Big No win will take a bit of pressure off Cameron re Devomax.
Also remember the plan is only to publish a DRAFT BILL by end of January - there isn't going to be any vote in the House of Commons before the GE.
I think that would be an epic mistake. Parliament has little enough else to do between now and April: there is more than enough time to sort it out if the will is there - and if they don't, Scots will rightly conclude that the will isn't there. It will be shades of the 1979 'betrayal' all over again except that this time there's a general election a after parliament's had time to act rather than before.
The leaders only agreed to publish a bill. They can't guarantee how MPs will vote. Or do you believe that Parliament is somehow bound by a private agreement made by three of its members?
False choice. Parliament's job is not simply approving or rejecting bills but amending them as well. I do think that parliament is largely bound by the commitment to further devolution as the Scots have voted on the basis of that promise and few if any MPs have voiced opposition to the idea, so the reasonable presumption is that it would be delivered. The open question still to be answered is about the rest of the UK and it's there that the MPs' job is to be done.
I'm not sure how much time Parliament has had to react. In any case, surely its view is best expressed as a body, not by individuals mouthing off.
In a democracy, no politician should make a commitment to pass legislation. They should approach Parliament as supplicants, not purporting to be its masters.
In any case... I would like to see a constitutional convention, with an opportunity for options to be tabled that might not be the preferred choice of those at the top.
The BBC coverage in England with Huw a bit dull, but at least they're asking questions on the rUK and the constitutional implications. I did have a fear this would all be swept under the carpet.
Guardian saying Yes getting chipper in Glasgow and No saying it looks like they've lost in Dundee.
Things turning?
Unlikely, the SNP guy was just on Sky and he was sampling votes that would be more favourable to Yes anyway in poorer areas. Need a source on Dundee, but Yes have to win there to have even a small chance to get independence.
1. Sulking. 2. Retired to the library with his service revolver. 3. Getting a new user name. 4. All 3 of the above.
As I have already said on this thread, he's coming down here to my part of the world on holiday tomorrow. And it's for a specific event so the clash with the referendum was unavoidable. There is no conspiracy on his part.
Nick Robinson sounding very much like he's been briefed that Cameron is going to come out in favour of English devolution.
Could Cameron turn this into a vote winner?
English devolution? Or English cantonisation?
Switzerland works.
I would support radical devolution within England to maybe quite small devolved areas - Cornwall, for example, and Hampshire. Maybe some larger ones such as London and Yorkshire. Whatever local people want, really. But my view is that devolution should come from an English government, however minimal its residual power is, rather than the British one.
Labour's campaign team has been exposed as being useless - they very nearly lost this. What on earth makes you think that they can turn that round to win a General?
Sorry I am a tory but that is ridiculous. Labour has run 2 campaigns in tandem. They have run BT reaching well outside their comfort zone into tory territory and they have run a Labour campaign to keep their traditional vote onside at the same time. And they have won.
One of the professionals I was out with tonight made the comment that this campaign has been about the Labour party in Scotland teaching a new generation of tories how to fight an election and I for one think there is a lot of truth in that.
Labour's campaign team has been exposed as being useless - they very nearly lost this. What on earth makes you think that they can turn that round to win a General?
Sorry I am a tory but that is ridiculous. Labour has run 2 campaigns in tandem. They have run BT reaching well outside their comfort zone into tory territory and they have run a Labour campaign to keep their traditional vote onside at the same time. And they have won.
One of the professionals I was out with tonight made the comment that this campaign has been about the Labour party in Scotland teaching a new generation of tories how to fight an election and I for one think there is a lot of truth in that.
Thanks, David. I lost my very talented marginal seat organiser for 3 months to the Scottish effort and I'd be sorry to hear she'd been wasting her time!
Glasgow in my mind will go Yes but not enough to offset Edinburgh. Credit this partly to the 100,000 votes that Rangers and the Orange Order delivered. This afternoon you could see several Yes posters in the windows of Govan. As I drove home they had all gone. Yes voters have decided to keep their heads down.
By the way I very much doubt Andy Murray would want to be sent to Govan. As a Hibs fan this is not the best place for him.
Morning everyone! I decided to work late in the lab - just in case I have to get up late tomorrow - or is it later today LOL!
Have I missed any results?
Inadvertently, due to staying in Birmingham tonight, I caught the penultimate train from Coventry which happened to go via Stechford to Aston to Perry Bar to Soho depot and back round to New Street. Nearly doubled the journey time but pleased I managed to do this rare route
I know the turnout is very high comparatively, but why is not much nearer to 100%, with the only missing voters being those who genuinely could not get there on the day.
It's not like it is a 'doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in' scenario, this is to decide the future of your country.
BBC saying NO has probably won Falkirk, which was thought to go YES.
Falkirk had to be 55% yes - not a good sign unfortunately.
Agreed. Not good for YES.
No, that's pretty neutral. On UNS from 1997, Falkirk should be 55.7% Yes for 50-50, so only very narrowly behind if at all (since that 55% is obviously a vague statement). Hard to say much when a result is within 5% either way of UNS as swings are likely not to perfectly replicate 1997.
1. Sulking. 2. Retired to the library with his service revolver. 3. Getting a new user name. 4. All 3 of the above.
As I have already said on this thread, he's coming down here to my part of the world on holiday tomorrow. And it's for a specific event so the clash with the referendum was unavoidable. There is no conspiracy on his part.
Things are splendid here, many thanks!
We are watching the referendum with huge interest. A potential YES could help towards what many of us hope is an independent Catalonia and rSpain. It would also give fresh momentum the Gib nationalists. Mid-term in our electoral cycle so quiet on that front.
On the other hand, great weather and great beaches, great people. What's not to love?! And my apologies; I don't think I've taken the opportunity to say how good it is to see you posting here again.
Labour's campaign team has been exposed as being useless - they very nearly lost this. What on earth makes you think that they can turn that round to win a General?
Sorry I am a tory but that is ridiculous. Labour has run 2 campaigns in tandem. They have run BT reaching well outside their comfort zone into tory territory and they have run a Labour campaign to keep their traditional vote onside at the same time. And they have won.
One of the professionals I was out with tonight made the comment that this campaign has been about the Labour party in Scotland teaching a new generation of tories how to fight an election and I for one think there is a lot of truth in that.
Thanks, David. I lost my very talented marginal seat organiser for 3 months to the Scottish effort and I'd be sorry to hear she'd been wasting her time!
Why the F weren't you in Scotland, for the last four weeks??
Maybe NPXMP bought the new BBC mantra: we care more about Burundi than Birmingham (sic) - so let's say Blantyre (Sco not Malawi!).
For every pound that get spent by Local and Central Government in England, the Scots get a commission or a 'consequential'. The only exceptions seem to be for the 2012 Olympics and strangely not the Crossrail project.
What is the Barnett formula?
The Barnett formula convention was introduced in 1979 by (now Lord) Joel Barnett as a replacement to the nineteenth century ‘Goschen Formula’. It is based on adjusting funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland based on spending decisions that affect England only.
The purpose of this was to enable better control of the share of resources going to territorial departments at a time of cash limits and adverse economic conditions nationally.
The Barnett system was intended to be a temporary arrangement until a need-based funding formula could be agreed. A needs assessment study was in progress in 1979, however it was never finalised.
This ‘temporary’ solution is now 35 years old.
How does the formula work?
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each has a ‘block’ of funding that is mapped to English programmes. Whenever there is a change in funding in England for a policy area that is devolved, the devolved blocks receive a fixed percentage of any cash change in comparable spending. This is known as a ‘Barnett consequential’. The change to funding is automatic and not subject to any negotiation with Treasury or requirements to evidence need for the funding.
This applies both to increases and reductions. Indeed, devolved budgets in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland received the consequential effect of austerity cuts in England, which involved protection of funding of health and schools.
It is important to note that while consequential changes to grant funding in Scotland and other devolved areas are based on changes in particular English programmes, the devolved Parliaments have full discretion over how the funding should be spent and do not have to follow English priorities.
The percentages are determined by the population share of the territory (as % of the England population) and an estimate of how far the responsibility and power over a policy or service area has been devolved to the territory.
There are exceptions to this rule. Whitehall expenditure that is deemed to be ‘UK-wide’, that is, benefitting the United Kingdom as a whole, does not trigger a Barnett consequential payment. For example, there has been a lot of discussion between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster on whether the Crossrail project should trigger a consequential payment or not, with Scotland prevailing.
The devolved administrations can spend their consequentials on whatever they choose and do not have to follow English spending priorities. The only constraint is that the prescribed capital-to-revenue spending ratio has to be preserved.
Morning everyone! I decided to work late in the lab - just in case I have to get up late tomorrow - or is it later today LOL!
Have I missed any results?
Inadvertently, due to staying in Birmingham tonight, I caught the penultimate train from Coventry which happened to go via Stechford to Aston to Perry Bar to Soho depot and back round to New Street. Nearly doubled the journey time but pleased I managed to do this rare route
Welcome Sunil!
No results yet but plenty of rumour.
Gordon Wilson on BBC Parliament / BBC Scotland now.
Labour's campaign team has been exposed as being useless - they very nearly lost this. What on earth makes you think that they can turn that round to win a General?
Sorry I am a tory but that is ridiculous. Labour has run 2 campaigns in tandem. They have run BT reaching well outside their comfort zone into tory territory and they have run a Labour campaign to keep their traditional vote onside at the same time. And they have won.
One of the professionals I was out with tonight made the comment that this campaign has been about the Labour party in Scotland teaching a new generation of tories how to fight an election and I for one think there is a lot of truth in that.
Thanks, David. I lost my very talented marginal seat organiser for 3 months to the Scottish effort and I'd be sorry to hear she'd been wasting her time!
Why the F weren't you in Scotland, for the last four weeks??
Given that SNP domination of Dundee politics, that result is not that spectacular. It is one of their strongholds - if they failed to carry that, they really are on for a very bad night.
Labour's campaign team has been exposed as being useless - they very nearly lost this. What on earth makes you think that they can turn that round to win a General?
Sorry I am a tory but that is ridiculous. Labour has run 2 campaigns in tandem. They have run BT reaching well outside their comfort zone into tory territory and they have run a Labour campaign to keep their traditional vote onside at the same time. And they have won.
One of the professionals I was out with tonight made the comment that this campaign has been about the Labour party in Scotland teaching a new generation of tories how to fight an election and I for one think there is a lot of truth in that.
Thanks, David. I lost my very talented marginal seat organiser for 3 months to the Scottish effort and I'd be sorry to hear she'd been wasting her time!
Why the F weren't you in Scotland, for the last four weeks??
Maybe NPXMP bought the new BBC mantra: we care more about Burundi than Birmingham (sic) - so let's say Blantyre (Sco not Malawi!).
Or perhaps he has to earn a living, he is not an MP at present!
Comments
The Lost and Nowhere Model !
In a democracy, no politician should make a commitment to pass legislation. They should approach Parliament as supplicants, not purporting to be its masters.
In any case... I would like to see a constitutional convention, with an opportunity for options to be tabled that might not be the preferred choice of those at the top.
Cameron to make "statement to the Nation" first thing in the morning.
Why do you think your prediction might be too high? Do you think Orkney turnout will be in line with the rest of Scotland?
The general view I am getting here suggests an expectation that overall turnout will be higher than Orkney turnout.
One of the professionals I was out with tonight made the comment that this campaign has been about the Labour party in Scotland teaching a new generation of tories how to fight an election and I for one think there is a lot of truth in that.
Who knew!!!!
I remember one about Glasgow needing to be 55%+
Ming: "Hard to justify Scottish MPs voting on English matters"
Rod Could be, we will see, still a long way to go
One prominent local "Yes" activist says the picture here is "not as good as he'd hoped".
Sky reporting Tesco have an offer on pork loins
By the way I very much doubt Andy Murray would want to be sent to Govan. As a Hibs fan this is not the best place for him.
(I want this thread to get to 600 as soon as possible - I'm a PB Scot!!!!!!)
No 60% to 62%
Of the vote early vote often type. Lols.
Have I missed any results?
Inadvertently, due to staying in Birmingham tonight, I caught the penultimate train from Coventry which happened to go via Stechford to Aston to Perry Bar to Soho depot and back round to New Street. Nearly doubled the journey time but pleased I managed to do this rare route
It's not like it is a 'doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in' scenario, this is to decide the future of your country.
I know Labour have been called in to save the Union. But do you think we've thrown to much resource at it.
[edit] at least 10 examples, investigators ready to step in when relevant ballot papers counted.
We are watching the referendum with huge interest. A potential YES could help towards what many of us hope is an independent Catalonia and rSpain. It would also give fresh momentum the Gib nationalists. Mid-term in our electoral cycle so quiet on that front.
On the other hand, great weather and great beaches, great people. What's not to love?! And my apologies; I don't think I've taken the opportunity to say how good it is to see you posting here again.
For every pound that get spent by Local and Central Government in England, the Scots get a commission or a 'consequential'. The only exceptions seem to be for the 2012 Olympics and strangely not the Crossrail project.
What is the Barnett formula?
The Barnett formula convention was introduced in 1979 by (now Lord) Joel Barnett as a replacement to the nineteenth century ‘Goschen Formula’. It is based on adjusting funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland based on spending decisions that affect England only.
The purpose of this was to enable better control of the share of resources going to territorial departments at a time of cash limits and adverse economic conditions nationally.
The Barnett system was intended to be a temporary arrangement until a need-based funding formula could be agreed. A needs assessment study was in progress in 1979, however it was never finalised.
This ‘temporary’ solution is now 35 years old.
How does the formula work?
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each has a ‘block’ of funding that is mapped to English
programmes. Whenever there is a change in funding in England for a policy area that is devolved, the devolved blocks receive a fixed percentage of any cash change in comparable spending. This is known as a ‘Barnett consequential’. The change to funding is automatic and not subject to any negotiation with Treasury or requirements to evidence need for the funding.
This applies both to increases and reductions. Indeed, devolved budgets in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland received the consequential effect of austerity cuts in England, which involved protection of funding of health and schools.
It is important to note that while consequential changes to grant funding in Scotland and other devolved areas are based on changes in particular English programmes, the devolved Parliaments have full discretion over how the funding should be spent and do not have to follow English priorities.
The percentages are determined by the population share of the territory (as % of the England
population) and an estimate of how far the responsibility and power over a policy or service area has been devolved to the territory.
There are exceptions to this rule. Whitehall expenditure that is deemed to be ‘UK-wide’, that is, benefitting the United Kingdom as a whole, does not trigger a Barnett consequential payment. For example, there has been a lot of discussion between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster on whether the Crossrail project should trigger a consequential payment or not, with Scotland prevailing.
The devolved administrations can spend their consequentials on whatever they choose and do not have to follow English spending priorities. The only constraint is that the prescribed capital-to-revenue spending ratio has to be preserved.
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot
not good for YES.
No results yet but plenty of rumour.
Gordon Wilson on BBC Parliament / BBC Scotland now.
There have been allegations of electoral fraud in Glasgow after some people turned up to vote and were told they had already voted #indyref
He is frit
Honestly, someone, somewhere, should be paying me for whatever the F I do.
Ballot papers being taken away by police after reports of double voting on at least 10 occasions reports @KayBurley.