politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New Survation Scottish poll finds No would have a 6% lead i

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New Survation Scottish poll finds No would have a 6% lead if there was another IndyRef

Polls focused solely on Scotland have been very rare since the country voted to remain in the UK on September 18th so a new one is very much a special event particularly because of the apparent impact that the referendum had had on opinion north of the border.

Read the full story here

Alanbrooke

and then there's the current oil price

Indigo

Alanbrooke said:

and then there's the current oil price

Indeed, and despite the uptick on Friday no one seems to think its going to get better for a while

http://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/crude-oil-futures---weekly-outlook:-november-17---21-316929

Despite Friday's strong gains, the January Brent contract fell $3.98, or 4.47%, the eighth straight weekly loss. Nymex oil fell to $73.25 a barrel earlier in the session, the lowest level since September 2010. Despite Friday's upbeat performance, New York-traded oil futures lost $2.83, or 3.59%, the seventh consecutive weekly decline.

Oil ministers from Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Ecuador and Algeria have asked for action to prevent further price declines, while Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have resisted calls to lower production.

CarlottaVance

Alanbrooke said:

and then there's the current oil price

Is it not $110? InnocentFace |:

But Eck promised!

DavidL

Given the extreme polling results achieved by the SNP recently with Labour down to 14% this is a slightly surprising result. I think it is a consequence of the SNP of having a 2 year run up to the last one.

There has also been a clear and noted effect on things like the Edinburgh housing market which completely died in September and has recovered sharply.

There is a lot of room for a massive increase in the SNP vote in 47% yes though. As I said the other day the Unionist No vote is split 2.5 ways and that potentially gives them a major problem even if they are the overall majority.

Innocent_Abroad

Well of course people here will, like DavidL, talk up their own preferred position.

The more interesting approach may be broader: the impact of referenda on Parliamentary politics. If one side of the question is identified with a single party, and the other with all the others, and the "single party" side loses the vote by appealing to the heart rather than the head, perhaps that is the best outcome of all for that Party. (Since its voters will, irrationally, feel cheated and resentment is an excellent recruiting sergeant.) I am sure that Mr Garage and his chums have taken the point already.

Easterross

Good morning all and not sure whether I would ever believe any summary from Survation given the level of accuracy they achieve like ComRes.

However I can say that I feel more like an alien in my own country every day. The Nats and their 45 stormtroopers are turning up the level of hate and unpleasantness and simply refuse to accept they lost. First Minister elect Nippy Sweetie has made it clear she has no intentions of running Scotland for all Scots. She portrays Tories as some sort of alien scum with no place in Scottish society (except of course to grow her magic money trees).

It is going to be interesting to see what happens to the SNP lead in the Scottish polls once the Labour leadership is resolved. If Jim Murphy wins, I suspect Labour will continue to slide. He is portrayed as a red tory. If Neil Findlay wins, he will attract back most of the socialists but fracture the Labour Party with his rhetoric of renationalisation and wealth redistribution (i.e. stealing the assets of the wealthy to fund the benefit scroungers and subsidy junkies who support Labour).

MonikerDiCanio

Nice to see "Never" as the dominant sentiment, one that will probably grow as the oil dries up.

Innocent_Abroad

Easterross said:

Good morning all and not sure whether I would ever believe any summary from Survation given the level of accuracy they achieve like ComRes.

However I can say that I feel more like an alien in my own country every day. The Nats and their 45 stormtroopers are turning up the level of hate and unpleasantness and simply refuse to accept they lost. First Minister elect Nippy Sweetie has made it clear she has no intentions of running Scotland for all Scots. She portrays Tories as some sort of alien scum with no place in Scottish society (except of course to grow her magic money trees).

It is going to be interesting to see what happens to the SNP lead in the Scottish polls once the Labour leadership is resolved. If Jim Murphy wins, I suspect Labour will continue to slide. He is portrayed as a red tory. If Neil Findlay wins, he will attract back most of the socialists but fracture the Labour Party with his rhetoric of renationalisation and wealth redistribution (i.e. stealing the assets of the wealthy to fund the benefit scroungers and subsidy junkies who support Labour).

If you think that redistributive taxation is theft you may have an inkling of why Scots don't like Tories. Just an inkling - although that appears to be more of an awareness than you have of Tory policy on either side of the Border. Osborne practices redistribution in his budgets, and will continue to do so after next May.

MarqueeMark

DavidL said:

Given the extreme polling results achieved by the SNP recently with Labour down to 14% this is a slightly surprising result. I think it is a consequence of the SNP of having a 2 year run up to the last one.

There has also been a clear and noted effect on things like the Edinburgh housing market which completely died in September and has recovered sharply.

There is a lot of room for a massive increase in the SNP vote in 47% yes though. As I said the other day the Unionist No vote is split 2.5 ways and that potentially gives them a major problem even if they are the overall majority.

David, I don't think this is surprising - and I think Mike misses the point with this thread. It is most definitely not good news for Labour.

The SNP can set itself up as being tasked with getting the best deal out of Westminster on the new devolved powers for Scotland. In doing that, they represent the interests not only of those who voted for independence - who we can assume will take any and all the powers they can get on the road to full independence - but more importantly, those who wanted to stay in the Union but wanted more powers for Scotland.

Given that very few Scots would actively want no more powers devolved from Westminster, the pool of voters to support the SNP as the only party to hold the Tories, Labour and LibDems true on their Pledge is huge. I can see why next May, a vast swathe of Scottish Westminster seats will go SNP - because FOR SCOTLAND it is the only way to vote that makes any sense.

There, I've done it - a post that maybe malcomg can agree with me on!

DavidL

Innocent_Abroad said:

Well of course people here will, like DavidL, talk up their own preferred position.

The more interesting approach may be broader: the impact of referenda on Parliamentary politics. If one side of the question is identified with a single party, and the other with all the others, and the "single party" side loses the vote by appealing to the heart rather than the head, perhaps that is the best outcome of all for that Party. (Since its voters will, irrationally, feel cheated and resentment is an excellent recruiting sergeant.) I am sure that Mr Garage and his chums have taken the point already.

I am not sure in what sense you thought my post was talking up my position. I actually agree with your post. At the next election it seems increasingly likely to me that the 45 will produce a slew of seats for the SNP. And UKIP will indeed learn the lesson that nothing is likely to consolidate their position in British political life than a referendum, especially if they lose with a respectable share of the vote.

felix

It's all very interesting - most Scots clearly don't want independence but those that do make the most noise. The support for SNP reflects mainly the disenchantment of mainly left-wing ex-Labour voters punishing the party for years of neglect but at the same time there remains very low support for the Tories and the LDs. I see some similarities with southern England where Labour also is near dead outside London and a few isolated towns - here because they are seen as irrelevant. similarly in parts of the north the tories are being replaced by UKIP. It all seems to point irrevocably to a NOM next May.

DavidL

Easterross said:

Good morning all and not sure whether I would ever believe any summary from Survation given the level of accuracy they achieve like ComRes.

However I can say that I feel more like an alien in my own country every day. The Nats and their 45 stormtroopers are turning up the level of hate and unpleasantness and simply refuse to accept they lost. First Minister elect Nippy Sweetie has made it clear she has no intentions of running Scotland for all Scots. She portrays Tories as some sort of alien scum with no place in Scottish society (except of course to grow her magic money trees).

It is going to be interesting to see what happens to the SNP lead in the Scottish polls once the Labour leadership is resolved. If Jim Murphy wins, I suspect Labour will continue to slide. He is portrayed as a red tory. If Neil Findlay wins, he will attract back most of the socialists but fracture the Labour Party with his rhetoric of renationalisation and wealth redistribution (i.e. stealing the assets of the wealthy to fund the benefit scroungers and subsidy junkies who support Labour).

I wonder how many Scots could pick Neil Findlay out of a line up. My guess would be about 10%. I don't think I could have done until a month ago. People can grow into a position of course but he would have a lot of growing to do.

Meanwhile the race to the left by Labour and the SNP really should create opportunities for a centrist/centre right party in Scotland. In Ruth Davidson I think the tories have got someone capable of being heard.

anotherDave

New polling observatory post.

http://sotonpolitics.org/2014/11/13/polling-observatory-42-sharp-drop-in-labour-support/

Does anyone know if Ipsos prompts at all?

DavidL

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

Given the extreme polling results achieved by the SNP recently with Labour down to 14% this is a slightly surprising result. I think it is a consequence of the SNP of having a 2 year run up to the last one.

There has also been a clear and noted effect on things like the Edinburgh housing market which completely died in September and has recovered sharply.

There is a lot of room for a massive increase in the SNP vote in 47% yes though. As I said the other day the Unionist No vote is split 2.5 ways and that potentially gives them a major problem even if they are the overall majority.

David, I don't think this is surprising - and I think Mike misses the point with this thread. It is most definitely not good news for Labour.

The SNP can set itself up as being tasked with getting the best deal out of Westminster on the new devolved powers for Scotland. In doing that, they represent the interests not only of those who voted for independence - who we can assume will take any and all the powers they can get on the road to full independence - but more importantly, those who wanted to stay in the Union but wanted more powers for Scotland.

Given that very few Scots would actively want no more powers devolved from Westminster, the pool of voters to support the SNP as the only party to hold the Tories, Labour and LibDems true on their Pledge is huge. I can see why next May, a vast swathe of Scottish Westminster seats will go SNP - because FOR SCOTLAND it is the only way to vote that makes any sense.

There, I've done it - a post that maybe malcomg can agree with me on!

The biggest problem Labour have in Scotland is Miliband. He is currently at 10% approval in Scotland, well behind Cameron.

The Scottish Labour party need to distance themselves from him and, as you say, convince the majority of Scots that they will effectively represent the Scottish interest. It is an incredible ask, I would say impossible.

The SNP need large swings but I really don't believe they are going to have any problems getting them.

another_richard

I've just had £2 on the Conservatives for R&S @ 28 and £2 on Labour @ £520.

Even if you expect UKIP to win these odds are worth a few quid.

Or are the PB Tories 'all fart and no follow through' ?

Innocent_Abroad

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Well of course people here will, like DavidL, talk up their own preferred position.

The more interesting approach may be broader: the impact of referenda on Parliamentary politics. If one side of the question is identified with a single party, and the other with all the others, and the "single party" side loses the vote by appealing to the heart rather than the head, perhaps that is the best outcome of all for that Party. (Since its voters will, irrationally, feel cheated and resentment is an excellent recruiting sergeant.) I am sure that Mr Garage and his chums have taken the point already.

I am not sure in what sense you thought my post was talking up my position. I actually agree with your post. At the next election it seems increasingly likely to me that the 45 will produce a slew of seats for the SNP. And UKIP will indeed learn the lesson that nothing is likely to consolidate their position in British political life than a referendum, especially if they lose with a respectable share of the vote.

My apologies if I read something into your earlier post that wasn't there.

The challenge Cammo's proposed referendum poses for UKIP is this: are they a single-issue pressure group or a would-be Government? If the latter, they could do worse than propose that the referendum asks other questions, unrelated to our EC membership. A promising subject, for those who wish to show to people like me that "social conservatism" isn't just a fig-leaf for racism, might be the re-introduction of the death penalty. It would, I suspect, also twist their knife into the Tories.

Socrates

The SNP said that a referendum should be a once in a generation thing. A generation, at minimal, is 25 years, so the next one should be no earlier than 2039. If the SNP break their promises on this to campaign for an earlier one, there should be absolutely no reluctance for the other parties to break their promises on Barnett.

Millsy

I don't think the SNP have peaked yet in terms of Holyrood and Westminster seats, I bet they have another term in them at least. Question is what will happen if Sturgeon's re-elected government proposes another referendum and Cameron (or his Tory successor) bluntly says no.

JackW

Latest 2015 ARSE General Election Projection Countdown :

1 day 1 hour 1 minutes 1 second

Innocent_Abroad

Millsy said:

I don't think the SNP have peaked yet in terms of Holyrood and Westminster seats, I bet they have another term in them at least. Question is what will happen if Sturgeon's re-elected government proposes another referendum and Cameron (or his Tory successor) bluntly says no.

It will mean that a couple of posters here will be the last Tories in Scotland...

SquareRoot

It would be supremely ironic if the Govt waited for the oil price to drop to say $50 a barrel and then said yes. and they voted yes.

SouthamObserver

In the end the SNP needs a Westminster green light for an independence referendum that will be internationally recognised. They can pretend otherwise, just as they pretend so many things, but the practical reality is that without the UK government's sign-off there is no possibility of a currency union, EU membership, NATO membership, UN membership, inward investment, on-going trade with the rUK and so on. At some stage this reality will kick in.

OblitusSumMe

Socrates said:

The SNP said that a referendum should be a once in a generation thing. A generation, at minimal, is 25 years, so the next one should be no earlier than 2039. If the SNP break their promises on this to campaign for an earlier one, there should be absolutely no reluctance for the other parties to break their promises on Barnett.

More than 40% of the Scottish public want to see another Independence Referendum before 2024 - within the next ten years.

This is absurd - a constitutional question such as Independence is not the sort of thing that should be constantly in doubt. However, I don't think there is anything duplicitous in a political party changing their position in response to widespread public support.

NB - Whenever I've heard paleontologists talk about "generations" the figure that I recall them using has been 30 years. I think you know this, and were being generous, but just thought I'd throw it out there.

Financier

In early trading Brent Crude loses over $1 of Friday's technical bounce.

[Deleted User]

Scotland seems to be heading briskly in the direction of Quebec. After their 'No' vote the Quebecois kept up the indy rhetoric relentlessly and businesses and investors just saw a neverendum and walked. Quebec is today a seriously diminished and poorer place. They screwed themselves for nothing.

We must face facts. Scotland's independence is NOT a settled matter. A war is not over until the loser accepts that he has lost. Is Scotland a safe place to invest in these days? Is the horror of currency / deficits / independence resolved? NO! Sturgeon may yet achieve the SNP's goal - an independently bankrupt Scotland. It is very sad.

OblitusSumMe

SouthamObserver said:

In the end the SNP needs a Westminster green light for an independence referendum that will be internationally recognised. They can pretend otherwise, just as they pretend so many things, but the practical reality is that without the UK government's sign-off there is no possibility of a currency union, EU membership, NATO membership, UN membership, inward investment, on-going trade with the rUK and so on. At some stage this reality will kick in.

If the SNP were to stand for election to Holyrood with a manifesto commitment for an Independence Referendum, and just as in 2011 were to win an overall majority on that manifesto, then Westminster would have little alternative to assenting to a further referendum. You cold not deny the people.

I don't think the SNP will campaign on Independence. Most likely is they will campaign on getting the best devomax deal for Scotland, forcing the Westminster parties to keep their promises, etc. However, when it comes to the elections after the next - well within a "generation" - then it's plausible to see how they might change their position to something like "the Westminster parties have broken their promises", "devomax is a sham/not enough/broken", "we're forced by circumstance to push for Independence again earlier than we thought".

Innocent_Abroad

OblitusSumMe said:

Socrates said:

The SNP said that a referendum should be a once in a generation thing. A generation, at minimal, is 25 years, so the next one should be no earlier than 2039. If the SNP break their promises on this to campaign for an earlier one, there should be absolutely no reluctance for the other parties to break their promises on Barnett.

More than 40% of the Scottish public want to see another Independence Referendum before 2024 - within the next ten years.

This is absurd - a constitutional question such as Independence is not the sort of thing that should be constantly in doubt. However, I don't think there is anything duplicitous in a political party changing their position in response to widespread public support.

NB - Whenever I've heard paleontologists talk about "generations" the figure that I recall them using has been 30 years. I think you know this, and were being generous, but just thought I'd throw it out there.

I think you mean anthropologists. Palaeontologists deal in seriously big numbers. (Think of the deficit after 5 years of Miliband.)

Alistair

MonikerDiCanio said:

Nice to see "Never" as the dominant sentiment, one that will probably grow as the oil dries up.

The dominant sentiment is within 5 years. The overwhelming dominant sentiment is within 10.

You've let the bucketing of the data cloud your reading of the meaning of the graph.

Alistair

Socrates said:

The SNP said that a referendum should be a once in a generation thing. A generation, at minimal, is 25 years, so the next one should be no earlier than 2039. If the SNP break their promises on this to campaign for an earlier one, there should be absolutely no reluctance for the other parties to break their promises on Barnett.

Last Generation ended of the 20th September 2014. We are already in a new generation.

See - it's all about where you draw the boundaries.

Alistair

felix said:

It's all very interesting - most Scots clearly don't want independence

We can classify "most" there to stop it being vague. 55.3% don't want independence. We checked and everything.

peter_from_putney

The collapsing oil price over recent weeks will clearly have helped the No vote in terms of the dramatic effect this would have on a stand alone Scottish economy.

TheScreamingEagles

Yes2AV should take the Nat approach.

So we lost the referendum, let's keep having plebiscites until we get the right result.

Just imagine the fun as PB talks about nothing except AV and the Indyref.

Casino_Royale

The problem was (is) that the scale of the NO victory wasn't big enough to settle the issue for good.

If NO had won by, say, 63% to 37% we wouldn't even be having this conversation. A result like that should have been perfectly possible, but the Unionist campaign was not an impressive one.

MonikerDiCanio

Alistair said:

Socrates said:

The SNP said that a referendum should be a once in a generation thing. A generation, at minimal, is 25 years, so the next one should be no earlier than 2039. If the SNP break their promises on this to campaign for an earlier one, there should be absolutely no reluctance for the other parties to break their promises on Barnett.

Last Generation ended of the 20th September 2014. We are already in a new generation.

See - it's all about where you draw the boundaries.

Salmond in fact said the referendum was a once in a lifetime vote and you're still alive. Your move, Alistair.

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yes2AV should take the Nat approach.

So we lost the referendum, let's keep having plebiscites until we get the right result.

Just imagine the fun as PB talks about nothing except AV and the Indyref.

Would the WaffenYESYES expand their crusade to take in UK-wide advocates of proportional representation?

OldKingCole

Financier said:

In early trading Brent Crude loses over $1 of Friday's technical bounce.

Is the fall in the price simply because the Saudis and Kuwaitis, and possibly the Russians, are keeping the taps open? Is there a significant fall in demand?

Or is there some other reason?

Genuine question. (Possibly because I haven't kept up with something!)

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Ah, the Neverendum. What joy. Anyway, we'll see what happens.

F1: Kobayashi's driving for Caterham:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30076477

This matters because a team can only have 4 drivers per season. Ericsson's toddled off to Sauber [and already ended his relationship with Caterham] and if Kobayashi weren't driving for them then they'd need to either get Lotterer on board (Spa, I think, was where he drove) or field just one car.

Alistair

MonikerDiCanio said:

Alistair said:

Socrates said:

The SNP said that a referendum should be a once in a generation thing. A generation, at minimal, is 25 years, so the next one should be no earlier than 2039. If the SNP break their promises on this to campaign for an earlier one, there should be absolutely no reluctance for the other parties to break their promises on Barnett.

Last Generation ended of the 20th September 2014. We are already in a new generation.

See - it's all about where you draw the boundaries.

Salmond in fact said the referendum was a once in a lifetime vote and you're still alive. Your move, Alistair.

He said "In my opinion". Weasel words to the rescue.

rottenborough

Morning all,

Trouble is on the never-endum, Sturgeon has come up with quite a good wheeze by arguing that Scotland wants to remain in EU and looks like English voters might vote to take us out in 2017.

Alistair

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yes2AV should take the Nat approach.

So we lost the referendum, let's keep having plebiscites until we get the right result.

Just imagine the fun as PB talks about nothing except AV and the Indyref.

I never got why some people got so angry about switching to AV. It was like you were threatening to kick them in the arse.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Borough, only matters really if there's a vote, and Out wins, and Out does not win in Scotland.

I'm baffled by the sort of Scottish Nationalist who wants to be ruled from Brussels but thinks rule from London is vile and horrid. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. [Whilst I'd still disagree, a nationalist wanting to leave both the EU and UK holds a perfectly rational perspective].

Financier

OldKingCole said:

Financier said:

In early trading Brent Crude loses over $1 of Friday's technical bounce.

Is the fall in the price simply because the Saudis and Kuwaitis, and possibly the Russians, are keeping the taps open? Is there a significant fall in demand?

Or is there some other reason?

Genuine question. (Possibly because I haven't kept up with something!)

Al bit of everything, but USA's fracking means that it can become an energy exporter again.

PeterC

rottenborough said:

Morning all,

Trouble is on the never-endum, Sturgeon has come up with quite a good wheeze by arguing that Scotland wants to remain in EU and looks like English voters might vote to take us out in 2017.

It would indeed be used by the SNP as a pretext for another referendum. Unfortunately, as was argued in the last referendum, if Scotland left the UK it would put itself outside the EU in any event.

Financier

DC's warning about a potential global economic problem is very true, but will be ignored by many short-term thinking politicians in the UK and Western Europe. These politicians tend to put political reform/control far ahead of the economic well-being of their electorate.

The Americas, Asia and Africa and Australasia can now manage very well without bothering about Western Europe - it is about time our politicians work up to reality and that wage increases are no longer the norm - do they want us to eat dirt before they come to their selfish and self-serving senses?

Casino_Royale

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yes2AV should take the Nat approach.

So we lost the referendum, let's keep having plebiscites until we get the right result.

Just imagine the fun as PB talks about nothing except AV and the Indyref.

I never got why some people got so angry about switching to AV. It was like you were threatening to kick them in the arse.

Because AV is crap. A lot of voters couldn't understand it. I think a referendum on STV might fail for a similar reason, not to mention the fact it's an exhausting and boring system.

The one that stands a chance, IMHO, is Open-list PR in 4-5 member consitutencies. Voters know that from the Euros (albeit that's closed list) and get the constituency bit. But it also passes the fair votes test, and chuck-em-out test. I don't think FPTP is sustainable in the long-term, now.

Be interesting to see what sort of electoral reform might end up on the table during the 2020s.

HYUFD

rottenborough Except yougov a few weeks ago had In ahead by only 41-40% with Scotland and London entirely responsible for its lead, it could be Scotland that keeps the UK in the EU not the reverse

Socrates

Alistair said:

Socrates said:

The SNP said that a referendum should be a once in a generation thing. A generation, at minimal, is 25 years, so the next one should be no earlier than 2039. If the SNP break their promises on this to campaign for an earlier one, there should be absolutely no reluctance for the other parties to break their promises on Barnett.

Last Generation ended of the 20th September 2014. We are already in a new generation.

See - it's all about where you draw the boundaries.

That might be the weakest argument I've ever heard on this website. No-one for a second believed that when Alex Salmond said "once in a generation" he meant we could do another one on the 21st September.

HYUFD

DavidL The only yougov poll on Murphy had him fractionally increasing Labour's vote in Scotland

NickPalmer

I'm statistically wary of multiple-choice options as people tend to pick the middle one, so the weight of opinion to "never" is quite striking. I think the SNP would be making a mistake if they promised a new referendum in the next Holyrood period. More likely, they'll wait till people are fed up for one reason or another,

On Murphy, I'm not sure that most Scots are different from most English voters, who generally don't think in neat left-right lines. Murphy is clearly a substantial figure who most people will have heard of, and it'd be an odd decision if Scottish Labour went for anyone else.

BenM

Financier said:

DC's warning about a potential global economic problem is very true, but will be ignored by many short-term thinking politicians in the UK and Western Europe. These politicians tend to put political reform/control far ahead of the economic well-being of their electorate.

The Americas, Asia and Africa and Australasia can now manage very well without bothering about Western Europe - it is about time our politicians work up to reality and that wage increases are no longer the norm - do they want us to eat dirt before they come to their selfish and self-serving senses?

The biggest risks to the UK economy are domestic.

Pong

"Downing Street presses ISPs over 'jihad reporting' button"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30052211

Very Chris Morris.

OldKingCole

Financier said:

OldKingCole said:

Financier said:

In early trading Brent Crude loses over $1 of Friday's technical bounce.

Is the fall in the price simply because the Saudis and Kuwaitis, and possibly the Russians, are keeping the taps open? Is there a significant fall in demand?

Or is there some other reason?

Genuine question. (Possibly because I haven't kept up with something!)

Al bit of everything, but USA's fracking means that it can become an energy exporter again.

Thanks; a bit of everything is often the reason. Is US fracking already having an effect or is it being discounted in advance?

Theuniondivvie

peter_from_putney said:

The collapsing oil price over recent weeks will clearly have helped the No vote in terms of the dramatic effect this would have on a stand alone Scottish economy.

On that basis since the No vote has stayed static or decreased in the 2 polls since the referendum, presumably this means with a stable oil price the No vote would have substantially decreased?

Ninoinoz

Socrates said:

Alistair said:

Socrates said:

The SNP said that a referendum should be a once in a generation thing. A generation, at minimal, is 25 years, so the next one should be no earlier than 2039. If the SNP break their promises on this to campaign for an earlier one, there should be absolutely no reluctance for the other parties to break their promises on Barnett.

Last Generation ended of the 20th September 2014. We are already in a new generation.

See - it's all about where you draw the boundaries.

That might be the weakest argument I've ever heard on this website. No-one for a second believed that when Alex Salmond said "once in a generation" he meant we could do another one on the 21st September.

Never thought much of the concept of 'generation'.

Human beings don't mass spawn like other creatures.

logical_song

Casino_Royale said:

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yes2AV should take the Nat approach.

So we lost the referendum, let's keep having plebiscites until we get the right result.

Just imagine the fun as PB talks about nothing except AV and the Indyref.

I never got why some people got so angry about switching to AV. It was like you were threatening to kick them in the arse.

Because AV is crap. A lot of voters couldn't understand it. I think a referendum on STV might fail for a similar reason, not to mention the fact it's an exhausting and boring system.

The one that stands a chance, IMHO, is Open-list PR in 4-5 member consitutencies. Voters know that from the Euros (albeit that's closed list) and get the constituency bit. But it also passes the fair votes test, and chuck-em-out test. I don't think FPTP is sustainable in the long-term, now.

Be interesting to see what sort of electoral reform might end up on the table during the 2020s.

Open List PR seems slightly more complex than STV. In what way is STV "exhausting and boring" for the voters?

OblitusSumMe

BenM said:

Financier said:

DC's warning about a potential global economic problem is very true, but will be ignored by many short-term thinking politicians in the UK and Western Europe. These politicians tend to put political reform/control far ahead of the economic well-being of their electorate.

The Americas, Asia and Africa and Australasia can now manage very well without bothering about Western Europe - it is about time our politicians work up to reality and that wage increases are no longer the norm - do they want us to eat dirt before they come to their selfish and self-serving senses?

The biggest risks to the UK economy are domestic.

Some recent economic calamity was said to have "started in America". I forget the details of who said what and when.

DecrepitJohnL

OblitusSumMe said:

BenM said:

Financier said:

DC's warning about a potential global economic problem is very true, but will be ignored by many short-term thinking politicians in the UK and Western Europe. These politicians tend to put political reform/control far ahead of the economic well-being of their electorate.

The Americas, Asia and Africa and Australasia can now manage very well without bothering about Western Europe - it is about time our politicians work up to reality and that wage increases are no longer the norm - do they want us to eat dirt before they come to their selfish and self-serving senses?

The biggest risks to the UK economy are domestic.

Some recent economic calamity was said to have "started in America". I forget the details of who said what and when.

That would be the one that started in America, unless you believe that Gordon Brown brilliantly saved us from the Global financial crisis.

NickPalmer

An inyeresting Rochester/UKIP-linked crop here (only partly paywall):

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/redbox/topic/poll-reveals-rochesters-ukip-voters-in-their-own-words?CMP=EMC-Redbox-Dailysubscribe-14_08_2014-559-0-0-0

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

rottenborough Except yougov a few weeks ago had In ahead by only 41-40% with Scotland and London entirely responsible for its lead, it could be Scotland that keeps the UK in the EU not the reverse

Those figures are, it should be remembered, saying that just about half of Scots want another indyref [edit] within 10 years.

Nobody seems to be mentioning the other results reported at the same time from the same poll - notably those on the EU, 47% Scots to stay in, vs 35% out. Which as I understand it is rather different from south of the border. That's an important indicator for the political impact of UKIP forcing a Brexit poll.

No idea how the immigration opinion figures compare, though.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-quarter-scots-never-4640537

TGOHF

Casino_Royale said:

The problem was (is) that the scale of the NO victory wasn't big enough to settle the issue for good.

If NO had won by, say, 63% to 37% we wouldn't even be having this conversation. A result like that should have been perfectly possible, but the Unionist campaign was not an impressive one.

If No had won by 50.01% the issue would have been settled for good.

Highly unfair process - and hence the YES camp has blown their chance for 35-40 years.

A period of reflection and silence would be welcome. Surely the Scottish voters will see through this massive "look squirrel" argument of tossing about the constitution whilst Scottish Education standards plummet further. It's unsustainable.

Innocent_Abroad

Financier said:

DC's warning about a potential global economic problem is very true, but will be ignored by many short-term thinking politicians in the UK and Western Europe. These politicians tend to put political reform/control far ahead of the economic well-being of their electorate.

The Americas, Asia and Africa and Australasia can now manage very well without bothering about Western Europe - it is about time our politicians work up to reality and that wage increases are no longer the norm - do they want us to eat dirt before they come to their selfish and self-serving senses?

When someone called "Financier" calls for wages to be kept low (and public services decimated IIRC) I start to wonder which Trotskyist group to join.

In the meantime, have a good day everyone and I'll see you to-morrow (DV).

TheScreamingEagles

OblitusSumMe said:

BenM said:

Financier said:

DC's warning about a potential global economic problem is very true, but will be ignored by many short-term thinking politicians in the UK and Western Europe. These politicians tend to put political reform/control far ahead of the economic well-being of their electorate.

The Americas, Asia and Africa and Australasia can now manage very well without bothering about Western Europe - it is about time our politicians work up to reality and that wage increases are no longer the norm - do they want us to eat dirt before they come to their selfish and self-serving senses?

The biggest risks to the UK economy are domestic.

Some recent economic calamity was said to have "started in America". I forget the details of who said what and when.

I think it was the same chap who assured us he had abolished boom and bust.

JPJ2

I interpret the near 30% saying "never" as the core "No" vote.

Everybody else is open to having another referendum, presumably because they think that some day they might vote Yes :-)

It is absolutely clear that the SNP will not campaign for a new referendum for the 2015 GE.

They will probably campaign for Holyrood in 2016 saying that the only likely circumstance in which they would seek a referendum in their next term of office would be if Scotland votes to stay in the EU, when the UK as a whole votes to come out.

The idea that the UK government could effectively prevent another referendum in identical circumstances to those when it granted one i.e. the SNP puts it in its manifesto and wins a majority, isn't realistic politics no matter how much huffing and puffing would occur.

The simplest point to grasp is that there will be another referendum when and if the people of Scotland want one.

AlastairMeeks

Neil Findlay is determined not to be outflanked from the left:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/findlay-pledges-to-push-for-miners-strike-inquiry-1-3607007

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/i-ll-nationalise-rail-and-scrap-trident-findlay-1-3606980

The second of these raises some very interesting questions for the UK as a whole if Mr Findlay does win the Scottish Labour leadership election.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, to be fair, Brown was half-right

MikeK

A new view of aid to Africa, it may distress you.

"You feed they breed" How are we supposed to save a continent this size if they won't save themselves? @Geezajay2013 pic.twitter.com/msu7FclDaT

— English Patriot PAI (@piecrust33) November 17, 2014

TheScreamingEagles

Has anyone stayed at the hotel in the Shard?

Is it any good ?

Was thinking of staying there instead on Friday night.

Carnyx

JPJ2 said:

I interpret the near 30% saying "never" as the core "No" vote.

Everybody else is open to having another referendum, presumably because they think that some day they might vote Yes :-)

It is absolutely clear that the SNP will not campaign for a new referendum for the 2015 GE.

They will probably campaign for Holyrood in 2016 saying that the only likely circumstance in which they would seek a referendum in their next term of office would be if Scotland votes to stay in the EU, when the UK as a whole votes to come out.

The idea that the UK government could effectively prevent another referendum in identical circumstances to those when it granted one i.e. the SNP puts it in its manifesto and wins a majority, isn't realistic politics no matter how much huffing and puffing would occur.

The simplest point to grasp is that there will be another referendum when and if the people of Scotland want one.

Might I suggest you are perhaps forgetting devomax and the Vow - if (and I suspect when) this is not fulfilled, it will cause serious problems for the Unionists.

TGOHF said:

Casino_Royale said:

The problem was (is) that the scale of the NO victory wasn't big enough to settle the issue for good.

If NO had won by, say, 63% to 37% we wouldn't even be having this conversation. A result like that should have been perfectly possible, but the Unionist campaign was not an impressive one.

If No had won by 50.01% the issue would have been settled for good.

Highly unfair process - and hence the YES camp has blown their chance for 35-40 years.

A period of reflection and silence would be welcome. Surely the Scottish voters will see through this massive "look squirrel" argument of tossing about the constitution whilst Scottish Education standards plummet further. It's unsustainable.

The No win was made conditional on the Vow and the promise of devo-max - badly bungled as that was and as open to interpretation as that was, leaving it open to the voter to decide. Remember that devo-max (proper devo-max, not the wersh dishwater on offer from Labour) was the most popular indyref option in the original polling before Mr Cameron refused to allow it to be voted on. As a result of this, we have a complete mess and it is up to the voters ultimately to decide what they want and when.

TGOHF

antifrank said:

Neil Findlay is determined not to be outflanked from the left:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/findlay-pledges-to-push-for-miners-strike-inquiry-1-3607007

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/i-ll-nationalise-rail-and-scrap-trident-findlay-1-3606980

The second of these raises some very interesting questions for the UK as a whole if Mr Findlay does win the Scottish Labour leadership election.

Seems to have got his pulse on the finger of the real issues in Scotland today - an industrial dispute from 30 years ago and a submarine which occasionally docks.

No wonder Labour are tanking in Scotland.

Bond_James_Bond

OldKingCole said:

Financier said:

In early trading Brent Crude loses over $1 of Friday's technical bounce.

Is the fall in the price simply because the Saudis and Kuwaitis, and possibly the Russians, are keeping the taps open? Is there a significant fall in demand?

Or is there some other reason?

Genuine question. (Possibly because I haven't kept up with something!)

It's the Saudis punishing the Iranians, IMHO.

DecrepitJohnL

OldKingCole said:

Financier said:

In early trading Brent Crude loses over $1 of Friday's technical bounce.

Is the fall in the price simply because the Saudis and Kuwaitis, and possibly the Russians, are keeping the taps open? Is there a significant fall in demand?

Or is there some other reason?

Genuine question. (Possibly because I haven't kept up with something!)

The Saudis have opened the taps. They can sustain a low oil price because their costs of production are lower than most other countries. Even American frackers would probably need a higher price. Conspiracy theorists allege the Saudis and Americans are doing this to unsettle Russia and Iran. Rival conspiracy theorists say this has backfired into a Russia-Iran nuclear deal.

TGOHF

Carnyx said:

JPJ2 said:

I interpret the near 30% saying "never" as the core "No" vote.

Everybody else is open to having another referendum, presumably because they think that some day they might vote Yes :-)

It is absolutely clear that the SNP will not campaign for a new referendum for the 2015 GE.

They will probably campaign for Holyrood in 2016 saying that the only likely circumstance in which they would seek a referendum in their next term of office would be if Scotland votes to stay in the EU, when the UK as a whole votes to come out.

The idea that the UK government could effectively prevent another referendum in identical circumstances to those when it granted one i.e. the SNP puts it in its manifesto and wins a majority, isn't realistic politics no matter how much huffing and puffing would occur.

The simplest point to grasp is that there will be another referendum when and if the people of Scotland want one.

Might I suggest you are perhaps forgetting devomax and the Vow - if (and I suspect when) this is not fulfilled, it will cause serious problems for the Unionists.

TGOHF said:

Casino_Royale said:

The problem was (is) that the scale of the NO victory wasn't big enough to settle the issue for good.

If NO had won by, say, 63% to 37% we wouldn't even be having this conversation. A result like that should have been perfectly possible, but the Unionist campaign was not an impressive one.

If No had won by 50.01% the issue would have been settled for good.

Highly unfair process - and hence the YES camp has blown their chance for 35-40 years.

A period of reflection and silence would be welcome. Surely the Scottish voters will see through this massive "look squirrel" argument of tossing about the constitution whilst Scottish Education standards plummet further. It's unsustainable.

The No win was made conditional on the Vow and the promise of devo-max - badly bungled as that was and as open to interpretation as that was, leaving it open to the voter to decide. Remember that devo-max (proper devo-max, not the wersh dishwater on offer from Labour) was the most popular indyref option in the original polling before Mr Cameron refused to allow it to be voted on. As a result of this, we have a complete mess and it is up to the voters ultimately to decide what they want and when.

Was "the vow" on the ballot paper ?

edmundintokyo

TGOHF said:

If No had won by 50.01% the issue would have been settled for good.

Not necessarily. If the result had turned out substantially worse than people expected - and it would certainly have worked out worse than Salmond was saying - you could see the unionist parties staying unionist, winning back power in Scotland and running a do-over referendum. Probably wouldn't have happened, but you never know.

DecrepitJohnL

MikeK said:

A new view of aid to Africa, it may distress you.

"You feed they breed" How are we supposed to save a continent this size if they won't save themselves? @Geezajay2013 pic.twitter.com/msu7FclDaT

— English Patriot PAI (@piecrust33) November 17, 2014

Ignoring the sentiment, it does emphasise how vast Africa is compared with everywhere else.

Theuniondivvie

antifrank said:

Neil Findlay is determined not to be outflanked from the left:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/findlay-pledges-to-push-for-miners-strike-inquiry-1-3607007

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/i-ll-nationalise-rail-and-scrap-trident-findlay-1-3606980

The second of these raises some very interesting questions for the UK as a whole if Mr Findlay does win the Scottish Labour leadership election.

It raises interesting questions for Findlay too since he voted for the retention of Trident in the (symbolic) Holyrood vote.

Carnyx

TGOHF said:

Carnyx said:

JPJ2 said:

I interpret the near 30% saying "never" as the core "No" vote.

Everybody else is open to having another referendum, presumably because they think that some day they might vote Yes :-)

It is absolutely clear that the SNP will not campaign for a new referendum for the 2015 GE.

They will probably campaign for Holyrood in 2016 saying that the only likely circumstance in which they would seek a referendum in their next term of office would be if Scotland votes to stay in the EU, when the UK as a whole votes to come out.

The idea that the UK government could effectively prevent another referendum in identical circumstances to those when it granted one i.e. the SNP puts it in its manifesto and wins a majority, isn't realistic politics no matter how much huffing and puffing would occur.

The simplest point to grasp is that there will be another referendum when and if the people of Scotland want one.

Might I suggest you are perhaps forgetting devomax and the Vow - if (and I suspect when) this is not fulfilled, it will cause serious problems for the Unionists.

TGOHF said:

Casino_Royale said:

The problem was (is) that the scale of the NO victory wasn't big enough to settle the issue for good.

If NO had won by, say, 63% to 37% we wouldn't even be having this conversation. A result like that should have been perfectly possible, but the Unionist campaign was not an impressive one.

If No had won by 50.01% the issue would have been settled for good.

Highly unfair process - and hence the YES camp has blown their chance for 35-40 years.

A period of reflection and silence would be welcome. Surely the Scottish voters will see through this massive "look squirrel" argument of tossing about the constitution whilst Scottish Education standards plummet further. It's unsustainable.

The No win was made conditional on the Vow and the promise of devo-max - badly bungled as that was and as open to interpretation as that was, leaving it open to the voter to decide. Remember that devo-max (proper devo-max, not the wersh dishwater on offer from Labour) was the most popular indyref option in the original polling before Mr Cameron refused to allow it to be voted on. As a result of this, we have a complete mess and it is up to the voters ultimately to decide what they want and when.

Was "the vow" on the ballot paper ?

As good as, the way Mr Cameron et al did it.

To argue otherwise is to suggest that party manifestos are worthless and can be ignored once the election is over ...

edmundintokyo

Is Britain leaving the EU or is it all just grumpy talk? If it does then I'd expect Scotland to run a new referendum within the two-year window between deciding to do it and doing it. It would be much easier to win in that situation, because the nats would have a good competing FUD scenario to deploy against the unionists' FUD.

TGOHF

Carnyx said:

TGOHF said:

Carnyx said:

JPJ2 said:

I interpret the near 30% saying "never" as the core "No" vote.

Everybody else is open to having another referendum, presumably because they think that some day they might vote Yes :-)

Might I suggest you are perhaps forgetting devomax and the Vow - if (and I suspect when) this is not fulfilled, it will cause serious problems for the Unionists.

TGOHF said:

Casino_Royale said:

The problem was (is) that the scale of the NO victory wasn't big enough to settle the issue for good.

If NO had won by, say, 63% to 37% we wouldn't even be having this conversation. A result like that should have been perfectly possible, but the Unionist campaign was not an impressive one.

If No had won by 50.01% the issue would have been settled for good.

Highly unfair process - and hence the YES camp has blown their chance for 35-40 years.

A period of reflection and silence would be welcome. Surely the Scottish voters will see through this massive "look squirrel" argument of tossing about the constitution whilst Scottish Education standards plummet further. It's unsustainable.

The No win was made conditional on the Vow and the promise of devo-max - badly bungled as that was and as open to interpretation as that was, leaving it open to the voter to decide. Remember that devo-max (proper devo-max, not the wersh dishwater on offer from Labour) was the most popular indyref option in the original polling before Mr Cameron refused to allow it to be voted on. As a result of this, we have a complete mess and it is up to the voters ultimately to decide what they want and when.

Was "the vow" on the ballot paper ?

As good as, the way Mr Cameron et al did it.

To argue otherwise is to suggest that party manifestos are worthless and can be ignored once the election is over ...

Interesting to see how long the SNP can keep this distraction up - naturally the economic success of the Uk thanks to the Westminster government is keeping contentment levels up - but were that to slip the electorate might notice that Holyrood has been twiddling its plums for 5 years and achieved the square root of zip all.

edmundintokyo

Carnyx said:

To argue otherwise is to suggest that party manifestos are worthless and can be ignored once the election is over ...

A good way to improve British governance at a stroke would be for the House of Lords to adopt a convention that it would automatically block any legislation proposed in the last year of the parliament before the election, and also anything that was in the winning party's manifesto.

megalomaniacs4u

TheScreamingEagles said:

OblitusSumMe said:

BenM said:

Financier said:

DC's warning about a potential global economic problem is very true, but will be ignored by many short-term thinking politicians in the UK and Western Europe. These politicians tend to put political reform/control far ahead of the economic well-being of their electorate.

The Americas, Asia and Africa and Australasia can now manage very well without bothering about Western Europe - it is about time our politicians work up to reality and that wage increases are no longer the norm - do they want us to eat dirt before they come to their selfish and self-serving senses?

The biggest risks to the UK economy are domestic.

Some recent economic calamity was said to have "started in America". I forget the details of who said what and when.

I think it was the same chap who assured us he had abolished boom and bust.

The one who claimed he had saved the world?

Carnyx

TGOHF said:

Carnyx said:

TGOHF said:

Carnyx said:

JPJ2 said:

I interpret the near 30% saying "never" as the core "No" vote.

Everybody else is open to having another referendum, presumably because they think that some day they might vote Yes :-)

Might I suggest you are perhaps forgetting devomax and the Vow - if (and I suspect when) this is not fulfilled, it will cause serious problems for the Unionists.

TGOHF said:

Casino_Royale said:

The problem was (is) that the scale of the NO victory wasn't big enough to settle the issue for good.

If NO had won by, say, 63% to 37% we wouldn't even be having this conversation. A result like that should have been perfectly possible, but the Unionist campaign was not an impressive one.

If No had won by 50.01% the issue would have been settled for good.

Highly unfair process - and hence the YES camp has blown their chance for 35-40 years.

A period of reflection and silence would be welcome. Surely the Scottish voters will see through this massive "look squirrel" argument of tossing about the constitution whilst Scottish Education standards plummet further. It's unsustainable.

The No win was made conditional on the Vow and the promise of devo-max - badly bungled as that was and as open to interpretation as that was, leaving it open to the voter to decide. Remember that devo-max (proper devo-max, not the wersh dishwater on offer from Labour) was the most popular indyref option in the original polling before Mr Cameron refused to allow it to be voted on. As a result of this, we have a complete mess and it is up to the voters ultimately to decide what they want and when.

Was "the vow" on the ballot paper ?

As good as, the way Mr Cameron et al did it.

To argue otherwise is to suggest that party manifestos are worthless and can be ignored once the election is over ...

Interesting to see how long the SNP can keep this distraction up - naturally the economic success of the Uk thanks to the Westminster government is keeping contentment levels up - but were that to slip the electorate might notice that Holyrood has been twiddling its plums for 5 years and achieved the square root of zip all.

It wasn't a SNP distraction but a Tory/Labour/LD one! I'm waiting for the Smith Commission report with considerable interest.

TGOHF

wording of the vow here - very vague

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992

Carnyx

edmundintokyo said:

Carnyx said:

To argue otherwise is to suggest that party manifestos are worthless and can be ignored once the election is over ...

A good way to improve British governance at a stroke would be for the House of Lords to adopt a convention that it would automatically block any legislation proposed in the last year of the parliament before the election, and also anything that was in the winning party's manifesto.

just checking: you do mean 'winning'?

TheScreamingEagles

@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1), Con 35 (+2), LD 7 (-2), UKIP 11 (-2), Oth 10 (+1). Tables here: http://t.co/ikPN9aHSf0

Ishmael_X

Innocent_Abroad said:

Financier said:

DC's warning about a potential global economic problem is very true, but will be ignored by many short-term thinking politicians in the UK and Western Europe. These politicians tend to put political reform/control far ahead of the economic well-being of their electorate.

The Americas, Asia and Africa and Australasia can now manage very well without bothering about Western Europe - it is about time our politicians work up to reality and that wage increases are no longer the norm - do they want us to eat dirt before they come to their selfish and self-serving senses?

When someone called "Financier" calls for wages to be kept low (and public services decimated IIRC) I start to wonder which Trotskyist group to join.

In the meantime, have a good day everyone and I'll see you to-morrow (DV).

When he can't detect any hint of short-term political thinking in DC's utterances I worry about his career choice as a financier.

Carnyx

TGOHF said:

wording of the vow here - very vague

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992

Yes, but further amplified by Gordon Brown in close coordination and agreement with the three party leaders. Confusing perhaps but it was their fault.

OblitusSumMe

TheScreamingEagles said:

OblitusSumMe said:

BenM said:

Financier said:

DC's warning about a potential global economic problem is very true, but will be ignored by many short-term thinking politicians in the UK and Western Europe. These politicians tend to put political reform/control far ahead of the economic well-being of their electorate.

The Americas, Asia and Africa and Australasia can now manage very well without bothering about Western Europe - it is about time our politicians work up to reality and that wage increases are no longer the norm - do they want us to eat dirt before they come to their selfish and self-serving senses?

The biggest risks to the UK economy are domestic.

Some recent economic calamity was said to have "started in America". I forget the details of who said what and when.

I think it was the same chap who assured us he had abolished boom and bust.

Words are important Mr Eagles - he claimed to have abolished "Tory" boom and bust, and since he uttered those stirring words there hasn't yet been a Tory bust! I'm sure the closely cropped fellow currently residing in the Treasury is very grateful for his efforts - it was a close run thing for a year or two.

TheScreamingEagles

megalomaniacs4u said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OblitusSumMe said:

BenM said:

Financier said:

DC's warning about a potential global economic problem is very true, but will be ignored by many short-term thinking politicians in the UK and Western Europe. These politicians tend to put political reform/control far ahead of the economic well-being of their electorate.

The Americas, Asia and Africa and Australasia can now manage very well without bothering about Western Europe - it is about time our politicians work up to reality and that wage increases are no longer the norm - do they want us to eat dirt before they come to their selfish and self-serving senses?

The biggest risks to the UK economy are domestic.

Some recent economic calamity was said to have "started in America". I forget the details of who said what and when.

I think it was the same chap who assured us he had abolished boom and bust.

The one who claimed he had saved the world?

That's the chap.

Only the gullible would ever believe what he says.

Which explains why the Scots voted to remain in the Union.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Me, that's not the case. Brown banged on about boom and bust. Not Tory, or Conservative, boom and bust.

Mr. Eagles, UKIP on 11 looks low.

TGOHF

Carnyx said:

TGOHF said:

wording of the vow here - very vague

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992

Yes, but further amplified by Gordon Brown in close coordination and agreement with the three party leaders. Confusing perhaps but it was their fault.

Ties up nicely with the other topic - Brown is a deluded idiot. Only Scotland has yet to work that out.

AndyJS

TheScreamingEagles said:

Has anyone stayed at the hotel in the Shard?

Is it any good ?

Was thinking of staying there instead on Friday night.

SeanT has been to the restaurant IIRC.

isam

"Curdling the Blood
Fresh from lecturing Vladimir Putin on international morality, David Cameron(the Victor of Libya, let it never be forgotten, as well as The Man Who Wanted to Back the Rebels in Syria Who Later Turned into ISIS, but luckily failed) is now warning that there is a coming world economic crisis which may wreck Britain's supposed recovery (see my blog of yesterday about being governed by people whose intellects are inferior to those of Garden Gnomes).

Actually,he knows perfectly well that this 'recovery' is founded upon sand, in the form of a cheap housing credit bubble and massaged statistics, and will be exposed very soon when the huge imbalance between spending and our ability to pay for it has to be addressed.

Presumably, this article is an early attempt to shift the blame. It s no longer possibe to say that it is Labour's falt, Labour having let office almost five years ago. So the rest of the world must take the blame.

By the way, what is Britain's direct interest in Ukraine, and with what armed forces do we presume to warn Russia? Once upon a time, we protected our own interests and had the resources to make our words count. Now we intervene in quarrels that are nothing to do with us, and lack the weapons or troops with which to back up our growls."

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/11/curdling-the-blood.html

Alistair

antifrank said:

Neil Findlay is determined not to be outflanked from the left:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/findlay-pledges-to-push-for-miners-strike-inquiry-1-3607007

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/i-ll-nationalise-rail-and-scrap-trident-findlay-1-3606980

The second of these raises some very interesting questions for the UK as a whole if Mr Findlay does win the Scottish Labour leadership election.

Findlay has been absolutely filleted on the trident issue. He's abstained or voted against all motions condemning Trident. Apparently he was all over the place on Good Morning Scotland this AM.

Basically the classic SLAb problem of hating everything the SNP propose, even when it is an SLab idea.

TGOHF

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Me, that's not the case. Brown banged on about boom and bust. Not Tory, or Conservative, boom and bust.

Mr. Eagles, UKIP on 11 looks low.

Purples line has flattened a bit - only Survation and Com res is keeping it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

Anyone got the up to date graph ? Google docs link..

Alistair

I'm getting an HTTP auth popup from www.nojam.com whenever I go to the front page.

I think this happened to me before.

Financier

Ishmael_X said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Financier said:

DC's warning about a potential global economic problem is very true, but will be ignored by many short-term thinking politicians in the UK and Western Europe. These politicians tend to put political reform/control far ahead of the economic well-being of their electorate.

The Americas, Asia and Africa and Australasia can now manage very well without bothering about Western Europe - it is about time our politicians work up to reality and that wage increases are no longer the norm - do they want us to eat dirt before they come to their selfish and self-serving senses?

When someone called "Financier" calls for wages to be kept low (and public services decimated IIRC) I start to wonder which Trotskyist group to join.

In the meantime, have a good day everyone and I'll see you to-morrow (DV).

When he can't detect any hint of short-term political thinking in DC's utterances I worry about his career choice as a financier.

Just look at world economics and resources and then do the same for Western Europe.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Isam, Libya today is a bad place. Lack of action would've led to genocide and it still being a bad place, albeit perhaps a more stable one.

The options weren't Lovely Libya and Horrid Libya, but a variety in the shade of shit, with a small chance of things turning out for the better with Gaddafi gone. It's easy to be wise with hindsight.

Also, if we'd backed the FSA earlier then they may've toppled Assad whilst ISIS was either very small or before it even existed. Not all rebels are ISIS.

Toms

What was that thunderous phrase that the bully boy kept repeating in the TV indy debates? It was something like "the sovereign will of the Scottish people". The other night on any questions some politician---was it herself indeed?---kept repeating it in a different guise. Well, this unwholesome stirring will continue, but the sovereign will of the Scots has voted NO, thanks be.

AlastairMeeks

isam said:

"Curdling the Blood
Fresh from lecturing Vladimir Putin on international morality, David Cameron(the Victor of Libya, let it never be forgotten, as well as The Man Who Wanted to Back the Rebels in Syria Who Later Turned into ISIS, but luckily failed) is now warning that there is a coming world economic crisis which may wreck Britain's supposed recovery (see my blog of yesterday about being governed by people whose intellects are inferior to those of Garden Gnomes).

Actually,he knows perfectly well that this 'recovery' is founded upon sand, in the form of a cheap housing credit bubble and massaged statistics, and will be exposed very soon when the huge imbalance between spending and our ability to pay for it has to be addressed.

Presumably, this article is an early attempt to shift the blame. It s no longer possibe to say that it is Labour's falt, Labour having let office almost five years ago. So the rest of the world must take the blame.

By the way, what is Britain's direct interest in Ukraine, and with what armed forces do we presume to warn Russia? Once upon a time, we protected our own interests and had the resources to make our words count. Now we intervene in quarrels that are nothing to do with us, and lack the weapons or troops with which to back up our growls."

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/11/curdling-the-blood.html

I take it that Peter Hitchens didn't want to use the line "a faraway country of which we know little" because Neville Chamberlain's words are still in copyright until next year.

AndyJS

I'd be interested to hear Edmund's thoughts on Japan entering recession according to the new data.