With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.
They can safely apply for asylum in any of the countries of the Shengen area. They are illegally entering our country, therefore they are illegal immigrants.
Immediate deportation to an offshore camp would soon put a stop to the camp in Calais.
Try to understand some international law before spouting drivel.
Umm... in what way did the good doctor not get international law correct?
Look up article 31 on UN convention on the Status of Refugees.
BenM By practice, you are only an asylum seeker in the first country you step foot in upon leaving the country where you claim persecution. The UK could return all asylum seekers in the UK who have got there via France or England to those countries without being in breach of the UN
Mm, interesting. And (I think) about 5K members for the SNP. And a new movement springing up (the 45% with percentage sign, not Charles Edward Stuart's little jaunt to Derby). Early days yet.
I notice you guessed 55.78% for your prediction.
Was that what you seriously thought would happen, or what you wanted to happen?
Mm, interesting. And (I think) about 5K members for the SNP. And a new movement springing up (the 45% with percentage sign, not Charles Edward Stuart's little jaunt to Derby). Early days yet.
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
I have this theory, that the political betting markets don't do sentiment.
They look at the cold hard reality, and if most of the money on the betting was from England, then it also fits into the reality, that political punters make more money, when they don't have a dog in the fight.
The one thing I can't work out is where all that extra money on Betfair came from.
Mm, interesting. And (I think) about 5K members for the SNP. And a new movement springing up (the 45% with percentage sign, not Charles Edward Stuart's little jaunt to Derby). Early days yet.
I notice you guessed 55.78% for your prediction.
Was that what you seriously thought would happen, or what you wanted to happen?
Bit of both, in a way. it was based on the old office sweepstake principle if you can choose a reasonably continuous variable. You aren't going to win if everyone else is close to you, so you may as well have a bit of space. My personal estimate was 45-55% because of all the uncertainties, so it was a matter of picking one end or the other.
Mm, interesting. And (I think) about 5K members for the SNP. And a new movement springing up (the 45% with percentage sign, not Charles Edward Stuart's little jaunt to Derby). Early days yet.
Mm, interesting. And (I think) about 5K members for the SNP. And a new movement springing up (the 45% with percentage sign, not Charles Edward Stuart's little jaunt to Derby). Early days yet.
I notice you guessed 55.78% for your prediction.
Was that what you seriously thought would happen, or what you wanted to happen?
There is a notable and curious absentee from the entries - Stuart Dickson.
Has Stuart 'Clueless wonders are in for a shock' Dickson been seen since Thursday?
Tipping point
I also loved The Union Divvie's single word - "boom" - as a poll came up, coupla days before the vote, showing another YES lead.
Turned out it was a typo, and NO was in the lead.
"Boom.
Oh."
Credit to Carnyx for coming on here and being a man, the rest of the Nats have turned out to be the most pathetic bunch of girl scouts, running away from the Unionist spider. All kilt and no sporran. A spineless mob of fanny-featured jessies. Hilarious.
An all-too-predictable handbrake turn from pitiful blubbering to triumphalist blustering; to modify Churchill's aphorism, in the face of defeat unnerved, in victory unbearable. Much better to have spent the last few days with friends and fellow campaigners rather than unpleasant bystanders.
If you pm me either details for a bank transfer or an e-mail address for a Paypal payment I'll forward £100.
If Tim's looking in, I owe you £100 on the Indy winner, and you owe me £50 for the Salmond v. Darling Ipsos approval ratings (on my reading), so net I owe you £50. You can let me know via Peter the Punter how you'd like paid.
Mark Senior, you owe me £25 for Yes being above 40%, let me know how you want to pay.
Antifrank, you owe charity £50 for Yes being above 40%. I think I nominated the Erskine veterans charity - http://www.erskine.org.uk
good to see you back divvie, it's been a bit quiet with malc on hols.
Has Stuart 'Clueless wonders are in for a shock' Dickson been seen since Thursday?
Tipping point
I also loved The Union Divvie's single word - "boom" - as a poll came up, coupla days before the vote, showing another YES lead.
Turned out it was a typo, and NO was in the lead.
"Boom.
Oh."
Credit to Carnyx for coming on here and being a man, the rest of the Nats have turned out to be the most pathetic bunch of girl scouts, running away from the Unionist spider. All kilt and no sporran. A spineless mob of fanny-featured jessies. Hilarious.
An all-too-predictable handbrake turn from pitiful blubbering to triumphalist blustering; to modify Churchill's aphorism, in the face of defeat unnerved, in victory unbearable. Much better to have spent the last few days with friends and fellow campaigners rather than unpleasant bystanders.
If you pm me either details for a bank transfer or an e-mail address for a Paypal payment I'll forward £100.
If Tim's looking in, I owe you £100 on the Indy winner, and you owe me £50 for the Salmond v. Darling Ipsos approval ratings (on my reading), so net I owe you £50. You can let me know via Peter the Punter how you'd like paid.
Mark Senior, you owe me £25 for Yes being above 40%, let me know how you want to pay.
Antifrank, you owe charity £50 for Yes being above 40%. I think I nominated the Erskine veterans charity - http://www.erskine.org.uk
good to see you back divvie, it's been a bit quiet with malc on hols.
Zooming on that front page it says support for the SNP has soared, but the voters don't want another referendum for a generation.
Fieldwork was friday
Good. Precisely what I wanted out the referendum. Salmond going isn't great but he's gone quickly and the SNP are THE party to hold Lib-Lab-Con's "feet to the fire" at Westminster. Hope they do well !
I won't say [edit: one way or another, though he did at least not do a Rajoy] what I think of Mr C, but I can entirely agree with what else you say. As I well recall at the time, the devomax option was clearly understood amongst pro-indy sites, etc., to be dependent on the agreement of the rest of the UK - so the notion was certainly out there at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (as were at least initial discussions about the problems of England's governance in the UK, sympathetic ones too). But hey, we were a bunch of nats, so who cared? And when Mr Cameron had 'defeated' Mr Salmond by saying no to indyref, how the media cheered.
The other question is why Mr Cameron was more frightened of his backbenchers than the Scots, and risked the Union instead of talking them through what might be necessary. He did have two years, and could have made it clear at the start that "we will offer the third option with full details at the time, but if it's not a goer, it's a plain yes/no indyref".
Instead, look what we ****** get! He's managed to upset, oh, everyone on PB? or am I missing anyone out?
No I don't think you have missed anyone out. Its Cameron's MO. it worked for him at school, it worked for him at Uni, it worked for him so far in politics. And when he is thrown out of government next May it still won't occur to him to consider that actually planning ahead, thinking about what might happen and putting positions into place in advance is a good trait to have, especially as a top level leader.
Cameron is just not a leader. If he had applied for Sandhurst there is a good chance, given his background, that he would have got in and got through the course. When he arrived in battalion however his platoon would have ripped him up for arse-paper and he would have been back into civvy street inside a year.
Has Stuart 'Clueless wonders are in for a shock' Dickson been seen since Thursday?
Tipping point
I also loved The Union Divvie's single word - "boom" - as a poll came up, coupla days before the vote, showing another YES lead.
Turned out it was a typo, and NO was in the lead.
"Boom.
Oh."
Credit to Carnyx for coming on here and being a man, the rest of the Nats have turned out to be the most pathetic bunch of girl scouts, running away from the Unionist spider. All kilt and no sporran. A spineless mob of fanny-featured jessies. Hilarious.
An all-too-predictable handbrake turn from pitiful blubbering to triumphalist blustering; to modify Churchill's aphorism, in the face of defeat unnerved, in victory unbearable. Much better to have spent the last few days with friends and fellow campaigners rather than unpleasant bystanders.
If you pm me either details for a bank transfer or an e-mail address for a Paypal payment I'll forward £100.
If Tim's looking in, I owe you £100 on the Indy winner, and you owe me £50 for the Salmond v. Darling Ipsos approval ratings (on my reading), so net I owe you £50. You can let me know via Peter the Punter how you'd like paid.
Mark Senior, you owe me £25 for Yes being above 40%, let me know how you want to pay.
Antifrank, you owe charity £50 for Yes being above 40%. I think I nominated the Erskine veterans charity - http://www.erskine.org.uk
good to see you back divvie, it's been a bit quiet with malc on hols.
Thanks AB. Sometimes there are things even more important than posting on PB!
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
I have this theory, that the political betting markets don't do sentiment.
They look at the cold hard reality, and if most of the money on the betting was from England, then it also fits into the reality, that political punters make more money, when they don't have a dog in the fight.
The one thing I can't work out is where all that extra money on Betfair came from.
I don't agree, TSE.
Punters on politics very often do so out of sentiment. I think Shadsy can confirm that a lot of Yes money came from Scotland.
Mm, interesting. And (I think) about 5K members for the SNP. And a new movement springing up (the 45% with percentage sign, not Charles Edward Stuart's little jaunt to Derby). Early days yet.
I notice you guessed 55.78% for your prediction.
Was that what you seriously thought would happen, or what you wanted to happen?
There is a notable and curious absentee from the entries - Stuart Dickson.
Unless he used an alias?
He either used an alias or didn't enter, no real way of knowing. Cannot see the Union Divvie's entry either.
The other consideration is that UKIP have so many potential targets along the Kent Coast (2 Thanet seats, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Folkestone, 3 Medway seats) that I think it unlikely there will be that much attention paid to Maidstone except from the local association
Very good points, Mr. C.. Whilst UKIP is growing fast it is will still be very difficult to get enough people out on the streets for the "ground war" in a general election with all(?) constituencies contested. However, the answer to that must surely be not to fight the traditional ground war. Fighting on your enemy's terms has always been a losing idea.
You make a very good point too. With the apparent collapse of the Lib Dem vote share will they have the dosh and, more importantly, the will to chase after potential gains like Maidstone. I dunno. I think they are stuffed as a political force if all they do is circle the wagons in May.
The other thing to bare in mind when comparing 2015 to 2010 is there is unlikely to be another Cleggasm so it may well be where Libdem numbers swelled in 2010 (but didn't produce a Libdem MP) their voter numbers will fall back in 2015. If you look at the two General Election votes of 2005 and 2010 the swelling of the Libdem vote in 2010 is almost identical to the squeeze on the Labour vote. Did Labour mess up in 2010? Was it an anti-Brown vote. Was it the local Labour candidate?
I won't say [edit: one way or another, though he did at least not do a Rajoy] what I think of Mr C, but I can entirely agree with what else you say. As I well recall at the time, the devomax option was clearly understood amongst pro-indy sites, etc., to be dependent on the agreement of the rest of the UK - so the notion was certainly out there at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (as were at least initial discussions about the problems of England's governance in the UK, sympathetic ones too). But hey, we were a bunch of nats, so who cared? And when Mr Cameron had 'defeated' Mr Salmond by saying no to indyref, how the media cheered.
The other question is why Mr Cameron was more frightened of his backbenchers than the Scots, and risked the Union instead of talking them through what might be necessary. He did have two years, and could have made it clear at the start that "we will offer the third option with full details at the time, but if it's not a goer, it's a plain yes/no indyref".
Instead, look what we ****** get! He's managed to upset, oh, everyone on PB? or am I missing anyone out?
No I don't think you have missed anyone out. Its Cameron's MO. it worked for him at school, it worked for him at Uni, it worked for him so far in politics. And when he is thrown out of government next May it still won't occur to him to consider that actually planning ahead, thinking about what might happen and putting positions into place in advance is a good trait to have, especially as a top level leader.
Cameron is just not a leader. If he had applied for Sandhurst there is a good chance, given his background, that he would have got in and got through the course. When he arrived in battalion however his platoon would have ripped him up for arse-paper and he would have been back into civvy street inside a year.
Congrats to the winners.
And to Mr Llama for putting his finger on Call-me-Dave's fatal flaw. As some one said a day or so ago he's been lucky and once your luck runs out ......
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
Mm, interesting. And (I think) about 5K members for the SNP. And a new movement springing up (the 45% with percentage sign, not Charles Edward Stuart's little jaunt to Derby). Early days yet.
I notice you guessed 55.78% for your prediction.
Was that what you seriously thought would happen, or what you wanted to happen?
There is a notable and curious absentee from the entries - Stuart Dickson.
Unless he used an alias?
He either used an alias or didn't enter, no real way of knowing. Cannot see the Union Divvie's entry either.
Yeah, but Union is here with us now, chatting away happily.
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
I have this theory, that the political betting markets don't do sentiment.
They look at the cold hard reality, and if most of the money on the betting was from England, then it also fits into the reality, that political punters make more money, when they don't have a dog in the fight.
The one thing I can't work out is where all that extra money on Betfair came from.
I don't agree, TSE.
Punters on politics very often do so out of sentiment. I think Shadsy can confirm that a lot of Yes money came from Scotland.
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
I found it amazing to watch Gordon Brown out on the campaign trail. Back at the general election, he was a bumbling idiot who seemed so out of touch with common people. But in Scotland he just seemed so natural connecting with them and in his element.
PBers may wish to avail themselves of the generous odds of the LibDems winning Watford now that Dorothy Thornhill has been selected as their PPC.
It'll not last long ....
Remind me of your prediction in Watford last time?
*Innocent face*
I do agree with your assessment this time though.
Indeed.
I still don't logically understand that result and I've put it down to a combination of the cussedness of the Watford electorate, a highly effective ballot stuffing operation by the lizard people and Sean Fear and his then Conservative prayer mat.
There were a few weird results in the Lib/Con fights last time, my most unexpected winners were Con gain Winchester and LD gain Wells.
I'm not sure how the Tories gained Winchester, and I backed the LDs in Wells for all the wrong reasons, but it was all down to the Kippers that one.
Those two were my only nasty constituency losses.
My explanation for them was "when shit's about look out".
Spot the difference with the edition translated into Jockanese that you put up earlier.
But - as admittedly I have said before - I once read the Mail in Scotland financial pages, having nothing else to hand in a sandwich bar. They included a long article on wills and probate, including intestacy. But it had been copied from the southern edition. As someone with [edit] recent practical experience as an executor of Scots law, I still shudder to think what happened to anyone who took that seriously.
Congratulations on the Glasgow result, which must be some consolation.
"Much better to have spent the last few days with friends and fellow campaigners rather than unpleasant bystanders."
A sort of dull haze of repression has settled over pb.com since the result.
There have been a huge numbers of posts about little Wales and Scotland bullying defenceless English MPs by voting through laws they don't agree with.
And Socrates has written his ten millionth post about immigration.
Thanks, was proud of our efforts in Glasgow (our constituency had 2nd highest Yes for the city), if a little disappointed with the turnout. Some strange turnout figures: I believe Hillhead, probably the most affluent area of Glasgow, was 60%.
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
My piece as it stands, say the evidence is more that Salmond and Yes couldn't come up with convincing answer on the currency.
British politics has shown the pound can end/destroy/ruin the credibility of Governments, from Harold Wilson's pound in your pocket, to John Major and the devaluation of sterling.
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
Who saved the Union, Decrepit? The Scottish voters did.
They were ably assisted by a number of notables, such as Gordon Brown, and many, many humble workers, such as DavidL (of this Parish.)
But at the end of the day it was Good Scottish Common Sense wot won it.
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
Can we kill this "Brown saved the Union" meme? There are three factors that led to NO:-
1. Osborne's "no currency union".
2. Cameron's "we're great together" speech (which Brown copied from).
3. Businesses making clear the economic reality of independence.
Brown may have helped a bit.
I should add I suppose 4 - Salmond failing to come up with coherent responses to points 1 - 3.
With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.
Well, given that any illegal immigrant can just make a claim for asylum and immediately gets asylum seeker status until the full appeals process has worked out, there's not much to differentiate them.
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
Can we kill this "Brown saved the Union" meme? There are three factors that led to NO:-
1. Osborne's "no currency union".
2. Cameron's "we're great together" speech (which Brown copied from).
3. Businesses making clear the economic reality of independence.
Brown may have helped a bit.
I should add I suppose 4 - Salmond failing to come up with coherent responses to points 1 - 3.
Mm, interesting. And (I think) about 5K members for the SNP. And a new movement springing up (the 45% with percentage sign, not Charles Edward Stuart's little jaunt to Derby). Early days yet.
I notice you guessed 55.78% for your prediction.
Was that what you seriously thought would happen, or what you wanted to happen?
There is a notable and curious absentee from the entries - Stuart Dickson.
Unless he used an alias?
He either used an alias or didn't enter, no real way of knowing. Cannot see the Union Divvie's entry either.
I didn't enter, too busy.
Also by that point it seemed a little frivolous, like betting on whether someone close to you will recover from cancer or not.
With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.
Well, given that any illegal immigrant can just make a claim for asylum and immediately gets asylum seeker status until the full appeals process has worked out, there's not much to differentiate them.
Actually no.
The full weight of international law differentiates an Asylum Seeker - a legal status with associated legal protections - from an "illegal immigrant".
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
Can we kill this "Brown saved the Union" meme? There are three factors that led to NO:-
1. Osborne's "no currency union".
2. Cameron's "we're great together" speech (which Brown copied from).
3. Businesses making clear the economic reality of independence.
Brown may have helped a bit.
I should add I suppose 4 - Salmond failing to come up with coherent responses to points 1 - 3.
Flattery will get you nowhere, but please don't let it stop you. ;-)
(Btw, I didn't make much on the main event, but did OK on Turnover.)
I was very fortunate this time, Mike and I talked a lot in the last 18 months off site about the indyref, my betting strategy was to do what Mike said to do.
With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.
Well, given that any illegal immigrant can just make a claim for asylum and immediately gets asylum seeker status until the full appeals process has worked out, there's not much to differentiate them.
Actually no.
The full weight of international law differentiates an Asylum Seeker - a legal status with associated legal protections - from an "illegal immigrant".
What would you call this guy then,illegal immigrant or Asylum seeker ?
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
Can we kill this "Brown saved the Union" meme? There are three factors that led to NO:-
1. Osborne's "no currency union".
2. Cameron's "we're great together" speech (which Brown copied from).
3. Businesses making clear the economic reality of independence.
Brown may have helped a bit.
I should add I suppose 4 - Salmond failing to come up with coherent responses to points 1 - 3.
1. Yet the polls continued to close dramatically after that announcement?
2. Which of the two was openly discussed on the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh? Clue: not the PMs.
3. A definite help, I agree. The blanket doom-mongering from business certainly helped to seal the deal. Also a very bad omen for europhobes in any future EU in/out referendum.
I won't say [edit: one way or another, though he did at least not do a Rajoy] what I think of Mr C, but I can entirely agree with what else you say. As I well recall at the time, the devomax option was clearly understood amongst pro-indy sites, etc., to be dependent on the agreement of the rest of the UK - so the notion was certainly out there at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (as were at least initial discussions about the problems of England's governance in the UK, sympathetic ones too). But hey, we were a bunch of nats, so who cared? And when Mr Cameron had 'defeated' Mr Salmond by saying no to indyref, how the media cheered.
The other question is why Mr Cameron was more frightened of his backbenchers than the Scots, and risked the Union instead of talking them through what might be necessary. He did have two years, and could have made it clear at the start that "we will offer the third option with full details at the time, but if it's not a goer, it's a plain yes/no indyref".
Instead, look what we ****** get! He's managed to upset, oh, everyone on PB? or am I missing anyone out?
No I don't think you have missed anyone out. Its Cameron's MO. it worked for him at school, it worked for him at Uni, it worked for him so far in politics. And when he is thrown out of government next May it still won't occur to him to consider that actually planning ahead, thinking about what might happen and putting positions into place in advance is a good trait to have, especially as a top level leader.
Cameron is just not a leader. If he had applied for Sandhurst there is a good chance, given his background, that he would have got in and got through the course. When he arrived in battalion however his platoon would have ripped him up for arse-paper and he would have been back into civvy street inside a year.
Congrats to the winners.
And to Mr Llama for putting his finger on Call-me-Dave's fatal flaw. As some one said a day or so ago he's been lucky and once your luck runs out ......
I'm pretty sure Mr Llama's wrong on that, as he usually is when he talks about Cameron. It's an unusual blind spot he has.
When someone has been as 'lucky' as Cameron (by your definition), you have to start to wonder if it is skill rather than luck ...
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
Can we kill this "Brown saved the Union" meme? There are three factors that led to NO:-
1. Osborne's "no currency union".
2. Cameron's "we're great together" speech (which Brown copied from).
3. Businesses making clear the economic reality of independence.
Brown may have helped a bit.
I should add I suppose 4 - Salmond failing to come up with coherent responses to points 1 - 3.
I mean really ?
Really. Particularly points 1 & 3.
I can't really see Cameron and Osborne having much of an affinity with the Scottish electorate, they have effectively ignored scottish voters since they took over the Conservatives. I think you're kidding yourself.
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
Can we kill this "Brown saved the Union" meme? There are three factors that led to NO:-
1. Osborne's "no currency union".
2. Cameron's "we're great together" speech (which Brown copied from).
3. Businesses making clear the economic reality of independence.
Brown may have helped a bit.
I should add I suppose 4 - Salmond failing to come up with coherent responses to points 1 - 3.
I mean really ?
Really. Particularly points 1 & 3.
I can't really see Cameron and Osborne having much of an affinity with the Scottish electorate, they have effectively ignored scottish voters since they took over the Conservatives. I think you're kidding yourself.
With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.
Well, given that any illegal immigrant can just make a claim for asylum and immediately gets asylum seeker status until the full appeals process has worked out, there's not much to differentiate them.
Actually no.
The full weight of international law differentiates an Asylum Seeker - a legal status with associated legal protections - from an "illegal immigrant".
Did you even pause to listen to my point? As soon as an illegal immigrant claims asylum (which anyone can do), they become an asylum seeker. Thus all your theoretical differentiation doesn't make much difference in practice.
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
I found it amazing to watch Gordon Brown out on the campaign trail. Back at the general election, he was a bumbling idiot who seemed so out of touch with common people. But in Scotland he just seemed so natural connecting with them and in his element.
Brown as Prime Minister was captured by the image-makers who tried to turn him into Tony Blair -- leading to a series of counter-productive stunts and that inane rictus grin.
Paul Krugman talks about "very serious people" -- pundits who are ill-informed but well-connected and taken seriously. Perhaps our election gurus should be included.
They seem to have captured all the party leaders now. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband -- when did any of them last say something useful about the great issues of the day? ISIL, indyref, Rotherham? Nothing.
Flattery will get you nowhere, but please don't let it stop you. ;-)
(Btw, I didn't make much on the main event, but did OK on Turnover.)
I was very fortunate this time, Mike and I talked a lot in the last 18 months off site about the indyref, my betting strategy was to do what Mike said to do.
Very wise.
There's a (very) small number of political punters whose advice I follow blind pretty much most of the time. Mike's obviously one. I'll spare the blushes of the others.
I won't say [edit: one way or another, though he did at least not do a Rajoy] what I think of Mr C, but I can entirely agree with what else you say. As I well recall at the time, the devomax option was clearly understood amongst pro-indy sites, etc., to be dependent on the agreement of the rest of the UK - so the notion was certainly out there at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (as were at least initial discussions about the problems of England's governance in the UK, sympathetic ones too). But hey, we were a bunch of nats, so who cared? And when Mr Cameron had 'defeated' Mr Salmond by saying no to indyref, how the media cheered.
The other question is why Mr Cameron was more frightened of his backbenchers than the Scots, and risked the Union instead of talking them through what might be necessary. He did have two years, and could have made it clear at the start that "we will offer the third option with full details at the time, but if it's not a goer, it's a plain yes/no indyref".
Instead, look what we ****** get! He's managed to upset, oh, everyone on PB? or am I missing anyone out?
No I don't think you have missed anyone out. Its Cameron's MO. it worked for him at school, it worked for him at Uni, it worked for him so far in politics. And when he is thrown out of government next May it still won't occur to him to consider that actually planning ahead, thinking about what might happen and putting positions into place in advance is a good trait to have, especially as a top level leader.
Cameron is just not a leader. If he had applied for Sandhurst there is a good chance, given his background, that he would have got in and got through the course. When he arrived in battalion however his platoon would have ripped him up for arse-paper and he would have been back into civvy street inside a year.
Congrats to the winners.
And to Mr Llama for putting his finger on Call-me-Dave's fatal flaw. As some one said a day or so ago he's been lucky and once your luck runs out ......
I'm pretty sure Mr Llama's wrong on that, as he usually is when he talks about Cameron. It's an unusual blind spot he has.
When someone has been as 'lucky' as Cameron (by your definition), you have to start to wonder if it is skill rather than luck ...
Indeed, funny how such a clueless toff has seen off that titan, Alex salmond and put Labour in a difficult spot. He really is a lucky boy.
Eh Ehm Nope as the Scottish Daily Mail tomorrow leads on the fact a new poll shows Scots are now fed up with independence talk, and do not want another referendum for at least a generation
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
Can we kill this "Brown saved the Union" meme? There are three factors that led to NO:-
1. Osborne's "no currency union".
2. Cameron's "we're great together" speech (which Brown copied from).
3. Businesses making clear the economic reality of independence.
Brown may have helped a bit.
I should add I suppose 4 - Salmond failing to come up with coherent responses to points 1 - 3.
I mean really ?
Really. Particularly points 1 & 3.
I can't really see Cameron and Osborne having much of an affinity with the Scottish electorate, they have effectively ignored Scottish voters since they took over the Conservatives. I think you're kidding yourself.
They don't need affinity. If Scotland was not going to get the pound, then they were not going to get the pound.
With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.
Well, given that any illegal immigrant can just make a claim for asylum and immediately gets asylum seeker status until the full appeals process has worked out, there's not much to differentiate them.
Actually no.
The full weight of international law differentiates an Asylum Seeker - a legal status with associated legal protections - from an "illegal immigrant".
Did you even pause to listen to my point? As soon as an illegal immigrant claims asylum (which anyone can do), they become an asylum seeker. Thus all your theoretical differentiation doesn't make much difference in practice.
Carynx Well so what, that is still about a ten point lead, those who did not vote clearly were not motivated by the Yes campaign for independence to even bother to take 5 minutes to vote for it
Spot the difference with the edition translated into Jockanese that you put up earlier.
But - as admittedly I have said before - I once read the Mail in Scotland financial pages, having nothing else to hand in a sandwich bar. They included a long article on wills and probate, including intestacy. But it had been copied from the southern edition. As someone with [edit] recent practical experience as an executor of Scots law, I still shudder to think what happened to anyone who took that seriously.
Even funnier - remember the Yes, Minister episode about Sir Humphrey's mess up in Scotland over an airbase and, ironically, the cover-up to shield Sir Humphrey from a Daily Mail reporter?
I remember a Dear Deidre column in The Sun where someone asked if it was legal to have a sexual relationship with someone who was a not-that-close non-blood relative. Deidre said it was legal. True, IN ENGLAND.
He was prosecuted, convicted and ended up suing The Sun.
Carnyx On even an 85% turnout, 45% of that is actually about 38%, so in fact only 38% of Scots voted Yes
Indeed, and only about 47% voted no on the same logic.
True, Carnyx, but don't you think that you really ought to have more than 50.01% of the population behind you when taking a Nation into independence?
Yes, that's rule 1 of the game. But, unless of course John Cunningham is the referee, rule 2 is that the ones who don't vote don't count.
If you are going to argue about turnout like that, you are going to argue that almost every election in the UK is well dodgy!
No, I'm just making the point that to make a success of Independence you need an enthused populace, and probably a majority of 60% or more, otherwise it all starts to fall apart at the first little difficulties.
Anyway, it's academic now as far as Scotland is concerned.
I won't say [edit: one way or another, though he did at least not do a Rajoy] what I think of Mr C, but I can entirely agree with what else you say. As I well recall at the time, the devomax option was clearly understood amongst pro-indy sites, etc., to be dependent on the agreement of the rest of the UK - so the notion was certainly out there at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (as were at least initial discussions about the problems of England's governance in the UK, sympathetic ones too). But hey, we were a bunch of nats, so who cared? And when Mr Cameron had 'defeated' Mr Salmond by saying no to indyref, how the media cheered.
The other question is why Mr Cameron was more frightened of his backbenchers than the Scots, and risked the Union instead of talking them through what might be necessary. He did have two years, and could have made it clear at the start that "we will offer the third option with full details at the time, but if it's not a goer, it's a plain yes/no indyref".
Instead, look what we ****** get! He's managed to upset, oh, everyone on PB? or am I missing anyone out?
No I don't think you have missed anyone out. Its Cameron's MO. it worked for him at school, it worked for him at Uni, it worked for him so far in politics. And when he is thrown out of government next May it still won't occur to him to consider that actually planning ahead, thinking about what might happen and putting positions into place in advance is a good trait to have, especially as a top level leader.
Cameron is just not a leader. If he had applied for Sandhurst there is a good chance, given his background, that he would have got in and got through the course. When he arrived in battalion however his platoon would have ripped him up for arse-paper and he would have been back into civvy street inside a year.
Congrats to the winners.
And to Mr Llama for putting his finger on Call-me-Dave's fatal flaw. As some one said a day or so ago he's been lucky and once your luck runs out ......
I'm pretty sure Mr Llama's wrong on that, as he usually is when he talks about Cameron. It's an unusual blind spot he has.
When someone has been as 'lucky' as Cameron (by your definition), you have to start to wonder if it is skill rather than luck ...
It could be both. it is hardly news that after graduation, Cameron landed a high-level job at Carlton because Sam's mum knew the right people and pulled strings for him; he landed a safe seat after the sitting MP defected; and got the leadership because David Davis couldn't be arsed to rehearse his speech. That's a fair dose of luck right there, but of course, Cameron had to be sharp to take these chances.
I was intrigued and to some extent gratified that the punters got it more right than the pollsters. I'm not sure why that was and as a regular punter on politics I wouldn't generally advocate dismissing the polls.
My guess is that the punters felt all along that economic realities would prevail over rhetoric and emotion. Certainly that's the way I felt, but not so so strongly that I was prepared to risk much of my betting bank. As a result I had to make do with modest gains, but at least I never risked dropping out of the game!
Indeed. I bailed out early for a very modest £90 either way. Richard Nabavi said something about the polls and their weighting, and Sunil did some "reverse engineering" but I'm afraid I could never get quite clear in my mind what was going on.
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
Can we kill this "Brown saved the Union" meme? There are three factors that led to NO:-
1. Osborne's "no currency union".
2. Cameron's "we're great together" speech (which Brown copied from).
3. Businesses making clear the economic reality of independence.
Brown may have helped a bit.
I should add I suppose 4 - Salmond failing to come up with coherent responses to points 1 - 3.
I mean really ?
Really. Particularly points 1 & 3.
I can't really see Cameron and Osborne having much of an affinity with the Scottish electorate, they have effectively ignored Scottish voters since they took over the Conservatives. I think you're kidding yourself.
They don't need affinity. If Scotland was not going to get the pound, then they were not going to get the pound.
Actually they do need affinity, I'd argue that the Yes vote would have been well above 60% if they had. Osborne and Cameron have paid too little attention to Scotland and were a weak point in the BT campaign hence why they were kept away from voters.
It was a Sunday Times poll that first signalled the independence threat, and one government minister paused in Westminster last week to tell a member of the paper’s staff: “I think you’ve saved the Union. That poll came just in time.”
It certainly had a galvanising effect, as Westminster’s complacency was shattered and Cameron appeared in danger of presiding over a constitutional disaster that might cost him his political career. One senior Tory visited Lord Chadlington, president of Cameron’s constituency association in Oxfordshire, to tell him that the prime minister “will have to go”.
With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.
Well, given that any illegal immigrant can just make a claim for asylum and immediately gets asylum seeker status until the full appeals process has worked out, there's not much to differentiate them.
Actually no.
The full weight of international law differentiates an Asylum Seeker - a legal status with associated legal protections - from an "illegal immigrant".
Did you even pause to listen to my point? As soon as an illegal immigrant claims asylum (which anyone can do), they become an asylum seeker. Thus all your theoretical differentiation doesn't make much difference in practice.
Carynx Well so what, that is still about a ten point lead, those who did not vote clearly were not motivated by the Yes campaign for independence to even bother to take 5 minutes to vote for it
Indeed, or to defend the Union! It's not as if the new movement is calling themselves the 55% is it. They are well aware of the difference.
Anyway, I'm off to bed now, so goodnight all. And I must remember to buy the Sunday Herald in the morning. I wonder how many other newspapers will shift their stance, rather belatedly, in the new reality and when the Union is saved for x years?
Yes, thanks from me too Jack. Despite all the doubters, SeanT et al, I was heavily into the 40% - 45% Yes band, largely on account of your unwavering conviction as regards the final outcome.
Indeed, you yourself made a very profitable tip, back in July, which I followed you in.
Do you know the very funny thing about that tip, someone, who shall remain nameless, in reply to your post said this
"That post confirms something that has been obvious for a long time: non-Scots, even poilitically knowledgable ones, are in for a shock on 19 September."
TSE - Yes, I do indeed remember that comment as well as its author. Still at least he paid me a back-handed compliment.
Well following you has always been fun and profitable.
I also do owe you an apology, for not hat tipping you in my Hammond bet thread a few weeks ago, it was an oversight, not deliberate, and shouldn't have happened. Has been hectic times for those who have been writing PB threads this last month. But again apologies.
With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.
Well, given that any illegal immigrant can just make a claim for asylum and immediately gets asylum seeker status until the full appeals process has worked out, there's not much to differentiate them.
Actually no.
The full weight of international law differentiates an Asylum Seeker - a legal status with associated legal protections - from an "illegal immigrant".
An Asylum Seeker is supposed to claim asylum in the first EU country s/he enters, not wait until s/he has crossed at least 2 or 3 member states before entering the UK and then claiming it. As most are from North Africa or Afghanistan at present, they should be claiming it in Malta, Italy or Spain since those are the countries they arrive in by boat. We have enough unoccupied islands off the coast of England, Wales and Scotland that the government could build reception camps on and put them all in pending determination of their applications. Any who are doctors, nurses, engineers etc could quickly be moved to suitable housing and allowed to work and contribute to the economy.
Spot the difference with the edition translated into Jockanese that you put up earlier.
But - as admittedly I have said before - I once read the Mail in Scotland financial pages, having nothing else to hand in a sandwich bar. They included a long article on wills and probate, including intestacy. But it had been copied from the southern edition. As someone with [edit] recent practical experience as an executor of Scots law, I still shudder to think what happened to anyone who took that seriously.
Even funnier - remember the Yes, Minister episode about Sir Humphrey's mess up in Scotland over an airbase and, ironically, the cover-up to shield Sir Humphrey from a Daily Mail reporter?
I remember a Dear Deidre column in The Sun where someone asked if it was legal to have a sexual relationship with someone who was a not-that-close non-blood relative. Deidre said it was legal. True, IN ENGLAND.
He was prosecuted, convicted and ended up suing The Sun.
No, missed that one - as I did the latter - many thanks. But I have to ask, did he win?
Gordon Brown has the negative Midas touch : Everything he touches turns into faeces. See how devomax is progressing.
He sulked throughout the entire campaign because it was being led by Darling, and only got involved when there were only a couple of weeks left and the polls saying no.
He only wanted to see which way the crowd was moving before putting himself in front of it, so he can claim a victory, and dithered nearly long enough to miss it, while really committed people like Darling and Murphy were on the stump.
Peter Kellner talks about tipping point in Scotland.
Only three Labour seats would be lost if there were a 5% swing to the SNP; but then comes a tipping point. An 8% swing would cost Labour 19 seats, and probably Miliband’s hopes of becoming prime minister
72% of English voters think Scottish MPs should no longer have the vote in parliament on issues that affect only England.
Perhaps more significantly, 55% think that Scottish MPs should play no part in tax and spending decisions taken in London, even though these do affect life in Scotland.
2/3 of English voters want to scrap the Barnett formula that ensures Scotland receives more public cash per person than England from central government.
The full weight of international law differentiates an Asylum Seeker - a legal status with associated legal protections - from an "illegal immigrant".
Your views are based on a superficial reading of the Refugee Convention. Article 31 of the Convention provides:
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
The contracting parties are therefore free to criminalise those who enter their jurisdiction unlawfully who have not come directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened. There is no right to forum shop if you are a refugee, and under the Dublin Convention, EU member states may lawfully return asylum seekers to the first member state in which they set foot. Article 31(1) of the Convention applies only to refugees 'lawfully' in the territory of the state party. Refugees unlawfully in their territory may be expelled on grounds other than public order and national security.
It was a Sunday Times poll that first signalled the independence threat, and one government minister paused in Westminster last week to tell a member of the paper’s staff: “I think you’ve saved the Union. That poll came just in time.”
It certainly had a galvanising effect, as Westminster’s complacency was shattered and Cameron appeared in danger of presiding over a constitutional disaster that might cost him his political career. One senior Tory visited Lord Chadlington, president of Cameron’s constituency association in Oxfordshire, to tell him that the prime minister “will have to go”.
Or less kindly -- Sunday Times puts a brave face on rogue poll. I wonder if SeanT's blog will be mentioned in despatches.
It could be both. it is hardly news that after graduation, Cameron landed a high-level job at Carlton because Sam's mum knew the right people and pulled strings for him; he landed a safe seat after the sitting MP defected; and got the leadership because David Davis couldn't be arsed to rehearse his speech. That's a fair dose of luck right there, but of course, Cameron had to be sharp to take these chances.
I'll accept some of that. You have to be lucky - or at least avoid as much bad luck as possible. But that's the same for all our top politicians. And there are plenty for whom the opposite is also true, who suffered a little bad luck at just the wrong time, and never progressed as far as their skills warranted.
But to a certain exten you also make your own luck. For instance being in the right place at the right time to exploit opportunities is as much skill and positioning as luck.
The 'Cameron's lucky' meme reminds me of the old story of the lazy, bitter man who is jealous of his successful colleague. The colleague works hard and does everything well, to which the man says: "he's just lucky!". Then, when the colleague makes a rare mis-step, the man goes around shouting: "Ha! told you so! His luck's finally run out!"
It was a Sunday Times poll that first signalled the independence threat, and one government minister paused in Westminster last week to tell a member of the paper’s staff: “I think you’ve saved the Union. That poll came just in time.”
It certainly had a galvanising effect, as Westminster’s complacency was shattered and Cameron appeared in danger of presiding over a constitutional disaster that might cost him his political career. One senior Tory visited Lord Chadlington, president of Cameron’s constituency association in Oxfordshire, to tell him that the prime minister “will have to go”.
It really was extraordinary both the speed and extent to which public opinion shifted. Has anyone got close to discovering how or why this happened? If so they should put it in a can and sell it the highest bidder in time for GE May 2015.
72% of English voters think Scottish MPs should no longer have the vote in parliament on issues that affect only England.
Labour has lost the argument over this, if they are wise they will push for regional devolution across England which will take power away from Westminster and reduce the pain they are going to take from losing the Scottish MPs.
72% of English voters think Scottish MPs should no longer have the vote in parliament on issues that affect only England.
Perhaps more significantly, 55% think that Scottish MPs should play no part in tax and spending decisions taken in London, even though these do affect life in Scotland.
2/3 of English voters want to scrap the Barnett formula that ensures Scotland receives more public cash per person than England from central government.
OGH and the PB Kinnocks, always wrong, never learn...
With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.
Well, given that any illegal immigrant can just make a claim for asylum and immediately gets asylum seeker status until the full appeals process has worked out, there's not much to differentiate them.
Actually no.
The full weight of international law differentiates an Asylum Seeker - a legal status with associated legal protections - from an "illegal immigrant".
An Asylum Seeker is supposed to claim asylum in the first EU country s/he enters, not wait until s/he has crossed at least 2 or 3 member states before entering the UK and then claiming it. As most are from North Africa or Afghanistan at present, they should be claiming it in Malta, Italy or Spain since those are the countries they arrive in by boat. We have enough unoccupied islands off the coast of England, Wales and Scotland that the government could build reception camps on and put them all in pending determination of their applications. Any who are doctors, nurses, engineers etc could quickly be moved to suitable housing and allowed to work and contribute to the economy.
This is just wrong.
There is no legal compulsion on someone seeking Asylum to do so in the next safe country.
As I said, try to understand article 31 of the UN convention.
It was a Sunday Times poll that first signalled the independence threat, and one government minister paused in Westminster last week to tell a member of the paper’s staff: “I think you’ve saved the Union. That poll came just in time.”
It certainly had a galvanising effect, as Westminster’s complacency was shattered and Cameron appeared in danger of presiding over a constitutional disaster that might cost him his political career. One senior Tory visited Lord Chadlington, president of Cameron’s constituency association in Oxfordshire, to tell him that the prime minister “will have to go”.
It really was extraordinary both the speed and extent to which public opinion shifted. Has anyone got close to discovering how or why this happened? If so they should put it in a can and sell it the highest bidder in time for GE May 2015.
I said at the time, it felt like the Cleggasm, a modest shift, that just got amplified beyond all recognition.
72% of English voters think Scottish MPs should no longer have the vote in parliament on issues that affect only England.
Labour has lost the argument over this, if they are wise they will push for regional devolution across England which will take power away from Westminster and reduce the pain they are going to take from losing the Scottish MPs.
Those two things ate however mutually exclusive...
Even Labour supporters remain unconvinced. Only half think he is doing well, trust him on the economy or believe he is up to being PM. In contrast fully 90% of Tories think highly of Cameron.
He's managed to upset, oh, everyone on PB? or am I missing anyone out?
Congrats to the winners.
And to Mr Llama for putting his finger on Call-me-Dave's fatal flaw. As some one said a day or so ago he's been lucky and once your luck runs out ......
I'm pretty sure Mr Llama's wrong on that, as he usually is when he talks about Cameron. It's an unusual blind spot he has.
When someone has been as 'lucky' as Cameron (by your definition), you have to start to wonder if it is skill rather than luck ...
Indeed, funny how such a clueless toff has seen off that titan, Alex salmond and put Labour in a difficult spot. He really is a lucky boy.
Wrong. He could have put Labour in that position simply by agreeing DevoMax in the first place, without endangering a 300-year union, creating a lot of bad feeling and damaging Britain's image worldwide.
Furthermore, he gave Salmond every available help. Agreeing a question that Unionists had to vote NO to, changing the franchise to include schoolkids and relying on a weakened Scottish Labour Party to defend the union.
Alex Salmond has resigned probably because he told such whoppers in the YES campaign for such a long time and was found out by the electorate. Nothing to do with Cameron.
It was a Sunday Times poll that first signalled the independence threat, and one government minister paused in Westminster last week to tell a member of the paper’s staff: “I think you’ve saved the Union. That poll came just in time.”
It certainly had a galvanising effect, as Westminster’s complacency was shattered and Cameron appeared in danger of presiding over a constitutional disaster that might cost him his political career. One senior Tory visited Lord Chadlington, president of Cameron’s constituency association in Oxfordshire, to tell him that the prime minister “will have to go”.
With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.
They can safely apply for asylum in any of the countries of the Shengen area. They are illegally entering our country, therefore they are illegal immigrants.
Immediate deportation to an offshore camp would soon put a stop to the camp in Calais.
Try to understand some international law before spouting drivel.
Umm... in what way did the good doctor not get international law correct?
Look up article 31 on UN convention on the Status of Refugees.
Yup, done that. Now do you want to answer the question?
Like I said, try to understand it.
Perhaps you should try and understand Article 26 and the concept of First Safe Country,
With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.
Well, given that any illegal immigrant can just make a claim for asylum and immediately gets asylum seeker status until the full appeals process has worked out, there's not much to differentiate them.
Actually no.
The full weight of international law differentiates an Asylum Seeker - a legal status with associated legal protections - from an "illegal immigrant".
An Asylum Seeker is supposed to claim asylum in the first EU country s/he enters, not wait until s/he has crossed at least 2 or 3 member states before entering the UK and then claiming it. As most are from North Africa or Afghanistan at present, they should be claiming it in Malta, Italy or Spain since those are the countries they arrive in by boat. We have enough unoccupied islands off the coast of England, Wales and Scotland that the government could build reception camps on and put them all in pending determination of their applications. Any who are doctors, nurses, engineers etc could quickly be moved to suitable housing and allowed to work and contribute to the economy.
This is just wrong.
There is no legal compulsion on someone seeking Asylum to do so in the next safe country.
As I said, try to understand article 31 of the UN convention.
And as I said, why not explain to us what you think that article says. Telling people they are wrong without telling them why just makes you look a prick.
Gordon Brown has the negative Midas touch : Everything he touches turns into faeces. See how devomax is progressing.
He sulked throughout the entire campaign because it was being led by Darling, and only got involved when there were only a couple of weeks left and the polls saying no.
He only wanted to see which way the crowd was moving before putting himself in front of it, so he can claim a victory, and dithered nearly long enough to miss it, while really committed people like Darling and Murphy were on the stump.
If I never see his face again, it is too soon.
Eh? The crowd was moving Alex Salmond's way out of the United Kingdom. Just a few months ago, Yes was stuck on 33 per cent and we thought it was all over bar the voting. Darling deserves no plaudits.
Even Labour supporters remain unconvinced. Only half think he is doing well, trust him on the economy or believe he is up to being PM. In contrast fully 90% of Tories think highly of Cameron.
Comments
Was that what you seriously thought would happen, or what you wanted to happen?
They look at the cold hard reality, and if most of the money on the betting was from England, then it also fits into the reality, that political punters make more money, when they don't have a dog in the fight.
The one thing I can't work out is where all that extra money on Betfair came from.
There is a notable and curious absentee from the entries - Stuart Dickson.
Unless he used an alias?
Cameron is just not a leader. If he had applied for Sandhurst there is a good chance, given his background, that he would have got in and got through the course. When he arrived in battalion however his platoon would have ripped him up for arse-paper and he would have been back into civvy street inside a year.
Congratulations on the Glasgow result, which must be some consolation.
"Much better to have spent the last few days with friends and fellow campaigners rather than unpleasant bystanders."
A sort of dull haze of repression has settled over pb.com since the result.
There have been a huge numbers of posts about little Wales and Scotland bullying defenceless English MPs by voting through laws they don't agree with.
And Socrates has written his ten millionth post about immigration.
Thanks AB.
Sometimes there are things even more important than posting on PB!
Punters on politics very often do so out of sentiment. I think Shadsy can confirm that a lot of Yes money came from Scotland.
He either used an alias or didn't enter, no real way of knowing. Cannot see the Union Divvie's entry either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidstone_and_The_Weald_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Anyway my last post on the matter......
And to Mr Llama for putting his finger on Call-me-Dave's fatal flaw. As some one said a day or so ago he's been lucky and once your luck runs out ......
Mail on Sunday poll shows fury to handouts to Scots
Sky News @SkyNews 31s
MAIL ON SUNDAY FRONT PAGE: "PM warns Ed: Don't sell out England." #skypapers
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByANbY8IcAAvt2i.jpg
Ironically, perhaps the biggest winner was Alex Salmond, who at least at the start was pitching for devo max anyway, and who doubled the Yes vote from early polling.
But who saved the union? Unless TSE comes up with some new evidence next week (or there is a decent analysis in the Sunday papers) then it probably was Gordon Brown at last making a positive case.
Stuart's gone awol.
My explanation for them was "when shit's about look out".
Some non event given no-one is talking about it....'Interesting Ed Strikes Again.....'
But - as admittedly I have said before - I once read the Mail in Scotland financial pages, having nothing else to hand in a sandwich bar. They included a long article on wills and probate, including intestacy. But it had been copied from the southern edition. As someone with [edit] recent practical experience as an executor of Scots law, I still shudder to think what happened to anyone who took that seriously.
British politics has shown the pound can end/destroy/ruin the credibility of Governments, from Harold Wilson's pound in your pocket, to John Major and the devaluation of sterling.
They were ably assisted by a number of notables, such as Gordon Brown, and many, many humble workers, such as DavidL (of this Parish.)
But at the end of the day it was Good Scottish Common Sense wot won it.
Can we kill this "Brown saved the Union" meme? There are three factors that led to NO:-
1. Osborne's "no currency union".
2. Cameron's "we're great together" speech (which Brown copied from).
3. Businesses making clear the economic reality of independence.
Brown may have helped a bit.
I should add I suppose 4 - Salmond failing to come up with coherent responses to points 1 - 3.
The Mail doesn't speak for England, mercifully.
Just a note for other paypal users - Don't do the "request cash" thingy, "manage invoices" - I've been charged a £1.71 fee for receiving £44.45 !
Nicola Sturgeon ✔ @NicolaSturgeon
The number of Labour supporters who have messaged me today to say they are now joining/supporting @theSNP is quite simply astounding.
Also by that point it seemed a little frivolous, like betting on whether someone close to you will recover from cancer or not.
The full weight of international law differentiates an Asylum Seeker - a legal status with associated legal protections - from an "illegal immigrant".
Flattery will get you nowhere, but please don't let it stop you. ;-)
(Btw, I didn't make much on the main event, but did OK on Turnover.)
What would you call this guy then,illegal immigrant or Asylum seeker ?
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/9645817.Dad_of_Blackburn_girl_killed_by_illegal_immigrant_backs_criticism_of_UK_Border_Agency/
2. Which of the two was openly discussed on the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh? Clue: not the PMs.
3. A definite help, I agree. The blanket doom-mongering from business certainly helped to seal the deal. Also a very bad omen for europhobes in any future EU in/out referendum.
When someone has been as 'lucky' as Cameron (by your definition), you have to start to wonder if it is skill rather than luck ...
Sunday Telegraph front page - "Justice Secretary tells Scots MPs: Get off my lawn" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByARRJ0IcAAVDp0.jpg
If you are going to argue about turnout like that, you are going to argue that almost every election in the UK is well dodgy!
Paul Krugman talks about "very serious people" -- pundits who are ill-informed but well-connected and taken seriously. Perhaps our election gurus should be included.
They seem to have captured all the party leaders now. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband -- when did any of them last say something useful about the great issues of the day? ISIL, indyref, Rotherham? Nothing.
There's a (very) small number of political punters whose advice I follow blind pretty much most of the time. Mike's obviously one. I'll spare the blushes of the others.
They don't need affinity. If Scotland was not going to get the pound, then they were not going to get the pound.
"Plebgate: 'Mitchell had record of abusing police'"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByASy0nIQAAQVt8.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeleton_in_the_Cupboard_(Yes_Minister)
I remember a Dear Deidre column in The Sun where someone asked if it was legal to have a sexual relationship with someone who was a not-that-close non-blood relative. Deidre said it was legal. True, IN ENGLAND.
He was prosecuted, convicted and ended up suing The Sun.
Anyway, it's academic now as far as Scotland is concerned.
It was a Sunday Times poll that first signalled the independence threat, and one government minister paused in Westminster last week to tell a member of the paper’s staff: “I think you’ve saved the Union. That poll came just in time.”
It certainly had a galvanising effect, as Westminster’s complacency was shattered and Cameron appeared in danger of presiding over a constitutional disaster that might cost him his political career. One senior Tory visited Lord Chadlington, president of Cameron’s constituency association in Oxfordshire, to tell him that the prime minister “will have to go”.
Anyway, I'm off to bed now, so goodnight all. And I must remember to buy the Sunday Herald in the morning. I wonder how many other newspapers will shift their stance, rather belatedly, in the new reality and when the Union is saved for x years?
He sulked throughout the entire campaign because it was being led by Darling, and only got involved when there were only a couple of weeks left and the polls saying no.
He only wanted to see which way the crowd was moving before putting himself in front of it, so he can claim a victory, and dithered nearly long enough to miss it, while really committed people like Darling and Murphy were on the stump.
If I never see his face again, it is too soon.
Only three Labour seats would be lost if there were a 5% swing to the SNP; but then comes a tipping point. An 8% swing would cost Labour 19 seats, and probably Miliband’s hopes of becoming prime minister
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
Sunday Mirror front page - "£8 an hour" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #Lab14 pic.twitter.com/clDwKvC2C1
Labours new pledge on minimum wage.
72% of English voters think Scottish MPs should no longer have the vote in parliament on issues that affect only England.
Perhaps more significantly, 55% think that Scottish MPs should play no part in tax and spending decisions taken in London, even though these do affect life in Scotland.
2/3 of English voters want to scrap the Barnett formula that ensures Scotland receives more public cash per person than England from central government.
On a different matter, is it safe to ask, please, what HYUFD stands for? Just wobdering ...
But to a certain exten you also make your own luck. For instance being in the right place at the right time to exploit opportunities is as much skill and positioning as luck.
The 'Cameron's lucky' meme reminds me of the old story of the lazy, bitter man who is jealous of his successful colleague. The colleague works hard and does everything well, to which the man says: "he's just lucky!". Then, when the colleague makes a rare mis-step, the man goes around shouting: "Ha! told you so! His luck's finally run out!"
If so they should put it in a can and sell it the highest bidder in time for GE May 2015.
There is no legal compulsion on someone seeking Asylum to do so in the next safe country.
As I said, try to understand article 31 of the UN convention.
Who would make the right decisions on the economy
Clegg 3%, Farage 5%, Miliband 17%, Cameron 35%
Even Labour supporters remain unconvinced. Only half think he is doing well, trust him on the economy or believe he is up to being PM. In contrast fully 90% of Tories think highly of Cameron.
Furthermore, he gave Salmond every available help. Agreeing a question that Unionists had to vote NO to, changing the franchise to include schoolkids and relying on a weakened Scottish Labour Party to defend the union.
Alex Salmond has resigned probably because he told such whoppers in the YES campaign for such a long time and was found out by the electorate. Nothing to do with Cameron.
WLQ - not quite so irrelevant as some on PB claimed earlier today... "72%", a useful little number for a party calling for EVfEL I'd imagine.
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
Sunday Times front page - "Top Tories lash PM over Scotland deal" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/rlVyB1jE8m
Depends how strongly they feel about it, the public tend to favour the majority of policies.
Has Ed Miliband been a strong leader of the Labour Party?
Yes 9% No 55%
Is Ed Miliband up to the job of PM
Yes 20%, No 60% DK 20%
Tory Treasury @ToryTreasury
@patrickwintour £8 an hour by 2020 means on average 3.5% rise a year. Well below 99-07 average and entirely consistent with LPC framework