Also, East Timor became an independent state more than decade ago. So much for ignorance...
Yes and False Flag is spouting deluded nonsense. But Thailand should not have been on your list as it is governed by the military which overthrew the elected government a few weeks back.
Blimey, you don't often see politicians lying quite as brazenly as this. Normally they make at least a token effort to fudge the question so as not to have to lie outright:
Asked whether an independent Scotland would have to pay more to borrow money, the first minister replies: "No, you have to have sustainable level of borrowing and debt. As far as the cost is concerned, we'll be borrowing at Sterling rates."
I think the issue here is that Salmond really does believe that iScot would borrow at the same rate as rUK. In his mind it is not a lie.
Sure great experts like you will know otherwise. Chickens on here clucking do not set rates that an independent Scotland would borrow at. The amount of bullshit on here would fill the Grand Canyon
iScot would have a diminishing oil based economy which is susceptible to volatility, it would therefore have a lower credit rating than rUK. To pretend otherwise is to bury one's head innthe sand.
Is that the almost bankrupt rump UK that does not have any oil revenue at all then, better in sand than up one's erchie
Malcolm good luck for Thursday.
To address your point:
1) oil tax revenues in Scotland account for a much higher % of tax revenue than in rUK or UK today. There is considerable debate about the remaining oil reserves and hence tax revenue. Volatility of tax revenues = higher borrowing rates.
2) Given the various discussions about currencies in the short and medium term, mean that borrowing costs would be subject to currency risk premium (for a currency outside the existing currency union) = higher borrowing rates.
I'm coming to the view that Dave's more likely to survive in the event of a Yes than a No.
I think he could survive a yes, in the immediate term at least, because of the crisis that would be then unleashed and the polling evidence so far suggests most people won't expect him to go. But the implications of a narrow No win, with the constitutional mess that Gordon Brown and his own lack of leadership on the Scotland issue has forced on us, and a pledge made to Scotland that most Tories will find completely unacceptable, means that I think he could be a "goner" either way, but perversely more so if the Union survives (just).
Hand of GOD @HandofGOD7 Sep 9 No shame. Joyce Thacker, socialist, diversity Nazi & Common Purpose lunatic says she still has work to do in #Rotherham. Poor kids.
In the same way that Fenrir Greyback still had work to do with children in the Harry Potter series.
I'm coming to the view that Dave's more likely to survive in the event of a Yes than a No.
I think he could survive a yes, in the immediate term at least, because of the crisis that would be then unleashed and the polling evidence so far suggests most people won't expect him to go. But the implications of a narrow No win, with the constitutional mess that Gordon Brown and his own lack of leadership on the Scotland issue has forced on us, and a pledge made to Scotland that most Tories will find completely unacceptable, means that I think he could be a "goner" either way, but perversely more so if the Union survives (just).
A great many English MP's are going to find themselves fielding uncomfortable questions from disgruntled voters between now and next May.
The EU claims to have kept the peace in Europe, in reality they have sparked two wars in the Balkans and the Ukraine. At least these sanctions remove any doubt that the EU and NATO are the aggressor, time to accept defeat.
Do you think it's possible that the majority of Ukranians might have preferred to be in the EU?
Do you think the majority in say Lvov might do but say the majority in the East don't and the South would be at best ambivalent?
Compare and contrast the economic performance of former communist countries who looked West with those that stayed inside Russia's sphere of influence: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia - all tremendous success stories. Now, remind me how Ukraine, Belorussia, and the like have done? The exception is that Russia itself has done reasonably well - but that's a consequence of its massive natural resources (and the fact that oil went from $15/barrel to $150/barrel during the first reign of Putin).
Scotland’s most senior civil servant put businesses under pressure to stay silent about independence, The Telegraph can disclose. Sir Peter Housden, the permanent secretary of the Scottish government, contacted organisations that were seen to favour the Union and told them to “keep out” of the debate. One person, who received a telephone call from the civil servant, said Sir Peter warned that it was “inappropriate” to get involved. A second person said Sir Peter had “torn strips” off him after he raised questions about independence.
'who spoke on conditions of anonymity'
Snigger.
I do worry that an independent Scotland would be burdened by a business class of the most extraordinary timidity and cowardice.
An entirely inappropriate series of calls for Sir Peter to have placed.
Businesses are private actors. They have the right to a view. Sir Peter is a public employee who should be neutral on a matter of his significance.
LOL, surprise surprise , old silver spoon thinks civil servants should be pressuring private companies to support silver spoon troughers
Nope. I think the civil service shouldn't get involved.
If a politician wants to place a call of this nature that's entire up to them.
But civil servants should be politically uninvolved.
Sir Peter is a public employee who should be neutral on a matter of his significance.
HMT's Perm Sec has supporting the case for a 'no' vote as one of his performance objectives!
Depends whether it is internal or external.
I an see an argument that, internally, preserving the union is a matter of great interest for the nation, so that's legitimate (although getting close to the edge). But he shouldn't be calling up the CEOs of banks to tell them to move South (press reports had it as Darling, Brown and Osborne making those calls, IIRC)
Retaining the Barnett formula is a serious and unnecessary error. By all means allow the Scottish Parliamentary extend its tax raising powers but the corollary should be a sharp reduction, ideally elimination, of this subvention from the rest of the UK.
There is a clear case for varying funding to reflect factors beyond politicians or voters control - such as geography. Its much more cost effective to deliver public services in a densely populated England than a sparsely populated Scotland - and I think that should be reflected in central funding.
I doubt however that the Barnett formula is still up to the job - and this 'Three Leader Vow' will come back to bite them with a vengeance.
Also, East Timor became an independent state more than decade ago. So much for ignorance...
Yes and False Flag is spouting deluded nonsense. But Thailand should not have been on your list as it is governed by the military which overthrew the elected government a few weeks back.
... and as is the modern (progressive?) way, he offers no apology for the appalling job he did, but says he is resigning because the media spotlight is taking attention away from bringing justice to the victims
Jesus, does no one ever fess up and say sorry anymore? Whatever happened to morals and standards?
The EU claims to have kept the peace in Europe, in reality they have sparked two wars in the Balkans and the Ukraine. At least these sanctions remove any doubt that the EU and NATO are the aggressor, time to accept defeat.
Do you think it's possible that the majority of Ukranians might have preferred to be in the EU?
Do you think the majority in say Lvov might do but say the majority in the East don't and the South would be at best ambivalent?
Compare and contrast the economic performance of former communist countries who looked West with those that stayed inside Russia's sphere of influence: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia - all tremendous success stories. Now, remind me how Ukraine, Belorussia, and the like have done? The exception is that Russia itself has done reasonably well - but that's a consequence of its massive natural resources (and the fact that oil went from $15/barrel to $150/barrel during the first reign of Putin).
Given the guy still refers to Ukrainian cities in Ukrainian-speaking areas by their old Imperial Russian names, do you really think he's going to be objective about this?
"How ironic that our politicans have done more to convert me to a YES that any of the rantings of the cyberNats "
Yes, I agree, Beverley.
How, for example, is this fair to Wales and N Ireland, which are offered nothing, presumably because they do not bleat loudly enough?
Is it fair to make these offers without offering all the rest of the Brits the opportunity to comment? Should there not be a referendum to see if England, Wales and NI actually want to keep Scotland in the Union? I'm not sure what the result of such a vote would be, but I bet it would be closer than it would have been a year ago.
Anybody that has the experience of bringing up children will know the folly of handing out treats whenever they holler. That's pretty much what our Party Leaders are doing, and I don't like it one bit.
Wales quietly gained some more powers a couple of years ago, English devolution has been in a bit of limbo ever since the referendum rejection of a North East assembly.
Farage is being an idiot. Trusting authoritarian dictators as friends is madness.
I'd be prepared to give him "naive" rather than "an idiot", in all fairness.
He's allowing his distaste for the EU to cloud his judgment. It's all very foolish. All his critiques of the EU - it's undemocratic, it's bureaucratic, it's corrupt - apply ten fold to Russia. As bad as the EU is, its member nations are mostly democratic and should be our friends and allies in the world after we get independence.
... and as is the modern (progressive?) way, he offers no apology for the appalling job he did, but says he is resigning because the media spotlight is taking attention away from bringing justice to the victims
Jesus, does no one ever fess up and say sorry anymore? Whatever happened to morals and standards?
Was it ever different? (Genuine question).
I mean jokes about announcements 'being on gardening leave' or "resigning to spend more time with my family" and similar euphemisms have been going around forever.
Blimey, you don't often see politicians lying quite as brazenly as this. Normally they make at least a token effort to fudge the question so as not to have to lie outright:
Asked whether an independent Scotland would have to pay more to borrow money, the first minister replies: "No, you have to have sustainable level of borrowing and debt. As far as the cost is concerned, we'll be borrowing at Sterling rates."
I think the issue here is that Salmond really does believe that iScot would borrow at the same rate as rUK. In his mind it is not a lie.
Sure great experts like you will know otherwise. Chickens on here clucking do not set rates that an independent Scotland would borrow at. The amount of bullshit on here would fill the Grand Canyon
iScot would have a diminishing oil based economy which is susceptible to volatility, it would therefore have a lower credit rating than rUK. To pretend otherwise is to bury one's head innthe sand.
Is that the almost bankrupt rump UK that does not have any oil revenue at all then, better in sand than up one's erchie
Malcolm good luck for Thursday.
To address your point:
1) oil tax revenues in Scotland account for a much higher % of tax revenue than in rUK or UK today. There is considerable debate about the remaining oil reserves and hence tax revenue. Volatility of tax revenues = higher borrowing rates.
2) Given the various discussions about currencies in the short and medium term, mean that borrowing costs would be subject to currency risk premium (for a currency outside the existing currency union) = higher borrowing rates.
Topping , thanks for your good wishes. Re revenue it will be what it will be and certainly not the disaster the disingenuous lying troughers are indicating. Once all the sour grapes of the BT losers are over and the idiots have stopped shuffling money stupidly in the same UK banks, everyone will get on with it and agree a sensible adult way forward. The chickens on here will spout diahorrea about some other topic as they whinge and panic.
Wales quietly gained some more powers a couple of years ago, English devolution has been in a bit of limbo ever since the referendum rejection of a North East assembly.
I remember voting against that. An assembly with no defined purpose covering two distinct regions (Tyne and Wear, Teesside) was never going to work well.
... and as is the modern (progressive?) way, he offers no apology for the appalling job he did, but says he is resigning because the media spotlight is taking attention away from bringing justice to the victims
Jesus, does no one ever fess up and say sorry anymore? Whatever happened to morals and standards?
Was it ever different? (Genuine question).
I mean jokes about announcements 'being on gardening leave' or "resigning to spend more time with my family" and similar euphemisms have been going around forever.
Maybe not.. I might have been watching too many fims!
Personally when I am wrong I say I am wrong and hate myself for letting people down... makes my blood boil when I read namby pamby nonsense like this from Wright. Its as if he wants a pat on the back for doing the best for the kids he has let down by resigning
Off topic back in the office after my flight from Leeds Bradford to Belfast was cancelled. Interesting experience trying to leave an airport from airside without flying. No staff visible, no info desk, ended up back at security who had to radio for an escort.
I don't have a problem with Wales, NI, the NE, Cornwall or whoever being given more powers, but not under duress, which is what is happening with Scotland.
The campaign for the S Yorks PCC will be interesting. Clearly each candidate is going to have to address the “Rotherham” issue, but I wonder how they’ll do it?
And I wonder if the turnout will be any better that the abysmal levels we’ve seen up to now?
Sir Peter is a public employee who should be neutral on a matter of his significance.
HMT's Perm Sec has supporting the case for a 'no' vote as one of his performance objectives!
Depends whether it is internal or external.
I an see an argument that, internally, preserving the union is a matter of great interest for the nation, so that's legitimate (although getting close to the edge). But he shouldn't be calling up the CEOs of banks to tell them to move South (press reports had it as Darling, Brown and Osborne making those calls, IIRC)
FT editor begs to differ, it seems,[edit: at least on the wider principle] (he is directly quoted in this):
I do not consider it is successful. I do not think it is fair. It cannot be fair with this kind of gap. It may well be that any investigation will show that there are other reasons for allocating more expenditure to particular regions, but that is a matter for this investigation and review.
... and as is the modern (progressive?) way, he offers no apology for the appalling job he did, but says he is resigning because the media spotlight is taking attention away from bringing justice to the victims
Jesus, does no one ever fess up and say sorry anymore? Whatever happened to morals and standards?
Was it ever different? (Genuine question).
I mean jokes about announcements 'being on gardening leave' or "resigning to spend more time with my family" and similar euphemisms have been going around forever.
Gardening leave is jargon rather than a joke. It means the company is paying you to stay at home so you cannot, for instance, influence decisions (or witnesses) or retrieve information on current products that you will take to your next job (presumably with a competitor).
King Cole, it absolutely does not meet with the approval of Morris Dancer. Why is a Scottish Parliament good for Scotland but an English Parliament bad for England?
How, for example, is this fair to Wales and N Ireland, which are offered nothing, presumably because they do not bleat loudly enough?
...
Anybody that has the experience of bringing up children will know the folly of handing out treats whenever they holler. That's pretty much what our Party Leaders are doing, and I don't like it one bit.
It does seem rather redolent of kiddie tantrums. I also think of a rather famous example in history from the 1930s - appeasement did not bring the desired outcome way back then.
Is it fair to make these offers without offering all the rest of the Brits the opportunity to comment? Should there not be a referendum to see if England, Wales and NI actually want to keep Scotland in the Union? I'm not sure what the result of such a vote would be, but I bet it would be closer than it would have been a year ago.
Indeed. That is what sticks in my craw. They made this offer to force a huge constitutional change without even conceding that the rest of us need to be consulted. They are going to offer everything that independence would give whilst still sending a huge supply of protection, money and services north.
This is not devo-Max, this is Independence+ and apparently the rest of us get no say. None.
Off topic back in the office after my flight from Leeds Bradford to Belfast was cancelled. Interesting experience trying to leave an airport from airside without flying. No staff visible, no info desk, ended up back at security who had to radio for an escort.
I had a similar experience at Heathrow a few years ago when I was refused boarding. It took me 45 minutes to leave departures...
How, for example, is this fair to Wales and N Ireland, which are offered nothing, presumably because they do not bleat loudly enough?
...
Anybody that has the experience of bringing up children will know the folly of handing out treats whenever they holler. That's pretty much what our Party Leaders are doing, and I don't like it one bit.
It does seem rather redolent of kiddie tantrums. I also think of a rather famous example in history from the 1930s - appeasement did not bring the desired outcome way back then.
Is it fair to make these offers without offering all the rest of the Brits the opportunity to comment? Should there not be a referendum to see if England, Wales and NI actually want to keep Scotland in the Union? I'm not sure what the result of such a vote would be, but I bet it would be closer than it would have been a year ago.
Indeed. That is what sticks in my craw. They made this offer to force a huge constitutional change without even conceding that the rest of us need to be consulted. They are going to offer everything that independence would give whilst still sending a huge supply of protection, money and services north.
This is not devo-Max, this is Independence+ and apparently the rest of us get no say. None.
I must beg to differ. It's not even devo-max that will be on offer - that would be full fiscal autonomy except for the central UK issues such as defence and foreign etc. It's just a bit of extra devo, dressed up in a panic.
The trouble is that it has been marketed as devo-max to try and appeal north of the border, but of course that has upset folk south of the border.
(And is it logically possible to have independence plus? But I think I see what you mean.)
It was always clear that refusing to offer devo-max in the Edinburgh Agreement not only failed to win the referendum there and then, but also squandered the time needed to see if such an agreement could be brokered with the rest of the UK - which is another matter as everyone quite rightly choruses here. If not, then fair enough, but it was never properly sorted out one way or another.
Anyone with half a brain could see that that agreement from at the least the Coalition MPs anf if need be more, was always essential if devomax would happen, and it was much discussed in indyref sites IIRC, amongst the issues which the indyref raised for English, etc., governance.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
King Cole, it absolutely does not meet with the approval of Morris Dancer. Why is a Scottish Parliament good for Scotland but an English Parliament bad for England?
For the me there is a difficulty around the relative sizes of the various countries, if there’s some sort of federal structure. I’m also not sure that the interests of, say, the North-East are sufficiently in tune with those of, say again, the South-East to allow of one Parliament, if we are finer-tuning.
Off topic back in the office after my flight from Leeds Bradford to Belfast was cancelled. Interesting experience trying to leave an airport from airside without flying. No staff visible, no info desk, ended up back at security who had to radio for an escort.
I had a similar experience at Heathrow a few years ago when I was refused boarding. It took me 45 minutes to leave departures...
If you have time to kill in T5 you can waste 30 minutes walking the large tunnels between the main terminal and the sub terminals by catching the train to a sub terminal you are not flying from. The trains are one way only so to return you have to walk through the tunnels back...
This is not devo-Max, this is Independence+ and apparently the rest of us get no say. None.
It is to be hoped they are saying this just to get a deal done. The important thing for them is to get a no in the bag.
Surely that would reduce their already low credibility to negative levels?
It really bugs me that all three party leaders have leaped on this bandwagon. For the first time in my life I feel like abstaining from the next election and there are no other parties I want to vote for. There are generally only four on the ballot here - the big three and UKIP.
Just as an aside, I am now convinced that Richard Tyndall is right: the flip-side of devomax is simply EV4EL.
That is right and it is why the tories were happy to go even further than Labour in terms of tax raising powers. Labour is the one facing the crisis here. If the quid pro quo of devo max is that their cohort from Scotland is not much use to them in the HoC (as opposed to now where they get the best of both worlds, to coin a phrase) that is a major blow to them.
Cameron will be in a strong position to push this through now and the Labour/Lib Dem Coalition of vested interests will no longer be able to stop it. If this is in place before the next election, as Cameron is promising, the outcome of that election is going to be a lot more difficult to ascertain, let alone predict.
King Cole, you could argue the same of Scottish islands and Glasgow/Edinburgh. Scotland's one land, England's one land. Scotland has one Parliament, England should have one Parliament.
Just as an aside, I am now convinced that Richard Tyndall is right: the flip-side of devomax is simply EV4EL.
Indeed. Even the double majority issue isn't the problem that some make out. You'll just get a situation like cohabitation in France, where HMG would have to negotiate with parliament. There's nothing wrong with that.
King Cole, you could argue the same of Scottish islands and Glasgow/Edinburgh. Scotland's one land, England's one land. Scotland has one Parliament, England should have one Parliament.
If I was in your position, that is certainly what I would be thinking.
Douglas Carswell on David Cameron and the top brass of the Tory party
"The problem is that many of those at the top of the Conservative Party are simply not on our side. They aren't serious about the change that Britain so desperately needs.
"Of course they talk the talk before elections. They say what they feel they must say to get our support... "
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
I must beg to differ. It's not even devo-max that will be on offer - that would be full fiscal autonomy except for the central UK issues such as defence and foreign etc. It's just a bit of extra devo, dressed up in a panic.
It looks and sounds like devoMax. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then I think there is a fair chance it is an member of the Anatidae family
(And is it logically possible to have independence plus? But I think I see what you mean.)
Control over everything with the Pound, central banks, EU membership, etc etc? It is a better deal than control over everything, no Pound, no Banks, no EU, etc etc.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
It is the case that Scotland is a unitary state within the composite state of the UK, and the legal situation of the, e.g, Borders, is different. However, that is perhaps a techniality. More generally the issue is for the future, and we have to see what happens on Thursday.
There is a difference, as someone pointed out somewhere recently, between a vote in such a case, and a vote to split from Scotland. It is entirely possible that a voter might prefer full independence to complete union with England, for instance, if those became the only choices. If I were a Borderer, also, I would want to wait till the EU situation became clearer on both sides of the border. That would certainly influence my decision.
Just as an aside, I am now convinced that Richard Tyndall is right: the flip-side of devomax is simply EV4EL.
That is right and it is why the tories were happy to go even further than Labour in terms of tax raising powers. Labour is the one facing the crisis here. If the quid pro quo of devo max is that their cohort from Scotland is not much use to them in the HoC (as opposed to now where they get the best of both worlds, to coin a phrase) that is a major blow to them.
Cameron will be in a strong position to push this through now and the Labour/Lib Dem Coalition of vested interests will no longer be able to stop it. If this is in place before the next election, as Cameron is promising, the outcome of that election is going to be a lot more difficult to ascertain, let alone predict.
These lying toerags will not push anything through. They had 3 years to come up with something and best they could do was a pack of lies in the last week. They are so devalued as serial liars that they could not use pledge , so come up with "VOW". pathetic lying cretins.
Executive Chairman [of the think tank The Scotland Institute] Dr Azeem Ibrahim, who is a leading expert in strategic policy development, said: “independence raises more challenges than it solves. There might be good answers to all the questions raised above, but that case has not been the one the ‘yes’ campaign has made.
“Instead they have presented a much less sophisticated and developed case which rests heavily on promising changes which they are already entitled to make, and continuing to share so much with the rest of the UK that their claims of independence are undermined.”
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
That is right and it is why the tories were happy to go even further than Labour in terms of tax raising powers. Labour is the one facing the crisis here. If the quid pro quo of devo max is that their cohort from Scotland is not much use to them in the HoC (as opposed to now where they get the best of both worlds, to coin a phrase) that is a major blow to them.
Cameron will be in a strong position to push this through now and the Labour/Lib Dem Coalition of vested interests will no longer be able to stop it. If this is in place before the next election, as Cameron is promising, the outcome of that election is going to be a lot more difficult to ascertain, let alone predict.
Spot-on. People are misreading this - the Conservative manifesto promised more powers for the Scottish parliament and "new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries". Unfortunately, without a majority, it hasn't been possible to deliver the latter, but I think there is now a very good possibility that Labour, and the LibDems, have been manoeuvred into a position where they can no longer try to maintain the pretence that it's OK for Scottish MPs to vote on non-Scottish issues.
Off topic back in the office after my flight from Leeds Bradford to Belfast was cancelled. Interesting experience trying to leave an airport from airside without flying. No staff visible, no info desk, ended up back at security who had to radio for an escort.
I thought that after you checked in and passed security it is the airline's responsibility to 'look after you'?
I must beg to differ. It's not even devo-max that will be on offer - that would be full fiscal autonomy except for the central UK issues such as defence and foreign etc. It's just a bit of extra devo, dressed up in a panic.
It looks and sounds like devoMax. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then I think there is a fair chance it is an member of the Anatidae family
(And is it logically possible to have independence plus? But I think I see what you mean.)
Control over everything with the Pound, central banks, EU membership, etc etc? It is a better deal than control over everything, no Pound, no Banks, no EU, etc etc.
Retaining the Barnett formula is a serious and unnecessary error. By all means allow the Scottish Parliamentary extend its tax raising powers but the corollary should be a sharp reduction, ideally elimination, of this subvention from the rest of the UK.
There is a clear case for varying funding to reflect factors beyond politicians or voters control - such as geography. Its much more cost effective to deliver public services in a densely populated England than a sparsely populated Scotland - and I think that should be reflected in central funding.
I doubt however that the Barnett formula is still up to the job - and this 'Three Leader Vow' will come back to bite them with a vengeance.
They have just made UKIP's job a lot easier......
Like most people you are ignorant about the Barnett formula. It does not reflect perceived government spending need, and if the relative populations of England and Scotland were stable, then over time - and with sufficient inflation - it would lead to per-capita levels of spending converging.
There are House of Commons Research Papers you can find if you want the gory details, or the Wikipedia page is pretty good.
The three leaders have themselves in a fine position. Scots are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're lying. The English are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're telling the truth.
Cameron talked about "putting country before party" in this campaign.
So when it comes to English democracy and EV4EL, what will be the phrase for anyone trying to block it, and especially those reliant on significant representation from S, W and NI?
Being positioned to deny the electorate an EU referendum and deny the English increased self government doesn't seem to be a smart place to be, come 2015, in my view.
The three leaders have themselves in a fine position. Scots are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're lying. The English are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're telling the truth.
And Cleggy has managed to sign another pledge which nobody will believe..
The three leaders have themselves in a fine position. Scots are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're lying. The English are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're telling the truth.
Easy to be wise after the event but much could have been avoided with Devo-Max on the ballot, and therefore discussed.
So England, with 85% of the UK's population is facing a £1bn black hole, while with 8% of the population in Scotland, the Scottish run NHS Scotland, responsibility of the SNP Government is facing a £0.5bn hole......proportionately, who would you say has done the better job?
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Really? Haven't noticed my polling card. Oh yes, I forgot. I and 50 million others haven't a say in the destruction of my country. Does this make me angry? You bet it does.
The three leaders have themselves in a fine position. Scots are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're lying. The English are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're telling the truth.
I think those who have seen the vow are angry and will probably get angrier if the comments on this article are anything to go by....
King Cole, a three answer question would not be wise (the winner could have fewer than half of people backing it). That also wouldn't answer the West Lothian Question.
Mr. Timmo, quite, but I think Clegg's stock is at rock bottom, making him immune to further devaluation.
The three leaders have themselves in a fine position. Scots are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're lying. The English are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're telling the truth.
Easy to be wise after the event but much could have been avoided with Devo-Max on the ballot, and therefore discussed.
And impossible, as that imposes a settlement on the UK without the rUK say so.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Really? Haven't noticed my polling card. Oh yes, I forgot. I and 50 million others haven't a say in the destruction of my country. Does this make me angry? You bet it does.
If you want a say move to Scotland. If you dont live there it's not up to you. If that makes you angry get over it.
Retaining the Barnett formula is a serious and unnecessary error. By all means allow the Scottish Parliamentary extend its tax raising powers but the corollary should be a sharp reduction, ideally elimination, of this subvention from the rest of the UK.
There is a clear case for varying funding to reflect factors beyond politicians or voters control - such as geography. Its much more cost effective to deliver public services in a densely populated England than a sparsely populated Scotland - and I think that should be reflected in central funding.
I doubt however that the Barnett formula is still up to the job - and this 'Three Leader Vow' will come back to bite them with a vengeance.
They have just made UKIP's job a lot easier......
Like most people you are ignorant about the Barnett formula.
I guess thats why I posted Lord Barnett's testimony to the HoL Committee investigating it then......
Just as an aside, I am now convinced that Richard Tyndall is right: the flip-side of devomax is simply EV4EL.
That is right and it is why the tories were happy to go even further than Labour in terms of tax raising powers. Labour is the one facing the crisis here. If the quid pro quo of devo max is that their cohort from Scotland is not much use to them in the HoC (as opposed to now where they get the best of both worlds, to coin a phrase) that is a major blow to them.
Cameron will be in a strong position to push this through now and the Labour/Lib Dem Coalition of vested interests will no longer be able to stop it. If this is in place before the next election, as Cameron is promising, the outcome of that election is going to be a lot more difficult to ascertain, let alone predict.
We need a proper constitutional settlement that has buy-in from all sides. Pushing something through really is not the answer, otherwise you will just end up with a situation that will lead to big problems further down the line when for example, there is a change of government and it gets to implement what it thinks works best to its advantage.
Hopi Sen has written an interesting piece on the muddle we are now in and a possible solution:
The basic issues is that England entirely dominates the Union. It’s as if the United States was only New York State, West Virginia and Alaska. In such a situation it almost becomes nonsensical to allow New York to have its own policy setting bodies, as almost all the time it would get the President and Congress it voted for, and on devolved issues, the size and economic power of the largest state means any decision it made would have huge repercussions for the other states.
Imagine if an English parliament decide to cut income tax and corporation tax below that paid in Scotland, while temporarily increasing public spending above levels in Scotland. It would decimate the Scottish economy, without Scotland having any kind of say in the matter. The same is not true in reverse. What if English public services became substantially worse than Scottish ones and we started seeing major population transfer?
So though it doesn’t make much constitutional sense, there’s a good political reason for England to show a little restraint. Exploiting England’s dominant position in the Union to create a ‘differentiated’ England without the consent of other nations would be destructive, and the cost of allowing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an unequal voice over English services is usually relatively low.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
All we need is another poll with yes in the lead and we'll have a wailing, tearing of hair and rending of garments.....again.
So lets get this right - the loss of the labour party's majority in Scotland and a campaign of total incompetence by the labour party both nationally and in Scotland can persuade tory backbenchers to remove their leader and prime minister?
As someone said the other day I am sure that Cameron will have the good grace to allow Miliband to resign first. Do tory backbenchers expect Salmond to resign, or keep coming back for more?
Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Really? Haven't noticed my polling card. Oh yes, I forgot. I and 50 million others haven't a say in the destruction of my country. Does this make me angry? You bet it does.
This was much discussed at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement, and is based on the basic principle that independence (etc.) plebiscites are based on the voting of the inhabitants of the area in question, not the wider political entity from which their departure (etc). is mooted.
Consider what happens if a simple yes/no indyref is extended to the rest of the UK. The logical permutations (ignoring ties) are:
Scots vote Yes, EWNI Yes - fine. Scots vote No, EWNI No - fine. Scots vote No, EWNI Yes - errr ... Scots vote Yes, EWNI vote No. Which is presumably what you may have in mind. But what would the world say if the Scots voted to go but the rest voted not to let them?
(Additional devolution (I repeat, not devomax, which is not on offer) is of course outwith this, and for our various elected representatives to decide, and possibly refer back to the people.)
The three leaders have themselves in a fine position. Scots are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're lying. The English are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're telling the truth.
Easy to be wise after the event but much could have been avoided with Devo-Max on the ballot, and therefore discussed.
And impossible, as that imposes a settlement on the UK without the rUK say so.
The three leaders have themselves in a fine position. Scots are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're lying. The English are suspicious and ready to be angry if they're telling the truth.
Easy to be wise after the event but much could have been avoided with Devo-Max on the ballot, and therefore discussed.
And impossible, as that imposes a settlement on the UK without the rUK say so.
Much could have been avoided. Not everything. And I agree that our “leaders” have seemed to rather sleepwalk into this situation.
I would have preferred to see regional governments in England, replacing the counties (for administrative purposes only ...... I still want to an Essex cricket team) ) but given the result in the NE a few years ago I fear that’s off the agenda. I remain of the opinion that if we have a federal structure it’s going to be somewhat unwieldy, given the discrepancy in sizes.
I do agree though that there ought be a lot more public discussion.
I doubt the pollsters will have it very wrong in this referendum. Consider the Scottish general election of 2011. The SNP got 45% of the vote in constituencies and 44% for the regional lists. Polls held in the last week predicted 42-45% and 35-39% respectively.
SGE2011 is likelier to be a better reference point than Quebec, even if, despite Yes efforts, the protest vote factor will be smaller than in an SGE.
The 2011 polls underestimated how many people would cast both of their votes for the same party. Or was it how many people would understand the voting system?) This time, when people only get one vote,...
The Shy No factor is not to be discounted. In some areas, people are saying that everyone who's Yes has got a Yes sign up and everyone else is No. So I reckon we're talking about No getting a few percent more than 51%; say 54%.
The weather is predicted to be fine. Price of No together with 80% turnout looks good.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Just as an aside, I am now convinced that Richard Tyndall is right: the flip-side of devomax is simply EV4EL.
We need a proper constitutional settlement that has buy-in from all sides. Pushing something through really is not the answer, otherwise you will just end up with a situation that will lead to big problems further down the line when for example, there is a change of government and it gets to implement what it thinks works best to its advantage.
Hopi Sen has written an interesting piece on the muddle we are now in and a possible solution:
The basic issues is that England entirely dominates the Union. It’s as if the United States was only New York State, West Virginia and Alaska. In such a situation it almost becomes nonsensical to allow New York to have its own policy setting bodies, as almost all the time it would get the President and Congress it voted for, and on devolved issues, the size and economic power of the largest state means any decision it made would have huge repercussions for the other states.
Imagine if an English parliament decide to cut income tax and corporation tax below that paid in Scotland, while temporarily increasing public spending above levels in Scotland. It would decimate the Scottish economy, without Scotland having any kind of say in the matter. The same is not true in reverse. What if English public services became substantially worse than Scottish ones and we started seeing major population transfer?
So though it doesn’t make much constitutional sense, there’s a good political reason for England to show a little restraint. Exploiting England’s dominant position in the Union to create a ‘differentiated’ England without the consent of other nations would be destructive, and the cost of allowing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an unequal voice over English services is usually relatively low.
I know it's Hopi's opinion, but it's utter boll***s. It's effectively creating an underlying democratic deficit by saying 'hey lets just allow the smaller countries undue influence'.
It's wrong, it's unfair, it's damaging, and it needs to change. The union as we know it, is dead, because the fundamental ties between power have been loosened,
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
I agree. But as Hopi points out because of England's size, English MPs could vote on issues that are ostensibly English only, but which could have a direct and very negative impact on people living in other parts of the UK.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Retaining the Barnett formula is a serious and unnecessary error. By all means allow the Scottish Parliamentary extend its tax raising powers but the corollary should be a sharp reduction, ideally elimination, of this subvention from the rest of the UK.
There is a clear case for varying funding to reflect factors beyond politicians or voters control - such as geography. Its much more cost effective to deliver public services in a densely populated England than a sparsely populated Scotland - and I think that should be reflected in central funding.
I doubt however that the Barnett formula is still up to the job - and this 'Three Leader Vow' will come back to bite them with a vengeance.
They have just made UKIP's job a lot easier......
Like most people you are ignorant about the Barnett formula.
I guess thats why I posted Lord Barnett's testimony to the HoL Committee investigating it then......
That has nothing to do with it.
The simple fact is that the Barnett formula does not give extra spending to Scotland - indeed it's purpose is quite the opposite, to equalise spending per capita.
The reason it hasn't worked is because the relative population of Scotland has declined compared to that of England, and so one is trying to hit a moving target. It is only the combination of this particular set of circumstances with the formula that has resulted in higher per capita spending in Scotland. It is not an intrinsic quality of the formula.
Naturally, given that circumstances are different to those envisaged when the formula was devised - namely that the population of Scotland has declined relative to that of England - then it is sensible to consider whether to implement a different formula that would lead to a more rapid convergence and cope with such population shifts. Or indeed a different form of allocating spending that took account of geographical dispersion, if one so wished. This is as Lord Barnett says.
What I was taking issue with was the argument that the Barnett formula is somehow intrinsically beneficial to Scotland, and represents an intention to subsidise Scotland from England. It isn't. Had Scotland's population grown more quickly than England's since it was introduced then it is possible that per capita spending would now be higher in England than in Scotland - thanks to the Barnett formula.
Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
I'm having trouble with the arithmetic.
If you are talking about the period to 1999 (when the Scottish pmt was reconvened), all MPs were equal and it is not relevant.
If you are talking about 1999-2014, that is 15 years, and Mr Osborne took over as CoE in 2010 and is not Scottish in any way. Nor can I make sense of the 3 and 13.
What if there's a narrow Yes vote and the likes of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders which will vote massively No want to stay with rUK? What right has Salmond to deny them their democratic rights?
What democratic rights? Everyone has one vote. Their 'no' vote doesnt overturn a 'yes' majority in the country as a whole. Is everyone taking leave of their senses?
Really? Haven't noticed my polling card. Oh yes, I forgot. I and 50 million others haven't a say in the destruction of my country. Does this make me angry? You bet it does.
This was much discussed at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement, and is based on the basic principle that independence (etc.) plebiscites are based on the voting of the inhabitants of the area in question, not the wider political entity from which their departure (etc). is mooted.
Consider what happens if a simple yes/no indyref is extended to the rest of the UK. The logical permutations (ignoring ties) are:
Scots vote Yes, EWNI Yes - fine. Scots vote No, EWNI No - fine. Scots vote No, EWNI Yes - errr ... Scots vote Yes, EWNI vote No. Which is presumably what you may have in mind. But what would the world say if the Scots voted to go but the rest voted not to let them?
(Additional devolution (I repeat, not devomax, which is not on offer) is of course outwith this, and for our various elected representatives to decide, and possibly refer back to the people.)
Agreed not everyone in EWNI, but Scottish born UK residents , who would automtically qualify for Scottish citizenship, should have been given the vote. It would be one electorate, not a split one. Still, it wasn't done. Big mistake of Mr Cameron. The result will stand.
Retaining the Barnett formula is a serious and unnecessary error. By all means allow the Scottish Parliamentary extend its tax raising powers but the corollary should be a sharp reduction, ideally elimination, of this subvention from the rest of the UK.
Absolutely, although let's face it, the case for Scottish independence relies on English subvention either directly as per Barnett or indirectly via the EU. It seems obvious that if Scotland were allowed into the EU holding its hand out for money, as it would, both Scotland and the other EU members would be looking at England to provide that money.
Independence+ is when you get everything that goes with independence except the full actual costs and risks. That seems to be what the three parties are getting together to offer and it stinks. It is paying a blackmailer, apparently in the expectation that if you do so the demands will stop.
Comments
This is about the Westminster parties panicing, and it'll bite them back big time.
To address your point:
1) oil tax revenues in Scotland account for a much higher % of tax revenue than in rUK or UK today. There is considerable debate about the remaining oil reserves and hence tax revenue. Volatility of tax revenues = higher borrowing rates.
2) Given the various discussions about currencies in the short and medium term, mean that borrowing costs would be subject to currency risk premium (for a currency outside the existing currency union) = higher borrowing rates.
I think he could survive a yes, in the immediate term at least, because of the crisis that would be then unleashed and the polling evidence so far suggests most people won't expect him to go. But the implications of a narrow No win, with the constitutional mess that Gordon Brown and his own lack of leadership on the Scotland issue has forced on us, and a pledge made to Scotland that most Tories will find completely unacceptable, means that I think he could be a "goner" either way, but perversely more so if the Union survives (just).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29202728
If a politician wants to place a call of this nature that's entire up to them.
But civil servants should be politically uninvolved.
I an see an argument that, internally, preserving the union is a matter of great interest for the nation, so that's legitimate (although getting close to the edge). But he shouldn't be calling up the CEOs of banks to tell them to move South (press reports had it as Darling, Brown and Osborne making those calls, IIRC)
I doubt however that the Barnett formula is still up to the job - and this 'Three Leader Vow' will come back to bite them with a vengeance.
They have just made UKIP's job a lot easier......
Jesus, does no one ever fess up and say sorry anymore? Whatever happened to morals and standards?
Giving people the facts on which to make a judgement = Browbeating, in NatSpeak.
McNanny knows best little ones.
I mean jokes about announcements 'being on gardening leave' or "resigning to spend more time with my family" and similar euphemisms have been going around forever.
Personally when I am wrong I say I am wrong and hate myself for letting people down... makes my blood boil when I read namby pamby nonsense like this from Wright. Its as if he wants a pat on the back for doing the best for the kids he has let down by resigning
I don't have a problem with Wales, NI, the NE, Cornwall or whoever being given more powers, but not under duress, which is what is happening with Scotland.
And I wonder if the turnout will be any better that the abysmal levels we’ve seen up to now?
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9749-uks-most-senior-civil-servant-urged-businesses-to-come-out-against-independence-says-ft-editor
I do not consider it is successful. I do not think it is fair. It cannot be fair with this kind of gap. It may well be that any investigation will show that there are other reasons for allocating more expenditure to particular regions, but that is a matter for this investigation and review.
Lord Barnett
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/9012802.htm
Three party leaders desperate to dilute the democratic power of the people who put them in government in favour of a restive, contemptuous country.
nauseating.
Indeed. That is what sticks in my craw. They made this offer to force a huge constitutional change without even conceding that the rest of us need to be consulted. They are going to offer everything that independence would give whilst still sending a huge supply of protection, money and services north.
This is not devo-Max, this is Independence+ and apparently the rest of us get no say. None.
It is to be hoped they are saying this just to get a deal done. The important thing for them is to get a no in the bag.
Yes, it's almost enough to make me vote UKIP. If I weren't such a Europhile, I would.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
NHS faces mounting financial crisis as deficit heads towards £1bn
Three-quarters of hospitals could be in the red by end of year without urgent government bailout, warn NHS leaders in private
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/15/nhs-financial-crisis-deficit-1bn-hospitals?CMP=twt_gu
If I was in your position, that is certainly what I would be thinking.
The trouble is that it has been marketed as devo-max to try and appeal north of the border, but of course that has upset folk south of the border.
(And is it logically possible to have independence plus? But I think I see what you mean.)
It was always clear that refusing to offer devo-max in the Edinburgh Agreement not only failed to win the referendum there and then, but also squandered the time needed to see if such an agreement could be brokered with the rest of the UK - which is another matter as everyone quite rightly choruses here. If not, then fair enough, but it was never properly sorted out one way or another.
Anyone with half a brain could see that that agreement from at the least the Coalition MPs anf if need be more, was always essential if devomax would happen, and it was much discussed in indyref sites IIRC, amongst the issues which the indyref raised for English, etc., governance.
This is an absolutely dreadful catch-up rush.
I’m also not sure that the interests of, say, the North-East are sufficiently in tune with those of, say again, the South-East to allow of one Parliament, if we are finer-tuning.
It really bugs me that all three party leaders have leaped on this bandwagon. For the first time in my life I feel like abstaining from the next election and there are no other parties I want to vote for. There are generally only four on the ballot here - the big three and UKIP.
Cameron will be in a strong position to push this through now and the Labour/Lib Dem Coalition of vested interests will no longer be able to stop it. If this is in place before the next election, as Cameron is promising, the outcome of that election is going to be a lot more difficult to ascertain, let alone predict.
"The problem is that many of those at the top of the Conservative Party are simply not on our side. They aren't serious about the change that Britain so desperately needs.
"Of course they talk the talk before elections. They say what they feel they must say to get our support... "
"
Yes it has
Control over everything with the Pound, central banks, EU membership, etc etc? It is a better deal than control over everything, no Pound, no Banks, no EU, etc etc. It is an utter shambles.
There is a difference, as someone pointed out somewhere recently, between a vote in such a case, and a vote to split from Scotland. It is entirely possible that a voter might prefer full independence to complete union with England, for instance, if those became the only choices. If I were a Borderer, also, I would want to wait till the EU situation became clearer on both sides of the border. That would certainly influence my decision.
“Instead they have presented a much less sophisticated and developed case which rests heavily on promising changes which they are already entitled to make, and continuing to share so much with the rest of the UK that their claims of independence are undermined.”
http://scotspolitics.com/opinion-makers/too-many-unanswered-questions-mean-case-for-scottish-independence-has-not-been-made-key-think-tank-concludes
There are House of Commons Research Papers you can find if you want the gory details, or the Wikipedia page is pretty good.
So when it comes to English democracy and EV4EL, what will be the phrase for anyone trying to block it, and especially those reliant on significant representation from S, W and NI?
Being positioned to deny the electorate an EU referendum and deny the English increased self government doesn't seem to be a smart place to be, come 2015, in my view.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2757554/Cameron-Clegg-Miliband-pledge-higher-spending-Scotland-rule-English-parliament-Tory-MPs-say-no-Scottish-Chancellor-EVER.html#comments
Mr. Timmo, quite, but I think Clegg's stock is at rock bottom, making him immune to further devaluation.
Hopi Sen has written an interesting piece on the muddle we are now in and a possible solution:
The basic issues is that England entirely dominates the Union. It’s as if the United States was only New York State, West Virginia and Alaska. In such a situation it almost becomes nonsensical to allow New York to have its own policy setting bodies, as almost all the time it would get the President and Congress it voted for, and on devolved issues, the size and economic power of the largest state means any decision it made would have huge repercussions for the other states.
Imagine if an English parliament decide to cut income tax and corporation tax below that paid in Scotland, while temporarily increasing public spending above levels in Scotland. It would decimate the Scottish economy, without Scotland having any kind of say in the matter. The same is not true in reverse. What if English public services became substantially worse than Scottish ones and we started seeing major population transfer?
So though it doesn’t make much constitutional sense, there’s a good political reason for England to show a little restraint. Exploiting England’s dominant position in the Union to create a ‘differentiated’ England without the consent of other nations would be destructive, and the cost of allowing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an unequal voice over English services is usually relatively low.
http://hopisen.com/2014/an-english-proposal/#comments
As someone said the other day I am sure that Cameron will have the good grace to allow Miliband to resign first.
Do tory backbenchers expect Salmond to resign, or keep coming back for more?
Did England rise up when we had 13 years of Scottish Chancellors and 3 years (or 13, depending on perspective) of Scottish Prime Minister(s) under Labour?
It's indefensible to argue people should be allowed to vote on matters which affect none of their constituents.
Campaign over.
Consider what happens if a simple yes/no indyref is extended to the rest of the UK. The logical permutations (ignoring ties) are:
Scots vote Yes, EWNI Yes - fine.
Scots vote No, EWNI No - fine.
Scots vote No, EWNI Yes - errr ...
Scots vote Yes, EWNI vote No. Which is presumably what you may have in mind. But what would the world say if the Scots voted to go but the rest voted not to let them?
(Additional devolution (I repeat, not devomax, which is not on offer) is of course outwith this, and for our various elected representatives to decide, and possibly refer back to the people.)
I would have preferred to see regional governments in England, replacing the counties (for administrative purposes only ...... I still want to an Essex cricket team) ) but given the result in the NE a few years ago I fear that’s off the agenda. I remain of the opinion that if we have a federal structure it’s going to be somewhat unwieldy, given the discrepancy in sizes.
I do agree though that there ought be a lot more public discussion.
SGE2011 is likelier to be a better reference point than Quebec, even if, despite Yes efforts, the protest vote factor will be smaller than in an SGE.
The 2011 polls underestimated how many people would cast both of their votes for the same party. Or was it how many people would understand the voting system?) This time, when people only get one vote,...
The Shy No factor is not to be discounted. In some areas, people are saying that everyone who's Yes has got a Yes sign up and everyone else is No. So I reckon we're talking about No getting a few percent more than 51%; say 54%.
The weather is predicted to be fine. Price of No together with 80% turnout looks good.
It's wrong, it's unfair, it's damaging, and it needs to change. The union as we know it, is dead, because the fundamental ties between power have been loosened,
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/68744
The simple fact is that the Barnett formula does not give extra spending to Scotland - indeed it's purpose is quite the opposite, to equalise spending per capita.
The reason it hasn't worked is because the relative population of Scotland has declined compared to that of England, and so one is trying to hit a moving target. It is only the combination of this particular set of circumstances with the formula that has resulted in higher per capita spending in Scotland. It is not an intrinsic quality of the formula.
Naturally, given that circumstances are different to those envisaged when the formula was devised - namely that the population of Scotland has declined relative to that of England - then it is sensible to consider whether to implement a different formula that would lead to a more rapid convergence and cope with such population shifts. Or indeed a different form of allocating spending that took account of geographical dispersion, if one so wished. This is as Lord Barnett says.
What I was taking issue with was the argument that the Barnett formula is somehow intrinsically beneficial to Scotland, and represents an intention to subsidise Scotland from England. It isn't. Had Scotland's population grown more quickly than England's since it was introduced then it is possible that per capita spending would now be higher in England than in Scotland - thanks to the Barnett formula.
If you are talking about the period to 1999 (when the Scottish pmt was reconvened), all MPs were equal and it is not relevant.
If you are talking about 1999-2014, that is 15 years, and Mr Osborne took over as CoE in 2010 and is not Scottish in any way. Nor can I make sense of the 3 and 13.
Independence+ is when you get everything that goes with independence except the full actual costs and risks. That seems to be what the three parties are getting together to offer and it stinks. It is paying a blackmailer, apparently in the expectation that if you do so the demands will stop.