EIther way though he's screwed because Barnett is the deal breaker.
What's the worst that could happen? Cameron throws up his arms and says 'my party won;t wear it, and neither will England'
What's Salmond going to do if he does? Invade?
Hold another referendum and this time get a Scots mandate that won't even be close to wanting to stay in the UNion. Salmond then demands independence and looking at ways to extricate Scotland from the UK. Given Cameron's betrayal of them it would only be a matter of time before Scotland became independent.
By the way the Barnett commitment pretty much kills off any expectation that the establishment parties will seriously consider an English Parliament and English democratic equality as the first thing an English Parliament (once in the hands of a party that opposes the federal Government) would surely do is challenge the Federal Government over Barnett.
When it comes to political strategy Cameron really is the village idiot. He put himself in yet another lose-lose situation.
Thats not so daft. World war 2 actually started in the early '30s with more localised regional wars eg Japan invading Manchuria.
Quite so. A pity that Western leaders appear all to be Chamberlain types rather than Churchill/Roosevelt ones.
Pre WW2 leaders were less keen on war, not including Herr Hitler and friends, and wanted to negotiate a peace deal. In part this was from personal experience of an extremely aggressive response to an assassination 25 years previously.
The lesson is not to appease, but also not to destroy the people and fabric of the continent by over reaction either. We should learn from both wars, not just the more recent one.
Yes, what roaring successes both wars were, millions dead and loaded with debt. Those recent wars in the Middle East and the Balkans sure panned out too. It shame so few of our current leaders have experienced the horror of war.
The real lesson of both wars is to ensure people have the right to self determination, be they Serbs, Slovaks or Germans. Europe has largely been at peace as we finally have borders that make sense and the empire's are gone.
We entered the second world war because Germany had invaded non-German Czechoslovakia and Poland. We entered the first world war because Germany had invaded non-German Belgium to dominate non-German France after Austria-Hungary tried to establish non-German Serbia as an unofficial electorate. We were entirely right both times.
But in the First World War, we lost our status as leading world economy and lender of last resort, handing it over to America, whose insular 'beggar thy neighbour' economic policies, contrasting with Britain's relatively skilfull handling of the world economy, turned the 20th century into the economically devastating and conflict ridden disaster that it became. It was also the birth of the USSR. Unless you look after yourself first, you're not in a position to help anyone else. 'Rightness' in this case may have given us a warm glow, but it was of little help to the world in the longer run.
Britain's share of world industrial output, etc., was already in decline. It might have ticked up if we'd stayed out of the War, but as a small nation on the edge of a continent dominated by Imperial Germany, I'm not sure we would have been able to reverse our inevitable long-term relative decline.
Totally O/T but thee Yorkshire Cricket Captain seems to be being done for racial abuse of an opponent. Apparently he called said opponent a "Kolpack".
No other abusive words appear to have been used. Is that really "racist" abuse?
You need to look at the context, OKC.
It was part of a bad tempered exchange in which the term was plainly intended to be abusive.
It's like if you called me a Cockney, you couldn't possibly be accused of being abusive. But if you called me a f*cking ignorant Cockney, that's plainly abusive, even though factually correct.
Thats not so daft. World war 2 actually started in the early '30s with more localised regional wars eg Japan invading Manchuria.
Quite so. A pity that Western leaders appear all to be Chamberlain types rather than Churchill/Roosevelt ones.
Pre WW2 leaders were less keen on war, not including Herr Hitler and friends, and wanted to negotiate a peace deal. In part this was from personal experience of an extremely aggressive response to an assassination 25 years previously.
The lesson is not to appease, but also not to destroy the people and fabric of the continent by over reaction either. We should learn from both wars, not just the more recent one.
Yes, what roaring successes both wars were, millions dead and loaded with debt. Those recent wars in the Middle East and the Balkans sure panned out too. It shame so few of our current leaders have experienced the horror of war.
The real lesson of both wars is to ensure people have the right to self determination, be they Serbs, Slovaks or Germans. Europe has largely been at peace as we finally have borders that make sense and the empire's are gone.
We entered the second world war because Germany had invaded non-German Czechoslovakia and Poland. We entered the first world war because Germany had invaded non-German Belgium to dominate non-German France after Austria-Hungary tried to establish non-German Serbia as an unofficial electorate. We were entirely right both times.
Let us for now take your argument that we were correct to join in as being spot on. How did those wars work out for the UK?
I think people are overstating this pledge by Cam/Mili/Clegg.
.... It's actually far, far more Mickey Mouse than people realise.
It's not going to cost England anything.
Indeed.
The "pledge" tells Scotland to use its tax varying powers if it wants to fund the Scottish Health Service - yet according to Dods today, MPs of all hues are up in arms insisting Barnett must be changed.
If it's Yes Cameron has about 20 hours left as PM.
Maybe a bit longer - if he has truly not been contemplating resignation, and has to be pushed, it may take a little while to sort our who the successor would be. Even if he has always planned to go in the event of a Yes win, the arrangements may still take a day or two.
Thats not so daft. World war 2 actually started in the early '30s with more localised regional wars eg Japan invading Manchuria.
Quite so. A pity that Western leaders appear all to be Chamberlain types rather than Churchill/Roosevelt ones.
Pre WW2 leaders were less keen on war, not including Herr Hitler and friends, and wanted to negotiate a peace deal. In part this was from personal experience of an extremely aggressive response to an assassination 25 years previously.
The lesson is not to appease, but also not to destroy the people and fabric of the continent by over reaction either. We should learn from both wars, not just the more recent one.
Yes, what roaring successes both wars were, millions dead and loaded with debt. Those recent wars in the Middle East and the Balkans sure panned out too. It shame so few of our current leaders have experienced the horror of war.
The real lesson of both wars is to ensure people have the right to self determination, be they Serbs, Slovaks or Germans. Europe has largely been at peace as we finally have borders that make sense and the empire's are gone.
We entered the second world war because Germany had invaded non-German Czechoslovakia and Poland. We entered the first world war because Germany had invaded non-German Belgium to dominate non-German France after Austria-Hungary tried to establish non-German Serbia as an unofficial electorate. We were entirely right both times.
But in the First World War, we lost our status as leading world economy and lender of last resort, handing it over to America, whose insular 'beggar thy neighbour' economic policies, contrasting with Britain's relatively skilfull handling of the world economy, turned the 20th century into the economically devastating and conflict ridden disaster that it became. It was also the birth of the USSR. Unless you look after yourself first, you're not in a position to help anyone else. 'Rightness' in this case may have given us a warm glow, but it was of little help to the world in the longer run.
And didn't US GDP outstrip the UK from about 1870?
How will an independent Scotland defend itself if the Russians decide the North Sea oil platforms are in Russian territorial waters?
How would the UK as it exists today? The RN is not actually over endowed with deployable assets and has a very limited anti-surface warfare capability and I think that the RAF no longer has any anti-ship capability at all.
Really?
I don't think they are a credible threat. Putin only has a single aircraft carrier iirc.
UK does have anti-surface capability from surface and air according to Prof Wiki, never mind those hunter-killer subs.
Mr Salmond would shout at them through a toilet roll from a pedalo, and they would have no choice other than to obey because he would be Imperator Scotus Maximus, just as Germany, Spain, France, Italy and the rest of the EU will obe him, and the UK will give him CU because he says so.
Matt
Sorry, Mr. W.. I have obviously missed something what anti-shipping capability does the RAF, have? For that matter what the Fleet Air arm have? A few but not all RN ships have Harpoon missiles (1970s stuff) and of course a gun of at best middling calibre. Aside from the very, very good submarines (of which we might have four or five ready for deployment at anyone one time), the RN looks a bit thin for fighting off a battlegroup from another fairly modern navy.
In fact I really did laugh when a few months ago a RN destroyer, a Type 45 no less and a billion quid ago, was sent to escort a Russian battlegroup through the Channel. Offensive capability of the RN escort one 4.5 inch gun.
The Admiral Kuznetsov is knackered - it can't go anywhere without an escort tug in case in breaks down.
Do you seriously think that the Russians would have attacked a Royal Navy vessel in the Channel?
Totally O/T but thee Yorkshire Cricket Captain seems to be being done for racial abuse of an opponent. Apparently he called said opponent a "Kolpack".
No other abusive words appear to have been used. Is that really "racist" abuse?
You need to look at the context, OKC.
It was part of a bad tempered exchange in which the term was plainly intended to be abusive.
It's like if you called me a Cockney, you couldn't possibly be accused of being abusive. But if you called me a f*cking ignorant Cockney, that's plainly abusive, even though factually correct.
But not racist.
There are/were a lot of white Kolpak players too - and it's a word used in every paper in the Uk repeatedly.
Britain's share of world industrial output, etc., was already in decline. It might have ticked up if we'd stayed out of the War, but as a small nation on the edge of a continent dominated by Imperial Germany, I'm not sure we would have been able to reverse our inevitable long-term relative decline.
I know, and I quite agree. But it would have been a gradual decline, especially since there would have been no WW2, where America simply drained our Empire of everything it had left.
Thats not so daft. World war 2 actually started in the early '30s with more localised regional wars eg Japan invading Manchuria.
Quite so. A pity that Western leaders appear all to be Chamberlain types rather than Churchill/Roosevelt ones.
Pre WW2 leaders were less keen on war, not including Herr Hitler and friends, and wanted to negotiate a peace deal. In part this was from personal experience of an extremely aggressive response to an assassination 25 years previously.
The lesson is not to appease, but also not to destroy the people and fabric of the continent by over reaction either. We should learn from both wars, not just the more recent one.
Yes, what roaring successes both wars were, millions dead and loaded with debt. Those recent wars in the Middle East and the Balkans sure panned out too. It shame so few of our current leaders have experienced the horror of war.
The real lesson of both wars is to ensure people have the right to self determination, be they Serbs, Slovaks or Germans. Europe has largely been at peace as we finally have borders that make sense and the empire's are gone.
We entered the second world war because Germany had invaded non-German Czechoslovakia and Poland. We entered the first world war because Germany had invaded non-German Belgium to dominate non-German France after Austria-Hungary tried to establish non-German Serbia as an unofficial electorate. We were entirely right both times.
But in the First World War, we lost our status as leading world economy and lender of last resort, handing it over to America, whose insular 'beggar thy neighbour' economic policies, contrasting with Britain's relatively skilfull handling of the world economy, turned the 20th century into the economically devastating and conflict ridden disaster that it became. It was also the birth of the USSR. Unless you look after yourself first, you're not in a position to help anyone else. 'Rightness' in this case may have given us a warm glow, but it was of little help to the world in the longer run.
And didn't US GDP outstrip the UK from about 1870?
No. The Stuart Dickson thesis was clear. The higher the turnout the more likely a Yes vote. I cannot recall the exact figures he gave but I think it was something to the effect that >80% and a Yes vote was likely, >85% and it was a certainty.
Obviously if turnout is higher in some areas than others that messes things up.
Well, if the theory turns out wrong I expect Stuart will be along in due course with his explanations, but the way it was put yesterday was very clear - high turnout = high probability of Yes.
I think people are overstating this pledge by Cam/Mili/Clegg.
There is no proposal to devolve VAT, NI, Corporation Tax, CGT, Inheritance Tax.
They are only talking about Income Tax and here, Miliband is only offering the ability to vary it.
It's actually far, far more Mickey Mouse than people realise.
It's not going to cost England anything.
That's even worse then, as England will be up in arms about what they think is being given, and the Scots will be up in arms about not getting as much as they think was promises, and indeed what English people are saying was promised.
VAT is not within the gift of the British Government to devolve. It belongs to the EU and only they can change its terms. We don't even have full control over our tax policy these days
Putting aside that I don't think Salmond will just accept any old rubbish if he gets welfare and income tax devolved he gets the largest single part of the income revenue and the largest part of expenditure. The rest is then just a matter of time and patience.
You miss the point though. It doesn't matter what the nature of changes actually are it opens up old wounds over a gross democratic injustice that has been bubbling away in the background. Having it come to the surface just 8 months before a general election is just too good an open goal opportunity to miss!
Just caught up with today's discussion, I’m surprised there has been so much talk of changing betting odds at this stage of the game, as there has been very little verifiable news from the field I'd have thought – has much ‘last minute’ trading been taking place today?
Thats not so daft. World war 2 actually started in the early '30s with more localised regional wars eg Japan invading Manchuria.
Quite so. A pity that Western leaders appear all to be Chamberlain types rather than Churchill/Roosevelt ones.
Pre WW2 leaders were less keen on war, not including Herr Hitler and friends, and wanted to negotiate a peace deal. In part this was from personal experience of an extremely aggressive response to an assassination 25 years previously.
The lesson is not to appease, but also not to destroy the people and fabric of the continent by over reaction either. We should learn from both wars, not just the more recent one.
Yes, what roaring successes both wars were, millions dead and loaded with debt. Those recent wars in the Middle East and the Balkans sure panned out too. It shame so few of our current leaders have experienced the horror of war.
The real lesson of both wars is to ensure people have the right to self determination, be they Serbs, Slovaks or Germans. Europe has largely been at peace as we finally have borders that make sense and the empire's are gone.
We entered the second world war because Germany had invaded non-German Czechoslovakia and Poland. We entered the first world war because Germany had invaded non-German Belgium to dominate non-German France after Austria-Hungary tried to establish non-German Serbia as an unofficial electorate. We were entirely right both times.
But in the First World War, we lost our status as leading world economy and lender of last resort, handing it over to America, whose insular 'beggar thy neighbour' economic policies, contrasting with Britain's relatively skilfull handling of the world economy, turned the 20th century into the economically devastating and conflict ridden disaster that it became. It was also the birth of the USSR. Unless you look after yourself first, you're not in a position to help anyone else. 'Rightness' in this case may have given us a warm glow, but it was of little help to the world in the longer run.
That's unfairly harsh on the US, who rebuilt the economy of Western Europe with the Marshall Plan after WWII.
It also seems odd to condemn the US for an insular attitude when you propose that the UK should have followed an insular attitude and stood aside from WWI. Not saying that I think that WWI was a necessary war, but your logic appears a bit inconsistent.
No. The Stuart Dickson thesis was clear. The higher the turnout the more likely a Yes vote. I cannot recall the exact figures he gave but I think it was something to the effect that >80% and a Yes vote was likely, >85% and it was a certainty.
Obviously if turnout is higher in some areas than others that messes things up.
Well, if the theory turns out wrong I expect Stuart will be along in due course with his explanations, but the way it was put yesterday was very clear - high turnout = high probability of Yes.
Given the high turnout - Stuart must have staked his soul on yes at 6.2 then ...
Totally O/T but thee Yorkshire Cricket Captain seems to be being done for racial abuse of an opponent. Apparently he called said opponent a "Kolpack".
No other abusive words appear to have been used. Is that really "racist" abuse?
You need to look at the context, OKC.
It was part of a bad tempered exchange in which the term was plainly intended to be abusive.
It's like if you called me a Cockney, you couldn't possibly be accused of being abusive. But if you called me a f*cking ignorant Cockney, that's plainly abusive, even though factually correct.
So calling you a "bloody stupid man" would make "man" a term of abuse?
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Roughly 200,000 people (almost 5% of the electorate) who have never registered to vote (ignoring the 100,000 16/17yr olds) have registered this time taking the total electorate to 97% or 4.25 million. The vast majority of these newly registered voters will be C2DE including a fair number who didn't vote in the 1980s and early 90s to avoid incurring liability for the poll tax which was largely based on the voters roll.
If turnout is 80+%, the bulk of the extra 20% are people who have never voted before. These people have not been motivated to register to vote to keep the status quo. They are motivated to bring change.
That is why the higher the turnout, the more likely the result will be YES.
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Roughly 200,000 people (almost 5% of the electorate) who have never registered to vote (ignoring the 100,000 16/17yr olds) have registered this time taking the total electorate to 97% or 4.25 million. The vast majority of these newly registered voters will be C2DE including a fair number who didn't vote in the 1980s and early 90s to avoid incurring liability for the poll tax which was largely based on the voters roll.
If turnout is 80+%, the bulk of the extra 20% are people who have never voted before. These people have not been motivated to register to vote to keep the status quo. They are motivated to bring change.
That is why the higher the turnout, the more likely the result will be YES.
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
So the biggest Bismark in PB history is on ? Pile in everyone..
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Roughly 200,000 people (almost 5% of the electorate) who have never registered to vote (ignoring the 100,000 16/17yr olds) have registered this time taking the total electorate to 97% or 4.25 million. The vast majority of these newly registered voters will be C2DE including a fair number who didn't vote in the 1980s and early 90s to avoid incurring liability for the poll tax which was largely based on the voters roll.
If turnout is 80+%, the bulk of the extra 20% are people who have never voted before. These people have not been motivated to register to vote to keep the status quo. They are motivated to bring change.
That is why the higher the turnout, the more likely the result will be YES.
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
Totally O/T but thee Yorkshire Cricket Captain seems to be being done for racial abuse of an opponent. Apparently he called said opponent a "Kolpack".
No other abusive words appear to have been used. Is that really "racist" abuse?
You need to look at the context, OKC.
It was part of a bad tempered exchange in which the term was plainly intended to be abusive.
It's like if you called me a Cockney, you couldn't possibly be accused of being abusive. But if you called me a f*cking ignorant Cockney, that's plainly abusive, even though factually correct.
But not racist.
There are/were a lot of white Kolpak players too - and it's a word used in every paper in the Uk repeatedly.
I'm with TGOHF. Abusive yes. Unpleasant yes. But racist? "Cockney", admittedly stretching a point, could perhaps be described as "racist". If so, where does one draw the line. Should I get all antsy when someone describes me as an "Essex man"? Or only when it's accompanied by abusive remarks?
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Roughly 200,000 people (almost 5% of the electorate) who have never registered to vote (ignoring the 100,000 16/17yr olds) have registered this time taking the total electorate to 97% or 4.25 million. The vast majority of these newly registered voters will be C2DE including a fair number who didn't vote in the 1980s and early 90s to avoid incurring liability for the poll tax which was largely based on the voters roll.
If turnout is 80+%, the bulk of the extra 20% are people who have never voted before. These people have not been motivated to register to vote to keep the status quo. They are motivated to bring change.
That is why the higher the turnout, the more likely the result will be YES.
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
So the biggest Bismark in PB history is on ? Pile in everyone..
High turnout tells us very little as to the result. The odds on YES keep moving out. I have no idea why. I thought YES was much too high at 5, now its 6.4...
If true, amazing. No one waited till after work? | MT @DDonnachie94 Poling station in Falkirk closed because it's had 100% turnout #indyref
???
100% including postal ballots(Which can be handed to the polling station)? I don't believe it.
Unless it were a tiny hamlet, I don't see how a 100% turnout is possible, given how many people are registered to vote in more than one place, or have died, but are still on the register.
Totally O/T but thee Yorkshire Cricket Captain seems to be being done for racial abuse of an opponent. Apparently he called said opponent a "Kolpack".
No other abusive words appear to have been used. Is that really "racist" abuse?
You need to look at the context, OKC.
It was part of a bad tempered exchange in which the term was plainly intended to be abusive.
It's like if you called me a Cockney, you couldn't possibly be accused of being abusive. But if you called me a f*cking ignorant Cockney, that's plainly abusive, even though factually correct.
So calling you a "bloody stupid man" would make "man" a term of abuse?
Kind of, although it's pretty mild and the pejorative overtones 'man' picks up from the two preceding adjectives are so slight as to be almost negligible.
Of course, the term 'man' doesn't readily pick up such connotations because it is such an all-inclusive term that it's hard to imagine that 'bloody stupid' could be be taken to apply to all of them. But that wouldn't be so with terms like Kolpack, or indeed Cockney.
Totally O/T but thee Yorkshire Cricket Captain seems to be being done for racial abuse of an opponent. Apparently he called said opponent a "Kolpack".
No other abusive words appear to have been used. Is that really "racist" abuse?
You need to look at the context, OKC.
It was part of a bad tempered exchange in which the term was plainly intended to be abusive.
It's like if you called me a Cockney, you couldn't possibly be accused of being abusive. But if you called me a f*cking ignorant Cockney, that's plainly abusive, even though factually correct.
But not racist.
There are/were a lot of white Kolpak players too - and it's a word used in every paper in the Uk repeatedly.
I'm with TGOHF. Abusive yes. Unpleasant yes. But racist? "Cockney", admittedly stretching a point, could perhaps be described as "racist". If so, where does one draw the line. Should I get all antsy when someone describes me as an "Essex man"? Or only when it's accompanied by abusive remarks?
Kolpak means the type of contract - like "Bosman" or "Zero Hours"
That's unfairly harsh on the US, who rebuilt the economy of Western Europe with the Marshall Plan after WWII.
It also seems odd to condemn the US for an insular attitude when you propose that the UK should have followed an insular attitude and stood aside from WWI. Not saying that I think that WWI was a necessary war, but your logic appears a bit inconsistent.
The Great Depression, a direct result of US economic policy, is what lead to WW2 in the first place. Britain, as a world trading nation, kept an even hand on the tiller of the international economy. America operated it purely for its own short term gain. I don't see what's harsh about stating that.
As I said, Britain should have looked after itself first with a view to maintaining its custodianship of the world economy. That was the bigger picture.
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Rou
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
So the biggest Bismark in PB history is on ? Pile in everyone..
High turnout tells us very little as to the result.
But why? It cannot be proven until we get the result, but people signing up to vote when they never or rarely ever have before, doing so to preserve a disliked elite, vs voting to give them a kicking? One certainly sounds more plausible.
High turnout tells us very little as to the result. The odds on YES keep moving out. I have no idea why. I thought YES was much too high at 5, now its 6.4...
The Admiral Kuznetsov is knackered - it can't go anywhere without an escort tug in case in breaks down.
Do you seriously think that the Russians would have attacked a Royal Navy vessel in the Channel?
Outside an actual shooting-war being in place, no of course I don't. But if it had what could we have done about it? The RN surface fleet is really a bit thin when it comes to anti-surface work and is not looking that capable at ASW. For the latter there is nothing wrong with the kit and nothing wrong with the people but just not enough of either.
As for the Kuzentsov, I agree is it a floating piece of crap. I remember seeing a Russian made video of it a few years ago. It is a heap of junk and regarded as a punishment posting by the Sov sailors. I doubt it could operate a efficient air-wing under any circumstances. However, I would not want to bet that its SSMs don't work and those 12 Granits could mess up the RNs day. Furthermore, the Kuznetsov does not sail alone a single Kirov class cruiser packs more anti-surface punch than the whole of the surface RN.
Lets be honest, unless their is a T boat or an Astute around the RN is not fit to go out and play with the big boys.
Thats not so daft. World war 2 actually started in the early '30s with more localised regional wars eg Japan invading Manchuria.
Quite so. A pity that Western leaders appear all to be Chamberlain types rather than Churchill/Roosevelt ones.
SNIP
SNIP.
We entered the second world war because Germany had invaded non-German Czechoslovakia and Poland. We entered the first world war because Germany had invaded non-German Belgium to dominate non-German France after Austria-Hungary tried to establish non-German Serbia as an unofficial electorate. We were entirely right both times.
But in the First World War, we lost our status as leading world economy and lender of last resort, handing it over to America, whose insular 'beggar thy neighbour' economic policies, contrasting with Britain's relatively skilfull handling of the world economy, turned the 20th century into the economically devastating and conflict ridden disaster that it became. It was also the birth of the USSR. Unless you look after yourself first, you're not in a position to help anyone else. 'Rightness' in this case may have given us a warm glow, but it was of little help to the world in the longer run.
This is completely incorrect. The economic ascendancy of the United States had been on the cards since the end of their civil war and would have come at that time or shortly after. We were never lender of last resort to the entire world, neither was America. As for "beggar thy neighbour" policies, what do you call enforcing monopsony buyers on the whole of South Asia in order to improve British manufacturing.
And if we had not intervened, an authoritarian, expansionist Germany would have been the dominant power in Europe. Their navy would have surpassed ours, something that would have been far more damaging for world affairs than the democratic United States. The post-war order the US, the UK and France put on Europe was far better than what would have happened in a German victory.
Communism was of course disastrous, but that was a result of Germany's invasion of the USSR, not the British response.
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Rou
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
So the biggest Bismark in PB history is on ? Pile in everyone..
High turnout tells us very little as to the result.
But why? It cannot be proven until we get the result, but people signing up to vote when they never or rarely ever have before, doing so to preserve a disliked elite, vs voting to give them a kicking? One certainly sounds more plausible.
It doesn't entirely preclude the fact that they may change their mind. I admit its extremely unlikely, but there's no ultimate guarantee that yes can 'ride the tiger' of this mass of votes over the finish line. I'm thinking particularly of the ladies of the household, those with a little more sense and a little less bravado than their partners.
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Rou
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
So the biggest Bismark in PB history is on ? Pile in everyone..
High turnout tells us very little as to the result.
But why? It cannot be proven until we get the result, but people signing up to vote when they never or rarely ever have before, doing so to preserve a disliked elite, vs voting to give them a kicking? One certainly sounds more plausible.
Massive polling yesterday, giving 52% NO with a small margin of error. Consistent expectations from the polls of 90%+ turnout (from asking people whether they were going to vote). Only way it is YES is if the polls are wrong. There is a reasonable chance the polls are wrong. But a high turnout won't be the cause; again, implicit in the 52% NO result is 90%+ turnout. Now if turnout were predicted to be low i.e. significantly less than the polls, this would be a reason to doubt the polls NO prediction...
This must be karma - on the day of the Scottish independence vote my Scottish wife got a letter from USCIS telling her that she will become a US Citizen next Monday.
So it's an omen that Scottish people in general are about to go through a change in their official nationality? Damn. Congrats though - is it really hard to gain citizenship over there?
Live here for 6 continuous years (3 if married to a US citizen), no criminal record, write a check for $600, and it takes 6-8 months from filing.
That's unfairly harsh on the US, who rebuilt the economy of Western Europe with the Marshall Plan after WWII.
It also seems odd to condemn the US for an insular attitude when you propose that the UK should have followed an insular attitude and stood aside from WWI. Not saying that I think that WWI was a necessary war, but your logic appears a bit inconsistent.
The Great Depression, a direct result of US economic policy, is what lead to WW2 in the first place. Britain, as a world trading nation, kept an even hand on the tiller of the international economy. America operated it purely for its own short term gain. I don't see what's harsh about stating that.
As I said, Britain should have looked after itself first with a view to maintaining its custodianship of the world economy. That was the bigger picture.
I think that's a partial view of history. Britain was the first country to leave the Gold Standard and devalue following the Great Depression. This benefited Britain at the expense of other trading nations. How is that any different to what you are accusing America of doing?
I think people are overstating this pledge by Cam/Mili/Clegg.
There is no proposal to devolve VAT, NI, Corporation Tax, CGT, Inheritance Tax.
They are only talking about Income Tax and here, Miliband is only offering the ability to vary it.
It's actually far, far more Mickey Mouse than people realise.
It's not going to cost England anything.
That's even worse then, as England will be up in arms about what they think is being given, and the Scots will be up in arms about not getting as much as they think was promises, and indeed what English people are saying was promised.
VAT is not within the gift of the British Government to devolve. It belongs to the EU and only they can change its terms. We don't even have full control over our tax policy these days
Putting aside that I don't think Salmond will just accept any old rubbish if he gets welfare and income tax devolved he gets the largest single part of the income revenue and the largest part of expenditure. The rest is then just a matter of time and patience.
You miss the point though. It doesn't matter what the nature of changes actually are it opens up old wounds over a gross democratic injustice that has been bubbling away in the background. Having it come to the surface just 8 months before a general election is just too good an open goal opportunity to miss!
Agree it opens up wounds and creates scope for major rows.
But in terms of what Salmond gets I still think it will be less than you may think - eg if he gets welfare I bet he will not get the ability to change the state pension or retirement age. So immediately he actually doesn't get over 50% of the welfare budget.
How will an independent Scotland defend itself if the Russians decide the North Sea oil platforms are in Russian territorial waters?
How would the UK as it exists today? The RN is not actually over endowed with deployable assets and has a very limited anti-surface warfare capability and I think that the RAF no longer has any anti-ship capability at all.
Really?
I don't think they are a credible threat. Putin only has a single aircraft carrier iirc.
UK does have anti-surface capability from surface and air according to Prof Wiki, never mind those hunter-killer subs.
Mr Salmond would shout at them through a toilet roll from a pedalo, and they would have no choice other than to obey because he would be Imperator Scotus Maximus, just as Germany, Spain, France, Italy and the rest of the EU will obe him, and the UK will give him CU because he says so.
Matt
Sorry, Mr. W.. I have obviously missed something what anti-shipping capability does the RAF, have? For that matter what the Fleet Air arm have? A few but not all RN ships have Harpoon missiles (1970s stuff) and of course a gun of at best middling calibre. Aside from the very, very good submarines (of which we might have four or five ready for deployment at anyone one time), the RN looks a bit thin for fighting off a battlegroup from another fairly modern navy.
In fact I really did laugh when a few months ago a RN destroyer, a Type 45 no less and a billion quid ago, was sent to escort a Russian battlegroup through the Channel. Offensive capability of the RN escort one 4.5 inch gun.
That was the "Battlegroup" consisting of the Admiral Kuznetsov and the Peter the Great cruiser, otherwise known as 100% of their aircraft carriers and 100% of their Heavy Missile Cruisers? Both of those are 1970 designs too, as are (afaict) the rest of the destroyer fleet - hardly anything less than 20 years old.
Yep, RN is Harpoon and (0bv) Sea Skua, though let's not play trump cards.
RAF have torpedos.
They are also all equipped with that weapon known as Clause 5 of the NATO agreement.
Btw cn Paveway etc be used against ships? Interesting idea...
Britain's share of world industrial output, etc., was already in decline. It might have ticked up if we'd stayed out of the War, but as a small nation on the edge of a continent dominated by Imperial Germany, I'm not sure we would have been able to reverse our inevitable long-term relative decline.
I know, and I quite agree. But it would have been a gradual decline, especially since there would have been no WW2, where America simply drained our Empire of everything it had left.
How did America, specifically, "drain our empire"?
Given how anti-American you are over them supporting democratic pressure groups in other countries, I'm amazed you seem to look at the British Empire, which completely subjugated the economy systems of millions of people, as a positive thing. It was far more intrusive than the stuff you criticise from the US.
This must be karma - on the day of the Scottish independence vote my Scottish wife got a letter from USCIS telling her that she will become a US Citizen next Monday.
So it's an omen that Scottish people in general are about to go through a change in their official nationality? Damn. Congrats though - is it really hard to gain citizenship over there?
Live here for 6 continuous years (3 if married to a US citizen), no criminal record, write a check for $600, and it takes 6-8 months from filing.
Isn't getting the right to live there for said years tricky though?
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Roughly 200,000 people (almost 5% of the electorate) who have never registered to vote (ignoring the 100,000 16/17yr olds) have registered this time taking the total electorate to 97% or 4.25 million. The vast majority of these newly registered voters will be C2DE including a fair number who didn't vote in the 1980s and early 90s to avoid incurring liability for the poll tax which was largely based on the voters roll.
If turnout is 80+%, the bulk of the extra 20% are people who have never voted before. These people have not been motivated to register to vote to keep the status quo. They are motivated to bring change.
That is why the higher the turnout, the more likely the result will be YES.
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
All the more reason for Scots to fill their boots
100% of the money gambled on Betfair in US elections (theoretically) is by people neither living nor working there ...
This must be karma - on the day of the Scottish independence vote my Scottish wife got a letter from USCIS telling her that she will become a US Citizen next Monday.
So it's an omen that Scottish people in general are about to go through a change in their official nationality? Damn. Congrats though - is it really hard to gain citizenship over there?
Live here for 6 continuous years (3 if married to a US citizen), no criminal record, write a check for $600, and it takes 6-8 months from filing.
Isn't getting the right to live there for said years tricky though?
The best way is to get a green card, which can be tricky.
That's unfairly harsh on the US, who rebuilt the economy of Western Europe with the Marshall Plan after WWII.
It also seems odd to condemn the US for an insular attitude when you propose that the UK should have followed an insular attitude and stood aside from WWI. Not saying that I think that WWI was a necessary war, but your logic appears a bit inconsistent.
The Great Depression, a direct result of US economic policy, is what lead to WW2 in the first place. Britain, as a world trading nation, kept an even hand on the tiller of the international economy. America operated it purely for its own short term gain. I don't see what's harsh about stating that.
As I said, Britain should have looked after itself first with a view to maintaining its custodianship of the world economy. That was the bigger picture.
The Great Depression hit America as hard as anywhere else in the world. You are correct that inaction by their central bank prevented recovery (fairly similar to the ECB now), but it was hardly a beggar they neighbour thing. And Britain at the same time had similar backward views: see their ill-fated attempt to get back on the Gold Standard.
Britain "kept an even hand on the tiller of the international economy" seems like the most weaselly-worded description ever. What precisely did they do that was so positive and selfless? (I assume we're putting the economic exploitation of the Indian subcontinent, the gunboat negotiated oil deals in the Middle East and the clearance of African land for white farmers to one side.)
Totally O/T but thee Yorkshire Cricket Captain seems to be being done for racial abuse of an opponent. Apparently he called said opponent a "Kolpack".
No other abusive words appear to have been used. Is that really "racist" abuse?
You need to look at the context, OKC.
It was part of a bad tempered exchange in which the term was plainly intended to be abusive.
It's like if you called me a Cockney, you couldn't possibly be accused of being abusive. But if you called me a f*cking ignorant Cockney, that's plainly abusive, even though factually correct.
But not racist.
There are/were a lot of white Kolpak players too - and it's a word used in every paper in the Uk repeatedly.
I'm with TGOHF. Abusive yes. Unpleasant yes. But racist? "Cockney", admittedly stretching a point, could perhaps be described as "racist". If so, where does one draw the line. Should I get all antsy when someone describes me as an "Essex man"? Or only when it's accompanied by abusive remarks?
Cockney certainly isn't racist in any context because those of us born within the sound of Bow Bells are not part of a race. It can be used in a pejorative sense though. 'A right Cockney' might in certain circumstances imply a lack of education or refinement although less so perhaps these days than was once the case.
'Ignorant Cockney' is perfectly clear however. It not only implies that person is ignorant, but that most Cockneys are like that.
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Roughly 200,000 people (almost 5% of the electorate) who have never registered to vote (ignoring the 100,000 16/17yr olds) have registered this time taking the total electorate to 97% or 4.25 million. The vast majority of these newly registered voters will be C2DE including a fair number who didn't vote in the 1980s and early 90s to avoid incurring liability for the poll tax which was largely based on the voters roll.
If turnout is 80+%, the bulk of the extra 20% are people who have never voted before. These people have not been motivated to register to vote to keep the status quo. They are motivated to bring change.
That is why the higher the turnout, the more likely the result will be YES.
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
All the more reason for Scots to fill their boots
100% of the money gambled on Betfair in US elections (theoretically) is by people neither living nor working there ...
Did they get the result wrong too ?
But Scotland is a unique and special place not understood by Westminster punters..
This is completely incorrect. The economic ascendancy of the United States had been on the cards since the end of their civil war and would have come at that time or shortly after. We were never lender of last resort to the entire world, neither was America. As for "beggar thy neighbour" policies, what do you call enforcing monopsony buyers on the whole of South Asia in order to improve British manufacturing.
And if we had not intervened, an authoritarian, expansionist Germany would have been the dominant power in Europe. Their navy would have surpassed ours, something that would have been far more damaging for world affairs than the democratic United States. The post-war order the US, the UK and France put on Europe was far better than what would have happened in a German victory.
Communism was of course disastrous, but that was a result of Germany's invasion of the USSR, not the British response.
I'm puzzled as to what to make of this -you state I'm incorrect but contradict none of my arguments. I call our South Asia behaviour you describe bullying and abuse of power, but I don't call it endangering the world economy by doing this: http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/550096/Smoot-Hawley-Tariff-Act There is a huge difference. I've agreed that Britain would have slowly declined, and I am sure America would have strengthened, but there would not have been the dramatic shift that took place. You claim that Imperial German domination of mainland Europe would have been worse than US domination of the world -there's ultimately no way to prove that to be the case. And given the rise of Nazism and WW2, they would have had to go some.
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
That is why the higher the turnout, the more likely the result will be YES.
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
All the more reason for Scots to fill their boots
100% of the money gambled on Betfair in US elections (theoretically) is by people neither living nor working there ...
Did they get the result wrong too ?
But Scotland is a unique and special place not understood by Westminster punters..
Quite possibly. And it means that free money is available for people that do...
Just realised, Betfair market is acting exactly like this is an in play football match with score tied at 0-0. Under dog drifting, favourite tightening as time wears on.
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Roughly 200,000 people (almost 5% of the electorate) who have never registered to vote (ignoring the 100,000 16/17yr olds) have registered this time taking the total electorate to 97% or 4.25 million. The vast majority of these newly registered voters will be C2DE including a fair number who didn't vote in the 1980s and early 90s to avoid incurring liability for the poll tax which was largely based on the voters roll.
If turnout is 80+%, the bulk of the extra 20% are people who have never voted before. These people have not been motivated to register to vote to keep the status quo. They are motivated to bring change.
That is why the higher the turnout, the more likely the result will be YES.
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
So the biggest Bismark in PB history is on ? Pile in everyone..
What's a Bismark please? As a naval buff I'm intrigued, but can't spot the connection ...
Martyn McLaughlin @MartynMcL 47s Ain't heard this many dodgy rumours about Falkirk since claims East Stirlingshire FC had signed Messi. Polling station is *open* #indyref
I think people are overstating this pledge by Cam/Mili/Clegg.
There is no proposal to devolve VAT, NI, Corporation Tax, CGT, Inheritance Tax.
They are only talking about Income Tax and here, Miliband is only offering the ability to vary it.
It's actually far, far more Mickey Mouse than people realise.
It's not going to cost England anything.
That's even worse then, as England will be up in arms about what they think is being given, and the Scots will be up in arms about not getting as much as they think was promises, and indeed what English people are saying was promised.
This is completely incorrect. The economic ascendancy of the United States had been on the cards since the end of their civil war and would have come at that time or shortly after. We were never lender of last resort to the entire world, neither was America. As for "beggar thy neighbour" policies, what do you call enforcing monopsony buyers on the whole of South Asia in order to improve British manufacturing.
And if we had not intervened, an authoritarian, expansionist Germany would have been the dominant power in Europe. Their navy would have surpassed ours, something that would have been far more damaging for world affairs than the democratic United States. The post-war order the US, the UK and France put on Europe was far better than what would have happened in a German victory.
Communism was of course disastrous, but that was a result of Germany's invasion of the USSR, not the British response.
I'm puzzled as to what to make of this -you state I'm incorrect but contradict none of my arguments. I call our South Asia behaviour you describe bullying and abuse of power, but I don't call it endangering the world economy by doing this: http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/550096/Smoot-Hawley-Tariff-Act There is a huge difference. I've agreed that Britain would have slowly declined, and I am sure America would have strengthened, but there would not have been the dramatic shift that took place. You claim that Imperial German domination of mainland Europe would have been worse than US domination of the world -there's ultimately no way to prove that to be the case. And given the rise of Nazism and WW2, they would have had to go some.
You think adding tariffs to American imports was a worse sin than enforcing a monopoly over an entire subcontinent and only allowing them to sell to one buyer, often at below the cost of production? For two hundred years Indian incomes barely moved because they were actively suppressed from moving past raw agriculture.
As for the rise of Naziism and WW2, the biggest problem there was that the US WASN'T involved enough. Congress made them go into one of their disastrous isolationist phases, which rendered the League of Nations and collective deterrence toothless. Hitler saw how the US-less international community responded to Mussolini and knew it was game on.
Ps the Casino Royale doctrine is correct. I'm here without Rosette my cousin is here with the full NO regalia. Those that smile at me either glower at her or don't make eye contact at all. I'm getting all the smiles she even had someone mutter under their breath 'stupid stupid'
Ps the Casino Royale doctrine is correct. I'm here without Rosette my cousin is here with the full NO regalia. Those that smile at me either glower at her or don't make eye contact at all. I'm getting all the smiles she even had someone mutter under their breath 'stupid stupid'
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Roughly 200,000 people (almost 5% of the electorate) who have never registered to vote (ignoring the 100,000 16/17yr olds) have registered this time taking the total electorate to 97% or 4.25 million. The vast majority of these newly registered voters will be C2DE including a fair number who didn't vote in the 1980s and early 90s to avoid incurring liability for the poll tax which was largely based on the voters roll.
If turnout is 80+%, the bulk of the extra 20% are people who have never voted before. These people have not been motivated to register to vote to keep the status quo. They are motivated to bring change.
That is why the higher the turnout, the more likely the result will be YES.
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
So the biggest Bismark in PB history is on ? Pile in everyone..
What's a Bismark please? As a naval buff I'm intrigued, but can't spot the connection ...
"His regular slot on Channel 4's Morning Line programme, picking "Barry's Bismark", a favourite he expects to sink without trace, will also retire with him."
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Roughly 200,000 people (almost 5% of the electorate) who have never registered to vote (ignoring the 100,000 16/17yr olds) have registered this time taking the total electorate to 97% or 4.25 million. The vast majority of these newly registered voters will be C2DE including a fair number who didn't vote in the 1980s and early 90s to avoid incurring liability for the poll tax which was largely based on the voters roll.
If turnout is 80+%, the bulk of the extra 20% are people who have never voted before. These people have not been motivated to register to vote to keep the status quo. They are motivated to bring change.
That is why the higher the turnout, the more likely the result will be YES.
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
So the biggest Bismark in PB history is on ? Pile in everyone..
What's a Bismark please? As a naval buff I'm intrigued, but can't spot the connection ...
"His regular slot on Channel 4's Morning Line programme, picking "Barry's Bismark", a favourite he expects to sink without trace, will also retire with him."
Really? Which and from what platforms can they be launched?
As to the Sea Skua? Lightweight, helicopter launched and short ranged. I know the Russian stuff is getting on a bit but really? Against a big Russian ship? I doubt the helicopter would even get to the launch point much less survive pushing the button and the initial guidance phase. If the missile got through the defences (who knows) we have a 60lb warhead on a big ship. Might work for a mission kill, but you would have to be lucky.
Come on be honest for many years the RN withdrew from all that nasty surface warfare stuff and concentrated on ASW in the North Atlantic, plus the Subs. Now we reaping the results of that sowing.
Yes supporters are saying if the turnout is 85% they should win. It'll be interesting to see whether that conditional proves correct.
Sporting Index suspended their turnout market at 83%/84.5%. Since the direction of travel from the start was upwards, it's safe to assume that a high turnout is bad for them. It's also likely that if they were not afraid of a very high turnout, they would have kept the market open to draw in some low-turnout punters.
I'm beginning to suspect that our previous estimate of 83% may be on the light side.
Btw, who are these 'Yes Supporters' who infer a good result from high turnout? I know Stuart Dickson put this theory forward, but without any supporting evidence. The logic appears questionable to me and I suspect it was just Stuart being Stuart.
Peter the argument is: At normal elections roughly 60% vote. This number includes older people and ABC1 mostly. C2DE rarely vote in large numbers, hence safe Labour seats tend to elect MPs on a much lower vote.
Roughly 200,000 people (almost 5% of the electorate) who have never registered to vote (ignoring the 100,000 16/17yr olds) have registered this time taking the total electorate to 97% or 4.25 million. The vast majority of these newly registered voters will be C2DE including a fair number who didn't vote in the 1980s and early 90s to avoid incurring liability for the poll tax which was largely based on the voters roll.
If turnout is 80+%, the bulk of the extra 20% are people who have never voted before. These people have not been motivated to register to vote to keep the status quo. They are motivated to bring change.
That is why the higher the turnout, the more likely the result will be YES.
Very interesting that the electoral roll in Edinburgh is only estimated at 90% but in Glasgow 97%.
Thanks Easterross for explaining the logic.
I'm not sure it's without flaws, but if it is, Yes is home and hosed.
Indicators are that turnout is high - but the yes price is drifting.
The high turnout = good for yes doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Think you will find the bulk of money gambled has been by people who are neither living nor voting in Scotland today!
So the biggest Bismark in PB history is on ? Pile in everyone..
What's a Bismark please? As a naval buff I'm intrigued, but can't spot the connection ...
The Admiral Kuznetsov is knackered - it can't go anywhere without an escort tug in case in breaks down.
Do you seriously think that the Russians would have attacked a Royal Navy vessel in the Channel?
Outside an actual shooting-war being in place, no of course I don't. But if it had what could we have done about it? The RN surface fleet is really a bit thin when it comes to anti-surface work and is not looking that capable at ASW. For the latter there is nothing wrong with the kit and nothing wrong with the people but just not enough of either.
As for the Kuzentsov, I agree is it a floating piece of crap. I remember seeing a Russian made video of it a few years ago. It is a heap of junk and regarded as a punishment posting by the Sov sailors. I doubt it could operate a efficient air-wing under any circumstances. However, I would not want to bet that its SSMs don't work and those 12 Granits could mess up the RNs day. Furthermore, the Kuznetsov does not sail alone a single Kirov class cruiser packs more anti-surface punch than the whole of the surface RN.
Lets be honest, unless their is a T boat or an Astute around the RN is not fit to go out and play with the big boys.
Carrier wing in the Channel would be taking on the air forces of 5 or 6 Nato countries. Once the Russian planes are gone, how many iron bombs or Paveway do you think the Kuznetsov and Kirov could soak up? (We'd be at total war by then, so it's a moot point)
Ps the Casino Royale doctrine is correct. I'm here without Rosette my cousin is here with the full NO regalia. Those that smile at me either glower at her or don't make eye contact at all. I'm getting all the smiles she even had someone mutter under their breath 'stupid stupid'
Impressive GDP figures in Ireland today. Could be looking at GDP growth of 4.5% for the year. Budget deficit down to 3.5%. And after many extremely tough years probably a fiscally neutral budget - the end of austerity.
"A Canadian team of voter-contact experts working with Scotland’s Yes team is forecasting that Scots will vote by as much as 54-46 in favour of independence when the final vote is tallied early on Friday morning.
“I believe they’re going to win,” said Mike O’Neill of the Canadian voter-targeting firm First Contact, which has been doing data-modelling work with two academics, one of them Canadian, to profile likely Yes and No support in Thursday’s referendum.
"A Canadian team of voter-contact experts working with Scotland’s Yes team is forecasting that Scots will vote by as much as 54-46 in favour of independence when the final vote is tallied early on Friday morning.
“I believe they’re going to win,” said Mike O’Neill of the Canadian voter-targeting firm First Contact, which has been doing data-modelling work with two academics, one of them Canadian, to profile likely Yes and No support in Thursday’s referendum.
Comments
By the way the Barnett commitment pretty much kills off any expectation that the establishment parties will seriously consider an English Parliament and English democratic equality as the first thing an English Parliament (once in the hands of a party that opposes the federal Government) would surely do is challenge the Federal Government over Barnett.
When it comes to political strategy Cameron really is the village idiot. He put himself in yet another lose-lose situation.
It was part of a bad tempered exchange in which the term was plainly intended to be abusive.
It's like if you called me a Cockney, you couldn't possibly be accused of being abusive. But if you called me a f*cking ignorant Cockney, that's plainly abusive, even though factually correct.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/news/index.cfm?storyid=29250E9D-5056-A318-A861958C0A76C57F
The "pledge" tells Scotland to use its tax varying powers if it wants to fund the Scottish Health Service - yet according to Dods today, MPs of all hues are up in arms insisting Barnett must be changed.
In fact I really did laugh when a few months ago a RN destroyer, a Type 45 no less and a billion quid ago, was sent to escort a Russian battlegroup through the Channel. Offensive capability of the RN escort one 4.5 inch gun.
The Admiral Kuznetsov is knackered - it can't go anywhere without an escort tug in case in breaks down.
Do you seriously think that the Russians would have attacked a Royal Navy vessel in the Channel?
There are/were a lot of white Kolpak players too - and it's a word used in every paper in the Uk repeatedly.
If true, amazing. No one waited till after work? | MT @DDonnachie94 Poling station in Falkirk closed because it's had 100% turnout #indyref
???
Well, if the theory turns out wrong I expect Stuart will be along in due course with his explanations, but the way it was put yesterday was very clear - high turnout = high probability of Yes.
Putting aside that I don't think Salmond will just accept any old rubbish if he gets welfare and income tax devolved he gets the largest single part of the income revenue and the largest part of expenditure. The rest is then just a matter of time and patience.
You miss the point though. It doesn't matter what the nature of changes actually are it opens up old wounds over a gross democratic injustice that has been bubbling away in the background. Having it come to the surface just 8 months before a general election is just too good an open goal opportunity to miss!
It also seems odd to condemn the US for an insular attitude when you propose that the UK should have followed an insular attitude and stood aside from WWI. Not saying that I think that WWI was a necessary war, but your logic appears a bit inconsistent.
Depends on the population of the area covered. Rural with a high proportion of self employed?
The odds on YES keep moving out. I have no idea why. I thought YES was much too high at 5, now its 6.4...
"Jockanese" might soon land you in trouble?
Of course, the term 'man' doesn't readily pick up such connotations because it is such an all-inclusive term that it's hard to imagine that 'bloody stupid' could be be taken to apply to all of them. But that wouldn't be so with terms like Kolpack, or indeed Cockney.
Oi you - Yaya Toure - you are a Bosman **** !
Is that "racist" ?
As I said, Britain should have looked after itself first with a view to maintaining its custodianship of the world economy. That was the bigger picture.
As for the Kuzentsov, I agree is it a floating piece of crap. I remember seeing a Russian made video of it a few years ago. It is a heap of junk and regarded as a punishment posting by the Sov sailors. I doubt it could operate a efficient air-wing under any circumstances. However, I would not want to bet that its SSMs don't work and those 12 Granits could mess up the RNs day. Furthermore, the Kuznetsov does not sail alone a single Kirov class cruiser packs more anti-surface punch than the whole of the surface RN.
Lets be honest, unless their is a T boat or an Astute around the RN is not fit to go out and play with the big boys.
I'd be delighted to pay out on that, as it'd be pretty much the most astonishing turnout in electoral history.
I suspect it's the easiest tenner I've ever made, though....
And if we had not intervened, an authoritarian, expansionist Germany would have been the dominant power in Europe. Their navy would have surpassed ours, something that would have been far more damaging for world affairs than the democratic United States. The post-war order the US, the UK and France put on Europe was far better than what would have happened in a German victory.
Communism was of course disastrous, but that was a result of Germany's invasion of the USSR, not the British response.
Consistent expectations from the polls of 90%+ turnout (from asking people whether they were going to vote).
Only way it is YES is if the polls are wrong.
There is a reasonable chance the polls are wrong.
But a high turnout won't be the cause; again, implicit in the 52% NO result is 90%+ turnout.
Now if turnout were predicted to be low i.e. significantly less than the polls, this would be a reason to doubt the polls NO prediction...
But in terms of what Salmond gets I still think it will be less than you may think - eg if he gets welfare I bet he will not get the ability to change the state pension or retirement age. So immediately he actually doesn't get over 50% of the welfare budget.
In fact I really did laugh when a few months ago a RN destroyer, a Type 45 no less and a billion quid ago, was sent to escort a Russian battlegroup through the Channel. Offensive capability of the RN escort one 4.5 inch gun.
That was the "Battlegroup" consisting of the Admiral Kuznetsov and the Peter the Great cruiser, otherwise known as 100% of their aircraft carriers and 100% of their Heavy Missile Cruisers? Both of those are 1970 designs too, as are (afaict) the rest of the destroyer fleet - hardly anything less than 20 years old.
Yep, RN is Harpoon and (0bv) Sea Skua, though let's not play trump cards.
RAF have torpedos.
They are also all equipped with that weapon known as Clause 5 of the NATO agreement.
Btw cn Paveway etc be used against ships? Interesting idea...
Given how anti-American you are over them supporting democratic pressure groups in other countries, I'm amazed you seem to look at the British Empire, which completely subjugated the economy systems of millions of people, as a positive thing. It was far more intrusive than the stuff you criticise from the US.
I mean article 5.
Britain "kept an even hand on the tiller of the international economy" seems like the most weaselly-worded description ever. What precisely did they do that was so positive and selfless? (I assume we're putting the economic exploitation of the Indian subcontinent, the gunboat negotiated oil deals in the Middle East and the clearance of African land for white farmers to one side.)
'Ignorant Cockney' is perfectly clear however. It not only implies that person is ignorant, but that most Cockneys are like that.
Not racist, but certainly not nice.
But Scotland is a unique and special place not understood by Westminster punters..
@johnestevens No. It's not true.
America's price for coming to our aid in WW2 was the British Empire was history.
Ain't heard this many dodgy rumours about Falkirk since claims East Stirlingshire FC had signed Messi. Polling station is *open* #indyref
As for the rise of Naziism and WW2, the biggest problem there was that the US WASN'T involved enough. Congress made them go into one of their disastrous isolationist phases, which rendered the League of Nations and collective deterrence toothless. Hitler saw how the US-less international community responded to Mussolini and knew it was game on.
Bismarck - excuse my spelling.
"His regular slot on Channel 4's Morning Line programme, picking "Barry's Bismark", a favourite he expects to sink without trace, will also retire with him."
"RAF have torpedos."
Really? Which and from what platforms can they be launched?
As to the Sea Skua? Lightweight, helicopter launched and short ranged. I know the Russian stuff is getting on a bit but really? Against a big Russian ship? I doubt the helicopter would even get to the launch point much less survive pushing the button and the initial guidance phase. If the missile got through the defences (who knows) we have a 60lb warhead on a big ship. Might work for a mission kill, but you would have to be lucky.
Come on be honest for many years the RN withdrew from all that nasty surface warfare stuff and concentrated on ASW in the North Atlantic, plus the Subs. Now we reaping the results of that sowing.
And toxic for labour. Ed is either left disappointing the many labour scots, or he is left infuriating the English.
Knowing ed, he will manage to alienate both.
Panicky peaks and troughs ?
Am I much more attractive than her.....now you ask I suppose I am. But she's a reasonably well known writer. I'm not competitive or anything.....
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/scottish-vote-no-exit-poll-democratic-deficit
"A Canadian team of voter-contact experts working with Scotland’s Yes team is forecasting that Scots will vote by as much as 54-46 in favour of independence when the final vote is tallied early on Friday morning.
“I believe they’re going to win,” said Mike O’Neill of the Canadian voter-targeting firm First Contact, which has been doing data-modelling work with two academics, one of them Canadian, to profile likely Yes and No support in Thursday’s referendum.
“I feel pretty confident,” O’Neill said."