If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
There was no chance of a currency union, and the only currency that would have got trashed was Scotland's petrocurrency when the oil price fell.
I'm kicking myself that the Scots bottled it. It would have been nice to have some cheap holidays without getting on a plane.
The way the Norwegian Krone has appreciated 20% against the Pound?
There is little belief in your fanciful theories but you missed the core point. You're still fighting the referendum when the result is in and the SNP and Yes supporters have moved on. Fighting last years battle will only lose you the war.
And that's Norway, a highly educated and diversified economy. Other than oil, the only things Scotland's economy has going for it are banks that would have left to place with a lender of last resort, a handful of breweries, and some deep-fried pizza places in Glasgow.
Distilleries, and a famous golf course or two. Tourist sales of cashmere are buoyant enough to drive interesting independent cafes out of Edinburgh city centre.
PM Miliband would be far better for Scotland than PM Cameron after autonomy.
The Cons would run a lower tax model which would suck enterprise out of Scotland and over the border as the SNP would move to a high tax, smash the rich, social justice for the feckless approach - see recent property tax assault on modest houses.
Scotland would become like a mini Hollande run France - leaking tax, jobs and wealthy people .
Leaving aside the concept of "the Union" for a moment, just look at Greece.
So you're saying that the Westminster parties would not pay £18bn (their worst case estimate for a three year period) to kill Nationalism stone dead and have the electorate demand the end of the FFA experiment?
I call bullshit. If it was true, it would happen and the price to kill the SNP would be seen as cheap.
US marginal oil and gas producers thrown under the wheels in order to get Vlad put in his box. You can see why so many world leaders wanted to be in Saudi Arabia this past week - they have performed admirably in trashing the Russian economy.
It was the US producers that caused Saudi Arabia to have to accept a lower oil price, not the other way around.
Uh? Where on earth do you get this stuff? This isn't even the mainstream view is it?
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
Loyalists? Just so I'm straight on this you believe that the Borders, Edinburgh, Orkney, Shetland, Aberdeenshire, Perthshire etc. are hotbeds of militant Protestanism?
You seem to be rather limiting your vocabulary.
'loy·al·ist (loi′ə-lĭst) n. 1. One who maintains loyalty to an established government, political party, or sovereign, especially during war or revolutionary change. 2. Loyalist See Tory. 3. Loyalist One who supported the established government of Spain during the Spanish Civil War.'
So which of one of the 3 are 55% of the Scottish population. Or do you think he was getting at something else.
Muslim suicide bombers in Britain are set to begin a three-day strike on Monday in a dispute over the number of virgins they are entitled to in the afterlife. Emergency talks with Al Qaeda have so far failed to produce an agreement. The unrest began last Tuesday when Al Qaeda announced that the number of virgins a suicide bomber would receive after his death would be cut by 25% this February from 72 to 54. A spokesman said increases in recent years in the number of suicide bombings has resulted in a shortage of virgins in the afterlife. The suicide bombers' union, the British Organization of Occupational Martyrs ( B.O.O.M.) responded with a statement saying the move was unacceptable to its members and called for a strike vote. General Secretary Abdullah Amir told the press, "Our members are literally working themselves to death in the cause of Jihad. We don't ask for much in return but to be treated like this is like a kick in the teeth". Speaking from his shed in Tipton in the West Midlands , Al Qaeda chief executive Haisheet Mapants explained, "I sympathize with our workers concerns but Al Qaeda is simply not in a position to meet their demands. They are simply not accepting the realities of modern-day Jihad in a competitive marketplace. Thanks to Western depravity, there is now a chronic shortage of virgins in the afterlife. It's a straight choice between reducing expenditures or laying people off. I don't like cutting benefits but I'd hate to have to tell 3,000 of my staff that they won't be able to blow themselves up." Spokespersons for the union in the North East of England, Ireland , Wales and the entire Australian continent stated that the change would not hurt their membership as there are so few virgins in their areas anyway. According to some industry sources, the recent drop in the number of suicide bombings has been attributed to the emergence of Scottish singing star, Susan Boyle. Many Muslim Jihadists now know what a virgin looks like and have reconsidered their benefit packages
US marginal oil and gas producers thrown under the wheels in order to get Vlad put in his box. You can see why so many world leaders wanted to be in Saudi Arabia this past week - they have performed admirably in trashing the Russian economy.
It was the US producers that caused Saudi Arabia to have to accept a lower oil price, not the other way around.
In due course I think you will find it was a little cosier an arrangement than the Saudis having a pre-emptive strike to preserve their market share... That being the outcome made it a very easy strategy to get behind.
Medium term the Saudis need oil north of $85 to keep afloat. When I was last there it was pointed out that they have a very young population that is expected to grow rapidly - and they need massive investment in infrastructure to support it.
But Saudi hasn't increased production, so how, exactly has it carried out this pre-emptive strike?
Er....by not cutting it! Which is what the world's swing producer normally does.
A cut of Saudi production by one third might push the oil price up by a third.... Same revenue, but Saudi reserves still under the desert.
US marginal oil and gas producers thrown under the wheels in order to get Vlad put in his box. You can see why so many world leaders wanted to be in Saudi Arabia this past week - they have performed admirably in trashing the Russian economy.
It was the US producers that caused Saudi Arabia to have to accept a lower oil price, not the other way around.
Uh? Where on earth do you get this stuff? This isn't even the mainstream view is it?
Under what mechanism do you think Saudi Arabia dropped the oil price?
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
There was no chance of a currency union, and the only currency that would have got trashed was Scotland's petrocurrency when the oil price fell.
I'm kicking myself that the Scots bottled it. It would have been nice to have some cheap holidays without getting on a plane.
The way the Norwegian Krone has appreciated 20% against the Pound?
There is little belief in your fanciful theories but you missed the core point. You're still fighting the referendum when the result is in and the SNP and Yes supporters have moved on. Fighting last years battle will only lose you the war.
And that's Norway, a highly educated and diversified economy. Other than oil, the only things Scotland's economy has going for it are banks that would have left to place with a lender of last resort, a handful of breweries, and some deep-fried pizza places in Glasgow.
My error, misread a graph in haste.
Norway's economy is 40% oil sector, Scotland is 15% which is far less than the UK's reliance on Financial Services (somewhere between 30% and 40%).
Certainly the level of the change was on nothing like the scale that we see in some of the Ashcroft single constituency marginals polling.
You would expect that some of the large changes at the constituency level would cancel out at the national level.
Considering Lib/Lab waverers, you would expect these to fall in behind the Liberals in Lib/Con marginals, but in Con/Lab marginals they will be more likely to back Labour. Net effect across the country could well be near zero in terms of vote share, but as many as a couple of dozen fewer Conservative MPs.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
There was no chance of a currency union, and the only currency that would have got trashed was Scotland's petrocurrency when the oil price fell.
I'm kicking myself that the Scots bottled it. It would have been nice to have some cheap holidays without getting on a plane.
The way the Norwegian Krone has appreciated 20% against the Pound?
There is little belief in your fanciful theories but you missed the core point. You're still fighting the referendum when the result is in and the SNP and Yes supporters have moved on. Fighting last years battle will only lose you the war.
And that's Norway, a highly educated and diversified economy. Other than oil, the only things Scotland's economy has going for it are banks that would have left to place with a lender of last resort, a handful of breweries, and some deep-fried pizza places in Glasgow.
My error, misread a graph in haste.
Norway's economy is 40% oil sector, Scotland is 15% which is far less than the UK's reliance on Financial Services (somewhere between 30% and 40%).
The idea that 30-40% of the UK's economy is financial services is risible.
I've been willing to bet you on this based on the terms Cameron has stated, and you've run away like a scared little girl.
I'm happy to bet you £50 at evens that Cameron will not have a referendum on a finalised renegotiation, signed off by all parties that need to sign off, by the end of 2017. If Cameron is not PM, bets are off. Deal?
I'm happy to bet, as I have repeatedly said, up to £1000 at Evens, that Cameron will keep his pledge to hold an EU In/Out Referendum by the end of 2017, if he has a majority after the election. Bet void if no majority.
It could not be a simpler offer. I'll even happily take the risk that he has a majority in May but loses it through by-elections. Any Kipper who, ludicrously, claims Cameron cannot be trusted and will welch out of the referendum is invited to apply. No-one has, of course, because they are lying when they claim they believe he can't be trusted.
As for your proposed bet, what on earth are you going on about? No-one, certainly not me or Cameron, has ever claimed the renegotiation will be 'signed off by all parties' by the end of 2017. Cameron has promised an In/Out referendum, which is what the Kippers say they want. They can get it, if they vote Conservative in sufficient numbers. And they know it, which is why they don't take my bet,.
IMHO Cameron would definitely hold an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. However, I also expect him to declare whatever stage he reaches in the negotiations, and whatever the concessions are, a success and to campaign for an IN vote accordingly.
That's no matter what they are, and whether they're official and bankable or not. Basically, I think Cameron wants a referendum to call the eurosceptics bluff, win it and close down the issue. He's going through the motions of pretending to have a serious renegotion, but actually just paying lip service to it. Chiefly for party management reasons.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
Loyalists? Just so I'm straight on this you believe that the Borders, Edinburgh, Orkney, Shetland, Aberdeenshire, Perthshire etc. are hotbeds of militant Protestanism?
You seem to be rather limiting your vocabulary.
'loy·al·ist (loi′ə-lĭst) n. 1. One who maintains loyalty to an established government, political party, or sovereign, especially during war or revolutionary change. 2. Loyalist See Tory. 3. Loyalist One who supported the established government of Spain during the Spanish Civil War.'
So which of one of the 3 are 55% of the Scottish population. Or do you think he was getting at something else.
Dair can no doubt speak for himself, but my reading was that Loyalists doesn't refer to the 55%, but instead to the much, much smaller minority who haunt the the Cyberwaves raging that Salmond & the SNP haven't gone away, that Indy isn't dead and buried, and worst of all, that Eck & the Natz might have a disproportionate influence in the next Westminster parliament. I'd imagine a goodly proportion of these frothers may indeed be militant Protestants.
Basically, I think Cameron wants a referendum to call the eurosceptics bluff, win it and close down the issue. He's going through the motions of pretending to have a serious renegotion, but actually just paying lip service to it. Chiefly for party management reasons.
I don't think Cameron wants out of the EU but I do think him and Osborne want some repatriation of powers - particularly so that we are not clobbered by the Eurozone making decisions for their own benefit only.
Thus while banging on about In/Out referendum is for party management purposes, they are also trying to use the referendum to force some concessions from the EU that wouldn't be possible otherwise.
One of the headlines from the sun readers manifesto is that they want less political game playing and more honesty/straight answers
Who can argue with that? Of course, it's double-speak. What sun readers really want is the perception of honesty from their politicians. The easiest way to achieve that is to stop buying the sun.
It's cognitive dissonance.
Like wanting all the paedos locked up while simultaneously sexualising young girls. It's a kind of psychological masochism thing that the sun (and daily mail) exploits very effectively.
I've had some success on the doorstep with people who say we're all lobby fodder and just vote on party lines, I say that I'm prepared to defy the whips if I disagree with them but add "But I'll defy you too if you don't persuade me - I'll listen to you, think about it, discuss it with you, and then either vote as you want or explain why I won't". People are initially taken aback but on the whole they quite like it because it breaks through the miasma of standard replies. I did get one person who said it was my duty to vote as constituents want, regardless of whether I agreed with it - but only one.
Who are you? And what have you done with the real Nick Palmer? You know, the one that The Sketch wrote about in the Independent on 12th June 2008 - the one who they described as the Mr Palmer who "would eat his own feet if the whips asked him too."
It will be giving Anna Soubry cause for concern that she may now be facing a true rebel spirit....
ISAM - no thanks. I don't even bet on the blue team at 1/33 - I'm surprised you just aren't lumping on with Shadsy at 12-1 on your kipper boys given they said their private polling showed them beating the Blues in Rochford & Southend East - and as you flagged up here?
More importantly, this is a morning where no opinion poll so far today has shown the Tories ahead of Labour...
Time for a thread on that?
No Ladbrokes account, but may take a walk to the shop later
How about a top up in Rochester.. I'll give you 10/11 for £100 so an average of £200 at EVENS?
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
Loyalists? Just so I'm straight on this you believe that the Borders, Edinburgh, Orkney, Shetland, Aberdeenshire, Perthshire etc. are hotbeds of militant Protestanism?
You seem to be rather limiting your vocabulary.
'loy·al·ist (loi′ə-lĭst) n. 1. One who maintains loyalty to an established government, political party, or sovereign, especially during war or revolutionary change. 2. Loyalist See Tory. 3. Loyalist One who supported the established government of Spain during the Spanish Civil War.'
So which of one of the 3 are 55% of the Scottish population. Or do you think he was getting at something else.
Dair can no doubt speak for himself, but my reading was that Loyalists doesn't refer to the 55%, but instead to the much, much smaller minority who haunt the the Cyberwaves raging that Salmond & the SNP haven't gone away, that Indy isn't dead and buried, and worst of all, that Eck & the Natz might have a disproportionate influence in the next Westminster parliament. I'd imagine a goodly proportion of these frothers may indeed be militant Protestants.
Dunno about the latter, but what is so striking about them is that the frothers somehow manage to believe in the UK at the same time as believing that part of the UK has no right to send MPs to influence the UK Parliament.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
...
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
....
The way the Norwegian Krone has appreciated 20% against the Pound?
There is little belief in your fanciful theories but you missed the core point. You're still fighting the referendum when the result is in and the SNP and Yes supporters have moved on. Fighting last years battle will only lose you the war.
And that's Norway, a highly educated and diversified economy. Other than oil, the only things Scotland's economy has going for it are banks that would have left to place with a lender of last resort, a handful of breweries, and some deep-fried pizza places in Glasgow.
My error, misread a graph in haste.
Norway's economy is 40% oil sector, Scotland is 15% which is far less than the UK's reliance on Financial Services (somewhere between 30% and 40%).
The estimated amount of total taxes paid by the Financial Services Sector in the year to 31 March 2012 is £63bn, 11.6% of the total UK government tax receipts (City of London report) ''In 2011, financial and insurance services contributed £125.4 billion in gross value added (GVA) to the UK economy, 9.4% of total value added.' file:///home/chronos/u-5bc2250e420291ab3e8bc6a318ad30f302dee10c/Downloads/sn06193.pdf
That's no matter what they are, and whether they're official and bankable or not. Basically, I think Cameron wants a referendum to call the eurosceptics bluff, win it and close down the issue. He's going through the motions of pretending to have a serious renegotion, but actually just paying lip service to it. Chiefly for party management reasons.
I think that is partly true, except it's unfair to call it 'going through the motions' or 'lip-service'. The plain facts of the matter as I see it are very simple: a referendum, whenever it is held, will produce a Stay In result, but, because of idiotic concessions made for nothing in return by the last government, we are stuck in an EU which is in many ways unsatisfactory and which is unpopular (and not optimal for our EU partners either, as the economic conditions demonstrate). Cameron is merely reflecting the reality of the situation: try to make it more satisfactory, through renegotiation, and then, yes, try to shut down the issue which has been so destructive for many years.
If he achieves either of those goals, then that will be a big achievement. If he achieves both, a truly great achievement.
I've been willing to bet you on this based on the terms Cameron has stated, and you've run away like a scared little girl.
I'm happy to bet you £50 at evens that Cameron will not have a referendum on a finalised renegotiation, signed off by all parties that need to sign off, by the end of 2017. If Cameron is not PM, bets are off. Deal?
I'm happy to bet, as I have repeatedly said, up to £1000 at Evens, that Cameron will keep his pledge to hold an EU In/Out Referendum by the end of 2017, if he has a majority after the election. Bet void if no majority.
It could not be a simpler offer. I'll even happily take the risk that he has a majority in May but loses it through by-elections. Any Kipper who, ludicrously, claims Cameron cannot be trusted and will welch out of the referendum is invited to apply. No-one has, of course, because they are lying when they claim they believe he can't be trusted.
As for your proposed bet, what on earth are you going on about? No-one, certainly not me or Cameron, has ever claimed the renegotiation will be 'signed off by all parties' by the end of 2017. Cameron has promised an In/Out referendum, which is what the Kippers say they want. They can get it, if they vote Conservative in sufficient numbers. And they know it, which is why they don't take my bet,.
Cameron has said he will hold a referendum after "a new settlement" has been agreed. His policy has long been renegotiate, then have a referendum. Are you now saying that you think a referendum will happen before a negotiation is done?
As for an In/Out referendum, we can also get it if Tories vote for UKIP in sufficient numbers.
Scotland is 15% which is far less than the UK's reliance on Financial Services (somewhere between 30% and 40%).
Whereas an independent Scotland's banking sector assets as a proportion of GDP would make a pre-crash Iceland look diversified.
Have you correctly apportioned those assets between the English and Scottish parts of the banks given that the Corporation tax that those assets generate is apportioned between England and Scotland?
Scotland is 15% which is far less than the UK's reliance on Financial Services (somewhere between 30% and 40%).
Whereas an independent Scotland's banking sector assets as a proportion of GDP would make a pre-crash Iceland look diversified.
Iceland where GDP is higher today than it was in 2008? Where, as is conventional practise, other countries paid almost the entire cost of the banking failure?
It's based on where the activity is. All the losses paid by the UK government would have been paid by an rUK government. Obviously the largest portion still paid by the United States government (although it intelligently implemented a solution where it got paid back).
US marginal oil and gas producers thrown under the wheels in order to get Vlad put in his box. You can see why so many world leaders wanted to be in Saudi Arabia this past week - they have performed admirably in trashing the Russian economy.
It was the US producers that caused Saudi Arabia to have to accept a lower oil price, not the other way around.
Uh? Where on earth do you get this stuff? This isn't even the mainstream view is it?
Under what mechanism do you think Saudi Arabia dropped the oil price?
Dunno about the latter, but what is so striking about them is that the frothers somehow manage to believe in the UK at the same time as believing that part of the UK has no right to send MPs to influence the UK Parliament.
Basically, I think Cameron wants a referendum to call the eurosceptics bluff, win it and close down the issue. He's going through the motions of pretending to have a serious renegotion, but actually just paying lip service to it. Chiefly for party management reasons.
I don't think Cameron wants out of the EU but I do think him and Osborne want some repatriation of powers - particularly so that we are not clobbered by the Eurozone making decisions for their own benefit only.
Thus while banging on about In/Out referendum is for party management purposes, they are also trying to use the referendum to force some concessions from the EU that wouldn't be possible otherwise.
In the YouGov polling it asks how people would vote on an in/out EU referendum [6% lead for IN], and how they would vote in a referendum where Cameron recommends they vote to stay in on renegotiated terms [19% lead for IN].
The question I'd like to see them ask is how people would vote if Cameron declared his renegotiation a failure, and recommended that people vote to leave the EU.
If Cameron is a closet BOOer I think that would be the way to take the UK out of the EU, and would be more effective than simply calling a referendum asap.
Cameron has said he will hold a referendum after "a new settlement" has been agreed. His policy has long been renegotiate, then have a referendum. Are you now saying that you think a referendum will happen before a negotiation is done?
I don't think you are reading Cameron's statement correctly. Here's one that makes it easier to understand
"Asked if the referendum could be held before 2017, he said: "Absolutely, the referendum must take place before the end of 2017."
Dunno about the latter, but what is so striking about them is that the frothers somehow manage to believe in the UK at the same time as believing that part of the UK has no right to send MPs to influence the UK Parliament.
'Wrong' type of MPs, innit.
In English issue votes, they certainly are the 'Wrong' type of MPs -I'm embarrassed for you trying to suggest otherwise.
I've been willing to bet you on this based on the terms Cameron has stated, and you've run away like a scared little girl.
I'm happy to bet you £50 at evens that Cameron will not have a referendum on a finalised renegotiation, signed off by all parties that need to sign off, by the end of 2017. If Cameron is not PM, bets are off. Deal?
I'm happy to bet, as I have repeatedly said, up to £1000 at Evens, that Cameron will keep his pledge to hold an EU In/Out Referendum by the end of 2017, if he has a majority after the election. Bet void if no majority.
It could not be a simpler offer. I'll even happily take the risk that he has a majority in May but loses it through by-elections. Any Kipper who, ludicrously, claims Cameron cannot be trusted and will welch out of the referendum is invited to apply. No-one has, of course, because they are lying when they claim they believe he can't be trusted.
As for your proposed bet, what on earth are you going on about? No-one, certainly not me or Cameron, has ever claimed the renegotiation will be 'signed off by all parties' by the end of 2017. Cameron has promised an In/Out referendum, which is what the Kippers say they want. They can get it, if they vote Conservative in sufficient numbers. And they know it, which is why they don't take my bet,.
IMHO Cameron would definitely hold an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. However, I also expect him to declare whatever stage he reaches in the negotiations, and whatever the concessions are, a success and to campaign for an IN vote accordingly.
That's no matter what they are, and whether they're official and bankable or not. Basically, I think Cameron wants a referendum to call the eurosceptics bluff, win it and close down the issue. He's going through the motions of pretending to have a serious renegotion, but actually just paying lip service to it. Chiefly for party management reasons.
Agree entirely - even Dan Hannan agrees with that too from articles of his I read BUT his logic is at least this way he gets a referendum which they won't get any other way and he then gets a chance to put 'his' euro sceptic view to the country. That's my understanding of why he stayed a Tory.
Opposition is easy without power and that's what the 'Tory to Kipper' movers have opted for.
US marginal oil and gas producers thrown under the wheels in order to get Vlad put in his box. You can see why so many world leaders wanted to be in Saudi Arabia this past week - they have performed admirably in trashing the Russian economy.
It was the US producers that caused Saudi Arabia to have to accept a lower oil price, not the other way around.
Uh? Where on earth do you get this stuff? This isn't even the mainstream view is it?
Under what mechanism do you think Saudi Arabia dropped the oil price?
Why don't you compare changes to Saudi Aramco's contracts with the drop in oil benchmark prices? You'll find the changes to Saudi Aramco prices are a small fraction of the overall drop.
ISAM - no thanks. I don't even bet on the blue team at 1/33 - I'm surprised you just aren't lumping on with Shadsy at 12-1 on your kipper boys given they said their private polling showed them beating the Blues in Rochford & Southend East - and as you flagged up here?
More importantly, this is a morning where no opinion poll so far today has shown the Tories ahead of Labour...
Time for a thread on that?
No Ladbrokes account, but may take a walk to the shop later
How about a top up in Rochester.. I'll give you 10/11 for £100 so an average of £200 at EVENS?
Tempted as it's the pig dog but I prefer winning boasts on better than evens whenever possible.... such as my biggest position which is Blue most seats... you might have noticed my interest in that... got 4 figures on that baby.
Cameron has said he will hold a referendum after "a new settlement" has been agreed. His policy has long been renegotiate, then have a referendum. Are you now saying that you think a referendum will happen before a negotiation is done?
The negotiation will be what it is. Whatever state it has reached (almost certainly an agreement at a summit of EU leaders, thrashed out into the small hours), there will be referendum by the end 2017. No ifs, buts, maybes, subject-tos or any other wriggling. The referendum will go ahead for 100% certain if there is a Tory majority (and probably if there is a hung parliament with a Tory-led government, although that is obviously not something the Conservatives can deliver by themselves, so no bet on that).
In casting your vote, you will have to take account of the inevitable holes, uncertainties and lack of detail in the renegotiation. That, however, pales into insignificance compared with the lack of any indication whatsoever as to what a completely new negotiation, following an Out result, would produce.
That's life. We have to take decisions on incomplete information. But be under no illusion: the problem as regards the uncertainty will be a problem for the Out side, not the In side. It will in fact be the killer issue which torpedoes the Out case.
Basically, I think Cameron wants a referendum to call the eurosceptics bluff, win it and close down the issue. He's going through the motions of pretending to have a serious renegotion, but actually just paying lip service to it. Chiefly for party management reasons.
I don't think Cameron wants out of the EU but I do think him and Osborne want some repatriation of powers - particularly so that we are not clobbered by the Eurozone making decisions for their own benefit only.
Thus while banging on about In/Out referendum is for party management purposes, they are also trying to use the referendum to force some concessions from the EU that wouldn't be possible otherwise.
I think Osborne is marginally more eurosceptic than Cameron, who probably doesn't think about it much at all. However, I think that's limited to "hands-off The City and our financial services industry".
I think he's very pro single market, believes it is a big winner for the UK and is prepared to accept some pretty significant political negatives for retaining that benefit.
That's no matter what they are, and whether they're official and bankable or not. Basically, I think Cameron wants a referendum to call the eurosceptics bluff, win it and close down the issue. He's going through the motions of pretending to have a serious renegotion, but actually just paying lip service to it. Chiefly for party management reasons.
I think that is partly true, except it's unfair to call it 'going through the motions' or 'lip-service'. The plain facts of the matter as I see it are very simple: a referendum, whenever it is held, will produce a Stay In result, but, because of idiotic concessions made for nothing in return by the last government, we are stuck in an EU which is in many ways unsatisfactory and which is unpopular (and not optimal for our EU partners either, as the economic conditions demonstrate). Cameron is merely reflecting the reality of the situation: try to make it more satisfactory, through renegotiation, and then, yes, try to shut down the issue which has been so destructive for many years.
If he achieves either of those goals, then that will be a big achievement. If he achieves both, a truly great achievement.
Genuine question, Richard. Given how you seem to feel about it, and the fact we don't entirely disagree, could you ever see yourself arriving at a conclusion where you yourself believe we are better off out?
And would you consider that even in a 2017 referendum, if you were not satisfied?
Scotland is 15% which is far less than the UK's reliance on Financial Services (somewhere between 30% and 40%).
Whereas an independent Scotland's banking sector assets as a proportion of GDP would make a pre-crash Iceland look diversified.
The willingness and ability of the Scottish government to support its banking sector appears challenging," S&P said, highlighting that the Scottish banking system's assets are currently a high 1,254 percent of Scotland's GDP.
This compares with 880 percent for Iceland in 2007, just before its banking system collapsed, the ratings agency said. It currently classifies Iceland as "support uncertain," factoring no extraordinary government help into domestic bank ratings.
"We note a possible parallel here with Iceland, where in 2008 the national deposit insurance scheme could not honour claims when the country's outsized banking system failed."
I've been willing to bet you on this based on the terms Cameron has stated, and you've run away like a scared little girl.
I'm happy to bet you £50 at evens that Cameron will not have a referendum on a finalised renegotiation, signed off by all parties that need to sign off, by the end of 2017. If Cameron is not PM, bets are off. Deal?
I'm happy to bet, as I have repeatedly said, up to £1000 at Evens, that Cameron will keep his pledge to hold an EU In/Out Referendum by the end of 2017, if he has a majority after the election. Bet void if no majority
Snip
As for your proposed bet, what on earth are you going on about? No-one, certainly not me or Cameron, has ever claimed the renegotiation will be 'signed off by all parties' by the end of 2017. Cameron has promised an In/Out referendum, which is what the Kippers say they want. They can get it, if they vote Conservative in sufficient numbers. And they know it, which is why they don't take my bet,.
IMHO Cameron would definitely hold an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. However, I also expect him to declare whatever stage he reaches in the negotiations, and whatever the concessions are, a success and to campaign for an IN vote accordingly.
That's no matter what they are, and whether they're official and bankable or not. Basically, I think Cameron wants a referendum to call the eurosceptics bluff, win it and close down the issue. He's going through the motions of pretending to have a serious renegotion, but actually just paying lip service to it. Chiefly for party management reasons.
Agree entirely - even Dan Hannan agrees with that too from articles of his I read BUT his logic is at least this way he gets a referendum which they won't get any other way and he then gets a chance to put 'his' euro sceptic view to the country. That's my understanding of why he stayed a Tory.
Opposition is easy without power and that's what the 'Tory to Kipper' movers have opted for.
I say all that as an 'inner' not an outer.
My position remains to hold an EU referendum when OUT can win. For that to happen a clear rational positive cross-party case needs to be made for an independent Britain. With a clear transition roadmap. And it'll have to win over some internationalist lefties.
I don't believe they will in 2017, under almost any scenario. I think Farage thinks he will, because he assumes most of us think the same way he does, but in reality he'll get 40% of the population voting very enthusiastically for him but a large number of doubters and floaters defaulting to the status quo in the final month.
Comments
The Cons would run a lower tax model which would suck enterprise out of Scotland and over the border as the SNP would move to a high tax, smash the rich, social justice for the feckless approach - see recent property tax assault on modest houses.
Scotland would become like a mini Hollande run France - leaking tax, jobs and wealthy people .
I call bullshit. If it was true, it would happen and the price to kill the SNP would be seen as cheap.
Muslim suicide bombers in Britain are set to begin a three-day strike on Monday in a dispute over the number of virgins they are entitled to in the afterlife. Emergency talks with Al Qaeda have so far failed to produce an agreement.
The unrest began last Tuesday when Al Qaeda announced that the number of virgins a suicide bomber would receive after his death would be cut by 25% this February from 72 to 54. A spokesman said increases in recent years in the number of suicide bombings has resulted in a shortage of virgins in the afterlife.
The suicide bombers' union, the British Organization of Occupational Martyrs ( B.O.O.M.) responded with a statement saying the move was unacceptable to its members and called for a strike vote. General Secretary Abdullah Amir told the press, "Our members are literally working themselves to death in the cause of Jihad. We don't ask for much in return but to be treated like this is like a kick in the teeth".
Speaking from his shed in Tipton in the West Midlands , Al Qaeda chief executive Haisheet Mapants explained, "I sympathize with our workers concerns but Al Qaeda is simply not in a position to meet their demands. They are simply not accepting the realities of modern-day Jihad in a competitive marketplace. Thanks to Western depravity, there is now a chronic shortage of virgins in the afterlife. It's a straight choice between reducing expenditures or laying people off. I don't like cutting benefits but I'd hate to have to tell 3,000 of my staff that they won't be able to blow themselves up."
Spokespersons for the union in the North East of England, Ireland , Wales and the entire Australian continent stated that the change would not hurt their membership as there are so few virgins in their areas anyway.
According to some industry sources, the recent drop in the number of suicide bombings has been attributed to the emergence of Scottish singing star, Susan Boyle. Many Muslim Jihadists now know what a virgin looks like and have reconsidered their benefit packages
A cut of Saudi production by one third might push the oil price up by a third.... Same revenue, but Saudi reserves still under the desert.
Which part of "union" are you struggling with?
Norway's economy is 40% oil sector, Scotland is 15% which is far less than the UK's reliance on Financial Services (somewhere between 30% and 40%).
Considering Lib/Lab waverers, you would expect these to fall in behind the Liberals in Lib/Con marginals, but in Con/Lab marginals they will be more likely to back Labour. Net effect across the country could well be near zero in terms of vote share, but as many as a couple of dozen fewer Conservative MPs.
That's no matter what they are, and whether they're official and bankable or not. Basically, I think Cameron wants a referendum to call the eurosceptics bluff, win it and close down the issue. He's going through the motions of pretending to have a serious renegotion, but actually just paying lip service to it. Chiefly for party management reasons.
Thus while banging on about In/Out referendum is for party management purposes, they are also trying to use the referendum to force some concessions from the EU that wouldn't be possible otherwise.
It will be giving Anna Soubry cause for concern that she may now be facing a true rebel spirit....
How about a top up in Rochester.. I'll give you 10/11 for £100 so an average of £200 at EVENS?
It was only "growing" on the back of a short-term unsustainable burst of public spending.
It would be like losing your job, spending wildly on a credit card, and claiming your income had gone up!
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/depravity
Perhaps not the best word she could use.
''In 2011, financial and insurance services contributed £125.4 billion in gross value added
(GVA) to the UK economy, 9.4% of total value added.'
file:///home/chronos/u-5bc2250e420291ab3e8bc6a318ad30f302dee10c/Downloads/sn06193.pdf
If he achieves either of those goals, then that will be a big achievement. If he achieves both, a truly great achievement.
As for an In/Out referendum, we can also get it if Tories vote for UKIP in sufficient numbers.
It's based on where the activity is. All the losses paid by the UK government would have been paid by an rUK government. Obviously the largest portion still paid by the United States government (although it intelligently implemented a solution where it got paid back).
http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-oil-price-cut-upends-market-1415063053
I mean those stories about the Sheep.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge
The question I'd like to see them ask is how people would vote if Cameron declared his renegotiation a failure, and recommended that people vote to leave the EU.
If Cameron is a closet BOOer I think that would be the way to take the UK out of the EU, and would be more effective than simply calling a referendum asap.
"Asked if the referendum could be held before 2017, he said: "Absolutely, the referendum must take place before the end of 2017."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11324069/David-Cameron-a-Conservative-government-could-hold-EU-referendum-before-2017.html
Opposition is easy without power and that's what the 'Tory to Kipper' movers have opted for.
I say all that as an 'inner' not an outer.
In casting your vote, you will have to take account of the inevitable holes, uncertainties and lack of detail in the renegotiation. That, however, pales into insignificance compared with the lack of any indication whatsoever as to what a completely new negotiation, following an Out result, would produce.
That's life. We have to take decisions on incomplete information. But be under no illusion: the problem as regards the uncertainty will be a problem for the Out side, not the In side. It will in fact be the killer issue which torpedoes the Out case.
new thread
'I mean the slowest quarterly economic growth for 18 months. The economy was accelerating prior to May 2010'
Based on Gordon Brown's pre- election spending bonanza with zero cuts.....now back to the real world.
I think he's very pro single market, believes it is a big winner for the UK and is prepared to accept some pretty significant political negatives for retaining that benefit.
And would you consider that even in a 2017 referendum, if you were not satisfied?
This compares with 880 percent for Iceland in 2007, just before its banking system collapsed, the ratings agency said. It currently classifies Iceland as "support uncertain," factoring no extraordinary government help into domestic bank ratings.
"We note a possible parallel here with Iceland, where in 2008 the national deposit insurance scheme could not honour claims when the country's outsized banking system failed."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/24/uk-scotlandindependence-sp-idUKBREA3N01P20140424
I don't believe they will in 2017, under almost any scenario. I think Farage thinks he will, because he assumes most of us think the same way he does, but in reality he'll get 40% of the population voting very enthusiastically for him but a large number of doubters and floaters defaulting to the status quo in the final month.