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.
The man's a complete fool.
So what should the people of the UK do, if they do not like the deal ?
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.
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.
The man's a complete fool.
So what should the people of the UK do, if they do not like the deal ?
They'll be an election in 2020.
If the deal isn't a hard enough Brexit people can vote UKIP. If they'd rather rejoin the EU it's Lib-Dem, SNP (and presumably Labour)
If they are happy with the deal Theresa will be their gal.
The last thing anybody on either side needs is another referendum though.
Two homeless men discovered the backpack which contained five pipe bombs and saved hundreds of lives by reporting it to police, said Christian Bollwage, the mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey.
The backpack was found near a rubbish bin at a train station. It exploded as a police robot tried to deactivate the explosives.
"They carried this [backpack] 800 to 1,000 yards before they dropped it," Mr Bollwage said. They had initially thought that the backpack contained valuables because they saw the wires inside.
I love these stories where terrorists get thwarted by routine features of the cities they're trying to bomb. Bomb in London is illegally parked and gets towed away, bomber in Glasgow gets the shit kicked out of him by a baggage handler etc.
Two homeless men discovered the backpack which contained five pipe bombs and saved hundreds of lives by reporting it to police, said Christian Bollwage, the mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey.
The backpack was found near a rubbish bin at a train station. It exploded as a police robot tried to deactivate the explosives.
"They carried this [backpack] 800 to 1,000 yards before they dropped it," Mr Bollwage said. They had initially thought that the backpack contained valuables because they saw the wires inside.
I love these stories where terrorists get thwarted by routine features of the cities they're trying to bomb. Bomb in London is illegally parked and gets towed away, bomber in Glasgow gets the shit kicked out of him by a baggage handler etc.
"To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs."
Clinton is spending 97% of the advertising buy for the election!?!
"To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs."
Clinton is spending 97% of the advertising buy for the election!?!
What's Trump going to spend all his donation money on?
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.
In practice the UK could probably just withdraw its Article 50 notification. The rest of the EU would breathe a simultaneous sigh of exasperation and relief.
Thats a nonsense infographic. Australia and Canda are only right up there because they are the two countries that are constantly mentioned in the press and ones where it is said we can easily get a trade deal.
"To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs."
Clinton is spending 97% of the advertising buy for the election!?!
What's Trump going to spend all his donation money on?
Making a profit?
It is interesting though - Trump (of all people) is proving that maybe you can't just buy an election in the US.
"To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs."
Clinton is spending 97% of the advertising buy for the election!?!
What's Trump going to spend all his donation money on?
Making a profit?
It is interesting though - Trump (of all people) is proving that maybe you can't just buy an election in the US.
Good point, so far Trump has been doing a very good job of employing companies close to home.
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.
The man's a complete fool.
I think the choice would be remain within EU vs whatever Brexit deal actually emerges.
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.
Let's take Nate's current map (Polls-only forecast) as a starting point:
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"
On topic, the thing about Brexit is that it gives the nats their own FUD card to play in opposition to the Unionist FUD. You wouldn't really expect the result of that to show up until the campaign.
However, the timing is tricky, because avoiding Brexit after you know what Brexit will mean would involve doing Scottish independence on an improbably accelerated schedule. And May, who presumably wants to keep Scotland in, is in control of the timing.
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.
The man's a complete fool.
So what should the people of the UK do, if they do not like the deal ?
They'll be an election in 2020.
If the deal isn't a hard enough Brexit people can vote UKIP. If they'd rather rejoin the EU it's Lib-Dem, SNP (and presumably Labour)
If they are happy with the deal Theresa will be their gal.
The last thing anybody on either side needs is another referendum though.
What if there's no deal by then? What happens if those parties opposing a deal that has been reached get more than 50% of the vote?
Why should we fear giving voters the chance to deliver the final verdict as and when the time comes?
Unlike across the UK the Scottish opinion polls basically performed well during the Scottish referendum, the general election, the Scottish election and the Euro poll in Scotland. There is no evidence whatsoever of any bias towards independence or the SNP.
Therefore it is reasonable to compare current polls with the RESULT of the 2014 independence referendum. The last NINE polls since June have averaged 48 per cent. The last THREE over the last few days have also averaged 48 per cent. We can therefore conclude that support for independence currently is somewhat higher than 2014 but marginally short of 50 per cent. At any rate it is a close run thing and light years away from the position of 27 per cent in 2012.
Finally if you think a Tory led campaign is the way to save the union then who am I to dissuade you. I would just say Bring It On!
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.
Not sure what cut through is, but he does tend to be spectacularly wrong about everything. He bullied Peter Higgs for years about the non existence of the Higgs boson which then turned out to, actually, exist, and belly flopped even more painfully over information loss in black holes.
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.
The man's a complete fool.
So what should the people of the UK do, if they do not like the deal ?
They'll be an election in 2020.
If the deal isn't a hard enough Brexit people can vote UKIP. If they'd rather rejoin the EU it's Lib-Dem, SNP (and presumably Labour)
If they are happy with the deal Theresa will be their gal.
The last thing anybody on either side needs is another referendum though.
What if there's no deal by then? What happens if those parties opposing a deal that has been reached get more than 50% of the vote?
Why should we fear giving voters the chance to deliver the final verdict as and when the time comes?
Because if "No" won, we would be back in the current situation of not having a clue what that means.
Unlike across the UK the Scottish opinion polls basically performed well during the Scottish referendum, the general election, the Scottish election and the Euro poll in Scotland. There is no evidence whatsoever of any bias towards independence or the SNP.
Therefore it is reasonable to compare current polls with the RESULT of the 2014 independence referendum. The last NINE polls since June have averaged 48 per cent. The last THREE over the last few days have also averaged 48 per cent. We can therefore conclude that support for independence currently is somewhat higher than 2014 but marginally short of 50 per cent. At any rate it is a close run thing and light years away from the position of 27 per cent in 2012.
Finally if you think a Tory led campaign is the way to save the union then who am I to dissuade you. I would just say Bring It On!
This is not about the SNP (a few of whose supporters would vote No anyway) but about a second referendum and we know in the last referendum ALL the final polls overestimated Yes. Ruth Davidson is actually more popular in Scotland than Darling was too. However that is the last I am going to say this evening on a non-existent second independence referendum
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.
The man's a complete fool.
So what should the people of the UK do, if they do not like the deal ?
They'll be an election in 2020.
If the deal isn't a hard enough Brexit people can vote UKIP. If they'd rather rejoin the EU it's Lib-Dem, SNP (and presumably Labour)
If they are happy with the deal Theresa will be their gal.
The last thing anybody on either side needs is another referendum though.
What if there's no deal by then? What happens if those parties opposing a deal that has been reached get more than 50% of the vote?
Why should we fear giving voters the chance to deliver the final verdict as and when the time comes?
Because if "No" won, we would be back in the current situation of not having a clue what that means.
Two homeless men discovered the backpack which contained five pipe bombs and saved hundreds of lives by reporting it to police, said Christian Bollwage, the mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey.
The backpack was found near a rubbish bin at a train station. It exploded as a police robot tried to deactivate the explosives.
"They carried this [backpack] 800 to 1,000 yards before they dropped it," Mr Bollwage said. They had initially thought that the backpack contained valuables because they saw the wires inside.
I love these stories where terrorists get thwarted by routine features of the cities they're trying to bomb. Bomb in London is illegally parked and gets towed away, bomber in Glasgow gets the shit kicked out of him by a baggage handler etc.
Glasgow baggage handler was a classic....
And if the guy being kicked had had a detonator on him?
Thats a nonsense infographic. Australia and Canada are only right up there because they are the two countries that are constantly mentioned in the press and ones where it is said we can easily get a trade deal.
Look at the other table I posted, interesting that it is only UKIP and Leave voters who have Canada and Australia top, Tories have the US top, Labour and LD and Remain voters the EU top. Remain and LD voters have Canada bottom of their top 5, Tories have the EU bottom, UKIP and Leave voters do not even have the EU in their top 5!
Two homeless men discovered the backpack which contained five pipe bombs and saved hundreds of lives by reporting it to police, said Christian Bollwage, the mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey.
The backpack was found near a rubbish bin at a train station. It exploded as a police robot tried to deactivate the explosives.
"They carried this [backpack] 800 to 1,000 yards before they dropped it," Mr Bollwage said. They had initially thought that the backpack contained valuables because they saw the wires inside.
I love these stories where terrorists get thwarted by routine features of the cities they're trying to bomb. Bomb in London is illegally parked and gets towed away, bomber in Glasgow gets the shit kicked out of him by a baggage handler etc.
Glasgow baggage handler was a classic....
And if the guy being kicked had had a detonator on him?
In that case, it wouldn't have mattered if he kicked him or not.
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.
Let's take Nate's current map (Polls-only forecast) as a starting point:
To win all of IA OH FL NC is about 1 in 16 (actually a bit more but we'll keep things simple - say 1 in 10) Add in Nevada and Colorado takes it to 1 in 40. It is only because of MOE in Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that takes him anywhere near 1 in 2.5
Clinton is much more likely to win her 'close seats' than Trump is to win his. To get up to 50% Trump probably has to get over the line +1 more State going red.
Trump does, however have the 'Big Mo' whether he can sustain it for a week and get a debate boost remains to be seen. (Bear in mind that he will lose the debate in the post-debate analysis on CNN etc.)
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.
Let's take Nate's current map (Polls-only forecast) as a starting point:
Thats a nonsense infographic. Australia and Canada are only right up there because they are the two countries that are constantly mentioned in the press and ones where it is said we can easily get a trade deal.
Look at the other table I posted, interesting that it is only UKIP and Leave voters who have Canada and Australia top, Tories have the US top, Labour and LD and Remain voters the EU top. Remain and LD voters have Canada bottom of their top 5, Tories have the EU bottom, UKIP and Leave voters do not even have the EU in their top 5!
It's also a bollocks implication that the priority of seeking a deal should mirror GDP. Surely likelihood to impact our economy positively should be the method of prioritization, which is some product of expected value of trade x likelihood of negotiating a trade deal x time required to negotiate a trade deal. And, of course, there is nothing to preclude conducting trade negotiations with multiple counter parties in parallel.
Despite the fact the US authorities say they are aren't looking for anyone else, thats a very narrow statement.
They are because there are connections. This guy was networked and not just remotely, but with other conspirators in the US.
Who is he taking guidance from? IS have a tendency to stay quiet if its one of theirs (federated or directed) unless they actually die but in recent posts I've mentioned Al Qaeda. No one should rule them out.
Despite the fact the US authorities say they are aren't looking for anyone else, thats a very narrow statement.
They are because there are connections. This guy was networked and not just remotely, but with other conspirators in the US.
Who is he taking guidance from? IS have a tendency to stay quiet if its one of theirs (federated or directed) unless they actually die but in recent posts I've mentioned Al Qaeda. No one should rule them out.
I thought they arrested 4-5 other people in the past 24hrs in that area?
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.
In practice the UK could probably just withdraw its Article 50 notification. The rest of the EU would breathe a simultaneous sigh of exasperation and relief.
I don't think so.
Unless it was a decisive vote (>67%?) to stay in the EU, the EU would not want us. It would be more trouble than it could be worth.
No referendum can bind an external party. A second referendum would be the deal vs the hardest of hard Brexits.
It is not going to happen, short of a GE before A50 that leads to the Tories being out of power.
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.
The man's a complete fool.
So what should the people of the UK do, if they do not like the deal ?
They'll be an election in 2020.
If the deal isn't a hard enough Brexit people can vote UKIP. If they'd rather rejoin the EU it's Lib-Dem, SNP (and presumably Labour)
If they are happy with the deal Theresa will be their gal.
The last thing anybody on either side needs is another referendum though.
What if there's no deal by then? What happens if those parties opposing a deal that has been reached get more than 50% of the vote?
Why should we fear giving voters the chance to deliver the final verdict as and when the time comes?
It is unprecedented having a referendum over a trade deal. Referenda are usually reserved for political unions or electoral systems.
Thats a nonsense infographic. Australia and Canada are only right up there because they are the two countries that are constantly mentioned in the press and ones where it is said we can easily get a trade deal.
Look at the other table I posted, interesting that it is only UKIP and Leave voters who have Canada and Australia top, Tories have the US top, Labour and LD and Remain voters the EU top. Remain and LD voters have Canada bottom of their top 5, Tories have the EU bottom, UKIP and Leave voters do not even have the EU in their top 5!
It's also a bollocks implication that the priority of seeking a deal should mirror GDP. Surely likelihood to impact our economy positively should be the method of prioritization, which is some product of expected value of trade x likelihood of negotiating a trade deal x time required to negotiate a trade deal. And, of course, there is nothing to preclude conducting trade negotiations with multiple counter parties in parallel.
Indeed, which is why the US should probably be the biggest priority as it is the nation with which the UK has the largest trade surplus. Tory voters and indeed voters as a whole recognise this most and May was meeting US ceos today https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/777967696734457856
Thats a nonsense infographic. Australia and Canada are only right up there because they are the two countries that are constantly mentioned in the press and ones where it is said we can easily get a trade deal.
Look at the other table I posted, interesting that it is only UKIP and Leave voters who have Canada and Australia top, Tories have the US top, Labour and LD and Remain voters the EU top. Remain and LD voters have Canada bottom of their top 5, Tories have the EU bottom, UKIP and Leave voters do not even have the EU in their top 5!
It's also a bollocks implication that the priority of seeking a deal should mirror GDP. Surely likelihood to impact our economy positively should be the method of prioritization, which is some product of expected value of trade x likelihood of negotiating a trade deal x time required to negotiate a trade deal. And, of course, there is nothing to preclude conducting trade negotiations with multiple counter parties in parallel.
Surely the interest should be in countries that we could successfuly export to?
Is there any advantage to opening up to cheap Canadian food, cheap Australian coal and Iron ore, cheap NZ lamb? South Korean electrical goods, cars and ships?
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.
Let's take Nate's current map (Polls-only forecast) as a starting point:
To win all of IA OH FL NC is about 1 in 16 (actually a bit more but we'll keep things simple - say 1 in 10) Add in Nevada and Colorado takes it to 1 in 40. It is only because of MOE in Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that takes him anywhere near 1 in 2.5
Clinton is much more likely to win her 'close seats' than Trump is to win his. To get up to 50% Trump probably has to get over the line +1 more State going red.
Trump does, however have the 'Big Mo' whether he can sustain it for a week and get a debate boost remains to be seen. (Bear in mind that he will lose the debate in the post-debate analysis on CNN etc.)
The probabilities on Nate's site are meaningless. These aren't coin flips.
If he's ahead in the polls, then he'll win all 4 of IA, OH, FL & NC.
There's a false narrative constructed by the Mass Media of the invincible Democrats, who can't be beaten because of demographic changes.
If Democrats are so invincible then why have they lost control of the House, the Senate and a majority of State governments ?
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.
The man's a complete fool.
So what should the people of the UK do, if they do not like the deal ?
Vote in a government that would seek to halt the process. The only thing is, the EU will not simply say, "Yeah, let's stop Article 50" without quid pro quo such as 'no rebate' or 'join the Euro'.
Thats a nonsense infographic. Australia and Canada are only right up there because they are the two countries that are constantly mentioned in the press and ones where it is said we can easily get a trade deal.
Look at the other table I posted, interesting that it is only UKIP and Leave voters who have Canada and Australia top, Tories have the US top, Labour and LD and Remain voters the EU top. Remain and LD voters have Canada bottom of their top 5, Tories have the EU bottom, UKIP and Leave voters do not even have the EU in their top 5!
It's also a bollocks implication that the priority of seeking a deal should mirror GDP. Surely likelihood to impact our economy positively should be the method of prioritization, which is some product of expected value of trade x likelihood of negotiating a trade deal x time required to negotiate a trade deal. And, of course, there is nothing to preclude conducting trade negotiations with multiple counter parties in parallel.
Indeed, which is why the US should probably be the biggest priority as it is the nation with which the UK has the largest trade surplus. Tory voters and indeed voters as a whole recognise this most and May was meeting US ceos today https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/777967696734457856
Being in a Trade surplus with an America behind Trumps wall will not be good for us.
Brexiteers should be cheerleading Clinton not Trump.
Your points are simply incorrect. For example YouGov on the day was 54-46 for No, well within the margin of error.
The evidence from the Scottish referendum points to a very large No lead totally evaporating in August and September 2014 and then No regaining a small lead late on and post VOW from the three UK party leaders.
The evidence since the referendum is that YES have closed the gap again but not yet to 50-50 and stand hugely above their starting position when the referendum was declared in 2012.
The MORI poll which have been carelessly reported of late on Davidson's "popularity" was actually a measurement of "satisfaction" in the job which is a totally different thing. The SURVATION poll measures what could be reasonable called popularity and puts Sturgeon in front of everyone.
Finally for what it is worth I think Salmond is right about Autumn 2016 being the next date. Soon the referendum will be very much on.
Despite the fact the US authorities say they are aren't looking for anyone else, thats a very narrow statement.
They are because there are connections. This guy was networked and not just remotely, but with other conspirators in the US.
Who is he taking guidance from? IS have a tendency to stay quiet if its one of theirs (federated or directed) unless they actually die but in recent posts I've mentioned Al Qaeda. No one should rule them out.
I thought they arrested 4-5 other people in the past 24hrs in that area?
In press conference earlier they said they were not looking for anyone else in relation to the recent incidents and the Head of the FBI in NY said they had no indication Rahami was connected to any larger cell and had acted alone.
They questioned the bods in the SUV, not arrested them, apparently.
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.
In practice the UK could probably just withdraw its Article 50 notification. The rest of the EU would breathe a simultaneous sigh of exasperation and relief.
I don't think so.
Unless it was a decisive vote (>67%?) to stay in the EU, the EU would not want us. It would be more trouble than it could be worth.
Disagree. The EU is a collection of interlocking positive-sum agreements that benefit everybody's citizens. Unwinding them creates a huge amount of trouble and expense for everyone involved, not to mention the need to take a hatchet to the EU budget to fill the hole left by losing a rich country. The rest of the EU would rather Britain was in. Not so much that they'll jump through unlimited hoops, but nobody wants to kick the British out of they want to be in.
The UK is always a nuisance when it comes to instutional change, but other countries are too, and the core can always work around that with Enhanced Cooperation.
Thats a nonsense infographic. Australia and Canada are only right up there because they are the two countries that are constantly mentioned in the press and ones where it is said we can easily get a trade deal.
Look at the other table I posted, interesting that it is only UKIP and Leave voters who have Canada and Australia top, Tories have the US top, Labour and LD and Remain voters the EU top. Remain and LD voters have Canada bottom of their top 5, Tories have the EU bottom, UKIP and Leave voters do not even have the EU in their top 5!
It's also a bollocks implication that the priority of seeking a deal should mirror GDP. Surely likelihood to impact our economy positively should be the method of prioritization, which is some product of expected value of trade x likelihood of negotiating a trade deal x time required to negotiate a trade deal. And, of course, there is nothing to preclude conducting trade negotiations with multiple counter parties in parallel.
Surely the interest should be in countries that we could successfuly export to?
Is there any advantage to opening up to cheap Canadian food, cheap Australian coal and Iron ore, cheap NZ lamb? South Korean electrical goods, cars and ships?
What are we going to sell them in return?
Indeed, hence my first variable expected value of trade (to the UK was meant to be implicit).
In theoretical economic terms, yes there is value to the UK in importing cheaper goods based on comparative advantage, and the value need not be judged merely on a bilateral basis with each nation. The theoretical value comes from the font of all wealth creation - productivity gains and efficient use of resources through specialization. If we can buy something cheaper from Australia than we can from other sources or even from the UK, then we should, and the freed up labour, capital, land etc... from no longer making that in the UK should be applied to something where we have a comparative advantage.
That is the theory. In practice, I have always had some doubts ... Not that I am protectionist, I just don't think it works quite as smoothly as theory would have it.
Thats a nonsense infographic. Australia and Canada are only right up there because they are the two countries that are constantly mentioned in the press and ones where it is said we can easily get a trade deal.
Look at the other table I posted, interesting that it is only UKIP and Leave voters who have Canada and Australia top, Tories have the US top, Labour and LD and Remain voters the EU top. Remain and LD voters have Canada bottom of their top 5, Tories have the EU bottom, UKIP and Leave voters do not even have the EU in their top 5!
It's also a bollocks implication that the priority of seeking a deal should mirror GDP. Surely likelihood to impact our economy positively should be the method of prioritization, which is some product of expected value of trade x likelihood of negotiating a trade deal x time required to negotiate a trade deal. And, of course, there is nothing to preclude conducting trade negotiations with multiple counter parties in parallel.
Indeed, which is why the US should probably be the biggest priority as it is the nation with which the UK has the largest trade surplus. Tory voters and indeed voters as a whole recognise this most and May was meeting US ceos today https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/777967696734457856
Being in a Trade surplus with an America behind Trumps wall will not be good for us.
Brexiteers should be cheerleading Clinton not Trump.
If Trump is going to put tariffs on anyone it will be Mexico and China and he would prioritise the UK for a trade deal over the EU, Hillary would do the reverse, a Hillary win and a Democratic Congress would be the worst possible result for Brexit UK.
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.
The man's a complete fool.
So what should the people of the UK do, if they do not like the deal ?
Vote in a government that would seek to halt the process. The only thing is, the EU will not simply say, "Yeah, let's stop Article 50" without quid pro quo such as 'no rebate' or 'join the Euro'.
Disagree, a new deal like that is an added complication. The path of least resistance is to forget the whole thing.
Despite the fact the US authorities say they are aren't looking for anyone else, thats a very narrow statement.
They are because there are connections. This guy was networked and not just remotely, but with other conspirators in the US.
Who is he taking guidance from? IS have a tendency to stay quiet if its one of theirs (federated or directed) unless they actually die but in recent posts I've mentioned Al Qaeda. No one should rule them out.
I thought they arrested 4-5 other people in the past 24hrs in that area?
In press conference earlier they said they were not looking for anyone else in relation to the recent incidents and the Head of the FBI in NY said they had no indication Rahami was connected to any larger cell and had acted alone.
They questioned the bods in the SUV, not arrested them, apparently.
Your points are simply incorrect. For example YouGov on the day was 54-46 for No, well within the margin of error.
The evidence from the Scottish referendum points to a very large No lead totally evaporating in August and September 2014 and then No regaining a small lead late on and post VOW from the three UK party leaders.
The evidence since the referendum is that YES have closed the gap again but not yet to 50-50 and stand hugely above their starting position when the referendum was declared in 2012.
The MORI poll which have been carelessly reported of late on Davidson's "popularity" was actually a measurement of "satisfaction" in the job which is a totally different thing. The SURVATION poll measures what could be reasonable called popularity and puts Sturgeon in front of everyone.
Finally for what it is worth I think Salmond is right about Autumn 2016 being the next date. Soon the referendum will be very much on.
I have said before I am really not interested tonight in further discussion on a non-existent indyref but since you have replied and firstly confirmed that Yougov did overestimate Yes (and its eve of poll figures even more so), it should also be pointed out that pre-2014 polls are now irrelevant, to risk calling any referendum Yes needs to be polling comfortably ahead of where it was in the final indyref poll and have a clear and consistent poll lead. It is not and it is fact No who still lead. Until that changes there will be no second indyref as Sturgeon will not risk it as she herself has said (and even Salmond actually said Autumn 2018 not 2016)
Thats a nonsense infographic. Australia and Canada are only right up there because they are the two countries that are constantly mentioned in the press and ones where it is said we can easily get a trade deal.
Look at the other table I posted, interesting that it is only UKIP and Leave voters who have Canada and Australia top, Tories have the US top, Labour and LD and Remain voters the EU top. Remain and LD voters have Canada bottom of their top 5, Tories have the EU bottom, UKIP and Leave voters do not even have the EU in their top 5!
It's also a bollocks implication that the priority of seeking a deal should mirror GDP. Surely likelihood to impact our economy positively should be the method of prioritization, which is some product of expected value of trade x likelihood of negotiating a trade deal x time required to negotiate a trade deal. And, of course, there is nothing to preclude conducting trade negotiations with multiple counter parties in parallel.
Indeed, which is why the US should probably be the biggest priority as it is the nation with which the UK has the largest trade surplus. Tory voters and indeed voters as a whole recognise this most and May was meeting US ceos today https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/777967696734457856
Being in a Trade surplus with an America behind Trumps wall will not be good for us.
Brexiteers should be cheerleading Clinton not Trump.
If Trump is going to put tariffs on anyone it will be Mexico and China and he would prioritise the UK for a trade deal over the EU, Hillary would do the reverse, a Hillary win and a Democratic Congress would be the worst possible result for Brexit UK.
China certainly (though I do wonder who will buy US bonds if the Chinese stop buying them), but Trumps own website is very clear that hevwants to reduce imports from other countries, particularly those like us. The enforcement part of section 3 looks like further persecution of our financial services industry.
Thats a nonsense infographic. Australia and Canada are only right up there because they are the two countries that are constantly mentioned in the press and ones where it is said we can easily get a trade deal.
Look at the other table I posted, interesting that it is only UKIP and Leave voters who have Canada and Australia top, Tories have the US top, Labour and LD and Remain voters the EU top. Remain and LD voters have Canada bottom of their top 5, Tories have the EU bottom, UKIP and Leave voters do not even have the EU in their top 5!
It's also a bollocks implication that the priority of seeking a deal should mirror GDP. Surely likelihood to impact our economy positively should be
Indeed, which is why the US should probably be the biggest priority as it is the nation with which the UK has the largest trade surplus. Tory voters and indeed voters as a whole recognise this most and May was meeting US ceos today https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/777967696734457856
Being in a Trade surplus with an America behind Trumps wall will not be good for us.
Brexiteers should be cheerleading Clinton not Trump.
If Trump is going to put tariffs on anyone it will be Mexico and China and he would prioritise the UK for a trade deal over the EU, Hillary would do the reverse, a Hillary win and a Democratic Congress would be the worst possible result for Brexit UK.
China certainly (though I do wonder who will buy US bonds if the Chinese stop buying them), but Trumps own website is very clear that hevwants to reduce imports from other countries, particularly those like us. The enforcement part of section 3 looks like further persecution of our financial services industry.
Of course it could all be lies from Trump, but perhaps he actually means it.
Section 3 is all anti NAFTA (for which read EU too) and TPP and applying tariffs and duties to countries which cheat, ie nothing directed against the UK.
The best result for the UK would probably be a Trump Presidency and a Democratic Congress, the second best a Trump Presidency and a GOP Congress, the third best a Hillary Presidency and a GOP Congress, the worst would be a Hillary Presidency and a Democratic Congress which would be explicitly pro EU and really would put Brexit UK 'at the back of the queue' for any trade deal
The fact that you make so much of an obvious typo -2016 rather than 2018 - and Yougov being out by a full 1 per cent shows the weakness of your case.
The polls moved strongly to YES during the 2014 campaign and against them over the last few days. There is no evidence of any in built bias towards YES. It is like saying the 27% YES of 2012 shows an inbuilt bias towards NO.
Therefore the current polling average of 48 per cent shows YES higher than the 2014 result but not yet at parity. However, it is a transformed starting point for a campaign compared with last time around. Note also that the vast majority of Scots according to Panelbase yesterday now EXPECT Scotland to be independent in the next few years and a majority (54 per cent) on the same poll want a referendum either within or around about the next two to three years.
These are the reasons that I think Salmond is correct in suggesting another referendum around the Autumn of 2018.
"Scotland Yard is urging the home secretary, Amber Rudd, to intervene in the case of woman from Sierra Leone who carries out female genital mutilation and is said to be seeking entry into the UK.
The Metropolitan police applied to the high court for a female genital mutilation protection order and a further order to prevent the woman from entering the UK.
Mr Justice Holman, however, sitting in London, said the question of whether the woman could enter the country was a matter for the secretary of state, not the court."
The fact that you make so much of an obvious typo -2016 rather than 2018 - and Yougov being out by a full 1 per cent shows the weakness of your case.
The polls moved strongly to YES during the 2014 campaign and against them over the last few days. There is no evidence of any in built bias towards YES. It is like saying the 27% YES of 2012 shows an inbuilt bias towards NO.
Therefore the current polling average of 48 per cent shows YES higher than the 2014 result but not yet at parity. However, it is a transformed starting point for a campaign compared with last time around. Note also that the vast majority of Scots according to Panelbase yesterday now EXPECT Scotland to be independent in the next few years and a majority (54 per cent) on the same poll want a referendum either within or around about the next two to three years.
These are the reasons that I think Salmond is correct in suggesting another referendum around the Autumn of 2018.
Your case is based on running a referendum now and losing it, which Sturgeon will not do as unlike you she actually has some common sense and she knows if she loses it now that will probably kill off independence for the rest of her career. These polls are all post Brexit which has been the only material change in circumstances since indyref and the polls are all quite clear most Scots do not want a referendum while Brexit is ongoing. Indyref produced the maximum number of voters who would vote for independence now and Brexit has done little to then lead to a majority for their side, those who voted No remain Unionists and that is not changing anytime soon, a referendum tomorrow would be lost by the Yes side. That is my final word on the subject and this pointless discussion of a non-existent referendum. Goodnight
Terror suspect was arrested for STABBING but a grand jury let him walk despite cop's warning he was 'a danger' - as it's revealed he was a deadbeat dad who hated America and gays
Thats a nonsense infographic. Australia and Canada are only right up there because they are the two countries that are constantly mentioned in the press and ones where it is said we can easily get a trade deal.
Look at the other table I posted, interesting that it is only UKIP and Leave voters who have Canada and Australia top, Tories have the US top, Labour and LD and Remain voters the EU top. Remain and LD voters have Canada bottom of their top 5, Tories have the EU bottom, UKIP and Leave voters do not even have the EU in their top 5!
It's also a bollocks implication that the priority of seeking a deal should mirror GDP. Surely likelihood to impact our economy positively should be the method of prioritization, which is some product of expected value of trade x likelihood of negotiating a trade deal x time required to negotiate a trade deal. And, of course, there is nothing to preclude conducting trade negotiations with multiple counter parties in parallel.
Indeed, which is why the US should probably be the biggest priority as it is the nation with which the UK has the largest trade surplus. Tory voters and indeed voters as a whole recognise this most and May was meeting US ceos today https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/777967696734457856
Being in a Trade surplus with an America behind Trumps wall will not be good for us.
Brexiteers should be cheerleading Clinton not Trump.
If Trump is going to put tariffs on anyone it will be Mexico and China and he would prioritise the UK for a trade deal over the EU, Hillary would do the reverse, a Hillary win and a Democratic Congress would be the worst possible result for Brexit UK.
China certainly (though I do wonder who will buy US bonds if the Chinese stop buying them), but Trumps own website is very clear that hevwants to reduce imports from other countries, particularly those like us. The enforcement part of section 3 looks like further persecution of our financial services industry.
The support for another referendum was tested in the Panelbase poll in the Sunday Times yesterday. The results were
33% the next two or three years, while the UK is negotiating to leave the EU
21% About two or three years from now, when the UK has finished negotiating to leave the EU
46% There should not be another Scottish independence referendum in the next few years
I suggest that means 54% support a referendum within or "about" two or three years from now. I doubt very much if Salmond is saying something of which Sturgeon disaproves. They have acted together throughout their time in politics and he knows her mind better than anyone.
You may not like it but soon there shall be another independence referendum unless the UK Government accedes to Scotland on Europe. I do not think they will, therefore there shall be a ballot, and I also think YES will win.
Even if there was a YES vote, Independence for Scotland would not happen until after the UK had left the EU. That would leave Scotland alone and in total limbo. Not a good option for a small country that does 75% of its trade with a much larger neighbour and has a budget deficit.
The support for another referendum was tested in the Panelbase poll in the Sunday Times yesterday. The results were
33% the next two or three years, while the UK is negotiating to leave the EU
21% About two or three years from now, when the UK has finished negotiating to leave the EU
46% There should not be another Scottish independence referendum in the next few years
I suggest that means 54% support a referendum within or "about" two or three years from now. I doubt very much if Salmond is saying something of which Sturgeon disaproves. They have acted together throughout their time in politics and he knows her mind better than anyone.
You may not like it but soon there shall be another independence referendum unless the UK Government accedes to Scotland on Europe. I do not think they will, therefore there shall be a ballot, and I also think YES will win.
A plurality do not even want another referendum after the UK leaves the EU which suggests Leave would win it
Carlotta - you are incorrect. I was a convert to YES during the 2014 campaign and at no stage did I think we could win. I was frankly astonished that Salmond got us so close.
Red - The point is about the 54% is that it is people who recognise that the best time to hold a referendum is when Scotland could continue seamlessly as part of the European markeplace. I am one of them. Fortunately that is also the view of Guy Verhofstadt the European Parliament's chief negotiator on Brexit!
HYUFD - If plurality is what counts then there is in the same poll a plurality of people who favour Scotland as an independent member of the EU. People who do not want a referendum in or about the next two to three years are not all NO voters. For example the anonymous SNP MP cited by the Herald yesterday who wants to wait until the Tories are re-elected in 2020!!!. Of course I accept that does rely on the Herald journalist being truthful which is a large assumption. However, there are undoubtedly some cautious people in the ranks of the SNP who are prepared to play a long game.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014
If the deal isn't a hard enough Brexit people can vote UKIP. If they'd rather rejoin the EU it's Lib-Dem, SNP (and presumably Labour)
If they are happy with the deal Theresa will be their gal.
The last thing anybody on either side needs is another referendum though.
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160919/chelsea/thieves-helped-crack-chelsea-bombing-case-sources-say
I love these stories where terrorists get thwarted by routine features of the cities they're trying to bomb. Bomb in London is illegally parked and gets towed away, bomber in Glasgow gets the shit kicked out of him by a baggage handler etc.
"To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs."
Clinton is spending 97% of the advertising buy for the election!?!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/brexit-compromise-is-the-word-used-in-stockholm-these-days?utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid==socialflow-twitter-business
It is interesting though - Trump (of all people) is proving that maybe you can't just buy an election in the US.
He might end up a proper billionaire after all...
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Trump wins all the light-red states: IA, OH, FL & NC
He's already at 259 EVs. Only 11 away from victory.
He's very close in NV. Nate gives him a 49.9% chance. He takes that too.
He's now at 265 EV. Only 5 away from victory.
Recent Ipsos, Emerson & SurveyMonkey show either a tie or him leading in Colorado (a state which Bush won). That means victory.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/DAVdd
However, the timing is tricky, because avoiding Brexit after you know what Brexit will mean would involve doing Scottish independence on an improbably accelerated schedule. And May, who presumably wants to keep Scotland in, is in control of the timing.
Why should we fear giving voters the chance to deliver the final verdict as and when the time comes?
Unlike across the UK the Scottish opinion polls basically performed well during the Scottish referendum, the general election, the Scottish election and the Euro poll in Scotland. There is no evidence whatsoever of any bias towards independence or the SNP.
Therefore it is reasonable to compare current polls with the RESULT of the 2014 independence referendum. The last NINE polls since June have averaged 48 per cent. The last THREE over the last few days have also averaged 48 per cent. We can therefore conclude that support for independence currently is somewhat higher than 2014 but marginally short of 50 per cent. At any rate it is a close run thing and light years away from the position of 27 per cent in 2012.
Finally if you think a Tory led campaign is the way to save the union then who am I to dissuade you. I would just say Bring It On!
Add in Nevada and Colorado takes it to 1 in 40. It is only because of MOE in Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that takes him anywhere near 1 in 2.5
Clinton is much more likely to win her 'close seats' than Trump is to win his. To get up to 50% Trump probably has to get over the line +1 more State going red.
Trump does, however have the 'Big Mo' whether he can sustain it for a week and get a debate boost remains to be seen. (Bear in mind that he will lose the debate in the post-debate analysis on CNN etc.)
Despite the fact the US authorities say they are aren't looking for anyone else, thats a very narrow statement.
They are because there are connections. This guy was networked and not just remotely, but with other conspirators in the US.
Who is he taking guidance from? IS have a tendency to stay quiet if its one of theirs (federated or directed) unless they actually die but in recent posts I've mentioned Al Qaeda. No one should rule them out.
Unless it was a decisive vote (>67%?) to stay in the EU, the EU would not want us. It would be more trouble than it could be worth.
No referendum can bind an external party. A second referendum would be the deal vs the hardest of hard Brexits.
It is not going to happen, short of a GE before A50 that leads to the Tories being out of power.
Infamous Lecturer Who Trashed Sir Tim Hunt Has Her Course Axed
http://heatst.com/world/has-the-infamous-lecturer-who-trashed-sir-tim-hunt-had-her-course-hours-cut/
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/777967696734457856
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/777839548541829120
Is there any advantage to opening up to cheap Canadian food, cheap Australian coal and Iron ore, cheap NZ lamb? South Korean electrical goods, cars and ships?
What are we going to sell them in return?
If he's ahead in the polls, then he'll win all 4 of IA, OH, FL & NC.
There's a false narrative constructed by the Mass Media of the invincible Democrats, who can't be beaten because of demographic changes.
If Democrats are so invincible then why have they lost control of the House, the Senate and a majority of State governments ?
Vote in a government that would seek to halt the process. The only thing is, the EU will not simply say, "Yeah, let's stop Article 50" without quid pro quo such as 'no rebate' or 'join the Euro'.
Brexiteers should be cheerleading Clinton not Trump.
Your points are simply incorrect. For example YouGov on the day was 54-46 for No, well within the margin of error.
The evidence from the Scottish referendum points to a very large No lead totally evaporating in August and September 2014 and then No regaining a small lead late on and post VOW from the three UK party leaders.
The evidence since the referendum is that YES have closed the gap again but not yet to 50-50 and stand hugely above their starting position when the referendum was declared in 2012.
The MORI poll which have been carelessly reported of late on Davidson's "popularity" was actually a measurement of "satisfaction" in the job which is a totally different thing. The SURVATION poll measures what could be reasonable called popularity and puts Sturgeon in front of everyone.
Finally for what it is worth I think Salmond is right about Autumn 2016 being the next date. Soon the referendum will be very much on.
They questioned the bods in the SUV, not arrested them, apparently.
Thats the authorities' statements.
The UK is always a nuisance when it comes to instutional change, but other countries are too, and the core can always work around that with Enhanced Cooperation.
In theoretical economic terms, yes there is value to the UK in importing cheaper goods based on comparative advantage, and the value need not be judged merely on a bilateral basis with each nation. The theoretical value comes from the font of all wealth creation - productivity gains and efficient use of resources through specialization. If we can buy something cheaper from Australia than we can from other sources or even from the UK, then we should, and the freed up labour, capital, land etc... from no longer making that in the UK should be applied to something where we have a comparative advantage.
That is the theory. In practice, I have always had some doubts ... Not that I am protectionist, I just don't think it works quite as smoothly as theory would have it.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/economic-vision
Of course it could all be lies from Trump, but perhaps he actually means it.
The best result for the UK would probably be a Trump Presidency and a Democratic Congress, the second best a Trump Presidency and a GOP Congress, the third best a Hillary Presidency and a GOP Congress, the worst would be a Hillary Presidency and a Democratic Congress which would be explicitly pro EU and really would put Brexit UK 'at the back of the queue' for any trade deal
The fact that you make so much of an obvious typo -2016 rather than 2018 - and Yougov being out by a full 1 per cent shows the weakness of your case.
The polls moved strongly to YES during the 2014 campaign and against them over the last few days. There is no evidence of any in built bias towards YES. It is like saying the 27% YES of 2012 shows an inbuilt bias towards NO.
Therefore the current polling average of 48 per cent shows YES higher than the 2014 result but not yet at parity. However, it is a transformed starting point for a campaign compared with last time around. Note also that the vast majority of Scots according to Panelbase yesterday now EXPECT Scotland to be independent in the next few years and a majority (54 per cent) on the same poll want a referendum either within or around about the next two to three years.
These are the reasons that I think Salmond is correct in suggesting another referendum around the Autumn of 2018.
The Metropolitan police applied to the high court for a female genital mutilation protection order and a further order to prevent the woman from entering the UK.
Mr Justice Holman, however, sitting in London, said the question of whether the woman could enter the country was a matter for the secretary of state, not the court."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/19/police-urge-home-secretary-to-ban-fgm-practitioner-from-entering-uk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3797290/Terror-suspect-arrested-STABBING-grand-jury-let-walk-despite-cop-s-warning-danger-s-revealed-deadbeat-dad-hated-America-gays.html
Story seems to be changing...was no previous, to tried to sue the authorities to previous arrests for assault, gun charges and stabbings...
HYUFD
The support for another referendum was tested in the Panelbase poll in the Sunday Times yesterday. The results were
33% the next two or three years, while the UK is
negotiating to leave the EU
21% About two or three years from now, when the UK
has finished negotiating to leave the EU
46% There should not be another Scottish
independence referendum in the next few years
I suggest that means 54% support a referendum within or "about" two or three years from now. I doubt very much if Salmond is saying something of which Sturgeon disaproves. They have acted together throughout their time in politics and he knows her mind better than anyone.
You may not like it but soon there shall be another independence referendum unless the UK Government accedes to Scotland on Europe. I do not think they will, therefore there shall be a ballot, and I also think YES will win.
Carlotta - you are incorrect. I was a convert to YES during the 2014 campaign and at no stage did I think we could win. I was frankly astonished that Salmond got us so close.
Red - The point is about the 54% is that it is people who recognise that the best time to hold a referendum is when Scotland could continue seamlessly as part of the European markeplace. I am one of them. Fortunately that is also the view of Guy Verhofstadt the European Parliament's chief negotiator on Brexit!
HYUFD - If plurality is what counts then there is in the same poll a plurality of people who favour Scotland as an independent member of the EU. People who do not want a referendum in or about the next two to three years are not all NO voters. For example the anonymous SNP MP cited by the Herald yesterday who wants to wait until the Tories are re-elected in 2020!!!. Of course I accept that does rely on the Herald journalist being truthful which is a large assumption. However, there are undoubtedly some cautious people in the ranks of the SNP who are prepared to play a long game.