If Cameron has only a minority he is going down straight away. The Liberals will be licking their wounds and the rest will have hee haw outside the SNP/Green/Plaid threesome. Ob current form this will be more than enough to sustain a Labour minority if the price is right. This will be Milliband's one and only chance to be somebody and you seriously believe he will pass it up!
Remember, there can be no second election unless the majority is there to reepal the Parliament Act.
Mr. Brooke, the Romans probably had similar feelings when Diocletian established the tetrarchy.
Are you seriously suggesting Nicola Sturgeon will bump off the FMs of Wales and NI by duplicitous means, invade England and massacre Ed Miliband as God guides her to victory at a battle on Westminster bridge ?
Well at least it would make for a few interesting threads.
I'm only going on current polls. You three seem to be operating on old prejudices.
It's quite simple. The referendum was last year. The election is this year. Things are looking up for the NATS down for the Unionists hence the panic from Baker at all about the Grand Coalition - more like the Grand Old Duke of York!
If Cameron has only a minority he is going down straight away. The Liberals will be licking their wounds and the rest will have hee haw outside the SNP/Green/Plaid threesome. Ob current form this will be more than enough to sustain a Labour minority if the price is right. This will be Milliband's one and only chance to be somebody and you seriously believe he will pass it up!
Remember, there can be no second election unless the majority is there to reepal the Parliament Act.
So you think the Tories wouldn't vote with Labour to repeal the act if it suited both parties ?
Mr. Brooke, the modern equivalent of having multiple figures vying for leadership (even in a junior, Caesar rather than Augustus, capacity) is eminently plausible.
However, my comment was more referring to your optimism. I think quite otherwise. An English Parliament can work, all else is doomed to failure. I suspect we'll end up with something else, alas.
You sound more like Bitter Together. And things ain't getting any better for you.
I've never found winning a "bitter" experience.
Au contraire, Scotland remaining in the Union is a sweet experience.
Scotland voted by a significant majority for continuing Union in the one and only plebescite on the issue. There is only one side that is bitter, and it is not Better Together.
We should be very glad that the SNP are now so keen to join in the Westminster parliament.
If Cameron has only a minority he is going down straight away. The Liberals will be licking their wounds and the rest will have hee haw outside the SNP/Green/Plaid threesome. Ob current form this will be more than enough to sustain a Labour minority if the price is right. This will be Milliband's one and only chance to be somebody and you seriously believe he will pass it up!
Remember, there can be no second election unless the majority is there to reepal the Parliament Act.
So you think the Tories wouldn't vote with Labour to repeal the act if it suited both parties ?
Even if they didn't. Cameron still doesn't go straight away, the sitting PM stays so long as he has the confidence of the house, and a blood-letting, leaderless, penniless Labour Party might find a whole range of excuses not to bring them down for several months at least.
@richardDodd That's right Richard, he was in opposition, and heading for a landslide according to the polling. Then of course he wasn't, so after the election, the "guru's" made an intensive study of the factors that might have contributed to the discrepancy.
Now, this could be entirely coincidental to Dave's stance on the debates this time, but the article and study points to some very interesting demographic differences. It would appear that it wasn't for democratic reasons that Dave would have preferred the debates to slowly sink into oblivion, but the exact opposite. And he would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky broadcasters.
I'm only going on current polls. You three seem to be operating on old prejudices.
It's quite simple. The referendum was last year. The election is this year. Things are looking up for the NATS down for the Unionists hence the panic from Baker at all about the Grand Coalition - more like the Grand Old Duke of York!
Right so you'll be running the country without an economy ?
@richardDodd If you were of a curious mind, you might wonder if their would be anything else he might try to stop the younger voters becoming engaged with the election? Fortunately of course, here on PB, curiosity is frowned on.
I'm only going on current polls. You three seem to be operating on old prejudices.
It's quite simple. The referendum was last year. The election is this year. Things are looking up for the NATS down for the Unionists hence the panic from Baker at all about the Grand Coalition - more like the Grand Old Duke of York!
Right so you'll be running the country without an economy ?
How will you pay the bills ?
That question could with even more justice be asked of the UK. That was one of the interesting, and much suppressed, revelations of indyref.
But we are dealing with a general election, not indyref. Unless you want another referendum within a few years?
Mr. Brooke, the modern equivalent of having multiple figures vying for leadership (even in a junior, Caesar rather than Augustus, capacity) is eminently plausible.
However, my comment was more referring to your optimism. I think quite otherwise. An English Parliament can work, all else is doomed to failure. I suspect we'll end up with something else, alas.
The UKneeds to restructure it's as simple as that . More power to the regions and let people make their own decisons. The Londoncentrric model has passed its sell by date.
You three have 15,000 posts among you - I have but 150.
As an observation you don't read like people who have just won a referendum. You sound like guys frightened of losing an election. You have every reason to be afraid.
I'm only going on current polls. You three seem to be operating on old prejudices.
It's quite simple. The referendum was last year. The election is this year. Things are looking up for the NATS down for the Unionists hence the panic from Baker at all about the Grand Coalition - more like the Grand Old Duke of York!
Right so you'll be running the country without an economy ?
How will you pay the bills ?
That question could with even more justice be asked of the UK. That was one of the interesting, and much suppressed, revelations of indyref.
But we are dealing with a general election, not indyref. Unless you want another referendum within a few years?
Yeah go on Carnyx answer it then. In the 3 years of the Indyref not a single Nat could give an effective answer on the risks to the Scottish economy. And if you want to have a go at the UK one by all means do I'll happily engage with you, it'll make a change from Nats scuttling off when the numbers come out.
Mike Smithson retweeted Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
4 polls in a row with the Tories either trailing or level
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan" being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
Mr. Brooke, carving up England institutionalises political division within England and at the same time makes equality with Scotland impossible. As well as the sentimental argument against it, such a move would not work on a practical level, it would be short-sighted and foolish in the extreme.
If an English Parliament then devolved some functions downwards that could be another matter, but just slicing England into pieces (why?) is madness.
Ukip is on course to come second in at least 100 seats at the general election as it displaces the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems as the main opposition across large parts of the country, according to new analysis of the party’s electoral prospects on 7 May.
The extraordinary potential haul of Ukip “silver medals” – in an addition to a likely tally of half-a-dozen or so seats at Westminster – would represent a massive breakthrough for Nigel Farage’s anti-EU party, which failed to achieve even a single second place in 2010.
The analysis, conducted by Robert Ford at the University of Manchester for the Observer, suggests that the biggest threat to the established parties from Ukip will come in future local and national elections after May, once it has put down local roots and established itself in the minds of voters as a real alternative to the incumbent party.
You three have 15,000 posts among you - I have but 150.
As an observation you don't read like people who have just won a referendum. You sound like guys frightened of losing an election. You have every reason to be afraid.
Since I'm not actually backing any of the major parties it's odds on I'm going to be on the losing side and it doesn't frighten me in the least.
Mike Smithson retweeted Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
4 polls in a row with the Tories either trailing or level
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan" being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
Change the record tim, you are as much of a bore on here as you are hilarious on your twitter feed.. Funny how you say you are not on twitter but the twitter feed reflects what you are saying here.
Mike Smithson retweeted Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
4 polls in a row with the Tories either trailing or level
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan" being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
Indeed the much revered Mr Crosby is out on January and February Crossovers and his 95% chance of a Tory majority is looking very strange.
I am told he has an excellent record though so we are in for massive late swingback if he is to be proved correct.
How many people think that Cameron is capable of getting a majority he couldn't get in 2010 in 2015 and how many people think that Milliband is capable full stop.
We're set for a hanging parliament and the 20 surviving Libs won't want to play with anyone, SF won't be there, the DUP will get six or seven, UKIP will be lucky to get that, leaving a minimum of 40 SNP/Plaid/Greens calling the shots.
Sounds fine to me.
If Cammo remains PM without a majority he will go for minority status. He would pick and choose who to talk to, avoiding bloody-minded fringes when at all possible.
I'm only going on current polls. You three seem to be operating on old prejudices.
It's quite simple. The referendum was last year. The election is this year. Things are looking up for the NATS down for the Unionists hence the panic from Baker at all about the Grand Coalition - more like the Grand Old Duke of York!
Right so you'll be running the country without an economy ?
How will you pay the bills ?
That question could with even more justice be asked of the UK. That was one of the interesting, and much suppressed, revelations of indyref.
But we are dealing with a general election, not indyref. Unless you want another referendum within a few years?
Yeah go on Carnyx answer it then. In the 3 years of the Indyref not a single Nat could give an effective answer on the risks to the Scottish economy. And if you want to have a go at the UK one by all means do I'll happily engage with you, it'll make a change from Nats scuttling off when the numbers come out.
That was the point - that the Scottish economy was at least in as good health/strength as the UK average, as shown by e.g. the FT. The issue here is not so much that point, and I am not going to go over the figures yet again, but the approach which the unionist parties adopted. In which the entire indyref debate was couched by the unionists in terms of the terrible things that might happen in an independent Scotland in contrast to the wonderful sunlit uplands of a glorious Union. The problem was that, if indy was so awful, then the figures implied at least as awful a fate within the UK. For instance, lots of spending cuts in independent Scotland - but if you asked about the UK (if you could find a Unionist to ask), it was 'cuts? What cuts?" The logic fail became rather too obvious and it was very noticeable that the "too wee, too poor, too stupid" approach dropped the "too poor" bit about halfway through the debate.
The GE is not about independence - but about the ways in which the Unionist parties propose to run the UK. Quite a different matter.
Mike Smithson retweeted Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
4 polls in a row with the Tories either trailing or level
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan" being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
Change the record tim, you are as much of a bore on here as you are hilarious on your twitter feed.. Funny how you say you are not on twitter but the twitter feed reflects what you are saying here.
Mike Smithson retweeted Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
4 polls in a row with the Tories either trailing or level
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan" being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
Change the record tim, you are as much of a bore on here as you are hilarious on your twitter feed.. Funny how you say you are not on twitter but the twitter feed reflects what you are saying here.
Not a clue who the Tim is you refer to but please direct me to his twitter feed as it looks well worth a read judging by your comments
Said it before and ill say it again..Not on Twitter..never have been on twitter and I never will be on twitter..
Mike Smithson retweeted Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
4 polls in a row with the Tories either trailing or level
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan" being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
As I see it this poll shows Labour going backwards and the LDs gaining ground. It shows the coalition government on 42 and Labour opposition on 34.
Mike Smithson retweeted Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
4 polls in a row with the Tories either trailing or level
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan" being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
Change the record tim, you are as much of a bore on here as you are hilarious on your twitter feed.. Funny how you say you are not on twitter but the twitter feed reflects what you are saying here.
Not a clue who the Tim is you refer to but please direct me to his twitter feed as it looks well worth a read judging by your comments
Said it before and ill say it again..Not on Twitter..never have been on twitter and I never will be on twitter..
Mr. Brooke, carving up England institutionalises political division within England and at the same time makes equality with Scotland impossible. As well as the sentimental argument against it, such a move would not work on a practical level, it would be short-sighted and foolish in the extreme.
If an English Parliament then devolved some functions downwards that could be another matter, but just slicing England into pieces (why?) is madness.
Pah you're as stuck to the status quo as a Byzantine eunnuch. Basil II would have sent you to Bulgaria.
@richardDodd That's right Richard, he was in opposition, and heading for a landslide according to the polling. Then of course he wasn't, so after the election, the "guru's" made an intensive study of the factors that might have contributed to the discrepancy.
Now, this could be entirely coincidental to Dave's stance on the debates this time, but the article and study points to some very interesting demographic differences. It would appear that it wasn't for democratic reasons that Dave would have preferred the debates to slowly sink into oblivion, but the exact opposite. And he would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky broadcasters.
I do not think that true: the first debate was April 15 2010. This PB thread list from before the first debate seems to show pretty much the final percentages:
Smarmeron What is Cameron doing to stop young people being engaged in politics.. lots of TV newscast over the last few weeks have shown Cameron talking to schoolchildren.. in their schools.. and kids can also watch news TV,.. they can also presumably read papers and from all of that begin to form an opinion Obviously it is Camerons fault if they don't.
Yeah go on Carnyx answer it then. In the 3 years of the Indyref not a single Nat could give an effective answer on the risks to the Scottish economy. And if you want to have a go at the UK one by all means do I'll happily engage with you, it'll make a change from Nats scuttling off when the numbers come out.
The primary risk to the Scottish Economy is the same to any country during a dissolution of a larger state - short term economic shocks and the ability of the government to handle them. The vast majority of those are avoided by remaining in currency Union with the UK and effectively making the international dimension currency neutral. If Currency Union was denied, then a debt free, new state, would be in a far better place to absorb any shock and have the added ability of having currency devaluation as a potent option (in the worst case scenario).
The second biggest risk would be on retaliation of the larger part of the former Union. This didn't happen in Czechoslovakia and has never previously happened with the United Kingdom. In fact, the only previosu dissolution of a UK constituent, Ireland, left Ireland with extremely favourable terms which last to this day, including free movement of Labour and People, free trade, citizenship and Voting Rights (not all of which are reciprocated).
Finally in terms of major impact, there would be the potential for transitory job losses in firms which made a decision to move location and production. This was the single most exagerrated aspect of the Union case as in almost every case, these would have been Brass Plate movements, not Activity Movement.
All the impact was exagerated by the Union. The vast majority of potentially negative consequences were never likely to materialise (in some cases even if there had been a will to impose negative consequences the reciprocal cost would have outweighed the benefit.
But the downsides are tiny, absolutely inconsequential compared to the positives of being an separate economy retain all tax revenues, a positive balance of trade and far, far, far better fiscal position (short and long term) than the UK.
The core problem with the Union argument is - like most commentary on the UK by British Nationalists - it completely overstates the UKs relevant position, economic strength, economic potential while completely ignoring the UKs very real and dire structural economic problems.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 5m5 minutes ago ENGLAND ONLY figures from Opinium/Observer poll CON 36 LAB 33 LD 8 UKIP 14 GRN 7 Represents a 4.2% CON to LAB swing in England since GE10
Mike Smithson retweeted Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
4 polls in a row with the Tories either trailing or level
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan" being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
As I see it this poll shows Labour going backwards and the LDs gaining ground. It shows the coalition government on 42 and Labour opposition on 34.
Whereas in 2010 the Coalition was on 60 and Labour 29
@richardDodd OK, I put forward a theory that appears to fit Dave's choices (you did read the article?), I would be interested in your explanation of his attitude (to the debates)
I'm only going on current polls. You three seem to be operating on old prejudices.
It's quite simple. The referendum was last year. The election is this year. Things are looking up for the NATS down for the Unionists hence the panic from Baker at all about the Grand Coalition - more like the Grand Old Duke of York!
Right so you'll be running the country without an economy ?
How will you pay the bills ?
That question could with even r referendum within a few years?
Yeah go on Carnyx scuttling off when the numbers come out.
That was the point - that the Scottish economy was at least in as good health/strength as the UK average, as shown by e.g. the FT. The issue here is not so much that point, and I am not going to go over the figures yet again, but the approach which the unionist parties adopted. In which the entire indyref debate was couched by the unionists in terms of the terrible things that might happen in an independent Scotland in contrast to the wonderful sunlit uplands of a glorious Union. The problem was that, if indy was so awful, then the figures implied at least as awful a fate within the UK. For instance, lots of spending cuts in independent Scotland - but if you asked about the UK (if you could find a Unionist to ask), it was 'cuts? What cuts?" The logic fail became rather too obvious and it was very noticeable that the "too wee, too poor, too stupid" approach dropped the "too poor" bit about halfway through the debate.
The GE is not about independence - but about the ways in which the Unionist parties propose to run the UK. Quite a different matter.
The UK has a tough time ahead with NS falling off a cliff on tax if nothing else. But it controls it's own currency so can adapt to the knocks. Scotland would at present be lightly screwed and heading for a royal screwing in 3 years time if something isn't done to support the oil industry whiuch is circa 20% of Scotland's economy.
However while you're going on abour Unionist pessimism which was vastly overdone it was simply the mirror image of Nationalist bullshit. There never was a sensible debate on the economy, bu8t of the two narratives the nats had more holes by a long way.
As I said at the time too wee too poor were never the killers, it was too stupid did for the Nats.
Mr. Brooke, an English Parliament is not the status quo. I fear your perception and foresight is on a par with Alexius Angelus.
How very dare you compare me to an Emperor who passed his time morris dancing, if he;s have waived his sword instead of a wiffle stick Byzantium would still be there.
JackW's forecast of Labour winning 250 seats makes my long shot suggestion of backing SkyBet's 10/1 odds for the Red Team to win between 226-250 seats look like really good value. Sadly those odds have since been trimmed back to 8/1, but those nice folk at Hills continue to offer 9/1 for this band. Should Labour get close to this band on the night, then this should prove to be a profitable trading bet. DYOR.
Good Point. Without the Opininium "reweighting" the SNP vote would be at 47 per cent in their sub sample ie is 88 out of 238 then allowing for 22 pe cent don't know , don't care.
Good Point. Without the Opininium "reweighting" the SNP vote would be at 47 per cent in their sub sample ie is 88 out of 238 then allowing for 22 pe cent don't know , don't care.
It's done all the time for UKIP internet panels - but then again UKIP don't do so well on the phone surveys when you look at the unweighted numbers so it's probably correct.
Mike Smithson retweeted Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
4 polls in a row with the Tories either trailing or level
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan" being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
As I see it this poll shows Labour going backwards and the LDs gaining ground. It shows the coalition government on 42 and Labour opposition on 34.
Whereas in 2010 the Coalition was on 60 and Labour 29
Yeah go on Carnyx answer it then. In the 3 years of the Indyref not a single Nat could give an effective answer on the risks to the Scottish economy. And if you want to have a go at the UK one by all means do I'll happily engage with you, it'll make a change from Nats scuttling off when the numbers come out.
The primary risk to the Scottish Economy is the same to any country during a dissolution of a larger state - short term economic shocks and the ability of the government to handle them. The vast majority of those are avoided by remaining in currency Union with the UK and effectively making the international dimension currency neutral. If Currency Union was denied, then a debt free, new state, would be in a far better place to absorb any shock and have the added ability of having currency devaluation as a potent option (in the worst case scenario).
of trade and far, far, far better fiscal position (short and long term) than the UK.
The core problem with the Union argument is - like most commentary on the UK by British Nationalists - it completely overstates the UKs relevant position, economic strength, economic potential while completely ignoring the UKs very real and dire structural economic problems.
The exit proposed by Nats while great at telling everyone else what they wanted ignored the fact those meant to grant Nats wishes didn't agree with the proposals.
The Nats advanced no viable currency option their strategy being dictated by opportunism rather than economic need
The Nats had no viable argument trading with their major partners. forgetting that they aren't just in one Union but two a british one and a European one and in both cases their former partners would be best advised to put their own interests first
The Nats also ignored the basic of their economy and it's ability to absorb shocks. An overdependence of the energy sector leaves Scotland poorly placed to pay it's way. Scotland's other main hope of finanicial services suffers the same problem as the UK as a whole and would be even more impacted post Indy since Scotland doesn't have the scale to support its financial services in a global economy.
So no currency, uncertain trading partners and an economy based on an unstable commodity I ask again how will you pay the bills ?
Mike Smithson retweeted Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
4 polls in a row with the Tories either trailing or level
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan" being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
As I see it this poll shows Labour going backwards and the LDs gaining ground. It shows the coalition government on 42 and Labour opposition on 34.
Whereas in 2010 the Coalition was on 60 and Labour 29
So Lab up 5 ...Coalition down 18
There was not a coalition in the 2010 election. There were two opposition parties. Labour has had a free run at being the opposition for 5 years. The upshot of this is the last poll quoted shows the Labour vote going backwards by 1% to 34.
Labour people like myself may not be totally "satisfied" or express "approval" of Ed as I want him to kick out the Blairites and promote more real Labour Mps to strengthen a weak shadow cabinet..but I will still vote for him
Tories are just cap doffing sycophants who will give their leader 12 minute standing ovations just weeks before kicking them out like a dog in the night to use the Beast of Bolsovers memorable phrase (see Thatcher 90 and IDS 03)
Incidentally, those into Byzantine history may wish to try Michael Psellus' Chronographia, which, I think, covers not only the splendid Basil II (although I'm unclear if it includes the fascinating reigns of Nicephorus Phocas II and John Tzimisces) but the slightly less splendid period which followed.
Been meaning to get it for a while but I've got a small mountain of books to read.
Mike Smithson retweeted Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
4 polls in a row with the Tories either trailing or level
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan" being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
As I see it this poll shows Labour going backwards and the LDs gaining ground. It shows the coalition government on 42 and Labour opposition on 34.
Whereas in 2010 the Coalition was on 60 and Labour 29
So Lab up 5 ...Coalition down 18
There was not a coalition in the 2010 election. There were two opposition parties. Labour has had a free run at being the opposition for 5 years. The upshot of this is the last poll quoted shows the Labour vote going backwards by 1% to 34.
Going backwards LOL 1 point..Not heard of M O E?
Going backwards is as BJO says a 11.5% swing away from you over five years despite a "booming economy" "jobs bonanza" and Ed Miliband apparently being useless, weird and weak
Labour people like myself may not be totally "satisfied" or express "approval" of Ed as I want him to kick out the Blairites and promote more real Labour Mps to strengthen a weak shadow cabinet..but I will still vote for him
Tories are just cap doffing sycophants who will give their leader 12 minute standing ovations just weeks before kicking them out like a dog in the night to use the Beast of Bolsovers memorable phrase (see Thatcher 90 and IDS 03)
Incidentally, those into Byzantine history may wish to try Michael Psellus' Chronographia, which, I think, covers not only the splendid Basil II (although I'm unclear if it includes the fascinating reigns of Nicephorus Phocas II and John Tzimisces) but the slightly less splendid period which followed.
Been meaning to get it for a while but I've got a small mountain of books to read.
The exit proposed by Nats while great at telling everyone else what they wanted ignored the fact those meant to grant Nats wishes didn't agree with the proposals.
The Nats advanced no viable currency option their strategy being dictated by opportunism rather than economic need
The Nats had no viable argument trading with their major partners. forgetting that they aren't just in one Union but two a british one and a European one and in both cases their former partners would be best advised to put their own interests first
The Nats also ignored the basic of their economy and it's ability to absorb shocks. An overdependence of the energy sector leaves Scotland poorly placed to pay it's way. Scotland's other main hope of finanicial services suffers the same problem as the UK as a whole and would be even more impacted post Indy since Scotland doesn't have the scale to support its financial services in a global economy.
So no currency, uncertain trading partners and an economy based on an unstable commodity I ask again how will you pay the bills ?
As usual the Unionist argument is overblow very unlikely scenarios and then make up outright lies.
It makes no difference what currency an independent Scottish state would have in terms of its economic viability. There are good arguments in favour of all four options - Sterlingisation, Sterling Union, Euro or new Currency. Not one of them would be a barrier to independence.
How do we know this? Because viable economies exist all round the world using all these options. Problems based on currency also take considerable periods to develop. Even in the case of Greece it took nearly 20 years to actually suffer from the problems it's fiscal imprudence was storing up.
Trade is either a good thing or a bad thing. It is genuinely farcical that the rUK would suddenly decide to throw up trade barriers where none exists. Predominantly because regardless of relative economic strength, there would be a negative impact on rUK. Again we KNOW how the UK deals with this, we have seen it with the Dominions and with Ireland.
As usual all you demonstrate is a weak understanding of both economics and politics.
The exit proposed by Nats while great at telling everyone else what they wanted ignored the fact those meant to grant Nats wishes didn't agree with the proposals.
The Nats advanced no viable currency option their strategy being dictated by opportunism rather than economic need
The Nats had no viable argument trading with their major partners. forgetting that they aren't just in one Union but two a british one and a European one and in both cases their former partners would be best advised to put their own interests first
The Nats also ignored the basic of their economy and it's ability to absorb shocks. An overdependence of the energy sector leaves Scotland poorly placed to pay it's way. Scotland's other main hope of finanicial services suffers the same problem as the UK as a whole and would be even more impacted post Indy since Scotland doesn't have the scale to support its financial services in a global economy.
So no currency, uncertain trading partners and an economy based on an unstable commodity I ask again how will you pay the bills ?
As usual the Unionist argument is overblow very unlikely scenarios and then make up outright lies.
It makes no difference what currency an independent Scottish state would have in terms of its economic viability. There are good arguments in favour of all four options - Sterlingisation, Sterling Union, Euro or new Currency. Not one of them would be a barrier to independence.
How do we know this? Because viable economies exist all round the world using all these options. Problems based on currency also take considerable periods to develop. Even in the case of Greece it took nearly 20 years to actually suffer from the problems it's fiscal imprudence was storing up.
Trade is either a good thing or a bad thing. It is genuinely farcical that the rUK would suddenly decide to throw up trade barriers where none exists. Predominantly because regardless of relative economic strength, there would be a negative impact on rUK. Again we KNOW how the UK deals with this, we have seen it with the Dominions and with Ireland.
As usual all you demonstrate is a weak understanding of both economics and politics.
I think 2000 to 2010 is only 10 years rather than 20.
On topic, I can't have been the only misguided Labourite to tactically vote LibDem in Ealing Central & Acton last time. Correcting that mistake should see a Labour gain. I hope.
The exit proposed by Nats while great at telling everyone else what they wanted ignored the fact those meant to grant Nats wishes didn't agree with the proposals.
The Nats advanced no viable currency option their strategy being dictated by opportunism rather than economic need
The Nats had no viable argument trading with their major partners. forgetting that they aren't just in one Union but two a british one and a European one and in both cases their former partners would be best advised to put their own interests first
The Nats also ignored the basic of their economy and it's ability to absorb shocks. An overdependence of the energy sector leaves Scotland poorly placed to pay it's way. Scotland's other main hope of finanicial services suffers the same problem as the UK as a whole and would be even more impacted post Indy since Scotland doesn't have the scale to support its financial services in a global economy.
So no currency, uncertain trading partners and an economy based on an unstable commodity I ask again how will you pay the bills ?
As usual the Unionist argument is overblow very unlikely scenarios and then make up egative impact on rUK. Again we KNOW how the UK deals with this, we have seen it with the Dominions and with Ireland.
As usual all you demonstrate is a weak understanding of both economics and politics.
It actually does make a difference since there;s a difference in being in a currency union ( you own someone lses problems ) and being in your own. The bariiers are getting other people to agree that they want a Union with you. The only deliverable option is own currency which the SNP rejected.
On trading blocs while the UK has been pragmatic as ever on trade, it is also part of a trading bloc the EU. The Nat assumption that they would just gain all the rights accrued to date doesn't stack up, UK opt outs would not apply to and Indy Scotland. Likewise agreements of fishing, financial services etc. would not apply to Scotland. So while trade will continue, it will not continue under the same condition and to the detriment of Scots
So to put that in context Scotland's terms of trade with its partners will worsen.
So again how do you pay your bills ?
You can tell me when I get back from the pub,off out have a good evening.
Good Point. Without the Opininium "reweighting" the SNP vote would be at 47 per cent in their sub sample ie is 88 out of 238 then allowing for 22 pe cent don't know , don't care.
The SNP will win independence in a totally different manner. They could make UK ungovernable and many in the rUK may wish them the very best of luck !
In fact, when I go to Scotland, it does look as if I am in Europe, particularly Edinburgh.
I think 2000 to 2010 is only 10 years rather than 20.
ERM from 1992.
But that's not the point.
In the case of Greece, with widespread day to day Faki Laki and the complete inability to collect taxes, it took - in your best case for the Unionist argument - 10 years for the country to fall apart.
It is not only a pretty risible insult to the people and institutions of Scotland that despite running the British Empire for 200 years (based on Free Universal Education meaning Scots were the only option) they would somehow be unable to run their own economy to basic OECD standards.
It's simply not rational as an argument.
It takes the worst run economies significant time to fall apart. The Unionists make bloated, risible claims about it happening (even that it would ALREADY have happened even though Independence would still have been 14 months away).
I love millionaire commies like Roger.. urging on the revolution. They should all read up on some fairly recent French history..lotsa room in the tumbrils boys
It actually does make a difference since there;s a difference in being in a currency union ( you own someone lses problems ) and being in your own. The bariiers are getting other people to agree that they want a Union with you. The only deliverable option is own currency which the SNP rejected.
On trading blocs while the UK has been pragmatic as ever on trade, it is also part of a trading bloc the EU. The Nat assumption that they would just gain all the rights accrued to date doesn't stack up, UK opt outs would not apply to and Indy Scotland. Likewise agreements of fishing, financial services etc. would not apply to Scotland. So while trade will continue, it will not continue under the same condition and to the detriment of Scots
So to put that in context Scotland's terms of trade with its partners will worsen.
So again how do you pay your bills ?
You can tell me when I get back from the pub,off out have a good evening.
Again, when caught out your default position is to lie, lie and exaggerate.
You can argue all you want about the EU position because the UK government REFUSED to ask for it. It is entirely speculative and with 18 months to work out the position, would not have been even remotely unachievable.
Then you start the lies. The fishing grounds ARE SCOTTISH. It is not that Scotland needs to access EU fishing grounds it is that several EU economies are significantly reliant on being able to access Scottish Waters (around 30% of ALL EU Fish Stocks)
It all ties back to the Little Englander mindset. England is important, everywhere else isn't. England matters, nowhere else does. England's economy makes a difference to the world, none of our partners benefit us.
It's no wonder UKIP has such a hold in a country with these sorts of insular, xenophobic attitudes.
The exit proposed by Nats while great at telling everyone else what they wanted ignored the fact those meant to grant Nats wishes didn't agree with the proposals.
The Nats advanced no viable currency option their strategy being dictated by opportunism rather than economic need
The Nats had no viable argument trading with their major partners. forgetting that they aren't just in one Union but two a british one and a European one and in both cases their former partners would be best advised to put their own interests first
The Nats also ignored the basic of their economy and it's ability to absorb shocks. An overdependence of the energy sector leaves Scotland poorly placed to pay it's way. Scotland's other main hope of finanicial services suffers the same problem as the UK as a whole and would be even more impacted post Indy since Scotland doesn't have the scale to support its financial services in a global economy.
So no currency, uncertain trading partners and an economy based on an unstable commodity I ask again how will you pay the bills ?
As usual the Unionist argument is overblow very unlikely scenarios and then make up egative impact on rUK. Again we KNOW how the UK deals with this, we have seen it with the Dominions and with Ireland.
As usual all you demonstrate is a weak understanding of both economics and politics.
It actually does make a difference since there;s a difference in being in a currency union ( you own someone lses problems ) and being in your own. The bariiers are getting other people to agree that they want a Union with you. The only deliverable option is own currency which the SNP rejected.
On trading blocs while the UK has been pragmatic as ever on trade, it is also part of a trading bloc the EU. The Nat assumption that they would just gain all the rights accrued to date doesn't stack up, UK opt outs would not apply to and Indy Scotland. Likewise agreements of fishing, financial services etc. would not apply to Scotland. So while trade will continue, it will not continue under the same condition and to the detriment of Scots
So to put that in context Scotland's terms of trade with its partners will worsen.
So again how do you pay your bills ?
You can tell me when I get back from the pub,off out have a good evening.
Scotland will survive like every other nation survives. They may have a few years of transitional difficulties but I cannot believe they will not be in EU one way or the other. Some kind of status will be given to them with all the rights they have now until they formally join again.
I reckon that after the next General Election one will be able to drive from Lands End to John O Groats and not pass through a single Labour or Lib Dem constituency
Regarding Kingston & Surbiton, I would not be too confident that the Lib Dems will hold. The Labour vote may go upto 20%
Ed Davey seems to have done everything in his power to dissuade any sort of tactical voting for him - in fact I reckon one could argue if the Lib Dems are decapitated, even if it means a few more Conservative seats there is less chance of a Conservative Gov't.
I reckon that after the next General Election one will be able to drive from Lands End to John O Groats and not pass through a single Labour or Lib Dem constituency
I reckon that after the next General Election one will be able to drive from Lands End to John O Groats and not pass through a single Labour or Lib Dem constituency
Are you a gambler or just another PB Tory fantastist
The Guardian reports on UKIPs prospects of establishing themselves as the main challenger to the incumbent in more than one hundred constituencies at the general election.
Ford sees Ukip coming second to several shadow cabinet members including Ed Miliband in Doncaster North, Ed Balls in Morley and Outwood, Yvette Cooper in Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and Rachel Reeves in Leeds West.
The exit proposed by Nats while great at telling everyone else what they wanted ignored the fact those meant to grant Nats wishes didn't agree with the proposals.
The Nats advanced no viable currency option their strategy being dictated by opportunism rather than economic need
The Nats had no viable argument trading with their major partners. forgetting that they aren't just in one Union but two a british one and a European one and in both cases their former partners would be best advised to put their own interests first
The Nats also ignored the basic of their economy and it's ability to absorb shocks. An overdependence of the energy sector leaves Scotland poorly placed to pay it's way. Scotland's other main hope of finanicial services suffers the same problem as the UK as a whole and would be even more impacted post Indy since Scotland doesn't have the scale to support its financial services in a global economy.
So no currency, uncertain trading partners and an economy based on an unstable commodity I ask again how will you pay the bills ?
As usual the Unionist argument is overblow very unlikely scenarios and then make up outright lies.
It makes no difference what currency an independent Scottish state would have in terms of its economic viability. There are good arguments in favour of all four options - Sterlingisation, Sterling Union, Euro or new Currency. Not one of them would be a barrier to independence.
How do we know this? Because viable economies exist all round the world using all these options. Problems based on currency also take considerable periods to develop. Even in the case of Greece it took nearly 20 years to actually suffer from the problems it's fiscal imprudence was storing up.
Trade is either a good thing or a bad thing. It is genuinely farcical that the rUK would suddenly decide to throw up trade barriers where none exists. Predominantly because regardless of relative economic strength, there would be a negative impact on rUK. Again we KNOW how the UK deals with this, we have seen it with the Dominions and with Ireland.
As usual all you demonstrate is a weak understanding of both economics and politics.
I think 2000 to 2010 is only 10 years rather than 20.
I had 2 bets with you coming to £20 on the lib Dems doing badly at the GE... Can you remember what they were? I have asked several times now
Think it was under 10% and under 8% and the second one might have been at 11/2
Comments
Au contraire, Scotland remaining in the Union is a sweet experience.
If Cameron has only a minority he is going down straight away. The Liberals will be licking their wounds and the rest will have hee haw outside the SNP/Green/Plaid threesome. Ob current form this will be more than enough to sustain a Labour minority if the price is right. This will be Milliband's one and only chance to be somebody and you seriously believe he will pass it up!
Remember, there can be no second election unless the majority is there to reepal the Parliament Act.
'If you think Rod Crosby is the new Tory Messiah-following in the footsteps of Fitilass and Easterross-there's a lot of money to be made.'
Rod Crosby was spot on with his 2010 GE prediction, get over it.
Well at least it would make for a few interesting threads.
"Hvae you three ever thought of why your weekends are so cold?"
Lady Macbeth or a line from Burns?
Fair is foul, and foul is fair;
Hover through the fog and filthy air.
I'm only going on current polls. You three seem to be operating on old prejudices.
It's quite simple. The referendum was last year. The election is this year. Things are looking up for the NATS down for the Unionists hence the panic from Baker at all about the Grand Coalition - more like the Grand Old Duke of York!
However, my comment was more referring to your optimism. I think quite otherwise. An English Parliament can work, all else is doomed to failure. I suspect we'll end up with something else, alas.
Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 9m9 minutes ago
Opinium/Observer: #deadheat Lab 34% (-1), Con 34% (n/c), LibDem 8% (+2), UKIP 14% (n/c), Greens 7% (+1) http://tinyurl.com/lwuphn2
We should be very glad that the SNP are now so keen to join in the Westminster parliament.
That's right Richard, he was in opposition, and heading for a landslide according to the polling.
Then of course he wasn't, so after the election, the "guru's" made an intensive study of the factors that might have contributed to the discrepancy.
"Study reveals that televised face-offs successfully attracted first-time voters and got them talking about politics"
http://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2011/feb/09/tv-leaders-debates-general-election
Now, this could be entirely coincidental to Dave's stance on the debates this time, but the article and study points to some very interesting demographic differences.
It would appear that it wasn't for democratic reasons that Dave would have preferred the debates to slowly sink into oblivion, but the exact opposite.
And he would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky broadcasters.
How will you pay the bills ?
"Rod Crosby was spot on with his 2010 GE prediction, get over it."
Straw clutching turned into an art form.....
http://imgc-cn.artprintimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/77/7741/IZY3300Z/posters/william-haefeli-i-d-like-to-meet-the-algorithm-that-thought-we-d-be-a-good-match-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg
If you were of a curious mind, you might wonder if their would be anything else he might try to stop the younger voters becoming engaged with the election?
Fortunately of course, here on PB, curiosity is frowned on.
But we are dealing with a general election, not indyref. Unless you want another referendum within a few years?
You three have 15,000 posts among you - I have but 150.
As an observation you don't read like people who have just won a referendum. You sound like guys frightened of losing an election. You have every reason to be afraid.
Whatever happened to the much predicted crossover?
The only crossover since Tuesday has been the chicken
crossing over the road to avoid defending his record in front
of a public still sceptical about this "long term economic plan"
being anything more than a tedious and annoying catchphrase
If an English Parliament then devolved some functions downwards that could be another matter, but just slicing England into pieces (why?) is madness.
As a Kipper I would be delighted if we get five or more seats and come second in 50+ more
I am told he has an excellent record though so we are in for massive late swingback if he is to be proved correct.
We will see.
The GE is not about independence - but about the ways in which the Unionist parties propose to run the UK. Quite a different matter.
'"Rod Crosby was spot on with his 2010 GE prediction, get over it."
Straw clutching turned into an art form..... '
Rod may be wrong in 2015 who knows, but however much you try to smear him he called it right in 2010,just suck it up
"Swingback" probably never existed, voter demographics just gave the appearance that it did.
36-33 in England, Tories level at 29-29 in Wales.
I would call the latter as odd, but Opinium had the Tories ahead in Wales in their last poll as well.
Again, uniquely, they have Labour seven points ahead of the SNP in Scotland.
I hope so and he starts posting more
Not a clue who the Tim is you refer to but please direct me to
his twitter feed as it looks well worth a read judging by
your comments
Said it before and ill say it again..Not on Twitter..never have
been on twitter and I never will be on twitter..
Others say ARSE underestimated LAB seats badly.
Does anyone have the details?
We want Tim, we want Tim
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/page/4/
Though the spreadbetting was predicting a Con majority, the polls were not.
The second biggest risk would be on retaliation of the larger part of the former Union. This didn't happen in Czechoslovakia and has never previously happened with the United Kingdom. In fact, the only previosu dissolution of a UK constituent, Ireland, left Ireland with extremely favourable terms which last to this day, including free movement of Labour and People, free trade, citizenship and Voting Rights (not all of which are reciprocated).
Finally in terms of major impact, there would be the potential for transitory job losses in firms which made a decision to move location and production. This was the single most exagerrated aspect of the Union case as in almost every case, these would have been Brass Plate movements, not Activity Movement.
All the impact was exagerated by the Union. The vast majority of potentially negative consequences were never likely to materialise (in some cases even if there had been a will to impose negative consequences the reciprocal cost would have outweighed the benefit.
But the downsides are tiny, absolutely inconsequential compared to the positives of being an separate economy retain all tax revenues, a positive balance of trade and far, far, far better fiscal position (short and long term) than the UK.
The core problem with the Union argument is - like most commentary on the UK by British Nationalists - it completely overstates the UKs relevant position, economic strength, economic potential while completely ignoring the UKs very real and dire structural economic problems.
ENGLAND ONLY figures from Opinium/Observer poll
CON 36
LAB 33
LD 8
UKIP 14
GRN 7
Represents a 4.2% CON to LAB swing in England since GE10
So Lab up 5 ...Coalition down 18
OK, I put forward a theory that appears to fit Dave's choices (you did read the article?), I would be interested in your explanation of his attitude (to the debates)
However while you're going on abour Unionist pessimism which was vastly overdone it was simply the mirror image of Nationalist bullshit. There never was a sensible debate on the economy, bu8t of the two narratives the nats had more holes by a long way.
As I said at the time too wee too poor were never the killers, it was too stupid did for the Nats.
DYOR.
And the Angeli never morris danced, unlike Alexius Comnenus, who was renowned for it (as was Basil II).
his twitter feed as it looks well worth a read judging by
your comments"
Tim was the best Labour poster on here. Sharp and funny. Seth was the funniest Tory poster and they both went at the same time. Coincidence?
Good Point. Without the Opininium "reweighting" the SNP vote would be at 47 per cent in their sub sample ie is 88 out of 238 then allowing for 22 pe cent don't know , don't care.
Cameron: +40 | -44
Farage: +25 | -48
Miliband: +20 | -51
Clegg: +14 | -51
I am without doubt the best Pragmatic Communist poster.
(n.b. party membership numbers are on a need to know basis)
Is this the swingback people keep referring to!!
The exit proposed by Nats while great at telling everyone else what they wanted ignored the fact those meant to grant Nats wishes didn't agree with the proposals.
The Nats advanced no viable currency option their strategy being dictated by opportunism rather than economic need
The Nats had no viable argument trading with their major partners. forgetting that they aren't just in one Union but two a british one and a European one and in both cases their former partners would be best advised to put their own interests first
The Nats also ignored the basic of their economy and it's ability to absorb shocks. An overdependence of the energy sector leaves Scotland poorly placed to pay it's way. Scotland's other main hope of finanicial services suffers the same problem as the UK as a whole and would be even more impacted post Indy since Scotland doesn't have the scale to support its financial services in a global economy.
So no currency, uncertain trading partners and an economy based on an unstable commodity I ask again how will you pay the bills ?
Labour people like myself may not be totally "satisfied" or
express "approval" of Ed as I want him to kick out the
Blairites and promote more real Labour Mps to strengthen
a weak shadow cabinet..but I will still vote for him
Tories are just cap doffing sycophants who will give their
leader 12 minute standing ovations just weeks before kicking
them out like a dog in the night to use the Beast of Bolsovers
memorable phrase (see Thatcher 90 and IDS 03)
Third Opinium poll lead running using the Ipsos-Mori standard.
Been meaning to get it for a while but I've got a small mountain of books to read.
I belioeve it is on the 17th not today
Going backwards is as BJO says a 11.5% swing away from you over five
years despite a "booming economy" "jobs bonanza" and
Ed Miliband apparently being useless, weird and weak
Scottish Labour getting theirs in too early imo.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1499466/Heckler-82-who-dared-called-Straw-a-liar-is-held-under-terrorist-law.html
It makes no difference what currency an independent Scottish state would have in terms of its economic viability. There are good arguments in favour of all four options - Sterlingisation, Sterling Union, Euro or new Currency. Not one of them would be a barrier to independence.
How do we know this? Because viable economies exist all round the world using all these options. Problems based on currency also take considerable periods to develop. Even in the case of Greece it took nearly 20 years to actually suffer from the problems it's fiscal imprudence was storing up.
Trade is either a good thing or a bad thing. It is genuinely farcical that the rUK would suddenly decide to throw up trade barriers where none exists. Predominantly because regardless of relative economic strength, there would be a negative impact on rUK. Again we KNOW how the UK deals with this, we have seen it with the Dominions and with Ireland.
As usual all you demonstrate is a weak understanding of both economics and politics.
On trading blocs while the UK has been pragmatic as ever on trade, it is also part of a trading bloc the EU. The Nat assumption that they would just gain all the rights accrued to date doesn't stack up, UK opt outs would not apply to and Indy Scotland. Likewise agreements of fishing, financial services etc. would not apply to Scotland. So while trade will continue, it will not continue under the same condition and to the detriment of Scots
So to put that in context Scotland's terms of trade with its partners will worsen.
So again how do you pay your bills ?
You can tell me when I get back from the pub,off out have a good evening.
In fact, when I go to Scotland, it does look as if I am in Europe, particularly Edinburgh.
Wise words Richard, and Dave has to live with the fact, that they are not going away quietly now.
Such is life?
Wales, Northern England and Northern Ireland would not fare so well, though the latter would become part of Ireland.
But that's not the point.
In the case of Greece, with widespread day to day Faki Laki and the complete inability to collect taxes, it took - in your best case for the Unionist argument - 10 years for the country to fall apart.
It is not only a pretty risible insult to the people and institutions of Scotland that despite running the British Empire for 200 years (based on Free Universal Education meaning Scots were the only option) they would somehow be unable to run their own economy to basic OECD standards.
It's simply not rational as an argument.
It takes the worst run economies significant time to fall apart. The Unionists make bloated, risible claims about it happening (even that it would ALREADY have happened even though Independence would still have been 14 months away).
Try not to flail around aimlessly Richard, you risk drowning before your friends can rescue you.
Should either be that or lowest ever LAB lead unless the remaining polls have LAB leads of more than 1%
You can argue all you want about the EU position because the UK government REFUSED to ask for it. It is entirely speculative and with 18 months to work out the position, would not have been even remotely unachievable.
Then you start the lies. The fishing grounds ARE SCOTTISH. It is not that Scotland needs to access EU fishing grounds it is that several EU economies are significantly reliant on being able to access Scottish Waters (around 30% of ALL EU Fish Stocks)
It all ties back to the Little Englander mindset. England is important, everywhere else isn't. England matters, nowhere else does. England's economy makes a difference to the world, none of our partners benefit us.
It's no wonder UKIP has such a hold in a country with these sorts of insular, xenophobic attitudes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-31784538
Think it was under 10% and under 8% and the second one might have been at 11/2