIaI/edit#gid=0
Although I'm starting to think Moray will be No and West Lothian Yes.
This all started because of the suggestion that Osborne would try to introduce legislation to prevent a Labour Govt in 2015 passing a budget. I think this is crazy and totally unworkable. More generally Miliband will find it difficult to use Scottish MPs to pass issues which have little to do with Scotland and even less post Independence. But then i think that (unless they decide to implode) a "Yes" vote will lead to a Tory landslide in England.
EV4EL in the event of a "No". That is more complex.
If Mel Gibson hadn't done a great impression of someone literally possessed by a demon - he'd be all over Yes!
Was my favourite player as a young lad. He was getting towards the end of his time at the top when I saw him but loved him all the same. I remember as a 12 year old, being distraught at his 1996 collapse in the Masters.
Peter Dowd (Sefton council leader)
Luthfur Rahman (Manchester Cllr)
Julie McManus (from Wirral)
Alex Meyer (from Cambridge)
1) Say they respect the result that negotiations on seperation should start.
2) Say the close result implies some confusion, so they'll conduct polling to clarify.
3) Identify confusion about currency and jobs.
4) Publish a separation white paper outlining the butchers bill (oh. lets see: no currency union, all MOD jobs go south, close rosyth, close ship building, no glasgow tax jobs, UK government position on EU accession (6 years, must take Euro).
5) Require Scots to vote again.
Remember the current referendum is advisory. Whatever people say, it isn't binding on the UK government to accept the timescale or the SNP's list of demands. London still has its hands on the control levers.
You don't have a monopoly on what it is to be English.
It also has nothing to do with the EU - I'd see it as a good idea whether we are in the EU or not.
Ref, ref! Someone's moved the goalposts!
Can I suggest a voluntary pact? I won't respond to your posts, and you won't respond to mine.
It seems the simplest way of ending the 'torture' you feel when you have your views challenged.
As for the Old Testament, some Christians accept it as the word of God and some do not. But (virtually) none of them identify as Jewish. This is of course more complicated than the Christian case because Jewishness is an ethnicity as well as a religion. But I would say that anyone that believes they follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth count as Christian, in the same way as anyone that believes they follow the supposed revelations of Mohammed is a Muslim.
While I wanted the No campaign to be more positive and emotional, the focus on technical details and risks from No will have made clear to all that there is at least the chance things could get really ugly really fast. As such, anyone voting Yes accepts that as a possibility willingly, even if they did not believe it would happen. In such a situation, would rUK demand another vote? I cannot see it. They laid out their position and it would have been rejected, and they will need to start preparing for the next constitutional mess. The core Yes vote, and probably more, would also be incensed at any hint of delay even in the event of a close vote, and the result would probably be more decisive next time.
ops....Bootle...
Gold Standard Ed Miliband on the no campaign trail:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10203804896060728&set=vb.1169360722&type=2&theater
Two Glaswegians approach and question the Labour Leader
For the first time, I'm starting to think UKIP could win the Heywood & Middleton byelection.
That by-election is going to be utterly ferocious, if the above is anything to go by.
UKIP will go for the throat.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ex-bbc-presenter-who-sued-over-7770209
More on that H&M byelection, this time from the UKIP candidate himself.
It is going to get very, very, very nasty.
In other news I have spent the whole date on GOTV. Until my second last house of the entire day I had not had anyone who had been no or even uncertain who were then voting Yes (other than a slightly odd couple who had already decided that one would vote yes and one no to cancel each other out. Surprisingly, this is not as rare as you might think). I managed to persuade about a dozen who had previously been "don't know" to voting no. At least another dozen, more like 20 had made their decisions on their own, all turning to no.
So either (a) I am the world's best canvasser (not); (b) very lucky (even less likely); (c) the polls are total defecation or (d) the canvassers (multiple) who had dealt with these areas previously were seriously cautious in their assessments.
Its all a bit weird.
The first order of business is to devolve virtually all powers to Holyrood. SMPs would then only get to vote on very limited areas, such as defence and foreign affairs.