Ashcroft is encouraging for Yes if the inverted Yes curve correlates with the probability of another Tory government for the Scots to have to have to endure increasing.If Salmond can point to "evidence" that the most likely outcome to GE2015 will be a right=wing Tory government of Old Etonians.Hope for Yes yet.
Glasgow is expected by the PA to come through at 5am. But I think it's going to be neck-and-neck there, which will probably mean a delay of at least 3 hours.
So the final result probably won't be in until about 8-9am.
However the result may be obvious by then if one side is already ahead by a substantial margin.
Why should it matter if it's neck-and-neck in Glasgow (other than the effect overall)? Surely there will be either a national recount of all the votes everywhere or there won't, irrespective of how close some localities might be?
I see ITV news has the rally in its top stories on the website, but on the BBC no mention at all, looks like the Beeb will have managed to infuriate both the Yes and No sides by the end of the campaign!
In fact, if you compare California to England, the size of the largest cities (excluding London) the make up of the places is very similar.
No idea why we cannot have similar powers for English cities that Californian cities have other than some idea that only those in London who work in the civil service know what is good for us?
I see ITV news has the rally in its top stories on the website, but on the BBC no mention at all, looks like the Beeb will have manages to infuriate both the Yes and No sides by the end of the campaign!
Glasgow is expected by the PA to come through at 5am. But I think it's going to be neck-and-neck there, which will probably mean a delay of at least 3 hours.
So the final result probably won't be in until about 8-9am.
However the result may be obvious by then if one side is already ahead by a substantial margin.
If YES don't win Glasgow by a substantial margin, I suggest they're buggered.
But we should have some other indications long before that, per my graph...
'Peoples' of England is quite wrong. We are one people.
Mr. Tyndall, I'm unconvinced English votes on English laws would work. An improvement on what we have now, but not, I fear, sufficient. Would a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs order them to hold back and risk defeat after defeat? I find it incredible.
It would not be a choice. For it to work it would need a law that proscribed MPs from Scottish seats voting on any laws or issues that were devolved to Holyrood.
Two problems:
1. ministers make executive decisions all the time; you would allow a minister that only became one because of Scottish MPs to make decisions about England 2. many (most) laws, even when they primarily affect England, will contain provisions that relate to Scotland (i.e. university teaching funding and policy is devolved, but research funding is not)
They are not problems, you are simply not thinking radically enough about this.
1. No Minister for a devolved portfolio could come from Scotland.It doesn't matter if their party only won because of Scottish MPs. We have to compromise somewhere if we remain a single nation.
2. Devolve those areas as well. To use your example, why should teaching funding be devolved but research funding not? Devolve all university decisions or none of them.
Currently all the parties are so desperate to keep Scotland in the Union they are allowing the tail to wag the dog. Which is one reason why it would be better all round if Scotland and England had an amicable separation and were each allowed to pursue their own systems of governance suited to the needs and desires of their own people.
While I agree wholeheartedlty with 2, you omit the case where the minister in 1 is only there because of the votes of scottish mps
As I say there has to be some compromise somewhere as long as it remains a United Kingdom. But in the grand scheme of things that particular problem is pretty insignificant compared to the current WLQ.
At the moment an English Parliament would not have control over the criminal Justice system. As it is and England and Wales system it will still need to be handled at a UK level. Even if it were to be devolved to Wales it would take well over a decade. Wales has not got the capacity to run a separate legal system at the moment, let alone afford the costs of running its own prison estate. Devo max to Scotland is simple as it has always been governed differently. Devo max to England and Wales is far more complicated due to our integration.
The divergence between English and Welsh public law is now substantial, and the Welsh Government is consulting on the establishment of a separate Welsh jurisdiction, albeit it has no power to create one. At present, the Welsh Assembly has the power to make laws which extend to the jurisdiction of England and Wales, but apply only in Wales. There is no reason why the same solution could not be adopted so that the Welsh Assembly could legislate on the substantive criminal law, prisons and policing in Wales. An English Parliament could have like powers in England. The courts would, however, have to remain reserved, but not even the Scottish Parliament has the power to abolish the High Court or Court of Session as courts of first instance and of appeal, or substantively alter the functions of the Lord Advocate.
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
Unbelievable pb mentality... just accept the Labour lead has increased.
End of.
Don't be a prat. mikeL says in the post you are replying to that last week was terrible for Con. He also said so last week, and so did I. If the average lead last week was 4.8 and the average so far today is , the lead has fallen back. So stop sounding like that moron with the squirrel "joke", it's very tiresome.
How many European cities have gone bankrupt recently? Out of the thousands with devolved tax raising powers and spending powers? Or are those exceptional instances where cities have got into trouble the norm in your view?
In fact, if you compare California to England, the size of the largest cities (excluding London) the make up of the places is very similar.
No idea why we cannot have similar powers for English cities that Californian cities have other than some idea that only those in London who work in the civil service know what is good for us?
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
Unbelievable pb mentality... just accept the Labour lead has increased.
End of.
Don't be a prat. mikeL says in the post you are replying to that last week was terrible for Con. He also said so last week, and so did I. If the average lead last week was 4.8 and the average so far today is , the lead has fallen back. So stop sounding like that moron with the squirrel "joke", it's very tiresome.
Irony fail. I'm one of the most cattle like members of the blue team...
If you feed into Electoral Calculus identical shares in 2010 of 33% for Labour and Tories (and 10% for Lib Dems) then you get 247 seats for Con and 298 for Labour.This majority of 51 is the bias in the system. Now take out the 41 Scottish Labour seats and the 1 Tory seat and the majority drops to 11. So with Scotland out of the picture(be it for independence or Max devo, the resulting Parliament is much fairer without any need for boundary chnages
How many European cities have gone bankrupt recently? Out of the thousands with devolved tax raising powers and spending powers? Or are those exceptional instances where cities have got into trouble the norm in your view?
In fact, if you compare California to England, the size of the largest cities (excluding London) the make up of the places is very similar.
No idea why we cannot have similar powers for English cities that Californian cities have other than some idea that only those in London who work in the civil service know what is good for us?
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
Unbelievable pb mentality... just accept the Labour lead has increased.
End of.
Don't be a prat. mikeL says in the post you are replying to that last week was terrible for Con. He also said so last week, and so did I. If the average lead last week was 4.8 and the average so far today is , the lead has fallen back. So stop sounding like that moron with the squirrel "joke", it's very tiresome.
Irony fail. I'm one of the most cattle like members of the blue team...
Oh I see sorry. But we get that sort of stuff irony-free, daily.
in addition to that comment your opinion just about sums up why the Scots are so unhappy with the current situation, basically don't trust anyone out of Whitehall to be able to make any decisions, those down in the capital know what is best for the rest of us after all don't they?
How many European cities have gone bankrupt recently? Out of the thousands with devolved tax raising powers and spending powers? Or are those exceptional instances where cities have got into trouble the norm in your view?
In fact, if you compare California to England, the size of the largest cities (excluding London) the make up of the places is very similar.
No idea why we cannot have similar powers for English cities that Californian cities have other than some idea that only those in London who work in the civil service know what is good for us?
With the so-called experts saying that the remaining "don't knows" will break heavily in favour of the status quo (i.e. voting No), I feel that Betfair's Yes band of 40.0% - 45.0% currently offering 3.9 decimal = 11/4 net in real money, represents decent value, but DYOR.
Right now if someone offered me 52:48 for no I would bite their hand off. I would not be surprised if it was even closer. The polling has shown Yes getting at least their share of don't knows to date and we are just hoping that as the day gets closer these slightly weird people get more cautious. I personally think it very unlikely yes will get less than 45%. Delighted, indeed delerious , but surprised.
Yes, only after someone claimed no area was comparable to the UK and having another level of governance below them.
California was the example.
The point being, areas of all sizes from small cantons in Switzerland to huge states in California match the setup I would suggest we need in England, with devolved powers locally to raise money and spend it - as happens successfully all over the world.
How many European cities have gone bankrupt recently? Out of the thousands with devolved tax raising powers and spending powers? Or are those exceptional instances where cities have got into trouble the norm in your view?
In fact, if you compare California to England, the size of the largest cities (excluding London) the make up of the places is very similar.
No idea why we cannot have similar powers for English cities that Californian cities have other than some idea that only those in London who work in the civil service know what is good for us?
We only need to look at Tower Hamlets, Haringey or Rotherham to see the level of competence that exists at sub-national government. Plus there's the fact that people will vote for these regional parliaments based on national trends, so there'll be little accountability for them. This is magnified by the fact that there's no media for, say, the South East of England.
The existing regions might work for statistics but they are stupid for governance purposes. Essex has more in common with Kent than it does with Norfolk. Why should the Northwest get control of Liverpool and Manchester, yet the home counties be cut off from London. The discussion in London is whether the Mayor should get control of commuter routes, which seems highly dodgy if people in Buckinghamshire or Surrey don't get a vote for the guy. Lincolnshire is sliced between regions for no good reason. Cornwall doesn't get on with Devon. Etc etc, the whole regional proposal is foolish.
Each of those specific questions could be dealt with through local referendums asking people which region they want to be part of, with the exception of the South East doughnut which I accept is an anomaly but frankly there will always be some anomalies.
well why not give people in the South East the same choice? Living in Hampshire, I am not sure that being forced to be part of a region including Oxford and Milton Keynes does anything to bring government decisions closer to home. Whereas the traditional county of Hampshire is surely big enough to run its own affairs.
Fair enough. I'm far from wedded to the existing administrative regions; it's just that I couldn't think up a decent proposal for the SE but if that would work, fine.
So now we have even more of a mess. Surrey plans its own rail lines despite the fact you pass through the place in twenty minutes on the commute home? Those living in Dartford would have to look at separate educational systems for Essex, Kent and Greater London when choosing where to send their kids?. All those people living northern Hertfordshire that have to go to Luton hospital have to depend on the voters of Bedfordshire for decisions on their care? This proposal gets dafter and dafter.
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
Unbelievable pb mentality... just accept the Labour lead has increased.
End of.
Don't be a prat. mikeL says in the post you are replying to that last week was terrible for Con. He also said so last week, and so did I. If the average lead last week was 4.8 and the average so far today is , the lead has fallen back. So stop sounding like that moron with the squirrel "joke", it's very tiresome.
I think you may have jumped the gun with that comment - twas irony if I'm not mistaken..
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
Unbelievable pb mentality... just accept the Labour lead has increased.
End of.
Don't be a prat. mikeL says in the post you are replying to that last week was terrible for Con. He also said so last week, and so did I. If the average lead last week was 4.8 and the average so far today is , the lead has fallen back. So stop sounding like that moron with the squirrel "joke", it's very tiresome.
Irony fail. I'm one of the most cattle like members of the blue team...
Oh I see sorry. But we get that sort of stuff irony-free, daily.
Precisely.... we've got it at the start of this thread just before the ICM poll is reported shrinking from a red lead of 7% to 2%. Let alone the Mori, Populus and Ashcroft polls.
'Only on PB' as 'they' say. And if YouGov is back to 5/6 later it'll keep coming...
We only need to look at Tower Hamlets, Haringey or Rotherham to see the level of competence that exists at sub-national government. Plus there's the fact that people will vote for these regional parliaments based on national trends, so there'll be little accountability for them. This is magnified by the fact that there's no media for, say, the South East of England.
The existing regions might work for statistics but they are stupid for governance purposes. Essex has more in common with Kent than it does with Norfolk. Why should the Northwest get control of Liverpool and Manchester, yet the home counties be cut off from London. The discussion in London is whether the Mayor should get control of commuter routes, which seems highly dodgy if people in Buckinghamshire or Surrey don't get a vote for the guy. Lincolnshire is sliced between regions for no good reason. Cornwall doesn't get on with Devon. Etc etc, the whole regional proposal is foolish.
Each of those specific questions could be dealt with through local referendums asking people which region they want to be part of, with the exception of the South East doughnut which I accept is an anomaly but frankly there will always be some anomalies.
well why not give people in the South East the same choice? Living in Hampshire, I am not sure that being forced to be part of a region including Oxford and Milton Keynes does anything to bring government decisions closer to home. Whereas the traditional county of Hampshire is surely big enough to run its own affairs.
Fair enough. I'm far from wedded to the existing administrative regions; it's just that I couldn't think up a decent proposal for the SE but if that would work, fine.
So now we have even more of a mess. Surrey plans its own rail lines despite the fact you pass through the place in twenty minutes on the commute home? Those living in Dartford would have to look at separate educational systems for Essex, Kent and Greater London when choosing where to send their kids?. All those people living northern Hertfordshire that have to go to Luton hospital have to depend on the voters of Bedfordshire for decisions on their care? This proposal gets dafter and dafter.
Works pretty well in the 26 cantons in Switzerland with their small population!
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
Unbelievable pb mentality... just accept the Labour lead has increased.
End of.
Don't be a prat. mikeL says in the post you are replying to that last week was terrible for Con. He also said so last week, and so did I. If the average lead last week was 4.8 and the average so far today is , the lead has fallen back. So stop sounding like that moron with the squirrel "joke", it's very tiresome.
Irony fail. I'm one of the most cattle like members of the blue team...
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
Unbelievable pb mentality... just accept the Labour lead has increased.
End of.
Don't be a prat. mikeL says in the post you are replying to that last week was terrible for Con. He also said so last week, and so did I. If the average lead last week was 4.8 and the average so far today is , the lead has fallen back. So stop sounding like that moron with the squirrel "joke", it's very tiresome.
Irony fail. I'm one of the most cattle like members of the blue team...
Was it just me or did Cameron look much older during his speech today? If ever there was an appropriate time for the PM of the UK to seem a bit haggard, it would be now.
SeanT From the images I have seen it looked as packed as you say, with a rousing speech by Bob Geldof. The Montreal Unity rally in 1995 probably did swing a few undecideds to No, it was certainly worth the effort and if it infuriates the cybernats all the better for it!
Anything that annoys Cyber-Nats is more than worth doing!
Ed Milibands's message is more nuanced,devolution is for all of us in the UK.
Never in the history of the UK has "One Nation" been more needed.One Nation Labour makes sense but Ashcroft shows there is still a legacy from the bankers who were,and still are,allowed to run rampant.The public need to know Labour will keep these bankers on a short leash and muzzled through tough enforcement action on them and their tax havens.
With the so-called experts saying that the remaining "don't knows" will break heavily in favour of the status quo (i.e. voting No), I feel that Betfair's Yes band of 40.0% - 45.0% currently offering 3.9 decimal = 11/4 net in real money, represents decent value, but DYOR.
Right now if someone offered me 52:48 for no I would bite their hand off. I would not be surprised if it was even closer. The polling has shown Yes getting at least their share of don't knows to date and we are just hoping that as the day gets closer these slightly weird people get more cautious. I personally think it very unlikely yes will get less than 45%. Delighted, indeed delerious , but surprised.
With the so-called experts saying that the remaining "don't knows" will break heavily in favour of the status quo (i.e. voting No), I feel that Betfair's Yes band of 40.0% - 45.0% currently offering 3.9 decimal = 11/4 net in real money, represents decent value, but DYOR.
Right now if someone offered me 52:48 for no I would bite their hand off. I would not be surprised if it was even closer. The polling has shown Yes getting at least their share of don't knows to date and we are just hoping that as the day gets closer these slightly weird people get more cautious. I personally think it very unlikely yes will get less than 45%. Delighted, indeed delerious , but surprised.
SeanT Well done, you have done your bit for the cause, tried to get some friends who work in London and my sister to go too, though sadly she had a work do. Good to see there was a big attendance and congratulations to Dan Snow for organising it!
The organisers were worried about 200 people would show up, as it was all so late-in-the-day, and so - well - unBritish.
But I reckon they got 5,000-10,000 - basically as many as you can squeeze into Trafalgar Square without causing mayhem. It was packed, with a very upbeat atmosphere.
The cybernats are pouring hate all over it, on Twitter, which is always a sign that they're a little worried.
If it has any effect at all, it will be to motivate the NO voters up north rather than persuade any DKs, let alone any YESsers.
Don't knock the effect on the don't knows. A lot of love from England will make a difference.
Also encouraging the Yes brigade to show their nasty side once again does no harm either. That is a major issue on the doorsteps.
Well, we'll just have to disagree. The WLQ does need answering; on that, I think we can agree. And while I disagree with Ferguson's argument, which essentially comes down to that we shouldn't have an English parliament because the London media is lazy, I do think he's stumbled across something resembling the true problem.
An separate English parliament would too closely resemble the UK one to be anything other than a rival and near-duplicate; an English parliament comprising only English MPs of the UK parliament would cause too many tensions within Westminster with differing mandates and the ridiculous position that a government could win votes of confidence and pass budgets to stay in office and raise money, but had policies imposed upon it by the 'opposition' as to how to spend that money.
Westminster should have a single purpose: the Federal Parliament of the United Kingdom. Devolution, which must happen to rebalance the equation with Wales and N Ireland, never mind what happens in Scotland, should be to English regions. If there needs to be further discussion on where the borders should be, fine - but that doesn't change the central point.
The WLQ can be answered without either an English Parliament or regionalisation. All it needs is an EVEL in the current Parliament. This should have been a priority for the Tories from the start of this Parliament but I suspect they would not have run with this because of the effect it might have had on the Independence vote.
I dislike EVEL as a solution as you could easily have a situation where Labour ministers head all the departments but are incapable of getting any legislation through because while they have a majority at UK level, on which a vote of confidence is based, they have none in England. I don't think it would be a tenable situation.
Let Westminster deal with defence, the economy, foreign affairs, and matters of genuine UK-wide concern, and devolve the rest.
I don't see the issue -sounds ideal to me.
The issue for me is another huge English parliament in addition to the national one we have. What would it do? Manage Health? With money given it by the central govt? Are you saying that the main national govt could stand above the English NHS? When it would probably still get the blame from the local parliament? England is a huge country relevant to the other component parts.
Just another mass of polititians. And expenses. What would be worse is between 5 and 10 regional ones. Artificial and or more remote than current counties.
Comments
Just noticed this - by way of update to earlier discussion.
But we should have some other indications long before that, per my graph...
How many European cities have gone bankrupt recently? Out of the thousands with devolved tax raising powers and spending powers?
Or are those exceptional instances where cities have got into trouble the norm in your view?
majority drops to 11.
So with Scotland out of the picture(be it for independence or Max devo, the resulting Parliament is much fairer without any need for boundary chnages
California was the example.
The point being, areas of all sizes from small cantons in Switzerland to huge states in California match the setup I would suggest we need in England, with devolved powers locally to raise money and spend it - as happens successfully all over the world.
'Only on PB' as 'they' say. And if YouGov is back to 5/6 later it'll keep coming...
Never in the history of the UK has "One Nation" been more needed.One Nation Labour makes sense but Ashcroft shows there is still a legacy from the bankers who were,and still are,allowed to run rampant.The public need to know Labour will keep these bankers on a short leash and muzzled through tough enforcement action on them and their tax havens.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/14/scotland-has-shown-change-whole-country
"Ludlow. The restaurants are better."
I've been telling Alanbrooke to stop hankering after Soho
Just another mass of polititians. And expenses. What would be worse is between 5 and 10 regional ones. Artificial and or more remote than current counties.