Morning all. So we could be in the final 24hrs of David Cameron's Prime Ministership!!!!!
On that the die is cast. His "Vow" has been very, very poorly received by Tory backbenchers, I think yes or no, Dave is in trouble. He made too many concessions without consulting his party which will be too hard to sell on the doorstep against UKIP in England.
Maybe. It could go either way - if Cameron uses the "concessions" to Scotland to address the WLQ for the English, then he may yet pull this off.
Mr. Max, Cameron often seems to disregard his own MPs. It's almost as if he considered 'job done' as far as the PCP was concerned once he became leader.
In some cases being leader means he does need to do that and be firm, but in an election year, up against UKIP and with English people wondering why Scotland is going to receive more fiscal autonomy and keep the £1500 Barnett bung, Dave has made a massive error. Whatever Tory loyalistson here say there is no way rank and file Tories view the "Vow" as ssomething that can be kicked into the long grass, it was too public and for Dave to renege would just bring up the same issues as the Lisbon Treaty referendum that wasn't.
Mr. Max, Cameron often seems to disregard his own MPs. It's almost as if he considered 'job done' as far as the PCP was concerned once he became leader.
In some cases being leader means he does need to do that and be firm, but in an election year, up against UKIP and with English people wondering why Scotland is going to receive more fiscal autonomy and keep the £1500 Barnett bung.
Helping retail sales by buying lots of pointless high energy consuming vaccuum cleaners?
Such idiocy brings capitalism into disrepute.
Vacuum cleaners have gone political!! They are part of the Class War now. Strange times
The odd thing is that in the run up to the ban, one well known uk selling company was selling (in £) some very powerful ones >2kW with a significant discount, as you would expect when it is days away from being banned.
Go to their website now and it has not been withdrawn, is still on sale, and has gone back to full price. So it looks like they have just stuck two fingers up to the EU.
That is a result of the exact wording of the ban. It is on importing or manufacturing any further higher power models. But it does not prevent the continued sale of existing stock.
It is an utterly bizarre ban.
Vacuum cleaners are not in use 24/7 in every home. Their contribution to energy consumption is not that great when you look at all the other things that are in use in a domestic setting. What is likely to happen is that people will have to run their new lower power machines for longer - and thus still use about the same amount of energy as before to achieve the same result.
It is policies like this that make people wonder about the EU and their priorities.
I know nothing about vacuum cleaners, but the argument is that you can get the necessary suckage without needing all those watts, and people buy them because they also don't know their vacuum cleaners and assume moar must be better. If that's right then you get a energy-saving win without much practical downside, although I'd still be opposed because freedom.
Except it is simply not true. The leading low wattage alternatives have been tested by various organisations and found to be no where near as effective. What it actually means is that people will simply use the machines for longer to get the same effect which kind of removes the point of the ban.
I've been dreaming of a time when the English are sick to death of Labour, and Tories
I think I made the same comment last time those lyrics were posted - ah yes, the immigrant son of immigrants who doesnt like immigration.
He's a complex creature, but isn't it mass immigration he dislikes?
But still, the English are sick to death of Labour and Tories, doesn't the percentage of the vote they get in GEs show that?
No, Labour and Tories are the two most popular parties in England.
Vastly more popular than all the other parties put together!
People sometimes forget this with all this UKIP stuff. Even amongst the working class, who are supposedly in open revolt (mainly against bluddy immigrunts), Labour and the Tories are still far more popular than any other party.
Another thing that gets lost is the rise of the Greens. Sure they haven't made quite the same inroads as UKIP, but still, no hysterical "people are fed up with the elite" over-excitement about the Green surge from the rightwing Establishment media.
There have been some quiet notes made about the Green's progress, and to be fair the media tried to ignore the rise of UKIP in the polls until they started to pass the Lib Dems and the 10% barrier, as well as doing well in some by-elections.
Today's YouGov has the Greens on 5%, compared to 8% for the Lib Dems and 13% for UKIP.
Monday's Populus put the Greens on 3%, behind the Lib Dems on 9% and UKIP on 13%, and even behind the SNP on a GB-wide 4%!
The latest ICM was Lib Dems 10%, UKIP 9%, Greens 7%.
The latest Ashcroft poll was UKIP 14%, Lib Dems 9%, Greens 6%.
So the average for the Greens is about 5%, compared to the UKIP average of 12.5%.
Here at least it's NO. I'm sure. People keep whispering such things as good luck, lets hope,please God , etc...
As I have no horse in this race I feel a bit of a fraud but make no mistake this vote matters HUGELY to the people voting here. 'Ve never met such concerned voters
It reveals that nearly six in 10 No voters were motivated more by “fear” of the consequences of Independence than of “hope” for the future. That figure will cause a huge row in Scotland, fuelling Mr Salmond’s claims that threats of economic perils under independence swayed the outcome. Eight in 10 Yes voters said they were motivated more by hope than fear.
Around three-quarters of Scots said they were more influenced by the practicalities of independence than by a feeling of national identity. Some 24 per cent of Yes voters said they were motivated by feelings of national identity, compared with just 15 per cent of the pro-UK side. Men favoured independence 53-47 for Yes, while women were 42-58. People aged 25 to 34 were the most passionate Bravehearts, dividing 73 to 27 for Yes. Those aged over-55 were split two-to-one in favour of No
Here at least it's NO. I'm sure. People keep whispering such things as good luck, lets hope,please God , etc...
As I have no horse in this race I feel a bit of a fraud but make no mistake this vote matters HUGELY to the people voting here. 'Ve never met such concerned voters
Different crowds at different times, working age men are a key voter group that are polling in favour of no, let's see what their reaction to No campaigners are at 6pm.
Hmm. As others have mentioned, the seeming 4 hour wait of nothingness between polls closing and the first expected results makes me think it might be better to just go to bed rather than stay up.
Shadsy, what is your feeling on turnout? I note the register has increased by 8% approx which I guess will drive the turnout down by increasing the available pool of voters, but in a contest this tight and given remarkably high certainty to vote predictions and Quebec precedent, what would the mid-point of your over/under be if you had no existing liabilities at this moment? Does 83% feel right?
That throws up a thought about the comparison between the US 'myths' (meaning national legend) about independence compared to the SNP stuff.
The wordings on the various US memorials are every bit as strong as the SNP rhetoric ('England the abusive husband', non-SNP Scots being "anti-Scottish" etc) and their wallowings in 700 year old history (Scots Wa Hae) but don't carry an edge of contemporary xenophobia.
An interesting contrast.
I loved the "parcel of rogues" insults thrown at the BBC. 1791 here we come. It made Paisley's "Whore of Babylon" stuff sound almost modern.
Here at least it's NO. I'm sure. People keep whispering such things as good luck, lets hope,please God , etc...
As I have no horse in this race I feel a bit of a fraud but make no mistake this vote matters HUGELY to the people voting here. 'Ve never met such concerned voters
Are you on telling duty all day? If so I'm very impressed by your dedication.
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Re point 1: England was not insular before 1707 - it was already in the throws of creating an Empire and the English were exploring the globe for nearly 2 centuries by then. I don't think England will become insular again as a result of Scotland leaving. Nor do I assume that Scotland will go back to being poor.
The Empire was largely built by Scots and Irish Administrators and Governors. The Empire began to decline when those posts became "lucrative" rather than dangerous and when the gentry (largely English) handed out those posts as sinecures to hangers-on and family.
Most economists, bankers and politicians are adamant that Scotland will be financially much worse off. Looking at the facts and figures presented I cannot dispute their claims as they seem to be soundly based.
Point 2: it may or may not. That rather depends on how we deal with it.
How we deal with a financial mess that we did not have to create? Which is better - to make the problem and then solve it or to find a way to avoid having the problem in the first place?
Point 3: it is possible to disagree without it turning into a rancorous dispute.
It should be possible, but obviously it was not. This referendum has been anything but smooth and good natured.I think it has stirred up bitterness on both sides.
Point 4: So the reason for Scotland to stay is so that their youth can emigrate. Hmm?? Their youth can emigrate to England anyway even if independent.
No... you have misread it or I was not clear enough. Scottish talent makes a difference down here in England where they have more opportunity because it is a larger economy. They should not have to emigrate to get that opportunity, they should have it as a birth-right like they do now. That will be taken away from them and both they and we will lose out. They will now be non-EU foreigners with less rights than before.
It just doesn't seem very much to me. But appreciate that I'm not Scots. If I - as a Londoner with Irish roots - feel so ho-hum about it, I'm not surprised that so many Scots feel the need to go off on their own.
As someone from Belfast, I can understand the importance of the union. Even many in the nationalist community in Belfast (quietly) supported the union with the mainland because they were not stupid.
@JohnRentoul 5m Four final polls with fieldwork yesterday average 47.4% Yes (Panelbase 47% with squeeze Q, Survation 47%, YouGov 48%, now Ipsos MORI 47%)
EDIT: I believe my pb poll prediction was 47.3! Probably means it will now be a YES win by 8 points.
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
All the indications from the mood in North Lanarkshire is that it will be safely No. The only question is how much.
Turnout 25% at Partick in Glasgow at 10am. Estimated vote by No campaign team outside was 80%. Glasgow will be close. Partick is very mixed, as I watched the voters go in for 15 mins and it was about 50/50. No voters go in and don't look at anyone. Yes voters make it easy to tell by wearing badges.
@Beverley C: "Dreams are often very unreal - that is why people like them."
Yes - and they can also point the way to changing things for the better. Cf: The "I have a dream...." speech.
If you never dream you never do anything.
(Possibly the fact that I've recently been to NY and seen the museum at Ellis Island where all those people with scarcely more than the clothes on their back arrived with their dreams is influencing me.)
There is nothing wrong with dreams, but you cannot eat them or put food on the table. They may indeed point the way to better things but they are just as likely to point they way to disaster. Many people's dreams are just unfulfillable wish fantasies that never stand a chance of becoming true.
I have dreams of my own. I try not to make the mistake of mixing up the impossible with the possible.
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
To make Southam feel better, we should all list our worst predictions.
I give you the following
1) Hazel Blears as next Labour leader after Gordon Brown
2) Topping up on James Purnell to be next Labour leader after Gordon Brown, within 5 hours he announced he was stepping down as an MP
3) Joe Lieberman as John McCain's running mate in 2008
#3 was another one of those things that you could only believed if you read a lot of American media but never really spoke to average Americans. I'd never met a Republican who would have tolerated Lieberman.
However, here are mine (all about American politics, but then that's where my predictions mainly are):
1. Huckabee would win South Carolina in 2008 2. Rick Perry would be in the running for GOP nominee in 2012 3. Sarah Palin would run for GOP nominee in 2012
Are there no exit polls today at all? When are we going to get the first indication of the way the vote is going?
First results are expected around 2am, however, I'm expecting people to be tweeting after 10pm saying ballot boxes open here, and it has Yes or No ahead.
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
Why do they think they should be entitled to vote on English matters when they want Scottish matters decided only by the Scottish?
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
If they didn't want a second class position in Westminster they shouldn't have removed their constituencies from being affected by Westminster legislation. This is just another case of Scots wanting to have their cake and eat it. The double standards to their whinging are stunning.
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
Why do they think they should be entitled to vote on English matters when they want Scottish matters decided only by the Scottish?
Given almost everything is linked to our pocket money it is debatable if there are ever any English only matters, they all have consequences for Scotland perhaps.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
But it would be in the context of more powers for Holyrood, and in that scenario it wouldn't actually be in the interests of any of the Scottish parties to try to make capital out of any new settlement. The SNP will be claiming it's all great because they 'stood up for Scotland' and extracted concessions out of Westminster, and Labour will be claiming that they were right to argue for more devolution instead of independence. Overall, the focus in Scotland will, for better or worse, be on Holyrood, I would have thought.
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
Why do they think they should be entitled to vote on English matters when they want Scottish matters decided only by the Scottish?
Given almost everything is linked to our pocket money it is debatable if there are ever any English only matters, they all have consequences for Scotland perhaps.
Couldn't the same be said about Scottish matters to the English?
Are there no exit polls today at all? When are we going to get the first indication of the way the vote is going?
There's a few guides to judge how results point to national picture. I'll post one up later, or if you look up Chris Hanretty on twitter he had a good one.
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
Why do they think they should be entitled to vote on English matters when they want Scottish matters decided only by the Scottish?
It's not based on logic. It's based on having a massive chip on their shoulder. If anything can be framed in such a way that makes it sound like the Scots are hard done by they'll interpret it that way, regardless of the reality. It's like them believing Scotland pays into the exchequer despite all evidence.
That works out to 6.11% vs 5.3% in favour of Yes, which is 53:47. Not enough, new voters were supposed to break more heavily to Yes after reports that the Yes side were getting these people to register for the first time.
Yes amid all their misery they just thought , I am going to sign up to vote for the first time in my life just so I can vote no and ensure the rest of my life is just as miserable. Sounds plausible for sure.
Re point 1: England was not insular before 1707 - it was already in the throws of creating an Empire and the English were exploring the globe for nearly 2 centuries by then. I don't think England will become insular again as a result of Scotland leaving. Nor do I assume that Scotland will go back to being poor.
Most economists, bankers and politicians are adamant that Scotland will be financially much worse off. Looking at the facts and figures presented I cannot dispute their claims as they seem to be soundly based.
Point 2: it may or may not. That rather depends on how we deal with it.
How we deal with a financial mess that we did not have to create? Which is better - to make the problem and then solve it or to find a way to avoid having the problem in the first place?
Point 3: it is possible to disagree without it turning into a rancorous dispute.
It should be possible, but obviously it was not. This referendum has been anything but smooth and good natured.I think it has stirred up bitterness on both sides.
Point 4: So the reason for Scotland to stay is so that their youth can emigrate. Hmm?? Their youth can emigrate to England anyway even if independent.
No... you have misread it or I was not clear enough. Scottish talent makes a difference down here in England where they have more opportunity because it is a larger economy. They should not have to emigrate to get that opportunity, they should have it as a birth-right like they do now. That will be taken away from them and both they and we will lose out. They will now be non-EU foreigners with less rights than before.
It just doesn't seem very much to me. But appreciate that I'm not Scots. If I - as a Londoner with Irish roots - feel so ho-hum about it, I'm not surprised that so many Scots feel the need to go off on their own.
As someone from Belfast, I can understand the importance of the union. Even many in the nationalist community in Belfast (quietly) supported the union with the mainland because they were not stupid.
Thank you.
Re this point: "Most economists, bankers and politicians are adamant that Scotland will be financially much worse off. "
This may be so. I work daily with bankers and economists and, occasionally, politicians, cleaning up the messes they create. Possibly as a result I do not have a very high regard for their judgment or knowledge or, indeed, forecasts!
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
Why do they think they should be entitled to vote on English matters when they want Scottish matters decided only by the Scottish?
It's not that there is any objection to a solution in principle - look what the SNP already do, abstain on English issues. (though some LDs and labour might object on partisan grounds).
It's the fact that some proposed solutions only introduce new injustices. For instance reducing the number of Scots constituencies below the population-derived norm would reduce the Scottish say in, for instance, defence or general fiscal policy below the fair one.
Yes amid all their misery they just thought , I am going to sign up to vote for the first time in my life just so I can vote no and ensure the rest of my life is just as miserable. Sounds plausible for sure.
Most people are not so unhinged as to base their life happiness on nationalistic lines
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
Why do they think they should be entitled to vote on English matters when they want Scottish matters decided only by the Scottish?
Given almost everything is linked to our pocket money it is debatable if there are ever any English only matters, they all have consequences for Scotland perhaps.
Couldn't the same be said about Scottish matters to the English?
No because the English decide the level of pocket money and where all the money is spent.
I'm minded to put some money on the No winning margin being larger than expected. 55-45, 56-44, that sort of thing. Where's the best value to be had backing this position? Betfair has a vote share market, but the price on the 40-45% bracket doesn't appeal.
So EVERYONE has to be wrong now, the money markets, the pollsters, the bookies.
That's how group think works. Indeed, the top investors are the contrarian. They realise that the halfwits on the markets are like sheep and do the opposite, making themselves and their clients very wealthy. They don't need bailouts when it all goes wrong..
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
Why do they think they should be entitled to vote on English matters when they want Scottish matters decided only by the Scottish?
Given almost everything is linked to our pocket money it is debatable if there are ever any English only matters, they all have consequences for Scotland perhaps.
Couldn't the same be said about Scottish matters to the English?
No because the English decide the level of pocket money and where all the money is spent.
The entire UK decides the level of money. But given the subsidy is from London and the South East, perhaps only MPs in that area should vote...
Yes amid all their misery they just thought , I am going to sign up to vote for the first time in my life just so I can vote no and ensure the rest of my life is just as miserable. Sounds plausible for sure.
Most people are not so unhinged as to base their life happiness on nationalistic lines
How is having a miserable life nationalistic and how is voting for a better life nationalistic.
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
Why do they think they should be entitled to vote on English matters when they want Scottish matters decided only by the Scottish?
Given almost everything is linked to our pocket money it is debatable if there are ever any English only matters, they all have consequences for Scotland perhaps.
Couldn't the same be said about Scottish matters to the English?
No because the English decide the level of pocket money and where all the money is spent.
And the Scottish MPs don't get to vote on that too?
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
Why do they think they should be entitled to vote on English matters when they want Scottish matters decided only by the Scottish?
Given almost everything is linked to our pocket money it is debatable if there are ever any English only matters, they all have consequences for Scotland perhaps.
Couldn't the same be said about Scottish matters to the English?
No because the English decide the level of pocket money and where all the money is spent.
You get far more money that the oil revenues, poor wales gets almost nothing because all the money has to go to the SNP's pocket. Furthermore the SNP decides what to do with the money they get.
I'm minded to put some money on the No winning margin being larger than expected. 55-45, 56-44, that sort of thing. Where's the best value to be had backing this position? Betfair has a vote share market, but the price on the 40-45% bracket doesn't appeal.
spreadex are spread betting on the percentage vote I believe- the more right you are ,the more you win!!
First time voters are all over the place. My son was telling me about a friend who is son of a Russian oligarch went to the most expensive private school in the world in Switzerland, is studying at Edinburgh Uni and plans to vote Yes as he wants a socialist state like they have in Russia.
On the other hand 2 of his 3 flat mates are No voters, Scottish middle class boys, and the one who is a Yes comes from a hippy family. Both parents are classical musicians. However not sure if any of them will actually get to vote as most are working and got classes as well.
A petition of more than 1,000 signatures raised by islanders from Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles calling for a separate referendum on whether they could themselves become independent was rejected last month by the Scottish government, which said it had promised new powers to the three island groups.
Why do we have to make the WLQ solution so complicated? If a bill is classified as an English Bill - covering education, health, social welfare or other areas that are devolved - it would go to an English Grand Committee on which only English MPs sit. Without their approval, the Bill falls. Obviously, finance bills, defence bills, etc. are UK-wide, so all MPs would have a say. Simples. (c) John Major's proposal to satisfy the Scots in the 80s.
If YES wins, scots will live in terror under an SNP dictatorship.
It's posts like this that will make me miss the referendum campaign.
I know it's something that is usually found on twitter, but i'm banging that Salmond is a totalitarian for ages and his campaign simply reinforced my view.
If YES wins, scots will live in terror under an SNP dictatorship.
It's posts like this that will make me miss the referendum campaign.
I know it's something that is usually found on twitter, but i'm banging that Salmond is a totalitarian for ages and his campaign simply reinforced my view.
Here's a former verse of the national anthem apparently used in 1745. Better together clearly decided it was best not to air it for some reason
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush, and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God save The Queen.
and YES have not to the best of my knowledge been heard singing this verse of it yet:
God bless the prince, I pray, God bless the prince, I pray, Charlie I mean; That Scotland we may see Freed from vile Presbyt'ry, Both George and his Feckie, Ever so, Amen.
A petition of more than 1,000 signatures raised by islanders from Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles calling for a separate referendum on whether they could themselves become independent was rejected last month by the Scottish government, which said it had promised new powers to the three island groups.
O&S has circa 40% of the oil and gas wealth, did anyone really believe that Salmond would allow them to remain as part of the Union or become a Crown Dependency without a fight? Hopefully Westminster will have the balls to tell Salmond to do one if O&S votes no by a large margin and given them a referendum on remaining as part of the Union, becoming independent or becoming a Crown Dependency.
A petition of more than 1,000 signatures raised by islanders from Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles calling for a separate referendum on whether they could themselves become independent was rejected last month by the Scottish government, which said it had promised new powers to the three island groups.
O&S has circa 40% of the oil and gas wealth, did anyone really believe that Salmond would allow them to remain as part of the Union or become a Crown Dependency without a fight? Hopefully Westminster will have the balls to tell Salmond to do one if O&S votes no by a large margin and given them a referendum on remaining as part of the Union, becoming independent or becoming a Crown Dependency.
If only we had some politicians with some backbone in England. Useless bunch of tossers the lot of them.
Hopefully Westminster will have the balls to tell Salmond to do one if O&S votes no by a large margin and given them a referendum on remaining as part of the Union, becoming independent or becoming a Crown Dependency.
You realise that a 'no' vote is a vote for Scotland to stay in the union not a vote to leave an independent Scotland, right?
... plans to vote Yes as he wants a socialist state like they have in Russia.
?!
Yeah, most bizzare, the son of a russian billionaire not only thinking that Russia is a socialist state but he actually likes being in a socialist state.
What the heck are they teaching them in Edinburgh University?
Interesting aside on the question of the effect the Scottish referendum might have on perceptions of an EU referendum.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Why would addressing the WLQ upset the Scots in that scenario?
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Watching the debates up here in Scotland there has been a fair amount made of the fact that Scots MPs might be relegated to a second class position (as it has been phrased). It does not appear to be popular.
Why do they think they should be entitled to vote on English matters when they want Scottish matters decided only by the Scottish?
Given almost everything is linked to our pocket money it is debatable if there are ever any English only matters, they all have consequences for Scotland perhaps.
Couldn't the same be said about Scottish matters to the English?
No because the English decide the level of pocket money and where all the money is spent.
The entire UK decides the level of money. But given the subsidy is from London and the South East, perhaps only MPs in that area should vote...
But surely Scotland was a major net contributor when North Sea Oil was in its pomp? Shouldn't be forgotten, although Maggie squandered it rather cheaply.
A petition of more than 1,000 signatures raised by islanders from Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles calling for a separate referendum on whether they could themselves become independent was rejected last month by the Scottish government, which said it had promised new powers to the three island groups.
O&S has circa 40% of the oil and gas wealth, did anyone really believe that Salmond would allow them to remain as part of the Union or become a Crown Dependency without a fight? Hopefully Westminster will have the balls to tell Salmond to do one if O&S votes no by a large margin and given them a referendum on remaining as part of the Union, becoming independent or becoming a Crown Dependency.
If only we had some politicians with some backbone in England. Useless bunch of tossers the lot of them.
You're not tempted to stand for election yourself?
I'm not sure how they know this for sure. What was the polling method? I mean by telephone the young don't have landlines but mobiles and that is especially true of the poor young who are the segment who are more likely to vote Yes. I would say 53-47 therefore could be conservative albeit not by much. The main category for Yes is 25-45 which is much stronger Yes than 16-25. In terms of those who have never voted before it's the poor and they are registering in order to vote Yes in great numbers. These are the people Yes hopes are not being picked up and weighted by pollsters. That is the one great imponderable in all this and even the polling companies are acknowledging this factor could make their poll methods skewed.
Well, the Mail has said some pretty unsavoury things about the mood in Scotland. It is overwhelming happy. People know they have participated in a democratic campaign that few in the world can claim to have done including England. Our referendum campaign history is not going to be hijacked by the presstitutes of the tabloids and their bankster advertisers and establishment dirty tricks.
Hopefully Westminster will have the balls to tell Salmond to do one if O&S votes no by a large margin and given them a referendum on remaining as part of the Union, becoming independent or becoming a Crown Dependency.
You realise that a 'no' vote is a vote for Scotland to stay in the union not a vote to leave an independent Scotland, right?
I mean if O&S votes no while the rest of Scotland votes yes.
Comments
Maybe. It could go either way - if Cameron uses the "concessions" to Scotland to address the WLQ for the English, then he may yet pull this off.
'Pal who was a firm Yes voter phoned me to say he's just voted No! Said he had the pencil hovering over Yes but it just didn't feel right'
This will be the first time that if Andy Murray wins he is Scottish and if he loses he's British.
No 53 (+2) No 47 (-2)
The man's a weak fool.
Obviously TSE votes tactically though. I would guess he would never vote UKIP?
Today's YouGov has the Greens on 5%, compared to 8% for the Lib Dems and 13% for UKIP.
Monday's Populus put the Greens on 3%, behind the Lib Dems on 9% and UKIP on 13%, and even behind the SNP on a GB-wide 4%!
The latest ICM was Lib Dems 10%, UKIP 9%, Greens 7%.
The latest Ashcroft poll was UKIP 14%, Lib Dems 9%, Greens 6%.
So the average for the Greens is about 5%, compared to the UKIP average of 12.5%.
As I have no horse in this race I feel a bit of a fraud but make no mistake this vote matters HUGELY to the people voting here. 'Ve never met such concerned voters
Mind you, the same could be said of Caligula's reign.
You could always go postal.
It's going to be a monster turnout..!
Around three-quarters of Scots said they were more influenced by the practicalities of independence than by a feeling of national identity. Some 24 per cent of Yes voters said they were motivated by feelings of national identity, compared with just 15 per cent of the pro-UK side. Men favoured independence 53-47 for Yes, while women were 42-58. People aged 25 to 34 were the most passionate Bravehearts, dividing 73 to 27 for Yes. Those aged over-55 were split two-to-one in favour of No
The wordings on the various US memorials are every bit as strong as the SNP rhetoric ('England the abusive husband', non-SNP Scots being "anti-Scottish" etc) and their wallowings in 700 year old history (Scots Wa Hae) but don't carry an edge of contemporary xenophobia.
An interesting contrast.
I loved the "parcel of rogues" insults thrown at the BBC. 1791 here we come. It made Paisley's "Whore of Babylon" stuff sound almost modern.
Assuming that No pull it off and that Cameron is PM after 2015.
I can see no way on earth that main Westminster parties will be able, politically, to keep their promises to Scotland about further devolution without addressing the the WLQ and making a lot of other moves that will shore up English support but upset the Scots.
As such we will have another perfect example (following on from the 1975 EEC vote) of how the politicians cannot be trusted to keep the promises they make at referendums. I do think that both Yes and No results will serve to help the BOO campaign rather than hinder it.
Most economists, bankers and politicians are adamant that Scotland will be financially much worse off. Looking at the facts and figures presented I cannot dispute their claims as they seem to be soundly based.
How we deal with a financial mess that we did not have to create? Which is better - to make the problem and then solve it or to find a way to avoid having the problem in the first place?
It should be possible, but obviously it was not. This referendum has been anything but smooth and good natured.I think it has stirred up bitterness on both sides.
No... you have misread it or I was not clear enough. Scottish talent makes a difference down here in England where they have more opportunity because it is a larger economy. They should not have to emigrate to get that opportunity, they should have it as a birth-right like they do now. That will be taken away from them and both they and we will lose out. They will now be non-EU foreigners with less rights than before.
As someone from Belfast, I can understand the importance of the union. Even many in the nationalist community in Belfast (quietly) supported the union with the mainland because they were not stupid.
The 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum is now officially PP's biggest ever political event #indyref
First-time voters make up 13% of Yes support, but 10% for No acc to @IpsosMORI. The new aren't just pro-indy: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/scottish-yes-and-myth-masses
Again untrue. The Scots and the Irish disproportionately had colonial posts, but they were not the majority.
More generally, both sides of the EU debate will certainly be able to learn a lot from the IndyRef campaign, and in particular how not to do it! Overall, though, I think the net effect of IndyRef on the EU question is very hard to predict.
Turnout 25% at Partick in Glasgow at 10am. Estimated vote by No campaign team outside was 80%. Glasgow will be close. Partick is very mixed, as I watched the voters go in for 15 mins and it was about 50/50. No voters go in and don't look at anyone. Yes voters make it easy to tell by wearing badges.
I have dreams of my own. I try not to make the mistake of mixing up the impossible with the possible.
However, here are mine (all about American politics, but then that's where my predictions mainly are):
1. Huckabee would win South Carolina in 2008
2. Rick Perry would be in the running for GOP nominee in 2012
3. Sarah Palin would run for GOP nominee in 2012
Re this point: "Most economists, bankers and politicians are adamant that Scotland will be financially much worse off. "
This may be so. I work daily with bankers and economists and, occasionally, politicians, cleaning up the messes they create. Possibly as a result I do not have a very high regard for their judgment or knowledge or, indeed, forecasts!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2760039/Salmond-s-bullies-hit-blind-man-face-just-supporting-No-campaign.html
If YES wins, scots will live in terror under an SNP dictatorship.
It's the fact that some proposed solutions only introduce new injustices. For instance reducing the number of Scots constituencies below the population-derived norm would reduce the Scottish say in, for instance, defence or general fiscal policy below the fair one.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3453/Small-lead-for-No-but-referendum-result-still-looks-extremely-close.aspx
Furthermore the SNP decides what to do with the money they get.
Reminded me of the Guardian when Boris was about to be elected Mayor of London
On the other hand 2 of his 3 flat mates are No voters, Scottish middle class boys, and the one who is a Yes comes from a hippy family. Both parents are classical musicians. However not sure if any of them will actually get to vote as most are working and got classes as well.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/shetland-may-reconsider-place-scotland-yes-vote-alistair-carmichael?CMP=twt_gu
More Scotch hypocrisy. What a surprise.
If a bill is classified as an English Bill - covering education, health, social welfare or other areas that are devolved - it would go to an English Grand Committee on which only English MPs sit. Without their approval, the Bill falls.
Obviously, finance bills, defence bills, etc. are UK-wide, so all MPs would have a say.
Simples.
(c) John Major's proposal to satisfy the Scots in the 80s.
46% in Scotland expect No to win #indyref, 30% expect Yes - can be an important indicator of outcomes http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3453/Small-lead-for-No-but-referendum-result-still-looks-extremely-close.aspx …
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save The Queen.
and YES have not to the best of my knowledge been heard singing this verse of it yet:
God bless the prince, I pray,
God bless the prince, I pray,
Charlie I mean;
That Scotland we may see
Freed from vile Presbyt'ry,
Both George and his Feckie,
Ever so, Amen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_the_Queen
"Tables and Topline will be available shortly."
What the heck are they teaching them in Edinburgh University?
No-one knows today so it's pointless trying to second guess.
Well, the Mail has said some pretty unsavoury things about the mood in Scotland. It is overwhelming happy. People know they have participated in a democratic campaign that few in the world can claim to have done including England. Our referendum campaign history is not going to be hijacked by the presstitutes of the tabloids and their bankster advertisers and establishment dirty tricks.