"that xenophobic, right-wing nationalism thrives on making ill-founded claims about oppressive outside forces denying a people its legitimate rights"
I'm sorry, SO, I've agreed with you on many things in the past, but I think this is bloody disgraceful from you. Every country seeking its independence from an exploitative power (and the UK has been an exploitative power in respect of Scotland, as the McCrone report amply demonstrates) could be dismissed by you on the same basis as right-wing xenophobes simply for identifying its own plight and vocalising it.
Why don't you just say it out loud - you're calling my views fascist. In doing that, you're following in a long and ignoble tradition. But I'm afraid the people of Scotland aren't so daft.
Scotland's status is no more "quasi-colonial" than that of East Anglia, which regularly returns a majority of Conservative MPs, but is often ruled by non-Conservative governments.
There are no local elections in South Tyneside in May. So they can have at the end of the month without wasting more money.
Labour activists will be busy with Northumberland and North Tyneside Mayoral election on May 2th (I guess Durham doesn't need special attentions). Better leave them there
"Scotland's status is no more "quasi-colonial" than that of East Anglia, which regularly returns a majority of Conservative MPs, but is often ruled by non-Conservative governments."
I seem to be repeating myself here, but can you point me to an opinion poll showing support for an East Anglian Parliament with the type of powers that the recent YouGov pol showed that the people of Scotland want?
Blair: "I congratulate David on his appointment to a major international position. It shows the huge regard in which David is held worldwide. I'm sure he will do a great job. He is obviously a massive loss to UK politics. He was the head of my policy unit and then a truly distinguished Minister in the Government and remains one of the most capable progressive thinkers and leaders globally. I hope and believe this is time out not time over."
"In all likelihood you're going to get such a parliament after 2014, when Scots vote to stay in the union and a new deal is negotiated"
Do you really think Scots are stupid enough to fall for the Douglas-Home ruse again? Just as in 1979, if we vote no, we get nothing.
I would like to bet you that Scotland will vote "no" in 2014 and then negotiate another settlement, which will involve in more powers being transferred to Scotland, in the following five years. What odds will you offer me?
james- you are getting your referendum (unlike the rest of the UK who is stuck by whatever choice you make )- I would concentrate on persuading more sensibel and grounded scots as to your point of view than rants about evil England. However I fear to get more balanced scots on your side you may need to tone down the braveheart stuff and answer more basic and preactical questions like currency , EU membership and public services etc -
Extremely generous ones, as long as by "more powers" you're not referring to trivial powers transferred to give the fake appearance of a major shift. If you can specify the powers you've got in mind, I might well be interested in a bet.
"that xenophobic, right-wing nationalism thrives on making ill-founded claims about oppressive outside forces denying a people its legitimate rights"
I'm sorry, SO, I've agreed with you on many things in the past, but I think this is bloody disgraceful from you. Every country seeking its independence from an exploitative power (and the UK has been an exploitative power in respect of Scotland, as the McCrone report amply demonstrates) could be dismissed by you on the same basis as right-wing xenophobes simply for identifying its own plight and vocalising it.
Why don't you just say it out loud - you're calling my views fascist. In doing that, you're following in a long and ignoble tradition. But I'm afraid the people of Scotland aren't so daft.
No, I am disputing your claim that Scotland is a quasi colony, when it clearly is not. I do not consider you a fascist, far from it - which is why this view you have expressed today surprises me so much. It's language that I find unpleasant, ill-construed and immensely misleading. It feeds into gribvances about a oppressive other that I do not believe exists.
I can understand why the moronic comments on Scotland from so many on here would wind you up and I can understand your anger at the government policies being inflicted on the vulnerable in Scotland, just as they are being inflicted on the vulnerable elsewhere in the UK, I have even come to believe that the UK as it is presently construed is unsustainable and needs radical change, but I just do not buy the idea that Scotland - which entered the Union voluntarily and has never expressed a desire to leave - is a colony, quasi or otherwise. And I think that such language, when unjustified, stokes grievance and plays to xenophobia, both of which I thought civic nationalism explicitly and rightly rejected.
On the County Council elections, it will be fascinating to see the runners and riders when the entries are announced in a couple of weeks. In a county like Surrey, I will be fascinated to see if UKIP are able to put up candidates in all 81 divisions and whether the Lib Dems will fight more than half the seats. At the moment, I'm glad I've stepped back from frontline political activity - the idea of going out and knocking on doors in this weather is far from appealing. I have known spring elections with the weather glorious and going out on evenings like that can be a real pleasure. People want to talk and are usually more affable even if you know they're not going to support you.
Why I am not yet convinced the Tories will do as badly as in 1993. Tories switching to UKIP I can see, less so to Labour or the LDs apart from the usual swing voters. 2009 was a record year for the Tories in the CC so some fall back is to be expected. 2005 would be a good comparison, when the CCs were held on the same day as the GE.
Further, CC in 1993 included within them the more Labourite larger cities. Lots of these have now been hived off, which should limit the Tory losses compared to 1993.
Take Hertfordshire as an example, which the Conservatives lost overall control of in 1993.
In 2009, the Conservatives won 46%, Lib Dems 27%, Labour 14%, Green 7%, BNP 3%, Others 2%. The seats were Conservative 55, Lib Dem 17, Labour 3, Greens 1, BNP 1.
A swing of 12.5% each from Conservative and Lib Dem to Labour (which would not be far off last year's local election vote shares) gives the Conservatives 45 seats, Labour 17, Lib Dems 13, and Greens 1.
Thanks for that. Surely, they miss out the main reason that future GDP growth is usually "priced in" and thus won't be reflected in returns?
Anyway, I'm invested in emerging markets not because I think growth is higher, but because I think they were less likely to screw up expectations. I think I've been correct in that diagnosis so far.
well James on this issue I am not a PB tory as I really really want you to vote yes -I don't even care if its slightly better or worse off for the UK if it happens as long as it stops the juvenile whinging about 'its not fair' all the time
"Scotland's status is no more "quasi-colonial" than that of East Anglia, which regularly returns a majority of Conservative MPs, but is often ruled by non-Conservative governments."
I seem to be repeating myself here, but can you point me to an opinion poll showing support for an East Anglian Parliament with the type of powers that the recent YouGov pol showed that the people of Scotland want?
I probably could for Cornwall (at least in a general sense).
Far from it? What the hell was "something nastier" and "right-wing xenophobic nationalism" supposed to mean, then?
"which entered the Union voluntarily and has never expressed a desire to leave"
If you're a democrat, you cannot possibly justify the claim that Scotland entered the union voluntarily. The political elite voted for union (helped along by London bribes, as we know), but the people were viscerally opposed. And if you claim that Scots have never expressed a desire to leave the union, then by definition you must concede that they have never expressed a desire to stay either.
Extremely generous ones, as long as by "more powers" you're not referring to trivial powers transferred to give the fake appearance of a major shift. If you can specify the powers you've got in mind, I might well be interested in a bet.
You previous said "nothing". So do you think, in the event of a "no" vote, that minor powers are likely?
What odds would you give me if we're talking about additional taxation powers?
"I don't even care if its slightly better or worse off for the UK if it happens as long as it stops the juvenile whinging about 'its not fair' all the time"
Yes, how dare Scotland moan about the unfairness of having a government we didn't vote for. And I hope those bloody North Koreans never start whinging about the same thing.
"Scotland's status is no more "quasi-colonial" than that of East Anglia, which regularly returns a majority of Conservative MPs, but is often ruled by non-Conservative governments."
I seem to be repeating myself here, but can you point me to an opinion poll showing support for an East Anglian Parliament with the type of powers that the recent YouGov pol showed that the people of Scotland want?
If there were such support, the inhabitants of East Anglia would have no right to unilaterally create such a Parliament, or to determine its powers. That's because they (like the Scots) are part of a union, and the terms on which that union operates have to be negotiated between the elected representatives of its constituent parts. Scotland regualarly returns a majority of MPs who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. If Scots vote for independence in 2014, they will get indpendence. If they vote against, then their political representatives will have to negotiate with political representatives from the rest of the UK, to determine what, if any, additional powers are granted to the Scottish Parliament.
I really don't understand your belief that Scots are somehow ill-treated, under our constitutional settlement.
"You previous said "nothing". So do you think, in the event of a "no" vote, that minor powers are likely?"
A minor cosmetic transfer of powers is indeed nothing. If you want a bet, please specify what powers you are referring to - "additional taxation powers" is extremely vague.
Using my Heath Robinson spreadsheet, I predict ahem ahem...
South Shields
Labour 48% UKIP 33% Con 6% BNP 2% LD 2%
others 9%
If you are remotely correct above in assessing UKIP's likely level of support as being 33% then Paddy Power's offer of 1.83 (5/6) on them winning >18% looks terrific value.
One possible further factor in UKIP's favour is that Labour may be punished by the South Shields' electorate feeling that they have been abandoned by their MP who is moving on to pastures new and who perhaps has spent rather too much time for their liking on the lecture circuit, etc since the 2012 general Election.
Your figure of 9% for "others" looks too high also, which if I'm right gives UKIP further scope to increase their share of the vote.
"I don't even care if its slightly better or worse off for the UK if it happens as long as it stops the juvenile whinging about 'its not fair' all the time"
Yes, how dare Scotland moan about the unfairness of having a government we didn't vote for. And I hope those bloody North Koreans never start whinging about the same thing.
Be serious James. Comparing one part of a democratic state getting outvoted by other parts (whether at Westminster, or at Holyrood for that matter) to North Korea is absurd.
D’Miliband’s departure from politics sounds the death knell of ‘New Labour’ and the realisation by many that their totem figure head around which they rallied, has finally buggered off to foreign shores. – Although I don’t think he’ll be remembered for quite as long as bonnie Prince Charlie.
See what I did there? – thread header and whinging Jock united at last.
"If you're a democrat, you cannot possibly justify the claim that Scotland entered the union voluntarily. The political elite voted for union (helped along by London bribes, as we know), but the people were viscerally opposed. And if you claim that Scots have never expressed a desire to leave the union, then by definition you must concede that they have never expressed a desire to stay either.</blockquote>"
At elections, however, Scotland has regularly elected MPs who wish to remain in the UK. Are they not expressing the will of the Scottish voters?
Maybe its just me - but since Vanilla came in, I now see in a short space how many posts are occupied by those either making a highly partisan point or replying to the same from about 3 or 4 posters.
I'm now scrolling passed these as its tedious micro-point scoring and even more repetitive than even I as a hardened PBer can endure.
I hope we can move on from this Groundhog stuff. And before anyone gets all self-righteous - it has bugger all to do with betting.
"At elections, however, Scotland has regularly elected MPs who wish to remain in the UK."
General elections are not single-issue contests. If you're implicitly arguing that the majority victory of the SNP in 2011 did not in itself constitute a mandate for independence (and indeed it didn't), then the results of Westminster GEs do not in themselves constitute a mandate to remain in the UK.
"Be serious James. Comparing one part of a democratic state getting outvoted by other parts (whether at Westminster, or at Holyrood for that matter) to North Korea is absurd."
Oh do stop whinging, there's a good chap. And if you don't like that response (you shouldn't) then please stop taking the side of the morons who say that kind of thing to me, as you have just done.
I'm a PB tory and I hope the Scots vote for independence. Look at the southern Irish. They are much easier to get on with now they have their own government. I am sure it will be the same with Scotland.
It will also help to separate those who genuinely want independence for their country from persons who have a deep and visceral hatred of an England long extinct.
Persons who would like to give innocent modern English people a kicking for the reputed sins of their forefathers.
Far from it? What the hell was "something nastier" and "right-wing xenophobic nationalism" supposed to mean, then?
"which entered the Union voluntarily and has never expressed a desire to leave"
If you're a democrat, you cannot possibly justify the claim that Scotland entered the union voluntarily. The political elite voted for union (helped along by London bribes, as we know), but the people were viscerally opposed. And if you claim that Scots have never expressed a desire to leave the union, then by definition you must concede that they have never expressed a desire to stay either.
It was supposed to mean that your description of Scotland as a quasi colony fed into a false narrative of oppression, occupation and absence of self determination, the like of which is often employed by right wing xenophobic nationalists.
Scotland itself was not created voluntarily; neither was England. But we all assume that after so many centuries of existence there is a level of consent among their populations for their existence because there has never been any serious indication to the contrary. Likewise, the legally recognised Scottish Parliament entered into the Union. Since universal suffrage was introduced the Scots had never indicated that they might want the union to dissolve. As soon as they did give such an indication, a referendum was agreed, the results fo which will be bidning for both sides. That is democracy. It is not colonialism, quasi or otherwise.
Thanks for that. Surely, they miss out the main reason that future GDP growth is usually "priced in" and thus won't be reflected in returns?
Anyway, I'm invested in emerging markets not because I think growth is higher, but because I think they were less likely to screw up expectations. I think I've been correct in that diagnosis so far.
I think that is one of the three key reasons. The others are:
1. High growth economies - like China - require huge amounts of capital to drive that growth. When your economy is growing at 8-10% a year, the capital expenditure to drive that growth simply cannot be funded out corporate profits, therefore there tends to be very significant stock issuance to raise capital for firms. (This is certainly what has happened in China.) The result of this is that while overall corporate profits and sales are rising, this is almost totally offset by the increase in the number of shares outstanding. Or to put it another way, growth in earnings-per-share is an order of magnitude lower than economic growth.
2. The benefits of local economic growth do not necessarily accrue to local players. So, in the first phase of Chinese economic growth - characterised by investment spending and commensurate increases in demand for steel and other raw materials - it was Australian (and other) resources companies that benefited rather than local players.
My view is that we are now in the second stage of the China growth story, where the economy will start to look a lot more like a Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Singapore. (Or to put it another way, China is Singapore 1980 to 1990, or Korea 1990 to 2000.) We are going to see it become a consumer society. Right now, the sums available to Chinese consumers to spend on consumer goods - like shampoo, or KFC - are rising rapidly. We could easily see consumer spending double in the next five years.
Interestingly, consumer goods is one of the few things done well by Western conglomerates - and these firms tend to be dominant players in Korea, etc. L'Oreal will sell make-up into China. Nestle and Unilever will sell chocolate and washing powder. For most of these consumer goods companies, growth is dominated by emerging markets at this point. You therefore get exposure to the increase in Chinese consumer spending, while being protected by decent corporate governance (and you get a meaningful dividend too.)
Anyway, I should probably cease talking my own book :-)
"You previous said "nothing". So do you think, in the event of a "no" vote, that minor powers are likely?"
A minor cosmetic transfer of powers is indeed nothing. If you want a bet, please specify what powers you are referring to - "additional taxation powers" is extremely vague.
How about powers significant enough that an SNP First Minister of Scotland refers to the new powers as a positive thing?
"I don't even care if its slightly better or worse off for the UK if it happens as long as it stops the juvenile whinging about 'its not fair' all the time"
Yes, how dare Scotland moan about the unfairness of having a government we didn't vote for. And I hope those bloody North Koreans never start whinging about the same thing.
That you can put Scotland and North Korea's situation in the same ball park is astounding. It really shows the depths of your victim mentality.
James I hope you don't get involved in the yes campaign or at least open your big 'braveheart' gob about it because I want Scotland to leave but would prefer someone who can make a positive argument to more sensible scots not filled with phrases like morons , evil english ,colonialism etc - you would worry most sensibel scots thinking if I vote yes will I get 'the likes of him' in charge up here
"Be serious James. Comparing one part of a democratic state getting outvoted by other parts (whether at Westminster, or at Holyrood for that matter) to North Korea is absurd."
Oh do stop whinging, there's a good chap. And if you don't like that response (you shouldn't) then please stop taking the side of the morons who say that kind of thing to me, as you have just done.
"James I hope you don't get involved in the yes campaign or at least open your big 'braveheart' gob about it because I want Scotland to leave but would prefer someone who can make a positive argument to more sensible scots not filled with phrases like morons , evil english ,colonialism etc - you would worry most sensibel scots thinking if I vote yes will I get 'the likes of him' in charge up here"
For my part I just hope the No campaign can find someone capable of correctly spelling the word 'sensible'.
I'm a PB tory and I hope the Scots vote for independence. Look at the southern Irish. They are much easier to get on with now they have their own government. I am sure it will be the same with Scotland.
It took about sixty years from independence before Ireland stopped blaming the English for her poverty and undertook the necessary reforms to become prosperous. Scotland would likely do the same sooner, but I imagine it would take decades. Most nationalists still seem to believe they can do it on whiskey exports and offshore wind.
"Since universal suffrage was introduced the Scots had never indicated that they might want the union to dissolve."
Which I presume is an implicit acknowledgement that they have never indicated that they might want the union to continue. Which is important, given that the people never had a say in the union in the first place,
I know its hard for you to accept but there are plenty of English who don't actually want anything to do with scotland anymore - We are not all pleading down here ' oh please Mr slamond don't leave us' - far from it --good luck (but stay away from personal campaigning as you would put people off)
... those either making a highly partisan point or replying to the same from about 3 or 4 posters.
Some debates on here resemble wrestling with a pig, Miss Plato, you both get covered in shit and mud but only the pig enjoys it. As a spectator sport it is as you say extremely tedious
I'm now scrolling passed these as its tedious micro-point scoring and even more repetitive than even I as a hardened PBer can endure.
You are aware the the Blessed Edmund's widget has been sort of released for Vanilla, aren't you? Its a bit flaky, at least on Chrome, but it is still better than watching pig wrestling.
This article by Chris Dillow was quite interesting on the subject of investment in emerging markets:
What it does mean, though, is that emerging markets are not what you might think they are. They are not a bet on economic growth in those countries. What they are is a bet on disaster risk not materialising; on US monetary policy being loose; and on global growth expectations (US Treasury yields) rising. These might be reasonable bets. But I suspect that they are not the reasons why many investors bought emerging markets funds.
Personally, I'm not expecting armageddon (so I'm not planning to copy Hunchman and hunker down in a cellar with a case of whisky, a shotgun, and a pallet-load of baked beans), but I do think the political risk is such that it sensible to plan for a possible Labour government in 2015, with a falling exchange rate, differentially high UK inflation, low UK growth, increased UK taxes, increased UK unemployment, and increasingly severe cuts to government spending as Balls desperately tries to regain lost market confidence.
Thus, over a period of months, I'm gradually moving out of investments dependent on the UK economy and investments denominated in sterling, into a broad mix of US, some European, some emerging and 'developed other' markets, and UK-listed equities with varied international revenues and growth prospects. Also some funds (such as Artemis Strategic Assets) which are positioned to benefit from increasing gilt yields. It goes without saying that one should make as much use as possible of tax-free shelters which hopefully even Ed Balls won't try to raid (although there's no guarantee, of course).
"How about powers significant enough that an SNP First Minister of Scotland refers to the new powers as a positive thing?"
You seem to be struggling here, Socrates. Do you actually have a clue what powers you have in mind?
There are various powers that could be transferred, and it's hazardous to bet on any one thing in a complex negotiation process. However, I'm confident the overall package will be a significant transfer of powers, enough so that I'm willing to allow the leader of your lot to be the judge of whether it's significant or not. That seems like an extremely reasonable bet to me: Scotland will vote no to independence yet will gain a package of new powers that is greeted with a positive response by the SNP. You can't claim that's "nothing" or "minor".
Seriously? You compared Scotland's status to North Korea, you think that's a reasonable comparison?
Democracy involved some people getting a government they didn't vote for, (inevitable since not everyone agrees on which they want). It happens in the UK, it happens in Scotland now, it would happen in an independent Scotland, it happens in every democracy on earth. Texas didn't get the President it voted for, etc.
And you put that in the same category as an oppressive dictatorship like North Korea? And you don't think that's either absurd or hyperbolic?
I know its hard for you to accept but there are plenty of English who don't actually want anything to do with scotland anymore"
No mate, that's not the Yes campaign, that's the "we don't like the Jocks" campaign. But don't worry - I'm sure with credentials like yours Fraser Nelson will probably invite you to speak at a Spectator debate on behalf of the "Yes campaign".
Thanks for the tip - it doesn't work so well on FFox and I tend to default to the Oldest First bit of Vanilla.
Either way, it's just life-sapping and I'd rather do something else. I only post the odd diverting thing to try to make it less depressing - but frankly Twitter is more engaging.
Pardon me for not giving a response to your email so far.
"Seriously? You compared Scotland's status to North Korea, you think that's a reasonable comparison?"
All right, as you're determined to act stupid, I will add a 'footnote for cretins' to my remark. I was repeatedly accused of "whinging". I pointed out that characterising as "whinging" complaints about being governed by a party we did not vote for is, indeed, analogous to criticising people in North Korea for "whinging" about being governed by a party they did not vote for.
That is not even remotely the same thing as directly comparing Scotland to North Korea. If you and Socrates are determined to pretend not to understand that in order to make a tiresome debating point, then that's a matter for you.
It's a perfectly valid argument in favour of Scottish independence to say that Scotland should not be governed by a government comprised of parties that most Scots voted against. But, if Scots decide that the benefits of remaining in the UK exceed those of leaving it, which they have done up till now, then they have to accept that they will sometimes be governed by such a government. That's not quasi-colonialism; that's simple fairness.
"Since universal suffrage was introduced the Scots had never indicated that they might want the union to dissolve."
Which I presume is an implicit acknowledgement that they have never indicated that they might want the union to continue. Which is important, given that the people never had a say in the union in the first place,
We can go round on round on this I suppose. In, say, Ireland the Irish people had clearly indicated their wish for home rule as soon as the franchise was extended. n my book If you are given the chance to vote for a party that believes in independence and you decide not to take it then that can be considered as indicative of a certain train of thought.
But, yes, I am happy to concede that just as those who live in the country known as Scotland have never been given the opportunity to vote on whether they wish Scotland to exist (and their predecessors were never consulted on that country's creation), all those who live in the country known as the UK (including those who live in the country known as Scotland) have not been given a vote on whether it should exist; while, specifically, the people that live in the country known as Scotland have not voted specifically on whether that country should be a constituent part of the country called the UK.
On paper, Russia’s political system is an impressive reproduction of Western representative democracy, while the Chinese system remains an unreconstructed autocracy. The reality of the situation is much more complex, says Ivan Krastev":
I do wonder, should the referendum result by for the union, if we'll have many more threads like this...
On a more interesting note, I really don't see what Lauda's doing criticising Brawn. Apparently, as well as being the 'industry standard' to not have cars compete after the final pit stop (especially when fuel's an issue) Brawn explicitly stated this was the case on Sky.
Surveys of public opinion regularly show majorities (or pluralities) of Scots in favour of remaining in the UK, and most of Scotland's elected representatives favour remaining in the UK. I think it's up to you to demonstrate that these elected politicians are somehow suppressing the will of the Scottish people and that pollsters are somehow distorting the views of the Scottish people.
The South Shields by-election is already shaping up to be great profitable fun. So far only two or three bookies have been involved, but they've already shown a serious lack of knowledge (eg pitching Labour's share of the vote at 37% ..... since corrected to 52%!), making it none too difficult for PBers to make a few quid.
For the small minority of us here who are punters, this has been a day which so clearly demonstrates PB's real worth in being able to share betting opportunities and how much it would be missed were it to disappear.
I feel sure that somewhere in the Monty Python archives there must be a sketch about a "libertarian with a fiscal conservative twist" who earnestly claims to be a serial Labour voter, and "exactly the sort of person Labour needs to win back to have ANY CHANCE of winning the next general election".
"Surveys of public opinion regularly show majorities (or pluralities) of Scots in favour of remaining in the UK, and most of Scotland's elected representatives favour remaining in the UK."
The latter is untrue. An absolute majority of the Scottish Parliament is pro-independence. And as you presumably know, there was a period a few years ago when pollsters were consistently finding pluralities in favour of independence. Did you interpret that as a mandate for independence? If so, why wasn't it acted upon?
Or do the rules only work one way? Perish the thought...
I think that's very wise. I think one of the most interesting other developments is how the development of ETFs and 'global macro' hedge funds has increased intra-market correlations, and decreased inter-market correlations.
The result is that essentially identical assets trade at very different prices in different markets. Verizon and Vodafone, for example: in both cases, their largest assets are their stakes in Verizon Wireless. In the latter case, the company trades on 11x next year's earnings; while Verizon trades on 16x. Why is a dollar of Verizon Wireless profits worth 50% more to one company than the other. (Or to put it another way, Verizon is currently rumoured to be bidding $135bn for Vodafone's stake in Verizon Wireless. Yet Vodafone is only a $150bn company. Now, sure, there's debt. But there's also mobile phone operations in India, Europe, Africa etc: and it's hard not to believe they are worth more than $15bn.)
Some people are just Energy Vampires. Let them into an organisation and, unless they are destroyed or removed, they will turn more and more of its people into their own kind and, eventually, kill it. When I was working I got very good at spotting these types and got them to realise they were in the wrong job as fast as I possibly could. On sites like this, ignore seems to be the only option (plus a bit of organisational-terrorism, such as the odd judiciously posted cat photo) other than leaving them a clear field.
most of Scotland's elected representatives favour remaining in the UK." The latter is untrue. An absolute majority of the Scottish Parliament is pro-independence.
Naughty James! Aren't Scotland's Westminster MPs 'elected representatives' too? What about local councillors? Or does only the Scottish Parliament count as 'elected representatives'?
Absolutely, by all means lets refresh our memories about the SNP's historic triumph in last year's local elections - the greatest number of votes, the greatest number of seats, the biggest increase in votes of any party, and the biggest increase in seats of any party.
By and large Nationalists movements bring out the worst in people. There are many occasions when vitriol and violence are deployed, and it can be justified. Where a race is down trodden and treated with no respect I understand that reaction. Where a race is discriminated against, apartheid is enacted and the law is wicked and unfair, then I understand.
In a first world modern democratic society I find the insults, concepts and victim status of nationalism disturbing, and deeply insulting to those in the world who have real suffering.
If anyone living in Scotland thinks that independence will make a gnats whisker of difference to daily life they are living in a fluffy fictitious world.
Look at that 80/1 for the Greens. That tells a story on its own. I now believe that the greens will lose it's only MP at the next GE, and as a party, go into complete meltdown.
Ukips price is hardening all the time. What happens if they choose not to pick a candidate?
UKIP 4/7 Conservatives 13/8 Liberal Democrats 12/1 Green 80/1
For the small minority of us here who are punters, this has been a day which so clearly demonstrates PB's real worth in being able to share betting opportunities and how much it would be missed were it to disappear.
How many have contributed to PB fund? I note the donate button has gone again.
It has to be debateable whether they have enough in the kitty to pay for a deposit. UKIP have their voters sewn up for now with their Romanian rhetoric anyway.
Might be an obvious thing to say but I'm trying to look at the Middlesbrough and Rotherham by elections, and work out where the votes lost by Con, LD, Lab and BNP went... 15%of LD vote 18% of Con 50%of BNP was where I last left it, though before I had them in for 75% of BNP before
Saw on twitter last night EDL saying all those on the far right Should vote UKIP from now on... Don't know if that is helpful for them long term
"By and large Nationalists movements bring out the worst in people."
Not always but I agree that the likes of John Major and David Cameron sound a bit silly when they witter on about "this glorious United Kingdom".
"If anyone living in Scotland thinks that independence will make a gnats whisker of difference to daily life they are living in a fluffy fictitious world."
Yes, heaven forbid that removing inhuman weapons of mass destruction from our shores, the ability to opt out of London's illegal wars and a humane welfare policy should be seen as anything other than the stuff of trivia.
I feel sure that somewhere in the Monty Python archives there must be a sketch about a "libertarian with a fiscal conservative twist" who earnestly claims to be a serial Labour voter, and "exactly the sort of person Labour needs to win back to have ANY CHANCE of winning the next general election".
There's a sketch about Mr Angus Podgorny, owner of a Dunbar menswear shop, who received an order for 48,000,000 kilts from the planet Skyron in the Galaxy of Andromeda.
When asked by his wife how he'd get all the kilts in his van, he said he'd have to make 2 trips.
It was something to do with a Scot never winning Wimbledon - clearly this was pre- Andy Murray.
I therefore believe the prospects of UKIP winning > 18% of the vote are good since it's unlikely that ALL the other parties will reach the maximum percentage I have allocated to them. Actually I agree with you that UKIP are likely to finish around the mid-twenties level.
So James, what odds will you give me that Scotland will vote to stay in the union, and there will be a substantial transfer of powers to Holyrood, as judged by the SNP?
Comments
I'm sorry, SO, I've agreed with you on many things in the past, but I think this is bloody disgraceful from you. Every country seeking its independence from an exploitative power (and the UK has been an exploitative power in respect of Scotland, as the McCrone report amply demonstrates) could be dismissed by you on the same basis as right-wing xenophobes simply for identifying its own plight and vocalising it.
Why don't you just say it out loud - you're calling my views fascist. In doing that, you're following in a long and ignoble tradition. But I'm afraid the people of Scotland aren't so daft.
Do you really think Scots are stupid enough to fall for the Douglas-Home ruse again? Just as in 1979, if we vote no, we get nothing.
Labour activists will be busy with Northumberland and North Tyneside Mayoral election on May 2th (I guess Durham doesn't need special attentions). Better leave them there
I seem to be repeating myself here, but can you point me to an opinion poll showing support for an East Anglian Parliament with the type of powers that the recent YouGov pol showed that the people of Scotland want?
I saw a few days ago you mentioned that you were heavily invested in emerging markets. This piece might be of interest to you: https://www.virtus.com/vsitemanager/upload/docs/6141_gdpwhitepaper.pdf
Extremely generous ones, as long as by "more powers" you're not referring to trivial powers transferred to give the fake appearance of a major shift. If you can specify the powers you've got in mind, I might well be interested in a bet.
I can understand why the moronic comments on Scotland from so many on here would wind you up and I can understand your anger at the government policies being inflicted on the vulnerable in Scotland, just as they are being inflicted on the vulnerable elsewhere in the UK, I have even come to believe that the UK as it is presently construed is unsustainable and needs radical change, but I just do not buy the idea that Scotland - which entered the Union voluntarily and has never expressed a desire to leave - is a colony, quasi or otherwise. And I think that such language, when unjustified, stokes grievance and plays to xenophobia, both of which I thought civic nationalism explicitly and rightly rejected.
Yet more stupidity. The PB Tories are really going to have to stop projecting their prejudices onto me.
In 2009, the Conservatives won 46%, Lib Dems 27%, Labour 14%, Green 7%, BNP 3%, Others 2%. The seats were Conservative 55, Lib Dem 17, Labour 3, Greens 1, BNP 1.
A swing of 12.5% each from Conservative and Lib Dem to Labour (which would not be far off last year's local election vote shares) gives the Conservatives 45 seats, Labour 17, Lib Dems 13, and Greens 1.
Thanks for that. Surely, they miss out the main reason that future GDP growth is usually "priced in" and thus won't be reflected in returns?
Anyway, I'm invested in emerging markets not because I think growth is higher, but because I think they were less likely to screw up expectations. I think I've been correct in that diagnosis so far.
I probably could for Cornwall (at least in a general sense).
Far from it? What the hell was "something nastier" and "right-wing xenophobic nationalism" supposed to mean, then?
"which entered the Union voluntarily and has never expressed a desire to leave"
If you're a democrat, you cannot possibly justify the claim that Scotland entered the union voluntarily. The political elite voted for union (helped along by London bribes, as we know), but the people were viscerally opposed. And if you claim that Scots have never expressed a desire to leave the union, then by definition you must concede that they have never expressed a desire to stay either.
What odds would you give me if we're talking about additional taxation powers?
Yes, how dare Scotland moan about the unfairness of having a government we didn't vote for. And I hope those bloody North Koreans never start whinging about the same thing.
I really don't understand your belief that Scots are somehow ill-treated, under our constitutional settlement.
Just leave us James please leave us
A minor cosmetic transfer of powers is indeed nothing. If you want a bet, please specify what powers you are referring to - "additional taxation powers" is extremely vague.
Who is "us", as a matter of interest?
One possible further factor in UKIP's favour is that Labour may be punished by the South Shields' electorate feeling that they have been abandoned by their MP who is moving on to pastures new and who perhaps has spent rather too much time for their liking on the lecture circuit, etc since the 2012 general Election.
Your figure of 9% for "others" looks too high also, which if I'm right gives UKIP further
scope to increase their share of the vote.
See what I did there? – thread header and whinging Jock united at last.
At elections, however, Scotland has regularly elected MPs who wish to remain in the UK. Are they not expressing the will of the Scottish voters?
I'm now scrolling passed these as its tedious micro-point scoring and even more repetitive than even I as a hardened PBer can endure.
I hope we can move on from this Groundhog stuff. And before anyone gets all self-righteous - it has bugger all to do with betting.
General elections are not single-issue contests. If you're implicitly arguing that the majority victory of the SNP in 2011 did not in itself constitute a mandate for independence (and indeed it didn't), then the results of Westminster GEs do not in themselves constitute a mandate to remain in the UK.
Prepare yourself.
Here it is:
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/75384/electoral_reform_society_south_shields_why_bother_with_a_by_election?.html
Oh do stop whinging, there's a good chap. And if you don't like that response (you shouldn't) then please stop taking the side of the morons who say that kind of thing to me, as you have just done.
It will also help to separate those who genuinely want independence for their country from persons who have a deep and visceral hatred of an England long extinct.
Persons who would like to give innocent modern English people a kicking for the reputed sins of their forefathers.
Scotland itself was not created voluntarily; neither was England. But we all assume that after so many centuries of existence there is a level of consent among their populations for their existence because there has never been any serious indication to the contrary. Likewise, the legally recognised Scottish Parliament entered into the Union. Since universal suffrage was introduced the Scots had never indicated that they might want the union to dissolve. As soon as they did give such an indication, a referendum was agreed, the results fo which will be bidning for both sides. That is democracy. It is not colonialism, quasi or otherwise.
1. High growth economies - like China - require huge amounts of capital to drive that growth. When your economy is growing at 8-10% a year, the capital expenditure to drive that growth simply cannot be funded out corporate profits, therefore there tends to be very significant stock issuance to raise capital for firms. (This is certainly what has happened in China.) The result of this is that while overall corporate profits and sales are rising, this is almost totally offset by the increase in the number of shares outstanding. Or to put it another way, growth in earnings-per-share is an order of magnitude lower than economic growth.
2. The benefits of local economic growth do not necessarily accrue to local players. So, in the first phase of Chinese economic growth - characterised by investment spending and commensurate increases in demand for steel and other raw materials - it was Australian (and other) resources companies that benefited rather than local players.
My view is that we are now in the second stage of the China growth story, where the economy will start to look a lot more like a Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Singapore. (Or to put it another way, China is Singapore 1980 to 1990, or Korea 1990 to 2000.) We are going to see it become a consumer society. Right now, the sums available to Chinese consumers to spend on consumer goods - like shampoo, or KFC - are rising rapidly. We could easily see consumer spending double in the next five years.
Interestingly, consumer goods is one of the few things done well by Western conglomerates - and these firms tend to be dominant players in Korea, etc. L'Oreal will sell make-up into China. Nestle and Unilever will sell chocolate and washing powder. For most of these consumer goods companies, growth is dominated by emerging markets at this point. You therefore get exposure to the increase in Chinese consumer spending, while being protected by decent corporate governance (and you get a meaningful dividend too.)
Anyway, I should probably cease talking my own book :-)
Oh, grow up.
You seem to be struggling here, Socrates. Do you actually have a clue what powers you have in mind?
I didn't.
For my part I just hope the No campaign can find someone capable of correctly spelling the word 'sensible'.
Which I presume is an implicit acknowledgement that they have never indicated that they might want the union to continue. Which is important, given that the people never had a say in the union in the first place,
I know its hard for you to accept but there are plenty of English who don't actually want anything to do with scotland anymore - We are not all pleading down here ' oh please Mr slamond don't leave us' - far from it --good luck (but stay away from personal campaigning as you would put people off)
This article by Chris Dillow was quite interesting on the subject of investment in emerging markets:
What it does mean, though, is that emerging markets are not what you might think they are. They are not a bet on economic growth in those countries. What they are is a bet on disaster risk not materialising; on US monetary policy being loose; and on global growth expectations (US Treasury yields) rising. These might be reasonable bets. But I suspect that they are not the reasons why many investors bought emerging markets funds.
http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2013/03/21/comment/chris-dillow/emerging-market-debt-WHYtE6u9u78FfvYkXlEf8N/article.html
Personally, I'm not expecting armageddon (so I'm not planning to copy Hunchman and hunker down in a cellar with a case of whisky, a shotgun, and a pallet-load of baked beans), but I do think the political risk is such that it sensible to plan for a possible Labour government in 2015, with a falling exchange rate, differentially high UK inflation, low UK growth, increased UK taxes, increased UK unemployment, and increasingly severe cuts to government spending as Balls desperately tries to regain lost market confidence.
Thus, over a period of months, I'm gradually moving out of investments dependent on the UK economy and investments denominated in sterling, into a broad mix of US, some European, some emerging and 'developed other' markets, and UK-listed equities with varied international revenues and growth prospects. Also some funds (such as Artemis Strategic Assets) which are positioned to benefit from increasing gilt yields. It goes without saying that one should make as much use as possible of tax-free shelters which hopefully even Ed Balls won't try to raid (although there's no guarantee, of course).
And oil. And 25% of Europe's marine renewable potential. And fishing. And tourism. And manufacturing. And food and drink exports. And construction.
Yeah, I think we might just muddle through somehow.
You compared Scotland's status to North Korea, you think that's a reasonable comparison?
Democracy involved some people getting a government they didn't vote for, (inevitable since not everyone agrees on which they want). It happens in the UK, it happens in Scotland now, it would happen in an independent Scotland, it happens in every democracy on earth. Texas didn't get the President it voted for, etc.
And you put that in the same category as an oppressive dictatorship like North Korea? And you don't think that's either absurd or hyperbolic?
- Grimm, bit of a slow starter but gets into into its Buffyish stride - now on S2
- The Following is excellent re cults Kevin Bacon is top notch drama
- The Cult is Buffyish and worth watching
- Red Widow looks good and just started - drug dealer's wife tries to make it on her own.
- The Client List is sexy drama and another space filler that's quite watchable.
Just finished S4 of Spiral/Engreganes and its excellent gritty cop drama, if you don't mind subtitles.
I know its hard for you to accept but there are plenty of English who don't actually want anything to do with scotland anymore"
No mate, that's not the Yes campaign, that's the "we don't like the Jocks" campaign. But don't worry - I'm sure with credentials like yours Fraser Nelson will probably invite you to speak at a Spectator debate on behalf of the "Yes campaign".
'Interestingly, consumer goods is one of the few things done well by Western conglomerates'
Another sector that should show good growth in China is pharmaceuticals,average spend per capita USA $900 China $100.
Though you do take today's top prize for high dudgeon for simultaneously claiming you are seen as a 'fascist' living in 'North Korea'......
Thanks for the tip - it doesn't work so well on FFox and I tend to default to the Oldest First bit of Vanilla.
Either way, it's just life-sapping and I'd rather do something else. I only post the odd diverting thing to try to make it less depressing - but frankly Twitter is more engaging.
Pardon me for not giving a response to your email so far.
You compared Scotland's status to North Korea, you think that's a reasonable comparison?"
All right, as you're determined to act stupid, I will add a 'footnote for cretins' to my remark. I was repeatedly accused of "whinging". I pointed out that characterising as "whinging" complaints about being governed by a party we did not vote for is, indeed, analogous to criticising people in North Korea for "whinging" about being governed by a party they did not vote for.
That is not even remotely the same thing as directly comparing Scotland to North Korea. If you and Socrates are determined to pretend not to understand that in order to make a tiresome debating point, then that's a matter for you.
- Grimm, bit of a slow starter but gets into into its Buffyish stride - now on S2
So you haven't got to buffy the musical yet ;-)
Can you link me to the result of that referendum? When was it held? Thanks in advance.
It is just me guessing/trying to work something out. Not anything to bet off really. I think the 5/6 18% or above looks ok mind you.
I have refined it a bit.. well a lot! and now make it La53/UK25/Co6/BN5/LD4 others 7)
But, yes, I am happy to concede that just as those who live in the country known as Scotland have never been given the opportunity to vote on whether they wish Scotland to exist (and their predecessors were never consulted on that country's creation), all those who live in the country known as the UK (including those who live in the country known as Scotland) have not been given a vote on whether it should exist; while, specifically, the people that live in the country known as Scotland have not voted specifically on whether that country should be a constituent part of the country called the UK.
None of which makes Scotland a quasi colony.
"This is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
I do wonder, should the referendum result by for the union, if we'll have many more threads like this...
On a more interesting note, I really don't see what Lauda's doing criticising Brawn. Apparently, as well as being the 'industry standard' to not have cars compete after the final pit stop (especially when fuel's an issue) Brawn explicitly stated this was the case on Sky.
For the small minority of us here who are punters, this has been a day which so clearly demonstrates PB's real worth in being able to share betting opportunities and how much it would be missed were it to disappear.
The latter is untrue. An absolute majority of the Scottish Parliament is pro-independence. And as you presumably know, there was a period a few years ago when pollsters were consistently finding pluralities in favour of independence. Did you interpret that as a mandate for independence? If so, why wasn't it acted upon?
Or do the rules only work one way? Perish the thought...
I think that's very wise. I think one of the most interesting other developments is how the development of ETFs and 'global macro' hedge funds has increased intra-market correlations, and decreased inter-market correlations.
The result is that essentially identical assets trade at very different prices in different markets. Verizon and Vodafone, for example: in both cases, their largest assets are their stakes in Verizon Wireless. In the latter case, the company trades on 11x next year's earnings; while Verizon trades on 16x. Why is a dollar of Verizon Wireless profits worth 50% more to one company than the other. (Or to put it another way, Verizon is currently rumoured to be bidding $135bn for Vodafone's stake in Verizon Wireless. Yet Vodafone is only a $150bn company. Now, sure, there's debt. But there's also mobile phone operations in India, Europe, Africa etc: and it's hard not to believe they are worth more than $15bn.)
Someone must have the last word with everyone all the time. It is a complusion. Accept it and move on. Please.
Please leave Carlotta alone, David. I know it's unfashionable to stick up for her, but someone has to do it. Enough.
However, you're getting the referendum you want in 2014. Then, we'll all know for sure whether the Scots wish to remain in the UK or not.
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2013/894/1050.html
Basically it keeps the car more level in corners.
Just over a fortnight till Chinese practice starts. I wonder how Vettel and Webber will get along.
Absolutely, by all means lets refresh our memories about the SNP's historic triumph in last year's local elections - the greatest number of votes, the greatest number of seats, the biggest increase in votes of any party, and the biggest increase in seats of any party.
http://labourlist.org/2013/03/tory-minister-tory-government-nearly-killed-my-family-business-so-i-became-a-tory/
lol
By and large Nationalists movements bring out the worst in people. There are many occasions when vitriol and violence are deployed, and it can be justified. Where a race is down trodden and treated with no respect I understand that reaction. Where a race is discriminated against, apartheid is enacted and the law is wicked and unfair, then I understand.
In a first world modern democratic society I find the insults, concepts and victim status of nationalism disturbing, and deeply insulting to those in the world who have real suffering.
If anyone living in Scotland thinks that independence will make a gnats whisker of difference to daily life they are living in a fluffy fictitious world.
Latest prices for second place:
Look at that 80/1 for the Greens. That tells a story on its own. I now believe that the greens will lose it's only MP at the next GE, and as a party, go into complete meltdown.
Ukips price is hardening all the time. What happens if they choose not to pick a candidate?
UKIP
4/7
Conservatives
13/8
Liberal Democrats
12/1
Green
80/1
Hills and P power on the other hand
Didn't think so.....
I will now follow SO's wise words - go on James - have the last word - we know you think it means you've 'won'!
Might be an obvious thing to say but I'm trying to look at the Middlesbrough and Rotherham by elections, and work out where the votes lost by Con, LD, Lab and BNP went... 15%of LD vote 18% of Con 50%of BNP was where I last left it, though before I had them in for 75% of BNP before
Saw on twitter last night EDL saying all those on the far right Should vote UKIP from now on... Don't know if that is helpful for them long term
Not always but I agree that the likes of John Major and David Cameron sound a bit silly when they witter on about "this glorious United Kingdom".
"If anyone living in Scotland thinks that independence will make a gnats whisker of difference to daily life they are living in a fluffy fictitious world."
Yes, heaven forbid that removing inhuman weapons of mass destruction from our shores, the ability to opt out of London's illegal wars and a humane welfare policy should be seen as anything other than the stuff of trivia.
When asked by his wife how he'd get all the kilts in his van, he said he'd have to make 2 trips.
It was something to do with a Scot never winning Wimbledon - clearly this was pre- Andy Murray.
http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode07.htm
http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/10317165.Three_councillors_defect_to_UKIP/
LAB.........................55
Con........................11
LibDems..................7
Others, inc BNP .....8
Sub total ...............81
UKIP (Balance)......19
Total....................100
I therefore believe the prospects of UKIP winning > 18% of the vote are good since it's unlikely that ALL the other parties will reach the maximum percentage I have allocated to them. Actually I agree with you that UKIP are likely to finish around the mid-twenties level.