Do I understand from the previous thread that the Vow binds the current and future Parliaments to maintain the Barnett Formula? Or are Socrates and others saying that because Cameron has made the vow we must expect him to remain honest to it and treat it as a promise to do all he can personally to deliver on his commitment? If so, it's a refreshing and welcome change from the usual stance that Cameron is not to be trusted on anything he says.... hopefully the newfound respect will continue when attention turns back to the EU.
It still seems to me to be a promise he can't deliver What if the voters of the UK disagree? We haven't been asked, yet. Although the three main parties are doing their best to deny us a democratic choice by all signing up to it.
If there is one thing about the next general election that I am confident about it is that the share of the vote received by the "three main parties" is going to decline.
Yes and so is the size of the electorate due to the effect of individual registration. So a declining share of a reduced number of people will still hand near dictatorial powers to a person who has, possibly, minority support of his/her own MPs. And somehow we are supposed to believe this is a democracy.
Scotland can expect to be thrust outside the EU, for five years, minimum. With all that means for investment, business, jobs.
Will the Scots really vote for this??
If Scotland is forced out of the EU for a few years, then we should see what the effect of BOO is on a country very similar to rUK. It may be a useful lesson before any Brexit referendum.
Well, not really, because leaving the EU will be tied up with leaving the UK.
We will see the effect on seccessionist states. One aspect would be whether there is a move to rUK or to rUE.
I have not posted here for years (self imposed exile) but I feel the need to post this press release so that even those who support No understand the scale of dishonesty perpetrated on the British public by the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and the Labour Party in Scotland, to mention but a few.
Here is the truth which yet again today rejects the unionist lies about this referendum campaign: [snip]
It was posted on the previous thread: - quite understand the police federation calling for calm, but the trouble is, these disturbing and aggressive incidents have been reported by many respected journalists from across the UK's national press who have witnessed it first hand and provided photo evidence. - I know who I trust more, and I'm afraid it isn't you.
I wonder if, like some of us, David Cameron and Ed Miliband are right now staring at the Betfair markets, constantly refreshing, to see if their careers are in ruins, or not.
He's gone if he loses the union. He faces rebellion if he saves it.
I disappeared late afternoon yesterday but to answer your points
1. I believe Cameron did err - and needlesly so - by co-signing the 'vow'. Won't make a scrap of difference to the result tomorrrow and created a hostage to fortune.
2. As you noble Esherites are doubtless aware, Elmbridge will have frozen its share of Council Tax for seven of the last nine years (there will be no increase in 2015-16) with no reduction in services. Irrefutable reasons to keep faith with your local blue lovelies.
A couple of very interesting posts. I agree that in the booth waverers may go for the rather slanted question.
I think it was George Orwell who pointed out that while men were willing to go over the top shouting "liberty! fraternity! equality!" very few would be willing to do the same shouting "a higher standard of living!"
"The task for them is undeniably greater than at a normal election"
WIth respect I think that is very much deniable. There could be a strong argument that the polling should be far MORE accurate in this event than any normal election.
There are only two options to choose from; the question is very clear; there are no electoral impact of third and fourth parties to consider. There is no need to worry about the impact of the electoral system and the vagaries of FPP etc and differential turnout between constituencies etc.
A lot of the things you mention simply aren't the pollsters problem. They produce national vote %s and then after that people struggle with seat projections, FPTP etc.
So the relative lack of comparable elections makes things harder than normal even with only two options to account for.
I wonder if, like some of us, David Cameron and Ed Miliband are right now staring at the Betfair markets, constantly refreshing, to see if their careers are in ruins, or not.
Vote NO, get Ed! Vote YES, get (rid of) Dave!
The result will be a disaster for Dave whatever happens.
I assume they are not admitting it (how good will it look on their CVs?) Perhaps they could be replaced by the kind of journalists who had no difficulty in not staying away from Gaza during the bombardment?
Perhaps it is because war correspondents and political correspondents have rather different views of what their jobs entail? I rather doubt that war correspondents would be remotely bothered by mob tactics north of the border.
A couple of very interesting posts. I agree that in the booth waverers may go for the rather slanted question.
I think it was George Orwell who pointed out that while men were willing to go over the top shouting "liberty! fraternity! equality!" very few would be willing to do the same shouting "a higher standard of living!"
I am hoping for a Yes, but forecasting a no.
Yes but if that equates to a £100 extra on your mortgage a month women who are in some respects the more practical and less romantic sex will vote No. The wording might affect a few waverers but most will know exactly which way they're going to vote.
Ballot paper question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" First option yes.
This is a very long way, in emotional, psychological and "framing effect" terms from: "should scotland remain part of the UK?"
If you have been brought up in Scotland, governed from many miles away, often by leaders who you feel don't represent you, I would contend it's pretty hard not have a visceral response to the question: "should Scotland be an independent country?" That answer might feel like: "of course it should".
If you opt for "no" once inside the ballot box, you are almost saying, with the way the question has been boxed up: "no, I don't think the country is capable of operating alone, we are a pathetic enslaved inferior nation."
I would suggest that in the privacy of the ballot box there are strong framing influences to deter people from saying "no", and perhaps even switch to "yes" on the spur of the moment. Confronted with the ballot paper it feels like such a negative, self-critical, low self-esteem action. Who would want to be part of such negativity...even those who do vote "no" will have to say themselves: "maybe Scotland should be an independent country, but because of my mortgage I am going to vote for something I don't really believe." It's hardly inspirational.
If voters feel there is a real chance of a yes vote, won't they want to be part of that, part of making history, Braveheart etc?
Irvine Welsh suggested that contrary to alot of commentary of people voting for status quo at the last minute and losing their nerve for economic reasons, given the Scottish mind set, many people might say f**k it, and vote yes as an emotional reaction to the ballot paper. I feel the layout of the ballot paper and the psychological forces could reinforce this.
Seriously, if you go into the ballot box and vote, "no, Scotland should not be an independent country", as a proud Scot, aren't you going to feel you are denigrating your own nation that has fought the English for so long?"
If you vote "no", with the question as presented, you are implicitly coming close to saying that Scotland is not CAPABLE of being an independent country. That is something that people who are unsure may be unlikely to do. Particularly if they feel they could be making history...
Cameron was a fool to let Salmond, in essence, frame the question..
Salmond won an election with "Independence" (not "separating from the UK and condemning your children to penury") in his manifesto - what else could Cameron have done?
And the Electoral,Commission rewrote Salmond's original question - removing his "Do you agree that".
The process has been absolutely fine (including those who could vote, and I write as a "disenfranchised" (sic) Scot).
Ballot paper question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" First option yes.
This is a very long way, in emotional, psychological and "framing effect" terms from: "should scotland remain part of the UK?"
If you have been brought up in Scotland, governed from many miles away, often by leaders who you feel don't represent you, I would contend it's pretty hard not have a visceral response to the question: "should Scotland be an independent country?" That answer might feel like: "of course it should".
If you opt for "no" once inside the ballot box, you are almost saying, with the way the question has been boxed up: "no, I don't think the country is capable of operating alone, we are a pathetic enslaved inferior nation."
I would suggest that in the privacy of the ballot box there are strong framing influences to deter people from saying "no", and perhaps even switch to "yes" on the spur of the moment. Confronted with the ballot paper it feels like such a negative, self-critical, low self-esteem action. Who would want to be part of such negativity...even those who do vote "no" will have to say themselves: "maybe Scotland should be an independent country, but because of my mortgage I am going to vote for something I don't really believe." It's hardly inspirational.
If voters feel there is a real chance of a yes vote, won't they want to be part of that, part of making history, Braveheart etc?
Irvine Welsh suggested that contrary to alot of commentary of people voting for status quo at the last minute and losing their nerve for economic reasons, given the Scottish mind set, many people might say f**k it, and vote yes as an emotional reaction to the ballot paper. I feel the layout of the ballot paper and the psychological forces could reinforce this.
Seriously, if you go into the ballot box and vote, "no, Scotland should not be an independent country", as a proud Scot, aren't you going to feel you are denigrating your own nation that has fought the English for so long?"
If you vote "no", with the question as presented, you are implicitly coming close to saying that Scotland is not CAPABLE of being an independent country. That is something that people who are unsure may be unlikely to do. Particularly if they feel they could be making history...
A very important point. I have spent the whole morning, as a freelance writer, framing words so that they mean exactly what I want them to mean, with no ambiguity, or possibility that they could be construed to mean something else. The ballot paper asks an emotionally leading question that should have been spotted earlier. Who put it together, who sanctioned it, and why wasn't someone given the task of making each question as impartial and unbiased as it could be?
You are not being asked to trust me. It is the Police Federation who are repudiating the nonsense with which you seem to agree.
Any reading of their press release indicates their rejection of the press reporting on the issue
Given their performance in other areas of public life over recent years, I am not wholly convinced that the police are any longer a trustworthy source of information. Frankly what some anonymous plod says should be treated with same disdain as an article in the Daily Mail.
"The task for them is undeniably greater than at a normal election"
WIth respect I think that is very much deniable. There could be a strong argument that the polling should be far MORE accurate in this event than any normal election.
There are only two options to choose from; the question is very clear; there are no electoral impact of third and fourth parties to consider. There is no need to worry about the impact of the electoral system and the vagaries of FPP etc and differential turnout between constituencies etc.
A very astute point. Which I hadn't considered before.
The flaw in this reasoning, surely, is that as normal elections are tribal, you have a lot more people who've already made up their minds. A pollster's margin for error is a function of how many switchers and Don't Knows there are. This is a smaller percentage of the demos than in an IndyRef, surely.
In any event, tomorrow is a national test of intelligence that I dearly hope Scotland will fail by voting Yes, but I'm afraid I'll be disappointed.
In fact for those English who share my views, a No vote is going to feel much worse than it will feel for Nats. They'll still be stuck with England, but England will still be stuck with Scotland.
Ballot paper question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" First option yes.
This is a very long way, in emotional, psychological and "framing effect" terms from: "should scotland remain part of the UK?"
If you have been brought up in Scotland, governed from many miles away, often by leaders who you feel don't represent you, I would contend it's pretty hard not have a visceral response to the question: "should Scotland be an independent country?" That answer might feel like: "of course it should".
If you opt for "no" once inside the ballot box, you are almost saying, with the way the question has been boxed up: "no, I don't think the country is capable of operating alone, we are a pathetic enslaved inferior nation."
I would suggest that in the privacy of the ballot box there are strong framing influences to deter people from saying "no", and perhaps even switch to "yes" on the spur of the moment. Confronted with the ballot paper it feels like such a negative, self-critical, low self-esteem action. Who would want to be part of such negativity...even those who do vote "no" will have to say themselves: "maybe Scotland should be an independent country, but because of my mortgage I am going to vote for something I don't really believe." It's hardly inspirational.
If voters feel there is a real chance of a yes vote, won't they want to be part of that, part of making history, Braveheart etc?
Irvine Welsh suggested that contrary to alot of commentary of people voting for status quo at the last minute and losing their nerve for economic reasons, given the Scottish mind set, many people might say f**k it, and vote yes as an emotional reaction to the ballot paper. I feel the layout of the ballot paper and the psychological forces could reinforce this.
Seriously, if you go into the ballot box and vote, "no, Scotland should not be an independent country", as a proud Scot, aren't you going to feel you are denigrating your own nation that has fought the English for so long?"
If you vote "no", with the question as presented, you are implicitly coming close to saying that Scotland is not CAPABLE of being an independent country. That is something that people who are unsure may be unlikely to do. Particularly if they feel they could be making history...
All very true. Cameron was a fool to let Salmond, in essence, frame the question.
You dont think he was right to insist on (and get) a role for the Electoral Commission in framing the question?
You are not being asked to trust me. It is the Police Federation who are repudiating the nonsense with which you seem to agree.
Any reading of their press release indicates their rejection of the press reporting on the issue
Given their performance in other areas of public life over recent years, I am not wholly convinced that the police are any longer a trustworthy source of information. Frankly what some anonymous plod says should be treated with same disdain as an article in the Daily Mail.
Well quite. These are the same public servants as those who decided there was nothing amiss in Rotherham.
Ballot paper question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" First option yes.
This is a very long way, in emotional, psychological and "framing effect" terms from: "should scotland remain part of the UK?"
If you have been brought up in Scotland, governed from many miles away, often by leaders who you feel don't represent you, I would contend it's pretty hard not have a visceral response to the question: "should Scotland be an independent country?" That answer might feel like: "of course it should".
If you opt for "no" once inside the ballot box, you are almost saying, with the way the question has been boxed up: "no, I don't think the country is capable of operating alone, we are a pathetic enslaved inferior nation."
I would suggest that in the privacy of the ballot box there are strong framing influences to deter people from saying "no", and perhaps even switch to "yes" on the spur of the moment. Confronted with the ballot paper it feels like such a negative, self-critical, low self-esteem action. Who would want to be part of such negativity...even those who do vote "no" will have to say themselves: "maybe Scotland should be an independent country, but because of my mortgage I am going to vote for something I don't really believe." It's hardly inspirational.
If voters feel there is a real chance of a yes vote, won't they want to be part of that, part of making history, Braveheart etc?
Irvine Welsh suggested that contrary to alot of commentary of people voting for status quo at the last minute and losing their nerve for economic reasons, given the Scottish mind set, many people might say f**k it, and vote yes as an emotional reaction to the ballot paper. I feel the layout of the ballot paper and the psychological forces could reinforce this.
Seriously, if you go into the ballot box and vote, "no, Scotland should not be an independent country", as a proud Scot, aren't you going to feel you are denigrating your own nation that has fought the English for so long?"
If you vote "no", with the question as presented, you are implicitly coming close to saying that Scotland is not CAPABLE of being an independent country. That is something that people who are unsure may be unlikely to do. Particularly if they feel they could be making history...
who sanctioned it, and why wasn't someone given the task of making each question as impartial and unbiased as it could be?
The Electoral Commission and they did their job just fine.
You are not being asked to trust me. It is the Police Federation who are repudiating the nonsense with which you seem to agree.
Any reading of their press release indicates their rejection of the press reporting on the issue
Given their performance in other areas of public life over recent years, I am not wholly convinced that the police are any longer a trustworthy source of information. Frankly what some anonymous plod says should be treated with same disdain as an article in the Daily Mail.
The interesting thing is he says the police have got better things to deal with than Twitter spats -- unlike forces south of the border. Remember that Shaun Wright meeting where some bloke said if he'd had a gun he'd shoot the then-PCC -- if he'd tweeted the same thing, he'd likely have got six months.
Scotland can expect to be thrust outside the EU, for five years, minimum. With all that means for investment, business, jobs.
Will the Scots really vote for this??
If Scotland is forced out of the EU for a few years, then we should see what the effect of BOO is on a country very similar to rUK. It may be a useful lesson before any Brexit referendum.
I can remember when pb Nats were reassuring us that Scotland would remain a member of the EU and wouldn't even have to rejoin.
That was about three months ago. Now they've essentially admitted that was a total lie, and instead that say Ooh it will be easy, take 18 months, bish bosh, then we're back in the EU. And that's another lie.
Pity the Scots if they buy this guff.
What bollocks, what makes you an expert to say it is a lie. Only a thicko would make such a stupid statement. You may think it will take longer but it is purely conjecture and bias that drives that. It is as likely to be 18 months or less as it is to be many years.
I have enormous respect for your many talents, malcolmg, but I'm not sure they include possession of a veto over future EU members - unlike the prime minister of Spain. So I'm tending to believe his word over yours.
And by the way, here is that SNP lie in black and white:
"An independent Scotland will remain an integral part of the European Union and will not have to re-apply for EU membership. This is the clear position of the Scottish Government despite attempts by anti-independence proponents to cast doubt on Scotland’s future position in Europe."
You see? That was a lie. As even you now admit. And now you're lying again.
Depends how you read those words Sean. You can interpret two ways. Your way or you can take it that it will remain a member till real independence day and will have negotiated continuing membership in the interim and so will indeed never have been out and so never had to re-apply, merely changed from being lumped in with UK to being Scotland only.
Any reason why the police would go out of their way to actively lie about this??
If they did not feel strongly that lies about the Scottish public (all the Scottish public) they could simply have remained silent.
The fact that they have felt compelled for a second time to repudiate the lies even today being spread by the Telegraph, the Mail and others really ought you to make you think about the lies and deception being perpetrated by the British press on England in particular.
Ballot paper question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" First option yes.
This is a very long way, in emotional, psychological and "framing effect" terms from: "should scotland remain part of the UK?"
If you have been brought up in Scotland, governed from many miles away, often by leaders who you feel don't represent you, I would contend it's pretty hard not have a visceral response to the question: "should Scotland be an independent country?" That answer might feel like: "of course it should".
If you opt for "no" once inside the ballot box, you are almost saying, with the way the question has been boxed up: "no, I don't think the country is capable of operating alone, we are a pathetic enslaved inferior nation."
I would suggest that in the privacy of the ballot box there are strong framing influences to deter people from saying "no", and perhaps even switch to "yes" on the spur of the moment. Confronted with the ballot paper it feels like such a negative, self-critical, low self-esteem action. Who would want to be part of such negativity...even those who do vote "no" will have to say themselves: "maybe Scotland should be an independent country, but because of my mortgage I am going to vote for something I don't really believe." It's hardly inspirational.
If voters feel there is a real chance of a yes vote, won't they want to be part of that, part of making history, Braveheart etc?
Irvine Welsh suggested that contrary to alot of commentary of people voting for status quo at the last minute and losing their nerve for economic reasons, given the Scottish mind set, many people might say f**k it, and vote yes as an emotional reaction to the ballot paper. I feel the layout of the ballot paper and the psychological forces could reinforce this.
Seriously, if you go into the ballot box and vote, "no, Scotland should not be an independent country", as a proud Scot, aren't you going to feel you are denigrating your own nation that has fought the English for so long?"
If you vote "no", with the question as presented, you are implicitly coming close to saying that Scotland is not CAPABLE of being an independent country. That is something that people who are unsure may be unlikely to do. Particularly if they feel they could be making history...
who sanctioned it, and why wasn't someone given the task of making each question as impartial and unbiased as it could be?
The Electoral Commission and they did their job just fine.
The ballot paper asks an emotionally leading question that should have been spotted earlier. Who put it together, who sanctioned it, and why wasn't someone given the task of making each question as impartial and unbiased as it could be?
Sweet Lord above. I might be worth reading how the question was set before going off on one like this.
Western Isles is predicted to be the first result to declare. If it votes YES the markets will probably over-react since it'll be the only real data for them to work with. Some good betting opportunities may present themselves at that point.
I assume they are not admitting it (how good will it look on their CVs?) Perhaps they could be replaced by the kind of journalists who had no difficulty in not staying away from Gaza during the bombardment?
Perhaps it is because war correspondents and political correspondents have rather different views of what their jobs entail? I rather doubt that war correspondents would be remotely bothered by mob tactics north of the border.
There was more bitterness (and civil war) after the independence treaty was agreed than in getting to the treaty. There was a great deal of pain but I suspect that most Irish people today, who value their independence, would say it was worth the pain.
So I have come to the conclusion that if I were Scottish, I would vote YES if I were young (long term benefits out-weigh short term pain) but NO if I were old (no long term).
Being English (and old) I hope they vote NO because in the event of YES, England will also suffer pain and distraction for years but with no long term benefit.
Does Dave actually Vow to leave Barnett in place indefinitely on all things - or does it actually say that Scotland's power to raise tax means it will decide how much it spends on the Scottish Health service?
Looks to me like its been framed in a way that ultimately says, "if you want higher spending on healthcare in Scotland, it's in your gift to raise it from your own income tax powers."
There's still one too few noble Esherites for our liking.
Dave. Are you listening? Daaaaave?
Dave, I've got a near three week stint as guest Editor starting on Monday, if you want to stop the deluge of Dave is crap threads, please ennoble JohnO ASAP.
Dave remember my stint covers the Tory Party conference and the Clacton By-election, just saying.
Scotland is many things, and has a few problems, but it certainly isn't East Timor, or South Sudan.
Yet!
It has, however, made a good start with the intimidation squads. Even journalists are starting to stay away...
Please produce evidence of journalists "staying away". I assume they are not admitting it (how good will it look on their CVs?) Perhaps they could be replaced by the kind of journalists who had no difficulty in not staying away from Gaza during the bombardment?
you mean the ones who couldn't actually report because of their Hamas minders?
That is so far off the point that it isn't worth the effort of trying to correct it. Work it out for yourself.
No, I think it's maybe you has to do the working out.
When an independent Scotland eventually rejoins the EU they will find food more expensive than south of the border, partly for the reasons the CEO of John Lewis outlined the other day and partly because of 5% (min) VAT will be added to the cost. This is compulsory for new EU members. Our zero rated exemptions including food predate the EU and derive from the time it was the EEC. Not good for the poor voters the SNP mafia have conned.
Indeed, it is amazing that more of the 5% VAT on food fact has not been used by the No campaign.
Shows how inept they have been
It's hard to run a campaign that says "You'll be out of the EU" and "You'll be crushed by EU regulations" at the same time, not that they haven't tried.
Was reading the International New York Times on the way back from Krakow last night. Apparently 88% of independence votes in recent decades have gone to the YES side. Just saying....
Scotland is many things, and has a few problems, but it certainly isn't East Timor, or South Sudan.
...damn right....it's much worse....:-)
The weather in both those places is nicer. And so is the food (when you can get it).
I assume they are not admitting it (how good will it look on their CVs?) Perhaps they could be replaced by the kind of journalists who had no difficulty in not staying away from Gaza during the bombardment?
Perhaps it is because war correspondents and political correspondents have rather different views of what their jobs entail? I rather doubt that war correspondents would be remotely bothered by mob tactics north of the border.
As has been pointed out here, can't remember by whom, the NUJ also pointed out that the worst problems were coming from the no side - death threats.
Western Isles is predicted to be the first result to declare. If it votes YES the markets will probably over-react since it'll be the only real data for them to work with. Some good betting opportunities may present themselves at that point.
I'm suprised it is due to declare first. Small numbers, yes, but surely great distances to transport many ballot boxes (or are they *all* being helicoptered around)?
There's still one too few noble Esherites for our liking.
Dave. Are you listening? Daaaaave?
Dave, I've got a near three week stint as guest Editor starting on Monday, if you want to stop the deluge of Dave is crap threads, please ennoble JohnO ASAP.
Dave remember my stint covers the Tory Party conference and the Clacton By-election, just saying.
And you are lovely too. But all is forlorn. I will perish as a commoner....and to be honest, you don't get much more common (though I did do PPE at Oxford)
Scotland can expect to be thrust outside the EU, for five years, minimum. With all that means for investment, business, jobs.
Will the Scots really vote for this??
If Scotland is forced out of the EU for a few years, then we should see what the effect of BOO is on a country very similar to rUK. It may be a useful lesson before any Brexit referendum.
I can remember when pb Nats were reassuring us that Scotland would remain a member of the EU and wouldn't even have to rejoin.
That was about three months ago. Now they've essentially admitted that was a total lie, and instead that say Ooh it will be easy, take 18 months, bish bosh, then we're back in the EU. And that's another lie.
Pity the Scots if they buy this guff.
What bollocks, what makes you an expert to say it is a lie. Only a thicko would make such a stupid statement. You may think it will take longer but it is purely conjecture and bias that drives that. It is as likely to be 18 months or less as it is to be many years.
I have enormous respect for your many talents, malcolmg, but I'm not sure they include possession of a veto over future EU members - unlike the prime minister of Spain. So I'm tending to believe his word over yours.
And by the way, here is that SNP lie in black and white:
"An independent Scotland will remain an integral part of the European Union and will not have to re-apply for EU membership. This is the clear position of the Scottish Government despite attempts by anti-independence proponents to cast doubt on Scotland’s future position in Europe."
You see? That was a lie. As even you now admit. And now you're lying again.
Depends how you read those words Sean. You can interpret two ways. Your way or you can take it that it will remain a member till real independence day and will have negotiated continuing membership in the interim and so will indeed never have been out and so never had to re-apply, merely changed from being lumped in with UK to being Scotland only.
You won't be going within 100 yards of EU membership if you repudiate the share of your debt obligations to rUK following independence.
You could quite easily put "Should the UK be an independent country" as the question referendum on leaving the EU. How on earth did they get allowed to put that on the ballot paper.
As Eck wants to join the EU IMHO "Should Scotland be an independent country" could be construed as misleading; as being an independent country is not offer, only a change from being a UK dependency to an EU dependency
Which is not a pedantic thing to say post Lisbon, now that the EU has a legal personality and can issue regulations with the force of law not just directives to member governments asking them to change their law.
Someone asked me a couple of days back on what grounds legal challenges could be made if the result was very close Yes. There is one.
Scotland can expect to be thrust outside the EU, for five years, minimum. With all that means for investment, business, jobs.
Will the Scots really vote for this??
If Scotland is forced out of the EU for a few years, then we should see what the effect of BOO is on a country very similar to rUK. It may be a useful lesson before any Brexit referendum.
I can remember when pb Nats were reassuring us that Scotland would remain a member of the EU and wouldn't even have to rejoin.
That was about three months ago. Now they've essentially admitted that was a total lie, and instead that say Ooh it will be easy, take 18 months, bish bosh, then we're back in the EU. And that's another lie.
Pity the Scots if they buy this guff.
What bollocks, what makes you an expert to say it is a lie. Only a thicko would make such a stupid statement. You may think it will take longer but it is purely conjecture and bias that drives that. It is as likely to be 18 months or less as it is to be many years.
There is a disagreement about whether Scotland can use article 48 or not. If they cannot do so, then they would have to use article 49 which is a new application that would take atleast 5 years. So on the basis of not being able to apply until say 2015, it won't be until sometime after 2020 that Scotland might be back in the EU.
So there could be a period of say 4 years when Scotland is not a member of the EU. During that time, Scottish voters may decide that they are quite happy not being in the EU, as they may see the advantage of being totally independent.
You are not being asked to trust me. It is the Police Federation who are repudiating the nonsense with which you seem to agree.
Any reading of their press release indicates their rejection of the press reporting on the issue
“I feel the need to post this press release so that even those who support No understand the scale of dishonesty perpetrated on the British public by the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and the Labour Party in Scotland, to mention but a few. Here is the truth which yet again today rejects the unionist lies about this referendum”
Those are your words, not the Police Federations.
If you believe there has been no intimidation, no vandalisation of posters and property during the course of this campaign and everything has been sweetness and light, then that is a matter for your goodself.
Western Isles is predicted to be the first result to declare. If it votes YES the markets will probably over-react since it'll be the only real data for them to work with. Some good betting opportunities may present themselves at that point.
I'm suprised it is due to declare first. Small numbers, yes, but surely great distances to transport many ballot boxes (or are they *all* being helicoptered around)?
Causeways connect the main islands much more now. Still some choppers or boats needed, though.
Western Isles is predicted to be the first result to declare. If it votes YES the markets will probably over-react since it'll be the only real data for them to work with. Some good betting opportunities may present themselves at that point.
I'm suprised it is due to declare first. Small numbers, yes, but surely great distances to transport many ballot boxes (or are they *all* being helicoptered around)?
David Dimbleby is usually surprised by it declaring quickly on general election night, especially 1987 IIRC when it was the first seat to change hands from SNP to Lab on a huge swing.
I can only assume they have a very efficient way of transporting the ballot boxes.
I wonder if, like some of us, David Cameron and Ed Miliband are right now staring at the Betfair markets, constantly refreshing, to see if their careers are in ruins, or not.
Vote NO, get Ed! Vote YES, get (rid of) Dave!
The result will be a disaster for Dave whatever happens.
Indeed it will. If it's a yes he's toast. If it's a big majority for no then he will be crucified by his own party for offering unnecessary concessions at the behest of Gordon Brown and Labour. If it's a narrow no then he will be blamed for the bitterness and resentment that will follow.
I'm beginning to think that he might be forced out whatever the indyref result. He is in for a torrid few weeks and then there is Clacton.......
When an independent Scotland eventually rejoins the EU they will find food more expensive than south of the border, partly for the reasons the CEO of John Lewis outlined the other day and partly because of 5% (min) VAT will be added to the cost. This is compulsory for new EU members. Our zero rated exemptions including food predate the EU and derive from the time it was the EEC. Not good for the poor voters the SNP mafia have conned.
Indeed, it is amazing that more of the 5% VAT on food fact has not been used by the No campaign.
Shows how inept they have been
It's hard to run a campaign that says "You'll be out of the EU" and "You'll be crushed by EU regulations" at the same time, not that they haven't tried.
It is remarkably easy to make the point that EU membership is going to take time to negotiate and one of the many inevitable outcomes of eventually being admitted will be at least 5% VAT on food as well as the other things that new member states have to accept.
I assume they are not admitting it (how good will it look on their CVs?) Perhaps they could be replaced by the kind of journalists who had no difficulty in not staying away from Gaza during the bombardment?
Perhaps it is because war correspondents and political correspondents have rather different views of what their jobs entail? I rather doubt that war correspondents would be remotely bothered by mob tactics north of the border.
Neither says anything about "staying away". Please don't make things up. And Aberdeen at its worst really, really isn't Gaza.
There was a great deal of pain but I suspect that most Irish people today, who value their independence, would say it was worth the pain.
I'd put it this way: if Ireland had stayed in the union it would probably still be one of the poorest regions with GDP per capita significantly below the UK's. As an independent country (and after many difficult times) it enjoys, for example (for what it's worth and it is flawed), GDP per capita much higher than the UK's. It's difficult to imagine that progress being achieved within the union.
Ballot paper question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" First option yes.
This is a very long way, in emotional, psychological and "framing effect" terms from: "should scotland remain part of the UK?"
If you have been brought up in Scotland, governed from many miles away, often by leaders who you feel don't represent you, I would contend it's pretty hard not have a visceral response to the question: "should Scotland be an independent country?" That answer might feel like: "of course it should".
If you opt for "no" once inside the ballot box, you are almost saying, with the way the question has been boxed up: "no, I don't think the country is capable of operating alone, we are a pathetic enslaved inferior nation."
I would suggest that in the privacy of the ballot box there are strong framing influences to deter people from saying "no", and perhaps even switch to "yes" on the spur of the moment. Confronted with the ballot paper it feels like such a negative, self-critical, low self-esteem action. Who would want to be part of such negativity...even those who do vote "no" will have to say themselves: "maybe Scotland should be an independent country, but because of my mortgage I am going to vote for something I don't really believe." It's hardly inspirational.
If voters feel there is a real chance of a yes vote, won't they want to be part of that, part of making history, Braveheart etc?
Irvine Welsh suggested that contrary to alot of commentary of people voting for status quo at the last minute and losing their nerve for economic reasons, given the Scottish mind set, many people might say f**k it, and vote yes as an emotional reaction to the ballot paper. I feel the layout of the ballot paper and the psychological forces could reinforce this.
Seriously, if you go into the ballot box and vote, "no, Scotland should not be an independent country", as a proud Scot, aren't you going to feel you are denigrating your own nation that has fought the English for so long?"
If you vote "no", with the question as presented, you are implicitly coming close to saying that Scotland is not CAPABLE of being an independent country. That is something that people who are unsure may be unlikely to do. Particularly if they feel they could be making history...
who sanctioned it, and why wasn't someone given the task of making each question as impartial and unbiased as it could be?
The Electoral Commission and they did their job just fine.
Or can you suggest a less "biased" question?
I tend to agree with Bazzer from a psychological perspective - but I bow down to the Electoral Commission who probably have a lot more experience in these matters than I have.
"How can the Greens reconcile themselves with the ‘let’s make Scotland a new Saudi Arabia’ oil barons? How can the radical left reconcile themselves with the pro-capitalist Business for Scotland group? Or the L.G.B.T Yes Youth community find common cause with elderly Calvinist nationalists or with the millionaire SNP donor who backed Clause 28. Instead converts chant the same mantra – YES – to cover all the cracks between their mutual hatred"
"The answer is that the factions within the Yes camp are all dreaming that they will have more power in the new Scotland ‘after the referendum.’ Bigger fish in the smaller pond. The Greens will have more power than they ever could in the UK. Business leaders will have more influence over Scottish government. The hard left will finally realise its dream of seizing power and creating a perfect socialist nation. Each group is dreaming of this fresh new country (as clean as a white sheet, as unsullied as a newborn) in which they themselves dominate and hold control. Clearly these groups can’t all have more power and the banner they share is a fantasy of a unity that is not actually there."
There's still one too few noble Esherites for our liking.
Dave. Are you listening? Daaaaave?
Dave, I've got a near three week stint as guest Editor starting on Monday, if you want to stop the deluge of Dave is crap threads, please ennoble JohnO ASAP.
Dave remember my stint covers the Tory Party conference and the Clacton By-election, just saying.
And you are lovely too. But all is forlorn. I will perish as a commoner....and to be honest, you don't get much more common (though I did do PPE at Oxford)
But think of the fun we'll have speculating if you choose to be Baron O of Esher or Baron O of Bournemouth.
When an independent Scotland eventually rejoins the EU they will find food more expensive than south of the border, partly for the reasons the CEO of John Lewis outlined the other day and partly because of 5% (min) VAT will be added to the cost. This is compulsory for new EU members. Our zero rated exemptions including food predate the EU and derive from the time it was the EEC. Not good for the poor voters the SNP mafia have conned.
Doh, we will not be new members, we have been members for over 40 years. Where have you been all that time.
Western Isles is predicted to be the first result to declare. If it votes YES the markets will probably over-react since it'll be the only real data for them to work with. Some good betting opportunities may present themselves at that point.
I thought that Orkney was predicted for the same time (and looking at your spreadsheet has a slightly smaller electorate and is less spread out in terms of getting ballot boxes to a central location (presumably Kirkwall)). Given Orkney is likely to be No, which of the 2 declares first could totally affect the betting markets in either direction.
I wonder if, like some of us, David Cameron and Ed Miliband are right now staring at the Betfair markets, constantly refreshing, to see if their careers are in ruins, or not.
Vote NO, get Ed! Vote YES, get (rid of) Dave!
The result will be a disaster for Dave whatever happens.
Indeed it will. If it's a yes he's toast. If it's a big majority for no then he will be crucified by his own party for offering unnecessary concessions at the behest of Gordon Brown and Labour. If it's a narrow no then he will be blamed for the bitterness and resentment that will follow.
I'm beginning to think that he might be forced out whatever the indyref result. He is in for a torrid few weeks and then there is Clacton.......
Perhaps; you may well be right. Talk about 2010 being the wrong election to win...
When an independent Scotland eventually rejoins the EU they will find food more expensive than south of the border, partly for the reasons the CEO of John Lewis outlined the other day and partly because of 5% (min) VAT will be added to the cost. This is compulsory for new EU members. Our zero rated exemptions including food predate the EU and derive from the time it was the EEC. Not good for the poor voters the SNP mafia have conned.
Doh, we will not be new members, we have been members for over 40 years. Where have you been all that time.
Clutch away at those comforting thoughts, malcolm.
Western Isles is predicted to be the first result to declare. If it votes YES the markets will probably over-react since it'll be the only real data for them to work with. Some good betting opportunities may present themselves at that point.
I thought that Orkney was predicted for the same time (and looking at your spreadsheet has a slightly smaller electorate and is less spread out in terms of getting ballot boxes to a central location (presumably Kirkwall)). Given Orkney is likely to be No, which of the 2 declares first could totally affect the betting markets in either direction.
I'm counting on one 'yes' and one 'no' being enough to spook betfair punters down from the 5.3 or so for 'yes' they were at earlier.
"How can the Greens reconcile themselves with the ‘let’s make Scotland a new Saudi Arabia’ oil barons? How can the radical left reconcile themselves with the pro-capitalist Business for Scotland group? Or the L.G.B.T Yes Youth community find common cause with elderly Calvinist nationalists or with the millionaire SNP donor who backed Clause 28. Instead converts chant the same mantra – YES – to cover all the cracks between their mutual hatred"
On the other hand, there is a very interesting* article in the Herald today about the need for independence to enable socialist views to be properly taken into account: essentially, calling for the foundation of a new ILP.
*Not that I vote Trot. But 2016 will also be very interesting.
You are not being asked to trust me. It is the Police Federation who are repudiating the nonsense with which you seem to agree.
Any reading of their press release indicates their rejection of the press reporting on the issue
some anonymous plod.
"Brian Docherty, Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation" - named in the first sentence of the first paragraph of something you purport to have read.
There was a great deal of pain but I suspect that most Irish people today, who value their independence, would say it was worth the pain.
I'd put it this way: if Ireland had stayed in the union it would probably still be one of the poorest regions with GDP per capita significantly below the UK's. As an independent country (and after many difficult times) it enjoys, for example (for what it's worth and it is flawed), GDP per capita much higher than the UK's. It's difficult to imagine that progress being achieved within the union.
Scotland can expect to be thrust outside the EU, for five years, minimum. With all that means for investment, business, jobs.
Will the Scots really vote for this??
If Scotland is forced out of the EU for a few years, then we should see what the effect of BOO is on a country very similar to rUK. It may be a useful lesson before any Brexit referendum.
I can remember when pb Nats were reassuring us that Scotland would remain a member of the EU and wouldn't even have to rejoin.
That was about three months ago. Now they've essentially admitted that was a total lie, and instead that say Ooh it will be easy, take 18 months, bish bosh, then we're back in the EU. And that's another lie.
Pity the Scots if they buy this guff.
What bollocks, what makes you an expert to say it is a lie. Only a thicko would make such a stupid statement. You may think it will take longer but it is purely conjecture and bias that drives that. It is as likely to be 18 months or less as it is to be many years.
I have enormous respect for your many talents, malcolmg, but I'm not sure they include possession of a veto over future EU members - unlike the prime minister of Spain. So I'm tending to believe his word over yours.
And by the way, here is that SNP lie in black and white:
"An independent Scotland will remain an integral part of the European Union and will not have to re-apply for EU membership. This is the clear position of the Scottish Government despite attempts by anti-independence proponents to cast doubt on Scotland’s future position in Europe."
You see? That was a lie. As even you now admit. And now you're lying again.
Depends how you read those words Sean. You can interpret two ways. Your way or you can take it that it will remain a member till real independence day and will have negotiated continuing membership in the interim and so will indeed never have been out and so never had to re-apply, merely changed from being lumped in with UK to being Scotland only.
The clear postion of the Scottish Government might be that
Roses are Green, Violets are White, the Sun is a Square, and Shines Every Night,
It dosent mean that the clear postition of the Scottish Government has any basis in reality.
The ballot paper asks an emotionally leading question that should have been spotted earlier. Who put it together, who sanctioned it, and why wasn't someone given the task of making each question as impartial and unbiased as it could be?
The Electoral Comission settled on the form of the question.
The SNP's original question (which, remember Cameron had agreed to let them write) was "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?".
There was a great deal of pain but I suspect that most Irish people today, who value their independence, would say it was worth the pain.
I'd put it this way: if Ireland had stayed in the union it would probably still be one of the poorest regions with GDP per capita significantly below the UK's. As an independent country (and after many difficult times) it enjoys, for example (for what it's worth and it is flawed), GDP per capita much higher than the UK's. It's difficult to imagine that progress being achieved within the union.
Or without the EU.....
Of course access to a large market has been a vital part of that progress. Some of the toughest times were when there was no EU and a trade war with the UK.
The undersigned very strongly believe that JohnO is long overdue for ennoblement. Under his stewardship Elmbridge has become a giant tax payer powerhouse, whilst at the same time remaining extremely beautiful, clean, law abiding and scandal free. How he manages this on that pittance he charges his council tax payers we will never know.
We see him as the nation's chief conditioning coach, maintaining a great environment for the many of the country's foremost tax paying athletes to thrive and narrow the nation's deficit to the best of their abilities....
He is, in short, the Sir David Brailsford of government revenues....
There was a great deal of pain but I suspect that most Irish people today, who value their independence, would say it was worth the pain.
I'd put it this way: if Ireland had stayed in the union it would probably still be one of the poorest regions with GDP per capita significantly below the UK's. As an independent country (and after many difficult times) it enjoys, for example (for what it's worth and it is flawed), GDP per capita much higher than the UK's. It's difficult to imagine that progress being achieved within the union.
Iceland and Denmark are probably better comparators for Scotland and England, except that Iceland's fish aren't running out.
Ballot paper question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" First option yes.
This is a very long way, in emotional, psychological and "framing effect"
If you opt for "no" once inside the ballot box, you are almost saying, with the way the question has been boxed up: "no, I don't think the country is capable of operating alone, we are a pathetic enslaved inferior nation."
I would suggest that in the privacy of the ballot box there are strong framing influences to deter people from saying "no", and perhaps even switch to "yes" on the spur of the moment. Confronted with the ballot paper it feels like such a negative, self-critical, low self-esteem action. Who would want to be part of such negativity...even those who do vote "no" will have to say themselves: "maybe Scotland should be an independent country, but because of my mortgage I am going to vote for something I don't really believe." It's hardly inspirational.
If voters feel there is a real chance of a yes vote, won't they want to be part of that, part of making history, Braveheart etc?
Irvine Welsh suggested that contrary to alot of commentary of people voting for status quo at the last minute and losing their nerve for economic reasons, given the Scottish mind set, many people might say f**k it, and vote yes as an emotional reaction to the ballot paper. I feel the layout of the ballot paper and the psychological forces could reinforce this.
Seriously, if you go into the ballot box and vote, "no, Scotland should not be an
who sanctioned it, and why wasn't someone given the task of making each question as impartial and unbiased as it could be?
The Electoral Commission and they did their job just fine.
Or can you suggest a less "biased" question?
I tend to agree with Bazzer from a psychological perspective - but I bow down to the Electoral Commission who probably have a lot more experience in these matters than I have.
The electoral commission haven't covered themselves in glory this year
The political watchdog allowed the extremist Britain First party to use the slogan "Remember Lee Rigby" on voting slips for next month's European election
The Electoral Commission has apologised after allowing an extremist party to use a slogan featuring murdered soldier Lee Rigby.
The watchdog had given the green light for Britain First to use the description "Remember Lee Rigby" on voting slips for next month's European poll.
I wonder if, like some of us, David Cameron and Ed Miliband are right now staring at the Betfair markets, constantly refreshing, to see if their careers are in ruins, or not.
Vote NO, get Ed! Vote YES, get (rid of) Dave!
The result will be a disaster for Dave whatever happens.
Indeed it will. If it's a yes he's toast. If it's a big majority for no then he will be crucified by his own party for offering unnecessary concessions at the behest of Gordon Brown and Labour. If it's a narrow no then he will be blamed for the bitterness and resentment that will follow.
I'm beginning to think that he might be forced out whatever the indyref result. He is in for a torrid few weeks and then there is Clacton.......
Perhaps; you may well be right. Talk about 2010 being the wrong election to win...
Dave was over-promoted, and far too early. Did he not become Tory leader only four years after becoming an MP?
You are not being asked to trust me. It is the Police Federation who are repudiating the nonsense with which you seem to agree.
Any reading of their press release indicates their rejection of the press reporting on the issue
some anonymous plod.
"Brian Docherty, Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation" - named in the first sentence of the first paragraph of something you purport to have read.
Impressive.
Brian Docherty who scored two goals for St Mirren in their 5-3 win over George Best's Fulham in the 77/78 Anglo-Scottish cup? How dare anyone call him anonymous?
When an independent Scotland eventually rejoins the EU they will find food more expensive than south of the border, partly for the reasons the CEO of John Lewis outlined the other day and partly because of 5% (min) VAT will be added to the cost. This is compulsory for new EU members. Our zero rated exemptions including food predate the EU and derive from the time it was the EEC. Not good for the poor voters the SNP mafia have conned.
Doh, we will not be new members, we have been members for over 40 years. Where have you been all that time.
Clutch away at those comforting thoughts, malcolm.
Don't you know, Alex Salmond has some legal advice showing an independent Scotland would automatically become members of the EU
O/T Mr Llama - sorry to hear about the Brute ascending to the Great Cat Flap in the sky where the daily saucer of warm milk will be on tap for eternity. I'll include a toast when the eagerly awaited bottle of fizz is consumed. Any chance for tomorrow night....it would be fitting to get gently sloshed as the results flow in.
"How can the Greens reconcile themselves with the ‘let’s make Scotland a new Saudi Arabia’ oil barons? How can the radical left reconcile themselves with the pro-capitalist Business for Scotland group? Or the L.G.B.T Yes Youth community find common cause with elderly Calvinist nationalists or with the millionaire SNP donor who backed Clause 28. Instead converts chant the same mantra – YES – to cover all the cracks between their mutual hatred"
On the other hand, there is a very interesting* article in the Herald today about the need for independence to enable socialist views to be properly taken into account: essentially, calling for the foundation of a new ILP.
*Not that I vote Trot. But 2016 will also be very interesting.
Morrison explains it in his article perfectly about every faction dreaming that they and only they will control an independent scotland.
The greens dreaming of making scotland into an ecological utopia, socialists of a socialist utopia, capitalists of a capitalist utopia, calvinists of a religious utopia, gays of a gay utopia ect ect.
It's the ideological inconsistency of the SNP that is another of it's main characteristics. If you want purity on political positions, the SNP is not for you.
The undersigned very strongly believe that JohnO is long overdue for ennoblement. Under his stewardship Elmbridge has become a giant tax payer powerhouse, whilst at the same time remaining extremely beautiful, clean, law abiding and scandal free. How he manages this on that pittance he charges his council tax payers we will never know.
We see him as the nation's chief conditioning coach, maintaining a great environment for the many of the country's foremost tax paying athletes to thrive and narrow the nation's deficit to the best of their abilities....
He is, in short, the Sir David Brailsford of government revenues....
Calm down, chaps. You're getting yourselves into a ridiculous flap over nothing.
1. The likelihood is that it's a No, for the reasons very succinctly laid out in Shadsy's excellent piece.
2. If it's a No, Cameron is safe. All the fuss about Barnett will be forgotten rapidly. This is especially true if, as is likely, the margin is reasonably big.
3. In fact, in the event of a clear No, Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question.
4. In the unlikely event that it's a Yes, things are much more unpredictable. The likelihood is that Cameron will remain PM, although I agree there's a small chance that he might resign. In practice the focus will be on the enormity of the shock, in the EU as well as in the UK. That shock will be bigger for Labour than for the Conservatives, of course, for all the reasons SeanT has eloquently expressed in the past.
Western Isles is predicted to be the first result to declare. If it votes YES the markets will probably over-react since it'll be the only real data for them to work with. Some good betting opportunities may present themselves at that point.
I thought that Orkney was predicted for the same time (and looking at your spreadsheet has a slightly smaller electorate and is less spread out in terms of getting ballot boxes to a central location (presumably Kirkwall)). Given Orkney is likely to be No, which of the 2 declares first could totally affect the betting markets in either direction.
I'm counting on one 'yes' and one 'no' being enough to spook betfair punters down from the 5.3 or so for 'yes' they were at earlier.
Indeed. I do wonder where predicted declaration times come from, and why different places are so different sometimes. I mean, Clackmannanshire with an electorate of just 39,970 and reasonably geographically small should be one of the first to declare (all other things being equal) but is predicted for 4am, whereas Dumfries which is geographically spread and has an electorate 3 times the size is predicted for 3am. The only thing that I can think of is general competence / diligence and the number of counting staff employed - or am I missing something obvious?
If we get a YES it'll mean they were all totally and wildly wrong. Has that ever happened before? All the bookies and all the pollsters calling it wrong?
Bradford West By-Election, 2012 (although I don't believe that there were any polls)
You are not being asked to trust me. It is the Police Federation who are repudiating the nonsense with which you seem to agree.
Any reading of their press release indicates their rejection of the press reporting on the issue
some anonymous plod.
"Brian Docherty, Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation" - named in the first sentence of the first paragraph of something you purport to have read.
Impressive.
Brian Docherty who scored two goals for St Mirren in their 5-3 win over George Best's Fulham in the 77/78 Anglo-Scottish cup? How dare anyone call him anonymous?
If we get a YES it'll mean they were all totally and wildly wrong. Has that ever happened before? All the bookies and all the pollsters calling it wrong?
All the polls have it 48-52, in a 2 way battle you only need a 2% swing to get the opposite result, that is why I declare it too close to call.
I wonder if, like some of us, David Cameron and Ed Miliband are right now staring at the Betfair markets, constantly refreshing, to see if their careers are in ruins, or not.
Vote NO, get Ed! Vote YES, get (rid of) Dave!
The result will be a disaster for Dave whatever happens.
Indeed it will. If it's a yes he's toast. If it's a big majority for no then he will be crucified by his own party for offering unnecessary concessions at the behest of Gordon Brown and Labour. If it's a narrow no then he will be blamed for the bitterness and resentment that will follow.
I'm beginning to think that he might be forced out whatever the indyref result. He is in for a torrid few weeks and then there is Clacton.......
Perhaps; you may well be right. Talk about 2010 being the wrong election to win...
Dave was over-promoted, and far too early. Did he not become Tory leader only four years after becoming an MP?
Something like that, Cap'n Doc. And you are correct. Cameron was over-promoted, as is now being regularly exposed as such. I suppose the problem for the Conservatives at the time was who else was there? It is an issue that I think is going to come back to them in the next year or two, someone one is going to have to replace him, but who?
Not that this is a problem confined to the Conservative Party. Just have a look at Labour's front bench.
Since you're about, Brian Coleman has been very quiet of late, should we be worried ?
Au contraire, my understanding - from impeccable sources - is that he and his most fervent admirer, Sean Fear, are, even as we speak, working on the precise timing when the People's Brian comes out (sic) for UKIP.
If we get a YES it'll mean they were all totally and wildly wrong. Has that ever happened before? All the bookies and all the pollsters calling it wrong?
They are all saying a YES is roughly 20%. I think thats too low, but even accepting just a 20% chance no-one should be especially surprised if it is YES... The consistency amongst the bookies means little; just the sign of a relatively efficient market, not surprising given the volume of bets.
If we get a YES it'll mean they were all totally and wildly wrong. Has that ever happened before? All the bookies and all the pollsters calling it wrong?
All the polls have it 48-52, in a 2 way battle you only need a 2% swing to get the opposite result, that is why I declare it too close to call.
On the other hand, virtually all of the (proper) polls have No winning.
Calm down, chaps. You're getting yourselves into a ridiculous flap over nothing.
1. The likelihood is that it's a No, for the reasons very succinctly laid out in Shadsy's excellent piece.
2. If it's a No, Cameron is safe. All the fuss about Barnett will be forgotten rapidly. This is especially true if, as is likely, the margin is reasonably big.
3. In fact, in the event of a clear No, Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question.
4. In the unlikely event that it's a Yes, things are much more unpredictable. The likelihood is that Cameron will remain PM, although I agree there's a small chance that he might resign. In practice the focus will be on the enormity of the shock, in the EU as well as in the UK. That shock will be bigger for Labour than for the Conservatives, of course, for all the reasons SeanT has eloquently expressed in the past.
You might wish Barnett to be forgotten, but we won't forget. It was in both the Tories and the Lib Dems manifestos to change it to a fair system, but instead their leaders have come out with a vow to enshrine it long term.
I'm fed up of our money in the South East being handed over to the Scots so they can get higher levels of spending than we get. The fact it's now being done to reward them for disloyalty just makes it worse.
If we get a YES it'll mean they were all totally and wildly wrong. Has that ever happened before? All the bookies and all the pollsters calling it wrong?
Surely the bookies don't care if they 'look stupid' if they make a profit, and would only 'look stupid' in that event to people who don't understand gambling. If Yes wins and the bookies make money, it's the losing punters who look more stupid.
Calm down, chaps. You're getting yourselves into a ridiculous flap over nothing.
1. The likelihood is that it's a No, for the reasons very succinctly laid out in Shadsy's excellent piece.
2. If it's a No, Cameron is safe. All the fuss about Barnett will be forgotten rapidly. This is especially true if, as is likely, the margin is reasonably big.
3. In fact, in the event of a clear No, Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question.
4. In the unlikely event that it's a Yes, things are much more unpredictable. The likelihood is that Cameron will remain PM, although I agree there's a small chance that he might resign. In practice the focus will be on the enormity of the shock, in the EU as well as in the UK. That shock will be bigger for Labour than for the Conservatives, of course, for all the reasons SeanT has eloquently expressed in the past.
Since you're about, Brian Coleman has been very quiet of late, should we be worried ?
Au contraire, my understanding - from impeccable sources - is that he and his most fervent admirer, Sean Fear, are, even as we speak, working on the precise timing when the People's Brian comes out (sic) for UKIP.
If we get a YES it'll mean they were all totally and wildly wrong. Has that ever happened before? All the bookies and all the pollsters calling it wrong?
Bookies are just reacting to the punters. If they get a stream of London gentlemen coming through the door looking to lay £800,000 on a result they need to set a price to balance the books.
Comments
Mr Brooke, I don;t see what else Dave could have done, given the situation.
Vote YES, get (rid of) Dave!
1. I believe Cameron did err - and needlesly so - by co-signing the 'vow'. Won't make a scrap of difference to the result tomorrrow and created a hostage to fortune.
2. As you noble Esherites are doubtless aware, Elmbridge will have frozen its share of Council Tax for seven of the last nine years (there will be no increase in 2015-16) with no reduction in services. Irrefutable reasons to keep faith with your local blue lovelies.
A couple of very interesting posts. I agree that in the booth waverers may go for the rather slanted question.
I think it was George Orwell who pointed out that while men were willing to go over the top shouting "liberty! fraternity! equality!" very few would be willing to do the same shouting "a higher standard of living!"
I am hoping for a Yes, but forecasting a no.
So the relative lack of comparable elections makes things harder than normal even with only two options to account for.
Perhaps it is because war correspondents and political correspondents have rather different views of what their jobs entail? I rather doubt that war correspondents would be remotely bothered by mob tactics north of the border.
And we could all see it if only the creators of the Book of Mormon stage show would do a show on them.
You are not being asked to trust me. It is the Police Federation who are repudiating the nonsense with which you seem to agree.
Any reading of their press release indicates their rejection of the press reporting on the issue
Rochdale
Plebgate
Yewtree
Phone hacking
You want us to trust the police without questioning ? Who is the head of the PF and who appointed him ?
And the Electoral,Commission rewrote Salmond's original question - removing his "Do you agree that".
The process has been absolutely fine (including those who could vote, and I write as a "disenfranchised" (sic) Scot).
There's a prize for the winner.
Thanks for the reply. Your constant vigilance with regard to our tax revenues is much appreciated.
In any event, tomorrow is a national test of intelligence that I dearly hope Scotland will fail by voting Yes, but I'm afraid I'll be disappointed.
In fact for those English who share my views, a No vote is going to feel much worse than it will feel for Nats. They'll still be stuck with England, but England will still be stuck with Scotland.
Dave. Are you listening? Daaaaave?
Or can you suggest a less "biased" question?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.110033387
Any reason why the police would go out of their way to actively lie about this??
If they did not feel strongly that lies about the Scottish public (all the Scottish public) they could simply have remained silent.
The fact that they have felt compelled for a second time to repudiate the lies even today being spread by the Telegraph, the Mail and others really ought you to make you think about the lies and deception being perpetrated by the British press on England in particular.
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/irish-history/todo/951 and the interplay of politics and fighting.
There was more bitterness (and civil war) after the independence treaty was agreed than in getting to the treaty. There was a great deal of pain but I suspect that most Irish people today, who value their independence, would say it was worth the pain.
So I have come to the conclusion that if I were Scottish, I would vote YES if I were young (long term benefits out-weigh short term pain) but NO if I were old (no long term).
Being English (and old) I hope they vote NO because in the event of YES, England will also suffer pain and distraction for years but with no long term benefit.
Looks to me like its been framed in a way that ultimately says, "if you want higher spending on healthcare in Scotland, it's in your gift to raise it from your own income tax powers."
Dave remember my stint covers the Tory Party conference and the Clacton By-election, just saying.
Only joking. £50 in free bets at Ladbrokes.
2nd prize - 2 weeks in Scotland
As Eck wants to join the EU IMHO "Should Scotland be an independent country" could be construed as misleading; as being an independent country is not offer, only a change from being a UK dependency to an EU dependency
Which is not a pedantic thing to say post Lisbon, now that the EU has a legal personality and can issue regulations with the force of law not just directives to member governments asking them to change their law.
Someone asked me a couple of days back on what grounds legal challenges could be made if the result was very close Yes. There is one.
Here is the truth which yet again today rejects the unionist lies about this referendum”
Those are your words, not the Police Federations.
If you believe there has been no intimidation, no vandalisation of posters and property during the course of this campaign and everything has been sweetness and light, then that is a matter for your goodself.
I can only assume they have a very efficient way of transporting the ballot boxes.
I'm beginning to think that he might be forced out whatever the indyref result. He is in for a torrid few weeks and then there is Clacton.......
http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/
"How can the Greens reconcile themselves with the ‘let’s make Scotland a new Saudi Arabia’ oil barons? How can the radical left reconcile themselves with the pro-capitalist Business for Scotland group? Or the L.G.B.T Yes Youth community find common cause with elderly Calvinist nationalists or with the millionaire SNP donor who backed Clause 28. Instead converts chant the same mantra – YES – to cover all the cracks between their mutual hatred"
"The answer is that the factions within the Yes camp are all dreaming that they will have more power in the new Scotland ‘after the referendum.’ Bigger fish in the smaller pond. The Greens will have more power than they ever could in the UK. Business leaders will have more influence over Scottish government. The hard left will finally realise its dream of seizing power and creating a perfect socialist nation. Each group is dreaming of this fresh new country (as clean as a white sheet, as unsullied as a newborn) in which they themselves dominate and hold control. Clearly these groups can’t all have more power and the banner they share is a fantasy of a unity that is not actually there."
Certainly if it does not vote Yes then No has won very comfortably.
*Not that I vote Trot. But 2016 will also be very interesting.
Impressive.
Roses are Green,
Violets are White,
the Sun is a Square,
and Shines Every Night,
It dosent mean that the clear postition of the Scottish Government has any basis in reality.
The SNP's original question (which, remember Cameron had agreed to let them write) was "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?".
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/153689/Ipsos-MORI-Scotland-question-testing-report-24-January-2013.pdf
The undersigned very strongly believe that JohnO is long overdue for ennoblement. Under his stewardship Elmbridge has become a giant tax payer powerhouse, whilst at the same time remaining extremely beautiful, clean, law abiding and scandal free. How he manages this on that pittance he charges his council tax payers we will never know.
We see him as the nation's chief conditioning coach, maintaining a great environment for the many of the country's foremost tax paying athletes to thrive and narrow the nation's deficit to the best of their abilities....
He is, in short, the Sir David Brailsford of government revenues....
The political watchdog allowed the extremist Britain First party to use the slogan "Remember Lee Rigby" on voting slips for next month's European election
The Electoral Commission has apologised after allowing an extremist party to use a slogan featuring murdered soldier Lee Rigby.
The watchdog had given the green light for Britain First to use the description "Remember Lee Rigby" on voting slips for next month's European poll.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10789891/Electoral-Commission-sorry-for-extremist-party-use-of-Lee-Rigby-slogan.html
The greens dreaming of making scotland into an ecological utopia, socialists of a socialist utopia, capitalists of a capitalist utopia, calvinists of a religious utopia, gays of a gay utopia ect ect.
It's the ideological inconsistency of the SNP that is another of it's main characteristics.
If you want purity on political positions, the SNP is not for you.
1. The likelihood is that it's a No, for the reasons very succinctly laid out in Shadsy's excellent piece.
2. If it's a No, Cameron is safe. All the fuss about Barnett will be forgotten rapidly. This is especially true if, as is likely, the margin is reasonably big.
3. In fact, in the event of a clear No, Cameron may well end up taking a lot of credit, because he'll have seen off the break-up of the union, closed down the issue, and manoeuvred Labour and the LibDems into a position where they can no longer pretend not to have noticed the West Lothian Question.
4. In the unlikely event that it's a Yes, things are much more unpredictable. The likelihood is that Cameron will remain PM, although I agree there's a small chance that he might resign. In practice the focus will be on the enormity of the shock, in the EU as well as in the UK. That shock will be bigger for Labour than for the Conservatives, of course, for all the reasons SeanT has eloquently expressed in the past.
Since you're about, Brian Coleman has been very quiet of late, should we be worried ?
http://www.spf.org.uk/people/joint-central-committe/
http://www.stmirren.info/id384.html
Not that this is a problem confined to the Conservative Party. Just have a look at Labour's front bench.
I think thats too low, but even accepting just a 20% chance no-one should be especially surprised if it is YES...
The consistency amongst the bookies means little; just the sign of a relatively efficient market, not surprising given the volume of bets.
On the other hand, virtually all of the (proper) polls have No winning.
I'm fed up of our money in the South East being handed over to the Scots so they can get higher levels of spending than we get. The fact it's now being done to reward them for disloyalty just makes it worse.