The Catalonian Parliament has today passed a law to enable a referendum on independence to take place on 9th November. The central government has said it will ask Spain's constitutional court to declare it illegal, which it undoubtedly will. The Spanish PM has already made a television address in which he praised the vote in Scotland and the fact that it took place legally. Things are going to get nasty over there.
There is trouble ahead...........
The catalonian gvernment should follow the Croatian model quickly, into forming their own police, courts and most importantly army, if they don't want to be crushed by the spanish. If catalonia votes for independence, or even if it tries to hold a vote, the spanish army will invade Barcelona triggering a second spanish civil war.
No, that won't happen. They already have their own police force and courts.
Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
In England, he becomes the English hero, standing up for English votes on England only issues. Labour have to oppose, kick into the long grass, invent new dodgy English regional bollox etc. A very bad position for Labour, will not be popular with anyone.
In Scotland, he runs with the "Vow" at his pace, linked to English changes, which is not what Comrade Brown promised. The only direction for any anger this creates is at SLAB as there's only 1 Tory MP to rant at and its a Brown/SLAB promise anyway. Equally bad for Labour.
Then in 2015 election, voters will support the parties that are going provide the best deal & strongest negotiators. In Scotland that's the SNP; in England, the Tories. Miliband screwed.
Alternatively millions of ordinary people who are still feeling economically squeezed will wonder why Cameron and the Tories are devoting so much time to efforts to engineer partisan constitutional advantage instead of focusing all their energies on developing measures to improve living standards.
Crumbs, Mr. O., that is a bit of a swing from your position this morning. This morning it was let us has have constitutional change and PR. This afternoon it is millions of ordinary people won't be happy about politicians talking about constitutional change and PR. What has brought that about?
I still want those things. We need them. But Cameron needs to play it carefully. If he is seen to be too partisan it will backfire because the party he leads is unpopular and many voters are already suspicious of its motives.
1) My wife took an elderly lady to her polling station. She was 92 years old. And this was the first time she had voted. Imagine that, 71 years without exercising the franchise. 2) My son, while voting in Edinburgh, saw polling station staff assisting an elderly lady. She was overcome with emotion. She wondered how she could possibly find herself voting to prevent her country from being broken up.
I've no doubt that there will be some Yes people feeling a degree of angst and upset today. But let's not forget the angst and upset Salmond et al have caused to so many people in the run up to this referendum.
Post-polling day anecdote:
My neighbour has just presented me with a chilled bottle of Czech beer to show his appreciation for my having stood up to be counted. Fairly made my day! (Even better than the news of the Salmond despatch.)
And I'm still marvelling at 58% in Moray.
Perhaps, you could answer this question: Why didn't the YES carry what are now-a-days considered SNP territory after the 2007 and 2011 elections except Dundee ? Glasgow and North Lanarkshire would not be typical SNP territory.
Therefore, many SNP voters either did not vote YES or virtually everyone else voted NO.
I think it is to do with the contrasting socio-economic profiles. I'm no expert but I suspect Dundee (and the other places that went for Yes) have a lot of DE voters who were susceptible to the Yes message for various reasons. Places like Moray, Perthshire, Angus etc are completely different - for one thing they were formerly Tory seats and retain a lot of solid unionist supporters. Clearly some of the SNP voters in these seats were unpersuaded by the economic arguments of the Yes campaign and felt it was too risky. The folk in Dundee etc probably felt they had very little to lose and hence no risk.
Yep, spot on.
Understanding this made trading the betfair markets hugely profitable, as more deprived urban areas posted better than expected yes% figures and less deprived rural areas went stronger for no. People got carried away correlating yes% with the 2011 SNP %.
Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
In England, he becomes the English hero, standing up for English votes on England only issues. Labour have to oppose, kick into the long grass, invent new dodgy English regional bollox etc. A very bad position for Labour, will not be popular with anyone.
In Scotland, he runs with the "Vow" at his pace, linked to English changes, which is not what Comrade Brown promised. The only direction for any anger this creates is at SLAB as there's only 1 Tory MP to rant at and its a Brown/SLAB promise anyway. Equally bad for Labour.
Then in 2015 election, voters will support the parties that are going provide the best deal & strongest negotiators. In Scotland that's the SNP; in England, the Tories. Miliband screwed.
Alternatively millions of ordinary people who are still feeling economically squeezed will wonder why Cameron and the Tories are devoting so much time to efforts to engineer partisan constitutional advantage instead of focusing all their energies on developing measures to improve living standards.
Because the promise made by all three leaders - including Miliband - to the Scottish people means we self-evidently need an English (and Welsh and NI) answer.
Millions of people will be wondering why Miliband's convened talking-shop is filled with lackeys and vested interests. They will also wonder why a 'leader' is so inept at, well, leading.
According to LabourList, Miliband says:
"A peoples convention for Britain – keeping promises, but also extending promise – can give all of our citizens a say, a stake and an opportunity to take the power from the elites and place it back into their hands."
I presume the 'a say' bit means there will be a referendum on any (if any) result of the committee's findings? Or does it just mean that the talking-shop will pretend to take into account everyone's views?
And I hate to break it to Miliband, but he is one of the 'elite'.
The guy is a sh*t of the highest order. I mean Brown was a hopeless leader, but Miliband's just taken incompetence and general sh*tness to a lower level.
The Catalonian Parliament has today passed a law to enable a referendum on independence to take place on 9th November. The central government has said it will ask Spain's constitutional court to declare it illegal, which it undoubtedly will. The Spanish PM has already made a television address in which he praised the vote in Scotland and the fact that it took place legally. Things are going to get nasty over there.
There is trouble ahead...........
The catalonian gvernment should follow the Croatian model quickly, into forming their own police, courts and most importantly army, if they don't want to be crushed by the spanish. If catalonia votes for independence, or even if it tries to hold a vote, the spanish army will invade Barcelona triggering a second spanish civil war.
No, that won't happen. They already have their own police force and courts.
What about their own army? Spain will attack if they try to leave.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.
Who will qualify as a "Scot" living in rUK ?
Indeed, and if we use the 'might get a passport' and take the White Paper proposals as an example, grandchildren too would qualify. Which would make it a terribly blood and soil referendum. (We've discussed some of this before, somewhwer erecently, of course.)
It doesn't really matter. The UK came close to breaking up, a possibility that the Establishment (lazily, and complacently) had dismissed out of hand.
They will not be so clumsy next time. If there is a referendum in, say, 15 years then you can be sure that London will be totally aware of all the dangers, from the off, and Westminster will fight hard from the beginning to get more favourable terms, such as including rUK Scots in the vote.
What will Holyrood do, appeal to the UN?
Anyway, it is fairly theoretical right now. I can't imagine there will be appetite, in Scotland, for another huge, destabilising, heart-rending referendum for quite some time.
The Scottish has also suffered in the meantime from an investment freeze because possible investors were waiting for the outcome.
Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
In England, he becomes the English hero, standing up for English votes on England only issues. Labour have to oppose, kick into the long grass, invent new dodgy English regional bollox etc. A very bad position for Labour, will not be popular with anyone.
In Scotland, he runs with the "Vow" at his pace, linked to English changes, which is not what Comrade Brown promised. The only direction for any anger this creates is at SLAB as there's only 1 Tory MP to rant at and its a Brown/SLAB promise anyway. Equally bad for Labour.
Then in 2015 election, voters will support the parties that are going provide the best deal & strongest negotiators. In Scotland that's the SNP; in England, the Tories. Miliband screwed.
Alternatively millions of ordinary people who are still feeling economically squeezed will wonder why Cameron and the Tories are devoting so much time to efforts to engineer partisan constitutional advantage instead of focusing all their energies on developing measures to improve living standards.
Crumbs, Mr. O., that is a bit of a swing from your position this morning. This morning it was let us has have constitutional change and PR. This afternoon it is millions of ordinary people won't be happy about politicians talking about constitutional change and PR. What has brought that about?
I still want those things. We need them. But Cameron needs to play it carefully. If he is seen to be too partisan it will backfire because the party he leads is unpopular and many voters are already suspicious of its motives.
And Miliband;s gambit isn't partisan? Who selects the politicians, members of 'civil society' and the public who sit on the committees and the convention? Who frames the terms of reference?
The whole thing will be one massively expensive waste of time, just to come to the conclusion that Miliband wants: NFA.
House of Lords reforms and devolution to the regions.
There's no appetite for regional devolution (English Balkanisation). The only motivation I can see for it is to prevent the Westminster Prime Minister from dealing with an English First Minister with significant power. Personally I think that such creative tension would be very positive - like the relationship between Boris Johnson and Cameron on steroids.
Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
In England, he becomes the English hero, standing up for English votes on England only issues. Labour have to oppose, kick into the long grass, invent new dodgy English regional bollox etc. A very bad position for Labour, will not be popular with anyone.
In Scotland, he runs with the "Vow" at his pace, linked to English changes, which is not what Comrade Brown promised. The only direction for any anger this creates is at SLAB as there's only 1 Tory MP to rant at and its a Brown/SLAB promise anyway. Equally bad for Labour.
Then in 2015 election, voters will support the parties that are going provide the best deal & strongest negotiators. In Scotland that's the SNP; in England, the Tories. Miliband screwed.
Alternatively millions of ordinary people who are still feeling economically squeezed will wonder why Cameron and the Tories are devoting so much time to efforts to engineer partisan constitutional advantage instead of focusing all their energies on developing measures to improve living standards.
Crumbs, Mr. O., that is a bit of a swing from your position this morning. This morning it was let us has have constitutional change and PR. This afternoon it is millions of ordinary people won't be happy about politicians talking about constitutional change and PR. What has brought that about?
I still want those things. We need them. But Cameron needs to play it carefully. If he is seen to be too partisan it will backfire because the party he leads is unpopular and many voters are already suspicious of its motives.
And Miliband;s gambit isn't partisan? Who selects the politicians, members of 'civil society' and the public who sit on the committees and the convention? Who frames the terms of reference?
The whole thing will be one massively expensive waste of time, just to come to the conclusion that Miliband wants: NFA.
Miliband will just want to pack it full of Common Purpose graduates to ensure the right answer
Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
In England, he becomes the English hero, standing up for English votes on England only issues. Labour have to oppose, kick into the long grass, invent new dodgy English regional bollox etc. A very bad position for Labour, will not be popular with anyone.
In Scotland, he runs with the "Vow" at his pace, linked to English changes, which is not what Comrade Brown promised. The only direction for any anger this creates is at SLAB as there's only 1 Tory MP to rant at and its a Brown/SLAB promise anyway. Equally bad for Labour.
Then in 2015 election, voters will support the parties that are going provide the best deal & strongest negotiators. In Scotland that's the SNP; in England, the Tories. Miliband screwed.
Alternatively millions of ordinary people who are still feeling economically squeezed will wonder why Cameron and the Tories are devoting so much time to efforts to engineer partisan constitutional advantage instead of focusing all their energies on developing measures to improve living standards.
Crumbs, Mr. O., that is a bit of a swing from your position this morning. This morning it was let us has have constitutional change and PR. This afternoon it is millions of ordinary people won't be happy about politicians talking about constitutional change and PR. What has brought that about?
I still want those things. We need them. But Cameron needs to play it carefully. If he is seen to be too partisan it will backfire because the party he leads is unpopular and many voters are already suspicious of its motives.
There probably needs to be some constitutional change for England. Regional devolution perhaps. But it's something that needs to be done carefully over time, separately from the Scotland issue obviously.
Opportunistically rigging the UK parliament in favour of Tory interests is not the answer to any question, apart from the ones that exist in Gideon's "strategic" brain.
After failing to break up the UK, Salmond fuks off, to leave others to pick up the pieces. I go off to catch up on my sleep and miss the fun. grrr.
I can see why he's resigned. Scottish Independence was his life's work. Now that vision has been rejected what is there left to do? Carry on running a devolved Scottish government? For Salmond devolution was only ever a means to an end, not the end itself.
Good for him for having the courage of his convictions and standing down.
Miliband's a pathetic little weasel. He just wants to spread this out into so many areas when Cameron's approach (whilst not perfect, lacking a Parliament and requiring a well-defined idea of what 'only' affects England) is much better.
The Conservatives must hammer the weasel Miliband for trying to avoid giving England equality with Scotland.
Mr. Glenn, you're quite right. Carving up England is a despicable notion.
Unionists need to play this carefully and get it right I think. I've little doubt that some No voters will be feeling stitched up already, on Day 1.
The Scotland issue will come to a head again, possibly much sooner than many think. And a lot of people who really swung it for No - the oldies - won't even be alive next time.
The early signs, with Cameron's petty partisan opportunism, are not encouraging.
I can imagine Miliband as a spotty teenager on the streets of North London, drinking a Latte and shouting:
"What do we want?" "Change!" "And when do we want it?" "After regional committees and a constitutional convention!" "Why do we want it?" "So we don't have to do anything!" "Why?" "'Cos we quite like things the way they are!"
... Then he realises he is on his own, and people on the Number 17 bus are staring at him.
Well, it is not really a surprise. He had left politics before and then came back when the SNP started to do very poorly, so it is not surprising that he is going again.
Hopefully, the SNP will revert to their previous state as a fringe party.
What are the odds on Labour winning both Wesminster and Holyrood ?
Holyrood? Maybe?
Westminster? Unlikely if Cameron keeps up the momentum for EV4EL
A mental exercise into the uselessness of devolution:
So if Labour breaks up the country into small units, because people don't want to governed by the capital of the country, what happens if regions inside the devolved regions don't like to governed by the regions capital (aka Shetland/Scotland)? Should we devolve the devolving regions even more? And what happens if regions in the devolved devolved regions don't like to be governed by the capital of the devolved devolved region? Should we devolve them even more?
In the end we will have hundreds of devolved regions and how will the country be governed? I know, lets have a council or assembly of those elected rulers of the hundreds of devolved regions, perhaps we could call it parliament and the elected rulers MP's.
Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
In England, he becomes the English hero, standing up for English votes on England only issues. Labour have to oppose, kick into the long grass, invent new dodgy English regional bollox etc. A very bad position for Labour, will not be popular with anyone.
In Scotland, he runs with the "Vow" at his pace, linked to English changes, which is not what Comrade Brown promised. The only direction for any anger this creates is at SLAB as there's only 1 Tory MP to rant at and its a Brown/SLAB promise anyway. Equally bad for Labour.
Then in 2015 election, voters will support the parties that are going provide the best deal & strongest negotiators. In Scotland that's the SNP; in England, the Tories. Miliband screwed.
Alternatively millions of ordinary people who are still feeling economically squeezed will wonder why Cameron and the Tories are devoting so much time to efforts to engineer partisan constitutional advantage instead of focusing all their energies on developing measures to improve living standards.
Crumbs, Mr. O., that is a bit of a swing from your position this morning. This morning it was let us has have constitutional change and PR. This afternoon it is millions of ordinary people won't be happy about politicians talking about constitutional change and PR. What has brought that about?
I still want those things. We need them. But Cameron needs to play it carefully. If he is seen to be too partisan it will backfire because the party he leads is unpopular and many voters are already suspicious of its motives.
And Miliband;s gambit isn't partisan? Who selects the politicians, members of 'civil society' and the public who sit on the committees and the convention? Who frames the terms of reference?
The whole thing will be one massively expensive waste of time, just to come to the conclusion that Miliband wants: NFA.
Of course it's partisan. As usual all the Westminster parties are looking for the best way to engineer the situation to their advantage rather than work together to create something that is durable and everyone can support. It's exactly this kind of thing that put the Union in peril and which alienates swathes of voters across the UK.
Labour is going to get burned on this and the Tories will end up entrenching anti-Tory feeling. A proper constitutional settlement is what we need so that the issue can be put to bed. But our leaders are not grown-up enough for that, so instead we will get bickering, petty point scoring and years of tampering depending on who is in power. It's a complete joke.
A mental exercise into the uselessness of devolution:
So if Labour breaks up the country into small units, because people don't want to governed by the capital of the country, what happens if regions inside the devolved regions don't like to governed by the regions capital (aka Shetland/Scotland)? Should we devolve the devolving regions even more? And what happens if regions in the devolved devolved regions don't like to be governed by the capital of the devolved devolved region? Should we devolve them even more?
In the end we will have hundreds of devolved regions and how will the country be governed? I know, lets have a council or assembly of those elected rulers of the hundreds of devolved regions, perhaps we could call it parliament and the elected rulers MP's.
Try a similar mental exercise with the implications of only allowing certain MPs vote on certain issues.
The Catalonian Parliament has today passed a law to enable a referendum on independence to take place on 9th November. The central government has said it will ask Spain's constitutional court to declare it illegal, which it undoubtedly will. The Spanish PM has already made a television address in which he praised the vote in Scotland and the fact that it took place legally. Things are going to get nasty over there.
There is trouble ahead...........
The catalonian gvernment should follow the Croatian model quickly, into forming their own police, courts and most importantly army, if they don't want to be crushed by the spanish. If catalonia votes for independence, or even if it tries to hold a vote, the spanish army will invade Barcelona triggering a second spanish civil war.
No, that won't happen. They already have their own police force and courts.
What about their own army? Spain will attack if they try to leave.
They can't leave. UDI would make Catalonia a pariah state.
It is easy to forget now that had the result gone the other way it could well have been Cameron tendering his resignation. Yet, despite all the criticism he has faced, Cameron has claimed his third victim in Alex Salmond, who joins David Davis and Gordon Brown on his list of vanquished opponents. If he adds Ed Miliband to that trio next year, his place in history is assured!
So the "vow" isn't delivered before May 2015 and we go into the general election with the Tories committing to EV4EL and an in/out vote in 2017... And UKIP still striving to defeat them... UKIP, The party that won't take yes for an answer....
Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
[snip]
Alternatively millions of ordinary people who are still feeling economically squeezed will wonder why Cameron and the Tories are devoting so much time to efforts to engineer partisan constitutional advantage instead of focusing all their energies on developing measures to improve living standards.
Crumbs, Mr. O., that is a bit of a swing from your position this morning. This morning it was let us has have constitutional change and PR. This afternoon it is millions of ordinary people won't be happy about politicians talking about constitutional change and PR. What has brought that about?
I still want those things. We need them. But Cameron needs to play it carefully. If he is seen to be too partisan it will backfire because the party he leads is unpopular and many voters are already suspicious of its motives.
And Miliband;s gambit isn't partisan? Who selects the politicians, members of 'civil society' and the public who sit on the committees and the convention? Who frames the terms of reference?
The whole thing will be one massively expensive waste of time, just to come to the conclusion that Miliband wants: NFA.
Of course it's partisan. As usual all the Westminster parties are looking for the best way to engineer the situation to their advantage rather than work together to create something that is durable and everyone can support. It's exactly this kind of thing that put the Union in peril and which alienates swathes of voters across the UK.
Labour is going to get burned on this and the Tories will end up entrenching anti-Tory feeling. A proper constitutional settlement is what we need so that the issue can be put to bed. But our leaders are not grown-up enough for that, so instead we will get bickering, petty point scoring and years of tampering depending on who is in power. It's a complete joke.
Welcome to the history of the British Constitution :-)
Cameron produces a Bill in January, designed by Lord Smith and piloted by William Hague that gives the Scots more powers and enshrines EVFEL into law... Miliband is going to vote against this? UKIP are going to oppose this? Trap? What Trap?
Mr. Pong, likely, but perhaps not inevitable. Tell a Roman during the Crisis of the Third Century the Empire (in one form or another) would last for more than a thousand years more and they wouldn't've believed you.
Mr. Observer, if Labour had actually thought about devolution beyond trying to create a couple of Celtic fiefdoms for itself we wouldn't be in this mess.
Wasn't it ignoring the don't knows that caused the polls to be wrong? You can't really just ignore them, that's like allocating them 50/50....I think Dan a Hodges was on the money with this
Unionists need to play this carefully and get it right I think. I've little doubt that some No voters will be feeling stitched up already, on Day 1.
The Scotland issue will come to a head again, possibly much sooner than many think. And a lot of people who really swung it for No - the oldies - won't even be alive next time.
The early signs, with Cameron's petty partisan opportunism, are not encouraging.
Whoever wins the next election will devolve new powers to Scotland, all parties are committed to that - so Scots won't feel short-changed. The difference is that the Tories want to do it in a way that is fair to England, but Labour don't, so the English WILL feel short-changed - by Labour - which means the Tories are more likely to win the next election.
You know all this.
Also young people become old. Their idealistic opinions likewise change to those commonly held by old people.
Old people are always more conservative and risk-averse. And Scotland is an ageing country, so it's quite likely the NO majority will grow.
There will not be another referendum in the next twenty years or more. I just isn't going to happen. I think Sean is probably right as well about the No majority. The 'Yes' surge will fade. It's reached its high point, at least in our lifetimes.
A mental exercise into the uselessness of devolution:
So if Labour breaks up the country into small units, because people don't want to governed by the capital of the country, what happens if regions inside the devolved regions don't like to governed by the regions capital (aka Shetland/Scotland)? Should we devolve the devolving regions even more? And what happens if regions in the devolved devolved regions don't like to be governed by the capital of the devolved devolved region? Should we devolve them even more?
In the end we will have hundreds of devolved regions and how will the country be governed? I know, lets have a council or assembly of those elected rulers of the hundreds of devolved regions, perhaps we could call it parliament and the elected rulers MP's.
Try a similar mental exercise with the implications of only allowing certain MPs vote on certain issues.
Yes did that. In fact I did it the first time Labour trotted out the, "You can't have two classes of MP" argument. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now. The difference being that things have moved on since those early days of devolution, what could have been quietly buried then is now in full public view. If Labour want to come up with the same arguments then they might find they don't work as well.
The Catalonian Parliament has today passed a law to enable a referendum on independence to take place on 9th November. The central government has said it will ask Spain's constitutional court to declare it illegal, which it undoubtedly will. The Spanish PM has already made a television address in which he praised the vote in Scotland and the fact that it took place legally. Things are going to get nasty over there.
There is trouble ahead...........
The catalonian gvernment should follow the Croatian model quickly, into forming their own police, courts and most importantly army, if they don't want to be crushed by the spanish. If catalonia votes for independence, or even if it tries to hold a vote, the spanish army will invade Barcelona triggering a second spanish civil war.
No, that won't happen. They already have their own police force and courts.
What about their own army? Spain will attack if they try to leave.
They can't leave. UDI would make Catalonia a pariah state.
The catalans want to leave, their government wants to leave. The only thing that can prevent them is the spanish army.
I always wondered how Spain hasn't suffered a civil war or a revolution with an economic collapse of that magnitute, perhaps it will have one now.
Wasn't it ignoring the don't knows that caused the polls to be wrong? You can't really just ignore them, that's like allocating them 50/50....I think Dan a Hodges was on the money with this
Wasn't it Stuart Dickson who suggested the majority of DK's would end up leaning towards 'Yes', in a Tipping Point post?
Chortling at this idea that Labour will be "killed" in England for opposing "EV4EL". It's too complicated and seemingly irrelevant for the public to pick up on it. People outside the Westminster bubble just don't understand the arcane workings of Parliament -- we saw that with the boundaries issue, where the Tory commentariat were excitedly proclaiming how bad it was for Labour, but it made no impression on the public at all.
What COULD be a fruitful issue for politicians is opposing the higher spending Scotland (allegedly) gets, since that IS something the "layman" can understand easily. And UKIP might well get some extra support if they push that angle (though it's hard to see how the Tories could given Cameron's "vow"). But even for English people who resent Scotland getting a better deal, it won't be immediately obvious to them why tinkering with parliamentary proceedures would deal with the issue at all, and it would involve some long technical explanation which would make most people switch off.
(repost from previous thread before the Salmond bombshell overwhelmed it)
We'll get a count of the core Salmond Beliebers yet...
Is this a joke? 50,000 people really think the count was rigged? Unbelievable. Of course Neil Armstrong didn't go to the moon, it was all filmed in the Nevada desert etc etc.
Mr. Pong, likely, but perhaps not inevitable. Tell a Roman during the Crisis of the Third Century the Empire (in one form or another) would last for more than a thousand years more and they wouldn't've believed you.
Mr. Observer, if Labour had actually thought about devolution beyond trying to create a couple of Celtic fiefdoms for itself we wouldn't be in this mess.
I agree. Labour is not a party I can currently support or defend. However, as someone who believes in the Union I want to see a constitutional settlement that will endure and which will not constantly be changed depending on who is in power.
Unionists need to play this carefully and get it right I think. I've little doubt that some No voters will be feeling stitched up already, on Day 1.
The Scotland issue will come to a head again, possibly much sooner than many think. And a lot of people who really swung it for No - the oldies - won't even be alive next time.
The early signs, with Cameron's petty partisan opportunism, are not encouraging.
What are you rambling on about, Cameron has put a credible person in charge of leading the devomax charge. Scots that I know at work seem content at the moment and are sympathetic to Dave tying it to EV4EL even though the prevailing opinion is for an English Parliament outside of London. Salmond himself has praised the guy Cameron has put in charge of the devomax draft legislation. Hardly anything to feel stitched up about.
Sorry to say it but I saw this in Salmond's eyes yesterday in a photo in the Guardian. He looked empty and defeated just a frisson but it was there and now I'm not so sure it was (only?) because of how the polling was going.
Unionists need to play this carefully and get it right I think. I've little doubt that some No voters will be feeling stitched up already, on Day 1.
The Scotland issue will come to a head again, possibly much sooner than many think. And a lot of people who really swung it for No - the oldies - won't even be alive next time.
The early signs, with Cameron's petty partisan opportunism, are not encouraging.
Whoever wins the next election will devolve new powers to Scotland, all parties are committed to that - so Scots won't feel short-changed. The difference is that the Tories want to do it in a way that is fair to England, but Labour don't, so the English WILL feel short-changed - by Labour - which means the Tories are more likely to win the next election.
You know all this.
Also young people become old. Their idealistic opinions likewise change to those commonly held by old people.
Old people are always more conservative and risk-averse. And Scotland is an ageing country, so it's quite likely the NO majority will grow.
Maybe that's why Labour want to give votes to 16-17 year olds... Even more partisan when you think it was Sadiq Khan suggested it
"Tell a Roman during the Crisis of the Third Century the Empire (in one form or another) would last for more than a thousand years more and they wouldn't've believed you."
Surely a Roman would have been right to have been disbelieving. An empire of sorts based on a capital city hundreds of miles from his home may have lasted for another 1,000 years. However, his home would be put to the torch and his family slaughtered rather sooner.
The Catalonian Parliament has today passed a law to enable a referendum on independence to take place on 9th November. The central government has said it will ask Spain's constitutional court to declare it illegal, which it undoubtedly will. The Spanish PM has already made a television address in which he praised the vote in Scotland and the fact that it took place legally. Things are going to get nasty over there.
There is trouble ahead...........
The catalonian gvernment should follow the Croatian model quickly, into forming their own police, courts and most importantly army, if they don't want to be crushed by the spanish. If catalonia votes for independence, or even if it tries to hold a vote, the spanish army will invade Barcelona triggering a second spanish civil war.
No, that won't happen. They already have their own police force and courts.
What about their own army? Spain will attack if they try to leave.
They can't leave. UDI would make Catalonia a pariah state.
The catalans want to leave, their government wants to leave. The only thing that can prevent them is the spanish army.
I always wondered how Spain hasn't suffered a civil war or a revolution with an economic collapse of that magnitute, perhaps it will have one now.
How do you leave a country? Catalonia is surrounded by Spain, France and the sea. It needs a currency, it needs to import and export, it needs to communicate with the rest of the world, it needs access to energy supplies, it needs international recognition and so on. UDI would put unfettered access to all of these things in doubt. There is no need for any invasions.
EV4EL is logical enough ( not as good as a parliament ) as a response to the lopsided nature if the 1999 devolution arrangements. You simply cannot have it fairly without doing it both ways round. We might've accepted a minor bodge 1922-72 for the tiny1.5m then in N Ireland but a bodge including about 15% of the UK was always unstable and unfair. A gerrymander. To those who say EV4EL is "building electoral advantage" where have you been for 15 years ? There was much ballyhoo that the Scots and a Welsh didn't get who they voted for as governments in the 80's and 90's, well neither did the English in 2010 ( leaving aside the shocking nature of the popular vote v seats in 2005).
If you created devolution as answer to a problem, fair enough, but to last it has to be fair. And sending MP's from Scotland and Wales to extract cash from England's SE quadrant with no balance the other way simply isn't , and I say that as a grateful beneficiary of their largesse. The SE is an easy target but we'd all be a bloody sight poorer collectively without them.
I have no doubt that Scotland will be independent within the next 50 years.
It's inevitable.
Alternatively that's it, the best opportunity ever. Since next time:
No Salmond No Cameron No oil No complacency
Predicting a political event "at some time in the next 50 years" is about as useful as saying we will "run out of oil before coal". I mean, on present trends, that is possibly and theoretically true, but any number of things could happen in the interim to stop it happening, or render the entire question even more irrelevant than it is now.
don't forget PBTories are always wrong about everything ..... oh wait.
Mr. Llama, I did say 'in one form or another'. Besides, at what point did the Empire cease being continuous? With Constantine? Arcadius and Honorius? When the West fell and the East did not? When the Exarchate lost Rome?
I have no doubt that Scotland will be independent within the next 50 years.
It's inevitable.
Alternatively that's it, the best opportunity ever. Since next time:
No Salmond No Cameron No oil No complacency
Predicting a political event "at some time in the next 50 years" is about as useful as saying we will "run out of oil before coal". I mean, on present trends, that is possibly and theoretically true, but any number of things could happen in the interim to stop it happening, or render the entire question even more irrelevant than it is now.
don't forget PBTories are always wrong about everything ..... oh wait.
Whatever happened to the prediction of an Anglo Russian War at the beginning of The Twentieth Century?
@rottenborough I agree with you and I am baffled by SO's comments. I've only time for one comment, but briefly:
1867 Reform Act, which conceded the principle of wide manhood suffrage: passed by a minority Conservative government urgently seeking partisan advantage against a Whig/Radical proposal that would have deliberately gerrymandered the electoral system in their favour by effectively recreating rotten boroughs.
1918 Representation of the Peoples Act, universal manhood suffrage (apart from COs) and wide female suffrage - passed by a coalition government desperate to cash in on their wartime popularity among those groups.
1928 RotP Act, giving universal suffrage at 21 - passed by a Conservative government desperate to try and lure the young female vote away from Labour (ignore the silly myth that it was in response to an absent minded pledge by Baldwin or Joynson-Hicks, that was a lie made up by a drug-addled forger and plagiarist forty years later).
Nobody really remembers why they came about. They only care that they came.
If Cameron can finally sort out the hotchpotch of failure, compromise, ineptitude and bare-faced unfairness that characterises the current UK governmental system, no-one will care that he did it to shaft Ed Miliband.
Of course, nobody will thank him for it either - but the fact that nobody remembers the 14th Earl of Derby as the man who revolutionised British politics in 1867 with the help of Disraeli in order to shaft Russell and Gladstone doesn't make his contribution any the less significant.
'Chortling at this idea that Labour will be "killed" in England for opposing "EV4EL". It's too complicated and seemingly irrelevant for the public to pick up on it'
Voters too stupid to understand English votes for English laws,I suppose it's a view or maybe just wishful thinking.
The Catalonian Parliament has today passed a law to enable a referendum on independence to take place on 9th November. The central government has said it will ask Spain's constitutional court to declare it illegal, which it undoubtedly will. The Spanish PM has already made a television address in which he praised the vote in Scotland and the fact that it took place legally. Things are going to get nasty over there.
There is trouble ahead...........
The catalonian gvernment should follow the Croatian model quickly, into forming their own police, courts and most importantly army, if they don't want to be crushed by the spanish. If catalonia votes for independence, or even if it tries to hold a vote, the spanish army will invade Barcelona triggering a second spanish civil war.
No, that won't happen. They already have their own police force and courts.
What about their own army? Spain will attack if they try to leave.
They can't leave. UDI would make Catalonia a pariah state.
The catalans want to leave, their government wants to leave. The only thing that can prevent them is the spanish army.
I always wondered how Spain hasn't suffered a civil war or a revolution with an economic collapse of that magnitute, perhaps it will have one now.
How do you leave a country? Catalonia is surrounded by Spain, France and the sea. It needs a currency, it needs to import and export, it needs to communicate with the rest of the world, it needs access to energy supplies, it needs international recognition and so on. UDI would put unfettered access to all of these things in doubt. There is no need for any invasions.
They would do it adhoc like Croatia, plus the rest of the world (bar the EU) would recognise catalonia (Morocco and Russia certainly would). You don't understand that Spain is a western version of Yugoslavia, even down to it's economic performance, only force holds it together for now.
We'll get a count of the core Salmond Beliebers yet...
Is this a joke? 50,000 people really think the count was rigged? Unbelievable. Of course Neil Armstrong didn't go to the moon, it was all filmed in the Nevada desert etc etc.
Losers on the YES side are still in the first of the five stages of grief.
The five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.
Unionists need to play this carefully and get it right I think. I've little doubt that some No voters will be feeling stitched up already, on Day 1.
The Scotland issue will come to a head again, possibly much sooner than many think. And a lot of people who really swung it for No - the oldies - won't even be alive next time.
The early signs, with Cameron's petty partisan opportunism, are not encouraging.
Whoever wins the next election will devolve new powers to Scotland, all parties are committed to that - so Scots won't feel short-changed. The difference is that the Tories want to do it in a way that is fair to England, but Labour don't, so the English WILL feel short-changed - by Labour - which means the Tories are more likely to win the next election.
You know all this.
Also young people become old. Their idealistic opinions likewise change to those commonly held by old people.
Old people are always more conservative and risk-averse. And Scotland is an ageing country, so it's quite likely the NO majority will grow.
There will not be another referendum in the next twenty years or more. I just isn't going to happen. I think Sean is probably right as well about the No majority. The 'Yes' surge will fade. It's reached its high point, at least in our lifetimes.
I hope you are correct - however, today I am just thankful that after such a momentous decision by voters that could have seen anger and recrimination on the streets, there has been relative calm in Scotland.
It will take both sides of the referendum argument to rebuild the bridges - I hope they can.
So we go back to a normal bit of politicking. I can't even begin to describe what a disaster the Labour party would have been like if this had gone the other way.
Mr. Llama, I did say 'in one form or another'. Besides, at what point did the Empire cease being continuous? With Constantine? Arcadius and Honorius? When the West fell and the East did not? When the Exarchate lost Rome?
The Roman Empire ended in 410AD, I thought every schoolboy knew that. The was some scuffling around after that date and a Greek empire based on Byzantium lasted until 1453.
The Catalonian Parliament has today passed a law to enable a referendum on independence to take place on 9th November. The central government has said it will ask Spain's constitutional court to declare it illegal, which it undoubtedly will. The Spanish PM has already made a television address in which he praised the vote in Scotland and the fact that it took place legally. Things are going to get nasty over there.
There is trouble ahead...........
The catalonian gvernment should follow the Croatian model quickly, into forming their own police, courts and most importantly army, if they don't want to be crushed by the spanish. If catalonia votes for independence, or even if it tries to hold a vote, the spanish army will invade Barcelona triggering a second spanish civil war.
No, that won't happen. They already have their own police force and courts.
What about their own army? Spain will attack if they try to leave.
They can't leave. UDI would make Catalonia a pariah state.
The catalans want to leave, their government wants to leave. The only thing that can prevent them is the spanish army.
I always wondered how Spain hasn't suffered a civil war or a revolution with an economic collapse of that magnitute, perhaps it will have one now.
How do you leave a country? Catalonia is surrounded by Spain, France and the sea. It needs a currency, it needs to import and export, it needs to communicate with the rest of the world, it needs access to energy supplies, it needs international recognition and so on. UDI would put unfettered access to all of these things in doubt. There is no need for any invasions.
They would do it adhoc like Croatia, plus the rest of the world (bar the EU) would recognise catalonia (Morocco and Russia certainly would). You don't understand that Spain is a western version of Yugoslavia, even down to it's economic performance, only force holds it together for now.
I lived in Catalonia for five years. I understand it pretty well. Spain and France, to an extent, are absolutely pivotal to Catalonian independence. Morocco is neither here nor there.
I think you're right. As much as I am glad to see the back of Salmond - the biggest threat to the Labour party in the last 30 years - we still have a job to do with Sturgeon.
But at least we are only taking one of them on this time.
'Chortling at this idea that Labour will be "killed" in England for opposing "EV4EL". It's too complicated and seemingly irrelevant for the public to pick up on it'
Voters too stupid to understand English votes for English laws,I suppose it's a view or maybe just wishful thinking.
Not too stupid, but don't care enough. It requires a knowledge of how Parliament works, which obviously all of us have but most people (sensibly) have better things to do with their time than research it. Frankly, I'm not even very sure a lot of people realise that votes even take place in Parliament (people might see it just where politicians go to "debate" and insult eachother).
Lord Ashcroft's study of the 2010 election is good on this -- his focus groups showed people couldn't grasp the concept of a "hung parliament" simply because they didn't know how Parliament worked.
Mr. Llama, bah. The Western Empire ended then. The Eastern went on for a long while after.
Incidentally, there was a programme on about 8pm on BBC4 (first of three) called A Tale of Three Cities, or similar, about Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul.
Well it would have been civil war. People like myself would have been booting SLAB out the door. Some of SLAB would be trying to stay and other in the would be rUK Labour party would be attacking me for facing reality.
So here's a question for you. Imagine if it had been only SLAB and not the rest of the Labour party fighting this battle. Would it have been a yes? I think maybe.
We'll get a count of the core Salmond Beliebers yet...
Is this a joke? 50,000 people really think the count was rigged? Unbelievable. Of course Neil Armstrong didn't go to the moon, it was all filmed in the Nevada desert etc etc.
Losers on the YES side are still in the first of the five stages of grief.
The five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.
Watch out when they get to the second stage!
Wings over Scotland were mightily exercised by the fact that the BBC interviewed Salmond and were biased because they didn't give any *other* nationalist point of view!!
Mr. 565, all that needs be done is to tell people Scottish MPs can vote on English only matters, the Conservatives want English votes on English laws and Miliband wants to stop that and allow the present situation to continue.
Comments
Still at least it was mentioned on PB comments for those smart enough to get money on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29255449
Chortle.....as a late (un)lamented poster would (not) observe.....
@DPJHodges: Does EM think only people in Scotland heard him pledging accelerated home rule?
Since devolution has been a failure, why do more?
Understanding this made trading the betfair markets hugely profitable, as more deprived urban areas posted better than expected yes% figures and less deprived rural areas went stronger for no. People got carried away correlating yes% with the 2011 SNP %.
Look at figure 1 (page 6) here:
http://www.dundeepartnership.co.uk/sites/default/files/SIMD12_Analysis.pdf
Millions of people will be wondering why Miliband's convened talking-shop is filled with lackeys and vested interests. They will also wonder why a 'leader' is so inept at, well, leading.
According to LabourList, Miliband says: I presume the 'a say' bit means there will be a referendum on any (if any) result of the committee's findings? Or does it just mean that the talking-shop will pretend to take into account everyone's views?
And I hate to break it to Miliband, but he is one of the 'elite'.
The guy is a sh*t of the highest order. I mean Brown was a hopeless leader, but Miliband's just taken incompetence and general sh*tness to a lower level.
Spain will attack if they try to leave.
The whole thing will be one massively expensive waste of time, just to come to the conclusion that Miliband wants: NFA.
James Reed @JamesReedYP 2m
Joyce Thacker leaving "with immediate effect" #Rotherham #localgov
Thacker believes that no one will notice....
I hope she isn't seriously ill, but if there is nothing wrong, you have to wonder why they need to change stories...
Opportunistically rigging the UK parliament in favour of Tory interests is not the answer to any question, apart from the ones that exist in Gideon's "strategic" brain.
Good for him for having the courage of his convictions and standing down.
Miliband's a pathetic little weasel. He just wants to spread this out into so many areas when Cameron's approach (whilst not perfect, lacking a Parliament and requiring a well-defined idea of what 'only' affects England) is much better.
The Conservatives must hammer the weasel Miliband for trying to avoid giving England equality with Scotland.
Mr. Glenn, you're quite right. Carving up England is a despicable notion.
Poor Rupert, all that time invested in Salmond and now he buggers off.The Scotland issue will come to a head again, possibly much sooner than many think. And a lot of people who really swung it for No - the oldies - won't even be alive next time.
The early signs, with Cameron's petty partisan opportunism, are not encouraging.
"What do we want?"
"Change!"
"And when do we want it?"
"After regional committees and a constitutional convention!"
"Why do we want it?"
"So we don't have to do anything!"
"Why?"
"'Cos we quite like things the way they are!"
... Then he realises he is on his own, and people on the Number 17 bus are staring at him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/upshot/scotlands-no-vote-a-loss-for-pollsters-and-a-win-for-betting-markets.html?contentCollection=world&action=click&module=NextInCollection®ion=Footer&pgtype=article&abt=0002&abg=0
Westminster? Unlikely if Cameron keeps up the momentum for EV4EL
So if Labour breaks up the country into small units, because people don't want to governed by the capital of the country, what happens if regions inside the devolved regions don't like to governed by the regions capital (aka Shetland/Scotland)?
Should we devolve the devolving regions even more?
And what happens if regions in the devolved devolved regions don't like to be governed by the capital of the devolved devolved region?
Should we devolve them even more?
In the end we will have hundreds of devolved regions and how will the country be governed?
I know, lets have a council or assembly of those elected rulers of the hundreds of devolved regions, perhaps we could call it parliament and the elected rulers MP's.
It's inevitable.
Labour is going to get burned on this and the Tories will end up entrenching anti-Tory feeling. A proper constitutional settlement is what we need so that the issue can be put to bed. But our leaders are not grown-up enough for that, so instead we will get bickering, petty point scoring and years of tampering depending on who is in power. It's a complete joke.
1) The Union is saved
2) Labours nemesis in its heartland resigns
=
Disaster for Labour!!
Miliband is going to vote against this? UKIP are going to oppose this?
Trap? What Trap?
No Salmond
No Cameron
No oil
No complacency
Mr. Observer, if Labour had actually thought about devolution beyond trying to create a couple of Celtic fiefdoms for itself we wouldn't be in this mess.
That's 10,000 more in 2 hours. 1% of Scottish Population and counting...
https://www.change.org/p/alex-salmond-we-the-undersigned-demand-a-revote-of-the-scottish-referendum-counted-by-impartial-international-parties
We'll get a count of the core Salmond Beliebers yet...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29286638
I always wondered how Spain hasn't suffered a civil war or a revolution with an economic collapse of that magnitute, perhaps it will have one now.
The indyref has exposed how susceptible the British WWC DE demographic is to a respectable, nationalist, feck-em-all agenda.
England is ripe for UKIP. Sadly.
What COULD be a fruitful issue for politicians is opposing the higher spending Scotland (allegedly) gets, since that IS something the "layman" can understand easily. And UKIP might well get some extra support if they push that angle (though it's hard to see how the Tories could given Cameron's "vow"). But even for English people who resent Scotland getting a better deal, it won't be immediately obvious to them why tinkering with parliamentary proceedures would deal with the issue at all, and it would involve some long technical explanation which would make most people switch off.
(repost from previous thread before the Salmond bombshell overwhelmed it)
'Try a similar mental exercise with the implications of only allowing certain MPs vote on certain issues.'
We just need the same deal in England that Labour gave to Scotland & Wales & for the end to the existing two classes of MP's at Westminster..
http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/news/article/254/statement_regarding_joyce_thacker
Agenda?
The plot thickens
"Tell a Roman during the Crisis of the Third Century the Empire (in one form or another) would last for more than a thousand years more and they wouldn't've believed you."
Surely a Roman would have been right to have been disbelieving. An empire of sorts based on a capital city hundreds of miles from his home may have lasted for another 1,000 years. However, his home would be put to the torch and his family slaughtered rather sooner.
If you created devolution as answer to a problem, fair enough, but to last it has to be fair. And sending MP's from Scotland and Wales to extract cash from England's SE quadrant with no balance the other way simply isn't , and I say that as a grateful beneficiary of their largesse. The SE is an easy target but we'd all be a bloody sight poorer collectively without them.
Mr. Llama, I did say 'in one form or another'. Besides, at what point did the Empire cease being continuous? With Constantine? Arcadius and Honorius? When the West fell and the East did not? When the Exarchate lost Rome?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right
Sure Labour has got some work to do. Not denying that at all. But you know. Come on, this is about a good as result as possible.
1867 Reform Act, which conceded the principle of wide manhood suffrage: passed by a minority Conservative government urgently seeking partisan advantage against a Whig/Radical proposal that would have deliberately gerrymandered the electoral system in their favour by effectively recreating rotten boroughs.
1918 Representation of the Peoples Act, universal manhood suffrage (apart from COs) and wide female suffrage - passed by a coalition government desperate to cash in on their wartime popularity among those groups.
1928 RotP Act, giving universal suffrage at 21 - passed by a Conservative government desperate to try and lure the young female vote away from Labour (ignore the silly myth that it was in response to an absent minded pledge by Baldwin or Joynson-Hicks, that was a lie made up by a drug-addled forger and plagiarist forty years later).
Nobody really remembers why they came about. They only care that they came.
If Cameron can finally sort out the hotchpotch of failure, compromise, ineptitude and bare-faced unfairness that characterises the current UK governmental system, no-one will care that he did it to shaft Ed Miliband.
Of course, nobody will thank him for it either - but the fact that nobody remembers the 14th Earl of Derby as the man who revolutionised British politics in 1867 with the help of Disraeli in order to shaft Russell and Gladstone doesn't make his contribution any the less significant.
'Chortling at this idea that Labour will be "killed" in England for opposing "EV4EL". It's too complicated and seemingly irrelevant for the public to pick up on it'
Voters too stupid to understand English votes for English laws,I suppose it's a view or maybe just wishful thinking.
You don't understand that Spain is a western version of Yugoslavia, even down to it's economic performance, only force holds it together for now.
Losers on the YES side are still in the first of the five stages of grief.
The five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.
Watch out when they get to the second stage!
It will take both sides of the referendum argument to rebuild the bridges - I hope they can.
Winning the Independence debate
Labours done well on the referendums.
So we go back to a normal bit of politicking. I can't even begin to describe what a disaster the Labour party would have been like if this had gone the other way.
Else
I think you're right. As much as I am glad to see the back of Salmond - the biggest threat to the Labour party in the last 30 years - we still have a job to do with Sturgeon.
But at least we are only taking one of them on this time.
Lord Ashcroft's study of the 2010 election is good on this -- his focus groups showed people couldn't grasp the concept of a "hung parliament" simply because they didn't know how Parliament worked.
Incidentally, there was a programme on about 8pm on BBC4 (first of three) called A Tale of Three Cities, or similar, about Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul.
Well it would have been civil war. People like myself would have been booting SLAB out the door. Some of SLAB would be trying to stay and other in the would be rUK Labour party would be attacking me for facing reality.
So here's a question for you. Imagine if it had been only SLAB and not the rest of the Labour party fighting this battle. Would it have been a yes? I think maybe.
Not overly complicated.