Hollywood panics over Hillary behind the scenes at the Emmys. Luntz asked “Of the 20 closest people you know, how many of them are voting for Trump?” he asked. Long pause. “Exactly.”
Some of us did forecast that Brexit was completely inimical to Scottish Independence in advance. The assumption in Sindy was that we would both in the Single Market. That is no longer the case and it makes sense for the SNP to wait to see where the UK ends up no matter what the frothy wing thinks.
Wait until the dust settles. If the UK remains in the single market then it would be quite attractive for Scotland to vote to have representation in the EU institutions while London sat on the sidelines waiting for directives by fax.
Not going to happen. We will not be in the Single Market. We will have access to it but we will not be in it.
I'm optimistic that the government would collapse before that happened.
'Access' to the single market could mean anything other than a complete trade embargo. It's a perfect example of dishonest Leave rhetoric.
Come off it, it's Remain who blurred the lines between 'access' and 'membership'.
My point is a bit less complicated than that. The vast bulk of what we - the UK - exports is services. China imports commodities, and to a lesser extent, luxury goods, and components it integrates into its electronics and consumers goods supply chains (i.e. LEDs, DRAM, Flash, LCD screens, etc.)
Put this is context: the total value of China's services imports is less than the value of Belgium's services imports. Staggering. But true. And the gap isn't small either (it's more than $50bn.)
We're not going to make big, immediate, gains from a free trade deal with China. Simply, we export few things (Rolls Royce aero engines, and few others) that China imports, so even removing the tariffs isn't going to lead to big things in the near term.
No, which is why doing a trade deal with the US and India makes more sense as a priority than doing one with China
And vastly more so to have a close trading arrangement with the EU Like the one we're not going to have any more.
Ideally yes but that depends on the EU too and that goes right back to the original point that they export more goods here than we do there
How long are we to expect you to continue being a 'Brexit disaster' linkbot? I'd just like to know when to pay attention again.
It's already led to fresh money printing, the abandonment of the deficit target, a large and sudden devaluation in the £, claimed the career of the PM and a tiny but detectable uptick in Xenophobic speech and violence. The government who are now in favour of it have delayed it's legal launch for at least six months and there is a curious lack of detail of what it will mean in practice. Unlike many predictions the rEU has voided the Cameron deal, not offered us anything else much less a better deal and are now trolling s to get on with it. None of the above means it will be a disaster. However none of thw above justifies your shrill and abrasive assertion that we're sailing off into a glorious future. Let's see sunshine. This is a very long game.
I have never, before, during, or after EUref, claimed we are sailing off into a glorious future. I think we're buggered frankly, but we're buggered because of the fundamentals - current account deficit, bloated state, BOP, unbalanced economy, unproductive workforce - take your pick. These have been brought about by disastrous economic negligence by successive governments since 1997. Of all these issues, leaving a moribund customs union that takes 5 pence off a pot of humous is not the one that's going to keep me awake at night. Indeed it's the chink of opportunity that means we might just recover.
There is another contradiction/variable in all this. In the longer term if having ' Voted Leave, taken back control ' is seen as a success for Britain does that weaken or enhance the *cultural* arguments for Scottish Independence ? The good balance elite will have been proven wrong after all. Equally if Brexit solves nothing it was meant to solve, lowers trend growth and just makes us all a bit angrier and divided doesn't that undermine independence ? The idea of purist separation as a solution to long term complex structural problems will have been discredited.
I'm not saying the above is correct. I really don't know. It seems the emotional dynamics are very complex. Even chaotic.
Hollywood panics over Hillary behind the scenes at the Emmys. Luntz asked “Of the 20 closest people you know, how many of them are voting for Trump?” he asked. Long pause. “Exactly.”
Reminds me of the hundreds of luvvies who signed that BSE letter for the Grauniad. Completely out of touch with reality.
Always so, it is sometimes hard to even get acting work if you come out as a rightwinger which is why the most prominent rightwingers in the entertainment industry in the US and UK (Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzanneger, Kelsey Grammar, Julian Fellowes etc) tend to come out as such only after they have found success and amassed sufficient wealth. Indeed it is easier to come out as gay in Hollywood than it is as a Republican
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
Actually, I am not sure of that and I am a pro-Union Scot.
Hollywood panics over Hillary behind the scenes at the Emmys. Luntz asked “Of the 20 closest people you know, how many of them are voting for Trump?” he asked. Long pause. “Exactly.”
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
Well, I suppose if the sun expands and consumes the earth that will be true. I think I saw a headline today suggesting that was more imminent than once thought.
How many of the civilizations from 5,000 years ago are much thought of today?
The debates on the quality of generalship in the Second Punic War rage every day on here. Is the rest of the world so different. Surely not?
Hmmm: a woman who backed Madoff (and handed over large quantities of her customers' money to him). Clearly someone who's views we should trust.
Much of the City and Wall Street was duped by Madoff, including the last firm my father worked for before he retired. Clearly they could have made more checks but he was very canny. As for Horlick, managing big City funds while bringing up 6 children (including one who sadly died of Leukaemia) is still a very rare feat
She did not manage big city funds.
She managed Morgan Grenfell's UK investment business, assets ultimately totalling £18 billion and then set up her own funds
Managing an investment business - and I'm not even convinced she was that senior - is not the same as managing funds.
Whether she managed funds for private clients or assets for investment (and if you really want to be that technical yes it was more the latter) it really makes little difference to the general point
FWIW she's a good friend of my uncle's. Not been a Tory for a long time
There are a few other notable defectors to the LDs:
Hmmm: a woman who backed Madoff (and handed over large quantities of her customers' money to him). Clearly someone who's views we should trust.
Much of the City and Wall Street was duped by Madoff, including the last firm my father worked for before he retired. Clearly they could have made more checks but he was very canny. As for Horlick, managing big City funds while bringing up 6 children (including one who sadly died of Leukaemia) is still a very rare feat
She did not manage big city funds.
She managed Morgan Grenfell's UK investment business, assets ultimately totalling £18 billion and then set up her own funds
Managing an investment business - and I'm not even convinced she was that senior - is not the same as managing funds.
Whether she managed funds for private clients or assets for investment (and if you really want to be that technical yes it was more the latter) it really makes little difference to the general point
FWIW she's a good friend of my uncle's. Not been a Tory for a long time
There are a few other notable defectors to the LDs:
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
Well, I suppose if the sun expands and consumes the earth that will be true. I think I saw a headline today suggesting that was more imminent than once thought.
How many of the civilizations from 5,000 years ago are much thought of today?
The debates on the quality of generalship in the Second Punic War rage every day on here. Is the rest of the world so different. Surely not?
Similarly debates about the haddock wars, although I must plead ignorance as to whether this is prehistory or futurism.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
I fully expect someone to invent time travel and have the end of the universe narrated by David Attenborough.
Yes, sadly May seems more terrified of the Kipper/Trumpite/Alt-Right coalition than even Cameron was. Every policy seems utterly geared to soothe their whims. Unfortunately, as they do with everything else, these people will only ever view her as something it would be amusing to destroy. She needs to confront them or they will devour her.
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
Aid trucks have been hit by an air strike near the Syrian city of Aleppo, reports say, hours after the military declared the current cessation of violence was over.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
Well, I suppose if the sun expands and consumes the earth that will be true. I think I saw a headline today suggesting that was more imminent than once thought.
How many of the civilizations from 5,000 years ago are much thought of today?
The debates on the quality of generalship in the Second Punic War rage every day on here. Is the rest of the world so different. Surely not?
Similarly debates about the haddock wars, although I must plead ignorance as to whether this is prehistory or futurism.
Time is cyclical, there have been haddock wars before, there will be haddock wars again. If the 3rd fish war will be fought with enormo-haddock, the 4th will be fought with seaweed.
Question for Nick Palmer - would it be possible to get an e-mail address where I could drop you a line? It is about animal welfare and I think your Parliamentary knowledge would be a big help. Thanks.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
I fully expect someone to invent time travel and have the end of the universe narrated by David Attenborough.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
What excellent odds would those be, and are you a betting man? I feel a strange sense of inevitability about the answer to the latter.
Question for Nick Palmer - would it be possible to get an e-mail address where I could drop you a line? It is about animal welfare and I think your Parliamentary knowledge would be a big help. Thanks.
Question for Nick Palmer - would it be possible to get an e-mail address where I could drop you a line? It is about animal welfare and I think your Parliamentary knowledge would be a big help. Thanks.
Sure, it's not a secret - nickmp1 at aol dot com. Using "at" for @ here and "dot" for "." to avoid spambots picking it up. Glad to help if I can.
Of course Leavers will accept defeat in a 2nd referendum, because there isn't going to be one.
Leavers could accept cows could fly in a 2nd referendum too. Just as logical.
As I understand it, the proposed referendum is about the terms of Brexit rather than the principle. As the first referendum never asked what people wanted as an alternative, the follow up is reasonable. There's a hypothetical quandary should the British people reject the terms. There won't be a second referendum, however, because the Lib Dems are nowhere near power.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
What excellent odds would those be, and are you a betting man? I feel a strange sense of inevitability about the answer to the latter.
If only there were such a market, I would stake £20.
I would be quite prepared to put my money where my mouth is on this one. Although, admittedly, I only ever gamble what I can afford to lose :-)
On topic: makes perfect sense for Scottish independence support to fall - the stakes are suddenly a lot higher if there is a hard border at Berwick and potential tariffs.
Completely O/T but just on Theresa May. One thing we might be missing here with regards to how she looks at policy is the influence of her husband who is a PM at Capital Group: it is notorious for taking a very long-term view on investments and disregarding short-term wobbles. Moreover, by the nature of his job, he would have access to a wide range of CEOs / management across all sectors and geographies. That would give him a very useful insight into a whole range of issues. I cannot imagine some of this is not feeding back into TM.
Question for Nick Palmer - would it be possible to get an e-mail address where I could drop you a line? It is about animal welfare and I think your Parliamentary knowledge would be a big help. Thanks.
Sure, it's not a secret - nickmp1 at aol dot com. Using "at" for @ here and "dot" for "." to avoid spambots picking it up. Glad to help if I can.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
Given the UK and indeed humanity did not exist a trillion trillion trillion years ago (and maybe not even the universe too) its fate in another trillion trillion trillion years is not of much interest to most of us
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
Hmmm: no children?
No. I'm not at all sure that I would make a very good parent, but in any event the matter is academic. Myself and the other half lack the necessary variety of body parts to make babies :-)
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
Hollywood panics over Hillary behind the scenes at the Emmys. Luntz asked “Of the 20 closest people you know, how many of them are voting for Trump?” he asked. Long pause. “Exactly.”
If you go by anecdote and enthusiasm it's going to be a landslide for Trump. I think it may well happen.
I am sticking with Hillary by less than 1% but we shall see
Bet on Hillary, put your feet up and relax in the knowledge of small but pretty certain winnings.
Indeed but I am still expecting Trump to win Ohio (which will be hilarious for the hour or so liberals and establishment Republicans think he actually is going to be president)
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
The UK has been a thorn in the side of the EU for decades. Post-Brexit a United States of Europe becomes an achievable reality.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
What excellent odds would those be, and are you a betting man? I feel a strange sense of inevitability about the answer to the latter.
If only there were such a market, I would stake £20.
I would be quite prepared to put my money where my mouth is on this one. Although, admittedly, I only ever gamble what I can afford to lose :-)
Your proposition, your 'excellent' odds. Hills currently offer 10/11 on both answers to the question will Scotland vote for independence by the end of 2024. Obviously you'd be offering a much better price taking into account your prediction.
Of course Leavers will accept defeat in a 2nd referendum, because there isn't going to be one.
Leavers could accept cows could fly in a 2nd referendum too. Just as logical.
As I understand it, the proposed referendum is about the terms of Brexit rather than the principle. As the first referendum never asked what people wanted as an alternative, the follow up is reasonable. There's a hypothetical quandary should the British people reject the terms. There won't be a second referendum, however, because the Lib Dems are nowhere near power.
This second referendum nonsense is utterly meaningless.
The timetable is unworkable. If the plan is to put the terms of Brexit negotiations to a vote then it can only happen towards the end of the process. So you would need at least a 2 month campaign period before the vote - so that would start at the latest 21 months into the negotiation period and thus a vote to reject the terms (and thus halt the process?) would mean we have 4 weeks to get the rest of the EU to agree to suspend the exit process and allow us to retain our membership.
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
The UK has been a thorn in the side of the EU for decades. Post-Brexit a United States of Europe becomes an achievable reality.
Post-Brexit or post dissolution of the UK. The bet of the evening is which comes first?
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
Hmmm: no children?
No. I'm not at all sure that I would make a very good parent, but in any event the matter is academic. Myself and the other half lack the necessary variety of body parts to make babies :-)
I thought I read here before of a poll showing Trump significantly narrowing the lead in Penn. but the RCP list of polls shows a steady and healthy Clinton lead there. Was there something new, or is there no reason to think Penn is in play?
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
Indeed, if people think the Brexit terms are too hard at the next general election they can vote LD, if they think they are too soft they can vote UKIP, no need for a second referendum at all!
Hollywood panics over Hillary behind the scenes at the Emmys. Luntz asked “Of the 20 closest people you know, how many of them are voting for Trump?” he asked. Long pause. “Exactly.”
Question for Nick Palmer - would it be possible to get an e-mail address where I could drop you a line? It is about animal welfare and I think your Parliamentary knowledge would be a big help. Thanks.
Sure, it's not a secret - nickmp1 at aol dot com. Using "at" for @ here and "dot" for "." to avoid spambots picking it up. Glad to help if I can.
Nick: you're a pretty tech-savvy guy.
Why are you still using an AOL email address?
I'm going to guess inertia. It's why my wife still uses her maiden name for her email address.
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
Indeed, if people think the Brexit terms are too hard at the next general election they can vote LD, if they think they are too soft they can vote UKIP, no need for a second referendum at all!
And if Davis, Johnson and Fox can't come to terms in the first place, they can simply bury their head in their hands.
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
Indeed, if people think the Brexit terms are too hard at the next general election they can vote LD, if they think they are too soft they can vote UKIP, no need for a second referendum at all!
And if Davis, Johnson and Fox can't come to terms in the first place, they can simply bury their head in their hands.
But the b***ards will have f***ed the country by then.
Question for Nick Palmer - would it be possible to get an e-mail address where I could drop you a line? It is about animal welfare and I think your Parliamentary knowledge would be a big help. Thanks.
Sure, it's not a secret - nickmp1 at aol dot com. Using "at" for @ here and "dot" for "." to avoid spambots picking it up. Glad to help if I can.
Nick: you're a pretty tech-savvy guy.
Why are you still using an AOL email address?
I'm going to guess inertia. It's why my wife still uses her maiden name for her email address.
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
Indeed, if people think the Brexit terms are too hard at the next general election they can vote LD, if they think they are too soft they can vote UKIP, no need for a second referendum at all!
Indeed I think that is the aim, after all there is no mechanism to call a second referendum this side of a General Election.
The Idea is to be able to claim that the Brexit deal (likely to be unpopular with most Remainers and a fair chunk of Leavers) has no mandate. The point is to stir up Tory schisms rather than actually reverse Brexit.
There was an LD consultation on this, I am sure that I was not the only one opposing it.
I think you would be better warming yourself by the fire at the Lib Dem conference rather than posting this nonsense Mike.
All the Survation poll does is reverse the gains that their June poll showed after the Brexit referendum. Compared to March independence is now on binary at 47% compared to 48%.
What is more two other polls in the last few days -one before Survation (MORI) and one afterwards (Panelbase) also show independence at 48 per cent!
All of these results are above the 45 per cent on the independence referendum as do the other six full Scottish polls since June - never mind compared to the 27 per cent Salmond started with in 2012!!!
I know that you would like independence and the SNP (54% ON THE LATEST PARTY RATINGS) to fail but what is the point of selectively lifting from polls to support your prejudices when the full results are available on line
PERHAPS GIVEN THIS SITES LOVE IN WITH RUTH DAVIDSON YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS FROM THE SAME SURVATION POLL
"Nicola Sturgeon Remains Most Favourable Political Figure With The Scottish Public
The poll also shows that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is the most favourable political figure with the Scottish public. Nicola Sturgeon had a net favourability rating of +12 which compares to negative favourability ratings for all but one of the other figures in the poll. The only other person to have a positive rating was Ruth Davidson at +6.
As well as all the major party leaders in Scotland, Ms Sturgeon had more favourable ratings than some UK wide political figures such as Prime Minister Theresa May (-0.5) and the two candidates for the Labour Party leadership, Jeremy Corbyn (-29) and Owen Smith (-22)."
Question for Nick Palmer - would it be possible to get an e-mail address where I could drop you a line? It is about animal welfare and I think your Parliamentary knowledge would be a big help. Thanks.
Sure, it's not a secret - nickmp1 at aol dot com. Using "at" for @ here and "dot" for "." to avoid spambots picking it up. Glad to help if I can.
Nick: you're a pretty tech-savvy guy.
Why are you still using an AOL email address?
I'm going to guess inertia. It's why my wife still uses her maiden name for her email address.
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
Indeed, if people think the Brexit terms are too hard at the next general election they can vote LD, if they think they are too soft they can vote UKIP, no need for a second referendum at all!
This presupposes that the next General Election will be a proxy referendum on the terms of Brexit. It might be. But I doubt it.
I think you would be better warming yourself by the fire at the Lib Dem conference rather than posting this nonsense Mike.
All the Survation poll does is reverse the gains that their June poll showed after the Brexit referendum. Compared to March independence is now on binary at 47% compared to 48%.
What is more two other polls in the last few days -one before Survation (MORI) and one afterwards (Panelbase) also show independence at 48 per cent!
All of these results are above the 45 per cent on the independence referendum as do the other six full Scottish polls since June - never mind compared to the 27 per cent Salmond started with in 2012!!!
I know that you would like independence and the SNP (54% ON THE LATEST PARTY RATINGS) to fail but what is the point of selectively lifting from polls to support your prejudices when the full results are available on line
PERHAPS GIVEN THIS SITES LOVE IN WITH RUTH DAVIDSON YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS FROM THE SAME SURVATION POLL
"Nicola Sturgeon Remains Most Favourable Political Figure With The Scottish Public
The poll also shows that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is the most favourable political figure with the Scottish public. Nicola Sturgeon had a net favourability rating of +12 which compares to negative favourability ratings for all but one of the other figures in the poll. The only other person to have a positive rating was Ruth Davidson at +6.
As well as all the major party leaders in Scotland, Ms Sturgeon had more favourable ratings than some UK wide political figures such as Prime Minister Theresa May (-0.5) and the two candidates for the Labour Party leadership, Jeremy Corbyn (-29) and Owen Smith (-22)."
Of course Leavers will accept defeat in a 2nd referendum, because there isn't going to be one.
Leavers could accept cows could fly in a 2nd referendum too. Just as logical.
As I understand it, the proposed referendum is about the terms of Brexit rather than the principle. As the first referendum never asked what people wanted as an alternative, the follow up is reasonable. There's a hypothetical quandary should the British people reject the terms. There won't be a second referendum, however, because the Lib Dems are nowhere near power.
This second referendum nonsense is utterly meaningless.
The timetable is unworkable. If the plan is to put the terms of Brexit negotiations to a vote then it can only happen towards the end of the process. So you would need at least a 2 month campaign period before the vote - so that would start at the latest 21 months into the negotiation period and thus a vote to reject the terms (and thus halt the process?) would mean we have 4 weeks to get the rest of the EU to agree to suspend the exit process and allow us to retain our membership.
It is just unworkable
Well, yes. Referendums are never good ways to decide things.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
What excellent odds would those be, and are you a betting man? I feel a strange sense of inevitability about the answer to the latter.
If only there were such a market, I would stake £20.
I would be quite prepared to put my money where my mouth is on this one. Although, admittedly, I only ever gamble what I can afford to lose :-)
Your proposition, your 'excellent' odds. Hills currently offer 10/11 on both answers to the question will Scotland vote for independence by the end of 2024. Obviously you'd be offering a much better price taking into account your prediction.
That's whether or not Scotland will go. It doesn't say anything on whether or not the EU implodes first :-)
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
On the other hand, something like 32% of that 8% actually voted Leave and may be inclined to tell Farron where he can stick his second referendum.
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
The UK has been a thorn in the side of the EU for decades. Post-Brexit a United States of Europe becomes an achievable reality.
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
Indeed, if people think the Brexit terms are too hard at the next general election they can vote LD, if they think they are too soft they can vote UKIP, no need for a second referendum at all!
This presupposes that the next General Election will be a proxy referendum on the terms of Brexit. It might be. But I doubt it.
Good point. It will clearly be a vote about dialectical materialism.
Hollywood panics over Hillary behind the scenes at the Emmys. Luntz asked “Of the 20 closest people you know, how many of them are voting for Trump?” he asked. Long pause. “Exactly.”
I thought I read here before of a poll showing Trump significantly narrowing the lead in Penn. but the RCP list of polls shows a steady and healthy Clinton lead there. Was there something new, or is there no reason to think Penn is in play?
It was an old poll just dug up by Nate on fivethirtyeight.com - the only reason why Penn is in play is that Obama was there to call the Deplorables 'Sexist' as an additiona epithet.
His plea was basically
Hey you black boys - yo voted for me cos I was Black - so show your trust in my Successor. Hey you non black boys - Hillary is a woman - not to vote for her is sexist.
I think you would be better warming yourself by the fire at the Lib Dem conference rather than posting this nonsense Mike.
All the Survation poll does is reverse the gains that their June poll showed after the Brexit referendum. Compared to March independence is now on binary at 47% compared to 48%.
What is more two other polls in the last few days -one before Survation (MORI) and one afterwards (Panelbase) also show independence at 48 per cent!
All of these results are above the 45 per cent on the independence referendum as do the other six full Scottish polls since June - never mind compared to the 27 per cent Salmond started with in 2012!!!
I know that you would like independence and the SNP (54% ON THE LATEST PARTY RATINGS) to fail but what is the point of selectively lifting from polls to support your prejudices when the full results are available on line
PERHAPS GIVEN THIS SITES LOVE IN WITH RUTH DAVIDSON YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS FROM THE SAME SURVATION POLL
"Nicola Sturgeon Remains Most Favourable Political Figure With The Scottish Public
The poll also shows that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is the most favourable political figure with the Scottish public. Nicola Sturgeon had a net favourability rating of +12 which compares to negative favourability ratings for all but one of the other figures in the poll. The only other person to have a positive rating was Ruth Davidson at +6.
As well as all the major party leaders in Scotland, Ms Sturgeon had more favourable ratings than some UK wide political figures such as Prime Minister Theresa May (-0.5) and the two candidates for the Labour Party leadership, Jeremy Corbyn (-29) and Owen Smith (-22)."
Ah, as suspected, good for yes.
Yes had higher poll ratings before the first indyref from some pollsters than they are getting now
Hollywood panics over Hillary behind the scenes at the Emmys. Luntz asked “Of the 20 closest people you know, how many of them are voting for Trump?” he asked. Long pause. “Exactly.”
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
Two comments from a conversation I had with someone today about a friend of his who'd worked at CERN and various other similar institutions.
At CERN his view was that the only reason that Hawking was famous was his wheelchair .. his view on Cox was that "he was so stupid that he couldn't believe they have him an office"
I think you would be better warming yourself by the fire at the Lib Dem conference rather than posting this nonsense Mike.
All the Survation poll does is reverse the gains that their June poll showed after the Brexit referendum. Compared to March independence is now on binary at 47% compared to 48%.
What is more two other polls in the last few days -one before Survation (MORI) and one afterwards (Panelbase) also show independence at 48 per cent!
All of these results are above the 45 per cent on the independence referendum as do the other six full Scottish polls since June - never mind compared to the 27 per cent Salmond started with in 2012!!!
I know that you would like independence and the SNP (54% ON THE LATEST PARTY RATINGS) to fail but what is the point of selectively lifting from polls to support your prejudices when the full results are available on line
PERHAPS GIVEN THIS SITES LOVE IN WITH RUTH DAVIDSON YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS FROM THE SAME SURVATION POLL
"Nicola Sturgeon Remains Most Favourable Political Figure With The Scottish Public
The poll also shows that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is the most favourable political figure with the Scottish public. Nicola Sturgeon had a net favourability rating of +12 which compares to negative favourability ratings for all but one of the other figures in the poll. The only other person to have a positive rating was Ruth Davidson at +6.
As well as all the major party leaders in Scotland, Ms Sturgeon had more favourable ratings than some UK wide political figures such as Prime Minister Theresa May (-0.5) and the two candidates for the Labour Party leadership, Jeremy Corbyn (-29) and Owen Smith (-22)."
Ah, as suspected, good for yes.
Yes had higher poll ratings before the first indyref from some pollsters than they are getting now
OTOH the yes side picked up support during the last campaign, and it is hard to see the no side putting together a united or particularly driven campaign second time around, given the background.
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
Indeed, if people think the Brexit terms are too hard at the next general election they can vote LD, if they think they are too soft they can vote UKIP, no need for a second referendum at all!
This presupposes that the next General Election will be a proxy referendum on the terms of Brexit. It might be. But I doubt it.
It probably will be in the same sense as the 2005 election was largely a proxy referendum on the Iraq War, with the LDs against and New Labour for. In 2020 it will probably be just a year after Brexit has been completed and the consequences will start to be clear, especially with Labour still largely seen as unelectable (as the Tories still were in 2005)
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
Two comments from a conversation I had with someone today about a friend of his who'd worked at CERN and various other similar institutions.
At CERN his view was that the only reason that Hawking was famous was his wheelchair .. his view on Cox was that "he was so stupid that he couldn't believe they have him an office"
How can you say that after his keyboard playing for N:trance (or whoever it was)?
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
Indeed, if people think the Brexit terms are too hard at the next general election they can vote LD, if they think they are too soft they can vote UKIP, no need for a second referendum at all!
Indeed I think that is the aim, after all there is no mechanism to call a second referendum this side of a General Election.
The Idea is to be able to claim that the Brexit deal (likely to be unpopular with most Remainers and a fair chunk of Leavers) has no mandate. The point is to stir up Tory schisms rather than actually reverse Brexit.
There was an LD consultation on this, I am sure that I was not the only one opposing it.
Both the LDs and UKIP have most to gain from UKIP, either way there cleir pro Remain and pro Leave positions will help them pick up disaffected Labour and Tory voters however Brexit turns out
Hollywood panics over Hillary behind the scenes at the Emmys. Luntz asked “Of the 20 closest people you know, how many of them are voting for Trump?” he asked. Long pause. “Exactly.”
Farron's second referendum promise reminds me of abolishing Tuition Fees. It's great politics from a partisan advancement point of view provided the party never gets the chance to implement it. I've yet to see any evidence a second referendum would produce a day afferent outcome, indeed there are good reasons to think the Leave vote would be larger, and even if it did Leavers would just say ' best of three '. Then there is the case that it was a referendum that got us into the mess in the first place. The problem is if Farron's analysis is correct, that in 2 years time everything has gone tits up and 6 months before exit folk are very anxious about the reality, the danger is populist Brexiteers will give Farron what he's asking for.
I don't think that's necessarily true. People voted for Brexit on the basis of a variety of different assumptions of how it might turn out - some thought we could restrict immigration as much as we liked, for instance, which may turn out not to be true. Once negotiations are complete, we shall have a concrete option which people may like either more or less than they'd imagined in principle. In addition, by then we'll have a clearer idea of whether it's hleping or hurting the economy. A decision at that point would certainly take precedence over a decision in principle a couple of years earlier.
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
The UK has been a thorn in the side of the EU for decades. Post-Brexit a United States of Europe becomes an achievable reality.
Amongst the Benelux nations, Germany, perhaps Austria, Ireland, Finland and maybe France that is a possibility if they can overcome rising anti EU and anti immigration populism (all are in the Eurozone and economically are doing OK). Eastern and Central Europe, most of Scandinavia and for economic reasons probably most of Southern Europe will never be a part of a United States of Europe
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
Two comments from a conversation I had with someone today about a friend of his who'd worked at CERN and various other similar institutions.......... .. his view on Cox was that "he was so stupid that he couldn't believe they have him an office"
'To the extent that the EU currently appears to be a vehicle for some of the negatives of globalisation that people voted against in the referendum, this is a bug rather than a feature, and will be corrected as the current elected elite across Europe is replaced by a new generation.'
Just like the EU needs to reform stuff we've been hearing for the last 20 years but never happens.
Any bug,issue or disaster can only be fixed with more EU.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
Two comments from a conversation I had with someone today about a friend of his who'd worked at CERN and various other similar institutions.
At CERN his view was that the only reason that Hawking was famous was his wheelchair .. his view on Cox was that "he was so stupid that he couldn't believe they have him an office"
Such is the snobbery of the academic elite but Hawking and Cox have brought science to the masses in a way none of them have ever done!
I think you would be better warming yourself by the fire at the Lib Dem conference rather than posting this nonsense Mike.
All the Survation poll does is reverse the gains that their June poll showed after the Brexit referendum. Compared to March independence is now on binary at 47% compared to 48%.
What is more two other polls in the last few days -one before Survation (MORI) and one afterwards (Panelbase) also show independence at 48 per cent!
All of these results are above the 45 per cent on the independence referendum as do the other six full Scottish polls since June - never mind compared to the 27 per cent Salmond started with in 2012!!!
I know that you would like independence and the SNP (54% ON THE LATEST PARTY RATINGS) to fail but what is the point of selectively lifting from polls to support your prejudices when the full results are available on line
PERHAPS GIVEN THIS SITES LOVE IN WITH RUTH DAVIDSON YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS FROM THE SAME SURVATION POLL
"Nicola Sturgeon Remains Most Favourable Political Figure With The Scottish Public
The poll also shows that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is the most favourable political figure with the Scottish public. Nicola Sturgeon had a net favourability rating of +12 which compares to negative favourability ratings for all but one of the other figures in the poll. The only other person to have a positive rating was Ruth Davidson at +6.
As well as all the major party leaders in Scotland, Ms Sturgeon had more favourable ratings than some UK wide political figures such as Prime Minister Theresa May (-0.5) and the two candidates for the Labour Party leadership, Jeremy Corbyn (-29) and Owen Smith (-22)."
Ah, as suspected, good for yes.
Yes had higher poll ratings before the first indyref from some pollsters than they are getting now
How many such polls were there out of the total number of polls before the last referendum (good btw that you acknowledge that it was the first)?
I think you would be better warming yourself by the fire at the Lib Dem conference rather than posting this nonsense Mike.
All the Survation poll does is reverse the gains that their June poll showed after the Brexit referendum. Compared to March independence is now on binary at 47% compared to 48%.
What is more two other polls in the last few days -one before Survation (MORI) and one afterwards (Panelbase) also show independence at 48 per cent!
All of these results are above the 45 per cent on the independence referendum as do the other six full Scottish polls since June - never mind compared to the 27 per cent Salmond started with in 2012!!!
I know that you would like independence and the SNP (54% ON THE LATEST PARTY RATINGS) to fail but what is the point of selectively lifting from polls to support your prejudices when the full results are available on line
PERHAPS GIVEN THIS SITES LOVE IN WITH RUTH DAVIDSON YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS FROM THE SAME SURVATION POLL
"Nicola Sturgeon Remains Most Favourable Political Figure With The Scottish Public
The poll also shows that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is the most favourable political figure with the Scottish public. Nicola Sturgeon had a net favourability rating of +12 which compares to negative favourability ratings for all but one of the other figures in the poll. The only other person to have a positive rating was Ruth Davidson at +6.
As well as all the major party leaders in Scotland, Ms Sturgeon had more favourable ratings than some UK wide political figures such as Prime Minister Theresa May (-0.5) and the two candidates for the Labour Party leadership, Jeremy Corbyn (-29) and Owen Smith (-22)."
Ah, as suspected, good for yes.
Yes had higher poll ratings before the first indyref from some pollsters than they are getting now
OTOH the yes side picked up support during the last campaign, and it is hard to see the no side putting together a united or particularly driven campaign second time around, given the background.
Actually Davidson has an energy and passion Darling lacked and while Sturgeon is competent she lacks the same charisma as Salmond, if anything I could see a second referendum with a far more passionate and populist No campaign than the last one and a much more establishment Yes campaign, which given Yes is still behind can only benefit No
Hollywood panics over Hillary behind the scenes at the Emmys. Luntz asked “Of the 20 closest people you know, how many of them are voting for Trump?” he asked. Long pause. “Exactly.”
If you go by anecdote and enthusiasm it's going to be a landslide for Trump. I think it may well happen.
If we went by anecdote and enthusiasm, Scotland would be independent and Jeremy Corbyn our next Prime Minister.
...and Britain would have voted to leave the EU.
And this is my problem with the Trump-rampers. According to the betting markets, a Trump presidency is more likely than was a Conservative overall majority last year or Brexit this. We already know a Trump victory is possible: his fans need to convince us it is plausible, and that means identifying which states with how many ECVs he will win.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
Two comments from a conversation I had with someone today about a friend of his who'd worked at CERN and various other similar institutions.
At CERN his view was that the only reason that Hawking was famous was his wheelchair .. his view on Cox was that "he was so stupid that he couldn't believe they have him an office"
How can you say that after his keyboard playing for N:trance (or whoever it was)?
This second referendum is AFTER the negotiation with the EU right?
So we have two years of negotiation. Get a deal. Take it to the country and the country says NO!
Hence more years of uncertainty and paralysis only this time (as A50 would have be triggered) we'd be on the outside of the EU with a deal that's dead in the water because the electorate has rejected it.
I think you would be better warming yourself by the fire at the Lib Dem conference rather than posting this nonsense Mike.
All the Survation poll does is reverse the gains that their June poll showed after the Brexit referendum. Compared to March independence is now on binary at 47% compared to 48%.
What is more two other polls in the last few days -one before Survation (MORI) and one afterwards (Panelbase) also show independence at 48 per cent!
All of these results are above the 45 per cent on the independence referendum as do the other six full Scottish polls since June - never mind compared to the 27 per cent Salmond started with in 2012!!!
I know that you would like independence and the SNP (54% ON THE LATEST PARTY RATINGS) to fail but what is the point of selectively lifting from polls to support your prejudices when the full results are available on line
PERHAPS GIVEN THIS SITES LOVE IN WITH RUTH DAVIDSON YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS FROM THE SAME SURVATION POLL
"Nicola Sturgeon Remains Most Favourable Political Figure With The Scottish Public
The poll also shows that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is the most favourable political figure with the Scottish public. Nicola Sturgeon had a net favourability rating of +12 which compares to negative favourability ratings for all but one of the other figures in the poll. The only other person to have a positive rating was Ruth Davidson at +6.
As well as all the major party leaders in Scotland, Ms Sturgeon had more favourable ratings than some UK wide political figures such as Prime Minister Theresa May (-0.5) and the two candidates for the Labour Party leadership, Jeremy Corbyn (-29) and Owen Smith (-22)."
Ah, as suspected, good for yes.
Yes had higher poll ratings before the first indyref from some pollsters than they are getting now
How many such polls were there out of the total number of polls before the last referendum (good btw that you acknowledge that it was the first)?
Well Yougov for one had Yes ahead just 2 weeks before referendum day, No is now ahead with the same pollster!
'The widespread assumption pre-June 23rd was that UK voting LEAVE but Scotland going REMAIN would increase the pressure for independence. In fact the opposite appears to be the case.'
Yes, the paradox is that if Brexit were now being perceived as a breeze then the Sindy vote could well be storming ahead. The fact that Brexit is mired in uncertainty and strife has caused the Scots to hunker down. They, like all of us, feel paralysed until some glimmer of an objective appears on the horizon. Sturgeon will keep her powder try until England figures something out, or it all explodes amid its own contradictions.
You are missing the point that has been made repeatedly in Scotland, so often that it is impossible to ignore. Basically >4x of our exports go to rUK as go to the EU. We need a single market with rUK far, far more than we need one with the EU. Until the SNP know whether or not we are in the Single Market there are some very difficult questions to address.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
Really? So basically when we quadruple our trade with the rest of the world and increase our tax base by around 15% and we import a bit less we will be ready to go for independence? Maybe. Lets work towards that and see how we are doing in, say, 30 years.
'The widespread assumption pre-June 23rd was that UK voting LEAVE but Scotland going REMAIN would increase the pressure for independence. In fact the opposite appears to be the case.'
Yes, the paradox is that if Brexit were now being perceived as a breeze then the Sindy vote could well be storming ahead. The fact that Brexit is mired in uncertainty and strife has caused the Scots to hunker down. They, like all of us, feel paralysed until some glimmer of an objective appears on the horizon. Sturgeon will keep her powder try until England figures something out, or it all explodes amid its own contradictions.
You are missing the point that has been made repeatedly in Scotland, so often that it is impossible to ignore. Basically >4x of our exports go to rUK as go to the EU. We need a single market with rUK far, far more than we need one with the EU. Until the SNP know whether or not we are in the Single Market there are some very difficult questions to address.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
There's no need to re-frame it; it's a bald statement of fact. Your meandering off into misty-eyed batshit territory doesn't change it I'm afraid.
I think you would be better warming yourself by the fire at the Lib Dem conference rather than posting this nonsense Mike.
All the Survation poll does is reverse the gains that their June poll showed after the Brexit referendum. Compared to March independence is now on binary at 47% compared to 48%.
What is more two other polls in the last few days -one before Survation (MORI) and one afterwards (Panelbase) also show independence at 48 per cent!
All of these results are above the 45 per cent on the independence referendum as do the other six full Scottish polls since June - never mind compared to the 27 per cent Salmond started with in 2012!!!
I know that you would like independence and the SNP (54% ON THE LATEST PARTY RATINGS) to fail but what is the point of selectively lifting from polls to support your prejudices when the full results are available on line
PERHAPS GIVEN THIS SITES LOVE IN WITH RUTH DAVIDSON YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS FROM THE SAME SURVATION POLL
"Nicola Sturgeon Remains Most Favourable Political Figure With The Scottish Public
The poll also shows that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is the most favourable political figure with the Scottish public. Nicola Sturgeon had a net favourability rating of +12 which compares to negative favourability ratings for all but one of the other figures in the poll. The only other person to have a positive rating was Ruth Davidson at +6.
As well as all the major party leaders in Scotland, Ms Sturgeon had more favourable ratings than some UK wide political figures such as Prime Minister Theresa May (-0.5) and the two candidates for the Labour Party leadership, Jeremy Corbyn (-29) and Owen Smith (-22)."
Ah, as suspected, good for yes.
Yes had higher poll ratings before the first indyref from some pollsters than they are getting now
How many such polls were there out of the total number of polls before the last referendum (good btw that you acknowledge that it was the first)?
Well Yougov for one had Yes ahead just 2 weeks before polling day, No is now ahead with the same pollster!
So that's one poll out of polls from 'some' pollsters. Give us the rest of them, chop, chop.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
I'd say at least 99.9%
Although, of course, one day the last person to have even heard the words "the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland" will die...
And in about a trillion trillion trillion years all that will be left of the universe will be an ever-dispersing cloud of photons, slowly cooling towards absolute zero. At which point maximum entropy will have been achieved, further events will cease to occur and time itself will end. Or at least that's what I saw on a Brian Cox documentary. Makes everything seem rather pointless.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
Two comments from a conversation I had with someone today about a friend of his who'd worked at CERN and various other similar institutions.
At CERN his view was that the only reason that Hawking was famous was his wheelchair .. his view on Cox was that "he was so stupid that he couldn't believe they have him an office"
Not just his wheelchair. Not just his physics research either. And that's OK. The fact he has been severely disabled for most of his life, combined with an unusual talent for communication without even being able to speak, means Hawking has cut through others can only dream of.
To reframe it slightly, Scotland has a greater need to 'go global' (in the sense of being less reliant on trade with rUK) than rUK has in becoming less reliant on rEU.
The destiny of all of the British Isles is to be members of the mainstream union of European nations. Scotland has the opportunity to steal a march on England in recognising this reality.
But is the EU the correct model for European co-operation? Or, to put it another way, I'd say that the odds of the British Union outlasting the European one are excellent.
What excellent odds would those be, and are you a betting man? I feel a strange sense of inevitability about the answer to the latter.
If only there were such a market, I would stake £20.
I would be quite prepared to put my money where my mouth is on this one. Although, admittedly, I only ever gamble what I can afford to lose :-)
Comments
I'm not saying the above is correct. I really don't know. It seems the emotional dynamics are very complex. Even chaotic.
Fortunately, however, human beings aren't really made to imagine a world after their own death, let alone to comprehend cosmic timescales (I reckon the former is the main reason why religion is still so widespread: too many people still feel the need to believe in an afterlife.)
I expect the UK to last long after I'm dead and buried. But if it can just see me out then I won't have to have my miserably failed predictions thrown back at me. From a purely selfish point of view, that will suffice.
Of course Leavers will accept defeat in a 2nd referendum, because there isn't going to be one.
Leavers could accept cows could fly in a 2nd referendum too. Just as logical.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37413411
I feel a strange sense of inevitability about the answer to the latter.
http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/09/quietly-discrly-and-without-a-fanfare-the-government-buries-austerity.html
I would be quite prepared to put my money where my mouth is on this one. Although, admittedly, I only ever gamble what I can afford to lose :-)
Completely O/T but just on Theresa May. One thing we might be missing here with regards to how she looks at policy is the influence of her husband who is a PM at Capital Group: it is notorious for taking a very long-term view on investments and disregarding short-term wobbles. Moreover, by the nature of his job, he would have access to a wide range of CEOs / management across all sectors and geographies. That would give him a very useful insight into a whole range of issues. I cannot imagine some of this is not feeding back into TM.
Why are you still using an AOL email address?
It's a bit like a merger - the Board may be happy in principle, but they get to make a final decision after due diligence has taken place. Of course, the EU might object if we decided to stay after all, and legally under Article 50 the process appears unstoppable, but it isn't really - the EU has lots of track record in stopping clocks, freezing decisions and so forth when it wants to.
In any case, it certainly reflects a proportion of the population exceeding 8%, so it's a good LibDem campaign wheeze, as you say.
https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/777937388093988865
Hills currently offer 10/11 on both answers to the question will Scotland vote for independence by the end of 2024. Obviously you'd be offering a much better price taking into account your prediction.
The timetable is unworkable. If the plan is to put the terms of Brexit negotiations to a vote then it can only happen towards the end of the process. So you would need at least a 2 month campaign period before the vote - so that would start at the latest 21 months into the negotiation period and thus a vote to reject the terms (and thus halt the process?) would mean we have 4 weeks to get the rest of the EU to agree to suspend the exit process and allow us to retain our membership.
It is just unworkable
Lol.
Just like the certain winnings that many thought were available from betting on Remain ?
The Idea is to be able to claim that the Brexit deal (likely to be unpopular with most Remainers and a fair chunk of Leavers) has no mandate. The point is to stir up Tory schisms rather than actually reverse Brexit.
There was an LD consultation on this, I am sure that I was not the only one opposing it.
All the Survation poll does is reverse the gains that their June poll showed after the Brexit referendum. Compared to March independence is now on binary at 47% compared to 48%.
What is more two other polls in the last few days -one before Survation (MORI) and one afterwards (Panelbase) also show independence at 48 per cent!
All of these results are above the 45 per cent on the independence referendum as do the other six full Scottish polls since June - never mind compared to the 27 per cent Salmond started with in 2012!!!
I know that you would like independence and the SNP (54% ON THE LATEST PARTY RATINGS) to fail but what is the point of selectively lifting from polls to support your prejudices when the full results are available on line
PERHAPS GIVEN THIS SITES LOVE IN WITH RUTH DAVIDSON YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS FROM THE SAME SURVATION POLL
"Nicola Sturgeon Remains Most Favourable Political Figure With The Scottish Public
The poll also shows that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is the most favourable political figure with the Scottish public. Nicola Sturgeon had a net favourability rating of +12 which compares to negative favourability ratings for all but one of the other figures in the poll. The only other person to have a positive rating was Ruth Davidson at +6.
As well as all the major party leaders in Scotland, Ms Sturgeon had more favourable ratings than some UK wide political figures such as Prime Minister Theresa May (-0.5) and the two candidates for the Labour Party leadership, Jeremy Corbyn (-29) and Owen Smith (-22)."
His plea was basically
Hey you black boys - yo voted for me cos I was Black - so show your trust in my Successor.
Hey you non black boys - Hillary is a woman - not to vote for her is sexist.
So we have a Sexist Racist POTUS
At CERN his view was that the only reason that Hawking was famous was his wheelchair
.. his view on Cox was that "he was so stupid that he couldn't believe they have him an office"
'To the extent that the EU currently appears to be a vehicle for some of the negatives of globalisation that people voted against in the referendum, this is a bug rather than a feature, and will be corrected as the current elected elite across Europe is replaced by a new generation.'
Just like the EU needs to reform stuff we've been hearing for the last 20 years but never happens.
Any bug,issue or disaster can only be fixed with more EU.
So we have two years of negotiation. Get a deal. Take it to the country and the country says NO!
Hence more years of uncertainty and paralysis only this time (as A50 would have be triggered) we'd be on the outside of the EU with a deal that's dead in the water because the electorate has rejected it.
The man's a complete fool.
Evening Malc. Bit late for you?