Unionism certainly seems prone to violent mood swings.
'Officially, Cameron’s Government is making no contingency plans for Scotland’s secession. But unofficially, the mood is bleak. Some of the Prime Minister’s chief strategists now argue that the battle is lost and that a Yes vote is not only possible but probable.'
And nationalism seems prone to logic-deficient hectoring. Some of the comments on that Telegraph article (You are an ignorant *?#[% of the highest order... Don't let that stop you talking pish), Nicola Sturgeon on QT last night, some people here as well. So much ad hominem deflection of the arguments, and refusal to acknowledge that things might not be as simple as the Yes camp want them to be.
Unionism certainly seems prone to violent mood swings.
'Officially, Cameron’s Government is making no contingency plans for Scotland’s secession. But unofficially, the mood is bleak. Some of the Prime Minister’s chief strategists now argue that the battle is lost and that a Yes vote is not only possible but probable.'
UKIP seem to have polled more than 20% in all yesterday's by-elections apart from Brixton/Vassall where 4% was pretty respectable considering it's about as unpromising territory for the party as could be imagined.
Unionism certainly seems prone to violent mood swings.
'Officially, Cameron’s Government is making no contingency plans for Scotland’s secession. But unofficially, the mood is bleak. Some of the Prime Minister’s chief strategists now argue that the battle is lost and that a Yes vote is not only possible but probable.'
And nationalism seems prone to logic-deficient hectoring. Some of the comments on that Telegraph article (You are an ignorant *?#[% of the highest order... Don't let that stop you talking pish), Nicola Sturgeon on QT last night, some people here as well. So much ad hominem deflection of the arguments, and refusal to acknowledge that things might not be as simple as the Yes camp want them to be.
For some unaccountable reason you appear not to have noticed those numerous comments describing Scotland as a current and future economic basket case & Scots as benefit addicted, gutless spongers that 'England' would be well rid off. Perhaps you think these are the arguments that should be countered?
I'll give you a clue, no-one goes to a Telegraph comment section to address the 'arguments'.
*How many points does Labour have to win by to not need Scottish seats?*
I'm getting nervous about the IndyRef now, not so much by today's Telegraph article (although it hasn't helped) but because No are losing the campaign. We see it on here all the time – people concentrating on sophistry about the EU and Sterling. Last night reached new levels of geekery with absurd leaps of logic that "Scotland is not currently in the EU". It was like debating at sixth form with the class geek.
Wise up. THIS WHATABOUTTERY IS THE WRONG STRATEGY.
We need to make the emotional, philosophical case for the union or the very clever Salmond and Sturgeon will run rings around us. They are both extremely talented politicians who, by a twist of fate, have ended up in a nationalist party rather than one of the three mainstream ones.
Unionism certainly seems prone to violent mood swings.
'Officially, Cameron’s Government is making no contingency plans for Scotland’s secession. But unofficially, the mood is bleak. Some of the Prime Minister’s chief strategists now argue that the battle is lost and that a Yes vote is not only possible but probable.'
A dangerous game to play Sean. Many a PBer has been exiled to ConservativeHome for a number of years merely for uttering the words "Scottish subsample".
Unionism certainly seems prone to violent mood swings.
'Officially, Cameron’s Government is making no contingency plans for Scotland’s secession. But unofficially, the mood is bleak. Some of the Prime Minister’s chief strategists now argue that the battle is lost and that a Yes vote is not only possible but probable.'
*How many points does Labour have to win by to not need Scottish seats?*
I'm getting nervous about the IndyRef now, not so much by today's Telegraph article (although it hasn't helped) but because No are losing the campaign. We see it on here all the time – people concentrating on sophistry about the EU and Sterling. Last night reached new levels of geekery with absurd leaps of logic that "Scotland is not currently in the EU". It was like debating at sixth form with the class geek.
Wise up. THIS WHATABOUTTERY IS THE WRONG STRATEGY.
We need to make the emotional, philosophical case for the union or the very clever Salmond and Sturgeon will run rings around us. They are both extremely talented politicians who, by a twist of fate, have ended up in a nationalist party rather than one of the three mainstream ones.
The SNP will always have a fundamental and permanent advantage in that Scotland is the Alpha and Omega of their existence. For labour, and the lib dems and the tories, it is not.
Scottish labour is subservient to Westminster Labour, and it always will be.. Unless the Westminster Scottish labour start fighting tooth and claw, they're in trouble.
*How many points does Labour have to win by to not need Scottish seats?*
I'm getting nervous about the IndyRef now, not so much by today's Telegraph article (although it hasn't helped) but because No are losing the campaign. We see it on here all the time – people concentrating on sophistry about the EU and Sterling. Last night reached new levels of geekery with absurd leaps of logic that "Scotland is not currently in the EU". It was like debating at sixth form with the class geek.
Wise up. THIS WHATABOUTTERY IS THE WRONG STRATEGY.
We need to make the emotional, philosophical case for the union or the very clever Salmond and Sturgeon will run rings around us. They are both extremely talented politicians who, by a twist of fate, have ended up in a nationalist party rather than one of the three mainstream ones.
I agree. It's much easier to argue for change, given that change rarely has baggage attached.
Unionism certainly seems prone to violent mood swings.
'Officially, Cameron’s Government is making no contingency plans for Scotland’s secession. But unofficially, the mood is bleak. Some of the Prime Minister’s chief strategists now argue that the battle is lost and that a Yes vote is not only possible but probable.'
And nationalism seems prone to logic-deficient hectoring. Some of the comments on that Telegraph article (You are an ignorant *?#[% of the highest order... Don't let that stop you talking pish), Nicola Sturgeon on QT last night, some people here as well. So much ad hominem deflection of the arguments, and refusal to acknowledge that things might not be as simple as the Yes camp want them to be.
For some unaccountable reason you appear not to have noticed those numerous comments describing Scotland as a current and future economic basket case & Scots as benefit addicted, gutless spongers that 'England' would be well rid off. Perhaps you think these are the arguments that should be countered?
I'll give you a clue, no-one goes to a Telegraph comment section to address the 'arguments'.
'For some unaccountable reason... I'll give you a clue...' Not as harsh as 'You are an ignorant *?#[% of the highest order' but still kind of unpleasant. And for the record, I also don't like those comments about Scottish people you mentioned. However, the 'Scotland [is] a current and future economic basket case' comments are more firmly based on claims that can be disputed rationally.
The arguments I think the Yes camp should be countering are primarily those regarding the currency and EU membership status of an independent Scotland. Critical issues for a newly independent country, ISTM (contrary to Bobajob's post a few minutes ago), but ones that the Yes camp seem remarkably reluctant to address sensibly.
*How many points does Labour have to win by to not need Scottish seats?*
I'm getting nervous about the IndyRef now, not so much by today's Telegraph article (although it hasn't helped) but because No are losing the campaign. We see it on here all the time – people concentrating on sophistry about the EU and Sterling. Last night reached new levels of geekery with absurd leaps of logic that "Scotland is not currently in the EU". It was like debating at sixth form with the class geek.
Wise up. THIS WHATABOUTTERY IS THE WRONG STRATEGY.
We need to make the emotional, philosophical case for the union or the very clever Salmond and Sturgeon will run rings around us. They are both extremely talented politicians who, by a twist of fate, have ended up in a nationalist party rather than one of the three mainstream ones.
Scottish labour is subservient to Westminster Labour, and it always will be.. Unless the Westminster Scottish labour start fighting tooth and claw, they're in trouble.
I'd forgotten - until a member of the audience on BBCQT pointed it out last night - London Labour have been fecking up Falkirk for decades - going back to Dennis Canavan....
Throughout his entire political life, Canavan played a leading part in the campaign for a Scottish Parliament. When Labour was in opposition, he led a nationwide consultation about devolution, on behalf of the Scottish Group of Labour MPs, leading to the publication of a bill to establish a Scottish Parliament with revenue-raising powers. However, in 1999, when the first elections to the Scottish Parliament were held, the New Labour leadership rejected him as an official Labour candidate, despite the fact that he had the support of 97% of local party members. He therefore stood as an Independent and won. He was consequently expelled from the party. He had the highest majority of any MSP in the 1999 election.
*How many points does Labour have to win by to not need Scottish seats?*
I'm getting nervous about the IndyRef now, not so much by today's Telegraph article (although it hasn't helped) but because No are losing the campaign. We see it on here all the time – people concentrating on sophistry about the EU and Sterling. Last night reached new levels of geekery with absurd leaps of logic that "Scotland is not currently in the EU". It was like debating at sixth form with the class geek.
Wise up. THIS WHATABOUTTERY IS THE WRONG STRATEGY.
We need to make the emotional, philosophical case for the union or the very clever Salmond and Sturgeon will run rings around us. They are both extremely talented politicians who, by a twist of fate, have ended up in a nationalist party rather than one of the three mainstream ones.
I agree. It's much easier to argue for change, given that change rarely has baggage attached.
That'll be why we now use AV then.
It's a lot easier to argue *against* change because the debate is always about that specific change. Even if there's a general feeling that 'something must be done', a vote will still be lost if the consensus is that 'this isn't that something'.
At the risk of sounding like Mick Pork, Miliband having anything to do with the Scottish independence vote would be a godsend for Salmond.
It absolutely has to be Scottish voices having this discussion...
Probably precisely why Salmond wants Cameron to debate him!
The way I see it is indeed like a marriage. If a partner wants to leave, you cant stop them, and you need to let them go.
But you can fight for your share of the settlement.
If there's a yes vote, then Westminsters approach to Scotland needs to change pretty much overnight. They need to then act in the interests of rUK in any settlement.
The arguments I think the Yes camp should be countering are primarily those regarding the currency and EU membership status of an independent Scotland. Critical issues for a newly independent country, ISTM (contrary to Bobajob's post a few minutes ago), but ones that the Yes camp seem remarkably reluctant to address sensibly.
Westminster could apply to Brussels for clarification on Scottish EU membership today (something Scotland can't do), and at the same time state absolutely and definitively that they won't consider a currency union rather than this 'extremely unlikely' blustering. Why do you think they're not doing these things?
It's a lot easier to argue *against* change because the debate is always about that specific change. Even if there's a general feeling that 'something must be done', a vote will still be lost if the consensus is that 'this isn't that something'.
Ah i suppose that's true. I was thinking of the old idiom 'the grass is always greener'
Unionism certainly seems prone to violent mood swings.
'Officially, Cameron’s Government is making no contingency plans for Scotland’s secession. But unofficially, the mood is bleak. Some of the Prime Minister’s chief strategists now argue that the battle is lost and that a Yes vote is not only possible but probable.'
A dangerous game to play Sean. Many a PBer has been exiled to ConservativeHome for a number of years merely for uttering the words "Scottish subsample".
Just ask Stuart Dickson.
Wrong. The reason officially given for my ban was that I supplied an incorrect e-mail address. Which is nonsense, as I have had the same e-post address for about 15 years, and am registered right now with the identical one which Mike banned me for.
We all know why I was banned, and it was nothing to do with Scottish sub-samples or false e-mail addresses.
Westminster could apply to Brussels for clarification on Scottish EU membership today (something Scotland can't do), and at the same time state absolutely and definitively that they won't consider a currency union rather than this 'extremely unlikely' blustering. Why do you think they're not doing these things?
Hasn't clarification about Scottish EU membership already been received? What's the argument against the view that Scotland would have to reapply, like several people who really should know (the Spanish PM being the latest) have said?
And on the currency, it isn't that rUK wouldn't consider a currency union (is this really not clear yet?), but that such a union would leave Scotland with little to no control over the currency it uses. Any action taken to strengthen or weaken the pound would be done in (the government of the day's perception of) rUK's best interest, not Scotland's.
On topic, the Coalition would be very wise to consider how to seek to stop private sector debt getting out of control. The simplest way is to increase the take-home pay of the lower paid.
We also need a change of culture. An Italian friend of mine from a very ordinary working class family told me earlier in the year that his parents were worried that Italy would follow the Cypriot example of levying deposits of more than 100,000 euros. When I expressed surprise that his family had more than an academic interest in such matters, he was astonished to find out just how debtladen most British families were.
Westminster could apply to Brussels for clarification on Scottish EU membership today (something Scotland can't do), and at the same time state absolutely and definitively that they won't consider a currency union rather than this 'extremely unlikely' blustering. Why do you think they're not doing these things?
Hasn't clarification about Scottish EU membership already been received? What's the argument against the view that Scotland would have to reapply, like several people who really should know (the Spanish PM being the latest) have said?
And on the currency, it isn't that rUK wouldn't consider a currency union (is this really not clear yet?), but that such a union would leave Scotland with little to no control over the currency it uses. Any action taken to strengthen or weaken the pound would be done in (the government of the day's perception of) rUK's best interest, not Scotland's.
On the EU, its not quite as simple as that, as the situation is unprecedented.
If Scotland votes yes, presumably the UK government will say to the EU - 'we need to sort this out, ideally while Scotland is still part of the UK, to keep all our lives simpler'. It would be in the interests of both rUK, Scotland and the EU to get it fixed - though what terms the Scots could extract under such a speedy timetable are unlikely to be generous - they will probably be 'take it or leave it.' It certainly won't be 'automatic'.
This does not set a precedent for Spain/Catalonia - as the precedent is 'sovereign member asks us to do something' - and Spain is extremely unlikely to do the same for Catalonia, given the Spanish constitution says any secession must be approved by plebiscite of whole country - so as far as Madrid is concerned, Catalonia can hold referendums until it is blue in the face and it won't make one jot of difference. That the UK has chosen to break up is irrelevant.
On the currency union the terms are likely to be onerous - whether this pushes it into the 'not worth it' territory, time will tell.
I'm getting nervous about the IndyRef now, not so much by today's Telegraph article (although it hasn't helped) but because No are losing the campaign. We see it on here all the time – people concentrating on sophistry about the EU and Sterling. Last night reached new levels of geekery with absurd leaps of logic that "Scotland is not currently in the EU". It was like debating at sixth form with the class geek.
Wise up. THIS WHATABOUTTERY IS THE WRONG STRATEGY.
We need to make the emotional, philosophical case for the union or the very clever Salmond and Sturgeon will run rings around us. They are both extremely talented politicians who, by a twist of fate, have ended up in a nationalist party rather than one of the three mainstream ones.
I have been watching the PB Tories getting this wrong for months now. The amount of shoot-footing going on is really quite astonishing.
The Yes campaign talk, for example, about childcare and wages.
The No campaign talk about the EU and currency.
Guess which issues swing voters are most interested in?
I know that the EU and macroeconomics fascinates political geeks, but it turns normal people right off. As the Lib Dems used to know, but seem to have forgotten, elections on the ground are fought on issues close to the hearts of the electorate (the classic example always given is dog poo on the pavements). There is a kernal of truth in there. If No wants to win they must start presenting their proposals for improving the lives of ordinary Scots. Waffling on about the EU and currency will only end in tears.
I confidently predict that my advice will be comprehensively ignored.
I'm getting nervous about the IndyRef now, not so much by today's Telegraph article (although it hasn't helped) but because No are losing the campaign. We see it on here all the time – people concentrating on sophistry about the EU and Sterling. Last night reached new levels of geekery with absurd leaps of logic that "Scotland is not currently in the EU". It was like debating at sixth form with the class geek.
Wise up. THIS WHATABOUTTERY IS THE WRONG STRATEGY.
We need to make the emotional, philosophical case for the union or the very clever Salmond and Sturgeon will run rings around us. They are both extremely talented politicians who, by a twist of fate, have ended up in a nationalist party rather than one of the three mainstream ones.
I have been watching the PB Tories getting this wrong for months now.
Are you sure its not London Labour who are in danger of blowing the Union?
On topic, the Coalition would be very wise to consider how to seek to stop private sector debt getting out of control. The simplest way is to increase the take-home pay of the lower paid.
We also need a change of culture. An Italian friend of mine from a very ordinary working class family told me earlier in the year that his parents were worried that Italy would follow the Cypriot example of levying deposits of more than 100,000 euros. When I expressed surprise that his family had more than an academic interest in such matters, he was astonished to find out just how debtladen most British families were.
Italy has one of the lowest levels of personal debt in the world. And in the 1970s, the government imposed a "one off" tax on savings to plug a budget hole, so they have form already. That said, Italy's budget deficit is small by global standards. Japan's is 9% of GDP, the the UK 6%, and the US 4%. Italy is under 3%, the same as Germany.
Coming back to the UK, private sector debt as fallen sharply since 2008 - if you look down thread you'll see that it's fallen from c. 220% to 185%. So, the idea that we're leveraging up to grow is simply incorrect.
Corporate debt has fallen faster than personal debt, but personal debt levels - relative to GDP - are coming down too.
I'm getting nervous about the IndyRef now, not so much by today's Telegraph article (although it hasn't helped) but because No are losing the campaign. We see it on here all the time – people concentrating on sophistry about the EU and Sterling. Last night reached new levels of geekery with absurd leaps of logic that "Scotland is not currently in the EU". It was like debating at sixth form with the class geek.
Wise up. THIS WHATABOUTTERY IS THE WRONG STRATEGY.
We need to make the emotional, philosophical case for the union or the very clever Salmond and Sturgeon will run rings around us. They are both extremely talented politicians who, by a twist of fate, have ended up in a nationalist party rather than one of the three mainstream ones.
I have been watching the PB Tories getting this wrong for months now.
Are you sure its not London Labour who are in danger of blowing the Union?
Of course London Labour are far more important in the outcome of the IndyRef than PB Tories are. Tories of all descriptions are pretty much bystanders in this campaign, and must by the very nature of the terrain remain so. The IndyRef is there for Labour to lose, and so far, they are delivering.
The PB Tories are not relevant to the campaign, but I obviously read a fair bit of what they are thinking. I don't usually respond though, mainly because I am delighted to see them running around like dogs chasing their own tails. They really don't have the faintest clue about Scottish electoral behaviour, and boy does it show.
I've just changed PCs and can't get the widget to work on Firefox 25 - any ideas? I've tried installing the PB Enhanced widget on my toolbar and it won't load as a Greasemonkey script.
''I have been watching the PB Tories getting this wrong for months now''
I don't recall 'the PB tories' either being particularly in favour of Scotland staying, or predicting that a 'no' vote is 'nailed on'. As often with PB, the polls are cited in arguments.
For many toriesI suspect a yes vote is a double edged sword. It will be a shame to see Scotland go but also delicious to see what happens to Labour in England.
For me the most distasteful part of the debate is the obvious hatred that some nationalists bear for modern English people who can take no blame for the iniquities of the past.
The arguments I think the Yes camp should be countering are primarily those regarding the currency and EU membership status of an independent Scotland. Critical issues for a newly independent country, ISTM (contrary to Bobajob's post a few minutes ago), but ones that the Yes camp seem remarkably reluctant to address sensibly.
Westminster could apply to Brussels for clarification on Scottish EU membership today (something Scotland can't do), and at the same time state absolutely and definitively that they won't consider a currency union rather than this 'extremely unlikely' blustering. Why do you think they're not doing these things?
Because it would give credibility to Yes, obviously.
Actually, there's no reason whatsoever why Salmond or anyone else couldn't send a letter to the Commission asking for clarification. Whether Barrosso or anyone would provide a substantive reply is a different matter but if the question is couched in general rather than specific terms then at the least it should elicit a response as to whether an official policy even exists.
@DavidL and others have put it very eloquently that this shouldn't be about an extra £600 one way or another or even who is going to be the lender of last resort it should be a visceral, emotional thing.
My firm view is that there will be a NO vote followed by some kind of Devomax-type arrangement (and I wish we could avoid the referendum in order to get to that place more efficiently buy still..).
But there is an interesting dilemma emerging. As BoE/UK Govt wants to be seen as modern, accommodating and, inclusive, the danger now is that if they are too willing to discuss, eg currency unions, etc in a touchy feely way towards Scotland, that might allay fears that Scotland will be cut adrift, thus making a YES vote more attractive.
The "correct" response is to play hardball on eg currency thus encouraging the status quo bias of the Scots.
Got a new pen name, Mr. T? Tobias Merryweather? Jeremiah Farwood? Clarence Silveroak?
We're working on it. It's tricky as it needs to include my real name - for the purposes of marketing in America - but still be new. It will probably be S T Something (i.e. Sean Thomas Something).
S T Helston or S T Tremayne are the main contenders.
Helston as its where all my family come from, on both sides, back to the 14th century (we're traced) - amazingly most of them still live no more than 20 miles away (can anyone match the Cornish for staying-exactly-in-the-same-place-for-the-longest-time?).
Tremayne because it's my great grandmother's surname and rather pretty (appealing to that vital female readership).
That's a beautiful part of the country, although the placenames are all Gweek to me. ;-)
What on earth is going on with the Tories and energy prices? How have they managed to get themselves the headline "Ministers not seeking energy price freeze"?
I've just changed PCs and can't get the widget to work on Firefox 25 - any ideas? I've tried installing the PB Enhanced widget on my toolbar and it won't load as a Greasemonkey script.
The arguments I think the Yes camp should be countering are primarily those regarding the currency and EU membership status of an independent Scotland. Critical issues for a newly independent country, ISTM (contrary to Bobajob's post a few minutes ago), but ones that the Yes camp seem remarkably reluctant to address sensibly.
Westminster could apply to Brussels for clarification on Scottish EU membership today (something Scotland can't do), and at the same time state absolutely and definitively that they won't consider a currency union rather than this 'extremely unlikely' blustering. Why do you think they're not doing these things?
Whether Barrosso or anyone would provide a substantive reply is a different matter but if the question is couched in general rather than specific terms then at the least it should elicit a response as to whether an official policy even exists.
Even if it did I'm not sure how much it would matter - the Commission might very well propose something, but its the individual countries that will decide.
What on earth is going on with the Tories and energy prices? How have they managed to get themselves the headline "Ministers not seeking energy price freeze"?
What a week they're having.
Perhaps you should learn a little about the energy market before commenting? I know Tim hates knowledgeable people, but I think he can safely be ignored.
What on earth is going on with the Tories and energy prices? How have they managed to get themselves the headline "Ministers not seeking energy price freeze"?
What a week they're having.
Perhaps you should learn a little about the energy market before commenting? I know Tim hates knowledgeable people, but I think he can safely be ignored.
oooOOOhhh get her.
I was talking about the politics of it. Tories accused of doing good and popular thing. Tories quickly and angrily deny doing good and popular thing, leading to headlines "Tories deny doing good and popular thing", and all round confusion.
Whatever sneering comments people chose to make about PB Tories, some of us do live up here and will actually get to vote. Indeed Scottish Tories will make up a fairly important chunk of the 'No vote'.
The difficulty I think the 'Yes' side has is that a large chunk of people seem to be fairly committed No's, who will be very hard to shift. Polls consistently put the 'No' side very close to the 50% mark and I'm not sure how easy it will be to break down that chunk of the electorate. I'm not sure what difference the White Paper will make either. Outwith people who are keenly interested in politics it's not really been much of a topic of conversation.
Seem most of last night's QT now. No horribly outgunned. Sturgeon is brilliant.
Didn't see it as I was out getting bladdered, but Sturgeon is consistently excellent. Better than Salmond even, as she comes across as more likeable too. The SNP are lucky to have some of the best politicians in the country at the moment.
What on earth is going on with the Tories and energy prices? How have they managed to get themselves the headline "Ministers not seeking energy price freeze"?
What a week they're having.
Perhaps you should learn a little about the energy market before commenting? I know Tim hates knowledgeable people, but I think he can safely be ignored.
oooOOOhhh get her.
I was talking about the politics of it. Tories accused of doing good and popular thing. Tories quickly and angrily deny doing good and popular thing, leading to headlines "Tories deny doing good and popular thing", and all round confusion.
Slick.
If you knew the industry, you'd know that Miliband's proposal is anything but good.
I have hopes for shifting *some* of the green levies onto general taxation; this should reduce energy bills *and* be redistributive, if done well. Hence much better than Miliband's stupidity.
Talking about confusion: how much confusion do you think Miliband's grand plan has caused for the energy investment we desperately need?
Got a new pen name, Mr. T? Tobias Merryweather? Jeremiah Farwood? Clarence Silveroak?
We're working on it. It's tricky as it needs to include my real name - for the purposes of marketing in America - but still be new. It will probably be S T Something (i.e. Sean Thomas Something).
S T Helston or S T Tremayne are the main contenders.
Helston as its where all my family come from, on both sides, back to the 14th century (we're traced) - amazingly most of them still live no more than 20 miles away (can anyone match the Cornish for staying-exactly-in-the-same-place-for-the-longest-time?).
Tremayne because it's my great grandmother's surname and rather pretty (appealing to that vital female readership).
Sean Helston suggests ruddy cheeks and salt of the earth; ST Tremayne seems more refined, in the style of ee cummings. Not sure which would appeal more to the target demographic.
Where is Gordon Brown, we may hate him down here but he's a Scot and the last prime minister and if Yes wins he, and all the other Labour Scottish bigwigs, WILL BECOME FOREIGNERS, excluded from Westminster.
Wow, put it like that and Scottish independence takes on a new allure.
Got a new pen name, Mr. T? Tobias Merryweather? Jeremiah Farwood? Clarence Silveroak?
We're working on it. It's tricky as it needs to include my real name - for the purposes of marketing in America - but still be new. It will probably be S T Something (i.e. Sean Thomas Something).
S T Helston or S T Tremayne are the main contenders.
Helston as its where all my family come from, on both sides, back to the 14th century (we're traced) - amazingly most of them still live no more than 20 miles away (can anyone match the Cornish for staying-exactly-in-the-same-place-for-the-longest-time?).
Tremayne because it's my great grandmother's surname and rather pretty (appealing to that vital female readership).
Sean Thomas Ellis has any number of ok literary associations.
Seem most of last night's QT now. No horribly outgunned. Sturgeon is brilliant.
Who did you think did best for 'No'? I thought the Green MSP the best of the Yes side - tho Sturgeon is usually very good. That said the Yes non-pol was a nightmare.....
Seem most of last night's QT now. No horribly outgunned. Sturgeon is brilliant.
Didn't see it as I was out getting bladdered, but Sturgeon is consistently excellent. Better than Salmond even, as she comes across as more likeable too. The SNP are lucky to have some of the best politicians in the country at the moment.
Salmond and his assistant Sturgeon have grossly mishandled the Yes Campaign to date. They're even worse than Better Together's motley crew .
What on earth is going on with the Tories and energy prices? How have they managed to get themselves the headline "Ministers not seeking energy price freeze"?
What a week they're having.
Perhaps you should learn a little about the energy market before commenting? I know Tim hates knowledgeable people, but I think he can safely be ignored.
oooOOOhhh get her.
I was talking about the politics of it. Tories accused of doing good and popular thing. Tories quickly and angrily deny doing good and popular thing, leading to headlines "Tories deny doing good and popular thing", and all round confusion.
Slick.
If you knew the industry, you'd know that Miliband's proposal is anything but good.
But about 95% of the electorate knows nothing about the industry and doesn't give a sh*t about the energy companies. Arrogant, overpaid executives threatening to turn the lights out just make people angry and all the more determined to see the companies cut down to size.
My mortgage deal is coming to an end. What's the pb brains trust advice? Go for fixed rate or tracker? I will be paying a fair chunk of the mortgage off, at the same time, if that makes any difference.
2 year fix, or 6+ year fix if you can find one where you like the rate. Markets are pricing in a rise in 18-24 months time which is hard to see happening given what happens to equity markets any time anybody so much as thinks about mentioning increasing rates/ending QE in the US/raising taxes on companies. The bet you're making is that in 2 years you'll end up being able to get another 2 year fix at roughly the same price. It's a bet that's worked pretty well for the last 5 years, and there's not much noticeable improvement in the global fundamental picture.
Of course that could just mean buy the cheapest floating rate you can find, but short fixes seem to be priced at a tighter spread than trackers at the minute - not sure why.
[nothing in this post should be construed as financial advice and the author probably doesn't even know what a mortgage is etc etc]
My mortgage deal is coming to an end. What's the pb brains trust advice? Go for fixed rate or tracker? I will be paying a fair chunk of the mortgage off, at the same time, if that makes any difference.
Get a 95% mortgage from help to buy and buy a property for £599k in central London - just to wind tim up.
1. Debt in absolute levels is not important, it is debt relative to GDP that matters. 2. Household debt is not the same as government debt. 3. On World Bank numbers*, UK private sector (household plus corporate) debt as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 213% in 2009 to 178% today - that's one of the most impressive develveragings in the world, with only Ireland having done more to reduce debt.
It's perhaps the best economic news we have had over the last few years, and it is also one of the big reasons why GDP growth has not met expectations. My recollection from 2010 was that the OBR forecasts of decent growth were predicated on a growth of personal debt, which I remember criticising at the time.
However, most British people took Osborne's austerity message to heart, and have been reducing their debt levels - see for example this from the spectator blog.
So I would worry if our recent better GDP figures were simply a result of this deleveraging going into reverse, but unfortunately Mr Manson presents no figures to back up his argument, when you would think they would be at the core of it.
But about 95% of the electorate knows nothing about the industry and doesn't give a sh*t about the energy companies. Arrogant, overpaid executives threatening to turn the lights out just make people angry and all the more determined to see the companies cut down to size.
In that case, why not offer gas/electricity for free? People will be happy to see the companies cut down to size, and when the lights go out, people will learn about the first part (i.e. what they're supposed to do and why).
What on earth is going on with the Tories and energy prices? How have they managed to get themselves the headline "Ministers not seeking energy price freeze"?
What a week they're having.
Perhaps you should learn a little about the energy market before commenting? I know Tim hates knowledgeable people, but I think he can safely be ignored.
oooOOOhhh get her.
I was talking about the politics of it. Tories accused of doing good and popular thing. Tories quickly and angrily deny doing good and popular thing, leading to headlines "Tories deny doing good and popular thing", and all round confusion.
Slick.
If you knew the industry, you'd know that Miliband's proposal is anything but good.
But about 95% of the electorate knows nothing about the industry and doesn't give a sh*t about the energy companies. Arrogant, overpaid executives threatening to turn the lights out just make people angry and all the more determined to see the companies cut down to size.
But that's where politicking should end and leadership begin.
And it's not the companies threatening to turn out the lights: it is a long-standing and worsening risk going back as far as (from memory) 2002; just see the various OFGEM reports.
It seems that all Labour does is try to create enemies and then try to bash them, whether deserved or not. And if it diverts attention from their own problems and failures, all the better.
If the SNP are making ridiculous claims about what will happen post-independence - such as this Sterling area agreed on exactly the terms the SNP wants and automatic EU membership - then the Better Together campaign is obliged to point this out. If the Scots do not want to listen and vote for separation, then there's not much Darling and co can do.
My mortgage deal is coming to an end. What's the pb brains trust advice? Go for fixed rate or tracker? I will be paying a fair chunk of the mortgage off, at the same time, if that makes any difference.
Avoid a 2-3 year fix because you will be toast when you refi.
If you can get a portable 10 year fix at under 5% I'd argue that it's a very good deal long-term.
My mortgage deal is coming to an end. What's the pb brains trust advice? Go for fixed rate or tracker? I will be paying a fair chunk of the mortgage off, at the same time, if that makes any difference.
Avoid a 2-3 year fix because you will be toast when you refi.
If you can get a portable 10 year fix at under 5% I'd argue that it's a very good deal long-term.
Looks like your view and mine are diametrically opposed on the 2-year horizon... just wondering if we can agree a sensible bilateral hedge for my next remortgage on that basis.
Agree with you on the 10y thing tho. Someone was offering a 6 year at 2.99% for 60% LTV recently which looks like a great deal.
OT Following the sad death of Lewis Collins - PBers of a certain vintage who watched The Professionals may enjoy this epic mickey take. It crowbars in every cliche and mocks Martin Shaw relentlessly.
Got a new pen name, Mr. T? Tobias Merryweather? Jeremiah Farwood? Clarence Silveroak?
We're working on it. It's tricky as it needs to include my real name - for the purposes of marketing in America - but still be new. It will probably be S T Something (i.e. Sean Thomas Something).
S T Helston or S T Tremayne are the main contenders.
Helston as its where all my family come from, on both sides, back to the 14th century (we're traced) - amazingly most of them still live no more than 20 miles away (can anyone match the Cornish for staying-exactly-in-the-same-place-for-the-longest-time?).
Tremayne because it's my great grandmother's surname and rather pretty (appealing to that vital female readership).
Sean Thomas Ellis has any number of ok literary associations.
Americans will think you came through Ellis Island
With regard to EU membership and clarification of the Scottish position, I am not sure what more clarification is necessary. The Commission has made it absolutely clear that a country seceding form a member state automatically places itself outside the EU. Just tis week, the Spanish PM has reiterated that membership has to be agreed by all existing member states unanimously. It's difficult to see how it could be clearer.
@SeanT - About your mortgage, worth your while checking the small print for how much you can overpay. If you might have future large wodges of money coming in from book deals then you might be better off sticking with a mortgage that gives you the freedom to pay off another large chunk when that money comes in, rather than lock yourself into a deal that limits overpayments to ~£500 a month.
But, you know, I'm an ignorant fool with a financial strategy of picking up dropped coins outside the corner shop and putting them in a piggy bank...
If the independence debate gets stuck on process questions, No wins because the majority will conclude that the proposal is either half-baked, ill-thought-through or too risky. Remember the interminable debates about whether AV automatically resulted in a majority of voters having voted for a winning candidate? That benefited the No camp there too for the same reason.
With regard to EU membership and clarification of the Scottish position, I am not sure what more clarification is necessary. The Commission has made it absolutely clear that a country seceding form a member state automatically places itself outside the EU. Just tis week, the Spanish PM has reiterated that membership has to be agreed by all existing member states unanimously. It's difficult to see how it could be clearer.
Some would argue that the Spanish PM is not exactly unbiased in his opinion!
It seems that all Labour does is try to create enemies and then try to bash them, whether deserved or not.
Labour, uniquely amongst all the political parties, is quite political.
On that we agree. If Labour have a choice between doing something that is right, and doing something that gets votes, they will do something that gets votes.
It is up to other people to point this out, i.e. an idea might sound good, but will not work.
Is there anything wrong in pointing out that some plans will not work?
SeanT - if you are hording money each year in order to pay the taxman, you might want to look at an offset mortgage. There are some pretty decent ones around.
But that's where politicking should end and leadership begin.
But that's the nature of politics. It's political. There's lots of politicking. The art of being a great leader is to be a good enough politician to succeed in exercising leadership despite everyone who opposes you doing as much (politicking) as possible to oppose you. Because the exercise of politics is their only tool to get themselves into a position in which they can have the opportunity to be leaders.
It's never been any different. The only thing that may be different than at some other time in the past is that we seem to have a generation of politicians who file "sensible industrial and energy policy" under "too hard" and bleat about the opposition playing politics rather than using the power at their disposal to lead.
But about 95% of the electorate knows nothing about the industry and doesn't give a sh*t about the energy companies. Arrogant, overpaid executives threatening to turn the lights out just make people angry and all the more determined to see the companies cut down to size.
In that case, why not offer gas/electricity for free? People will be happy to see the companies cut down to size, and when the lights go out, people will learn about the first part (i.e. what they're supposed to do and why).
I did not suggest that energy should be free. The point I am making is that the politics of this are completely one-sided - the public are not listening to the companies and they will not do so for the forseeable future - certainly not this side of the general election. This may be unfair and it may also be unwise economically, but it is a political reality.
With regard to EU membership and clarification of the Scottish position, I am not sure what more clarification is necessary. The Commission has made it absolutely clear that a country seceding form a member state automatically places itself outside the EU. Just tis week, the Spanish PM has reiterated that membership has to be agreed by all existing member states unanimously. It's difficult to see how it could be clearer.
Some would argue that the Spanish PM is not exactly unbiased in his opinion!
Absolutely. But under EU law he has an absolute veto on what happens.
I find I have done exactly the opposite of the general public. Between 1997 and 2010, I cleared all my personal debt. Between 2010 and now, I've loaded myself up to the eyeballs with debt (though I intend clearing it all in the next few months). While borrowing costs were so low, it seemed crazy not to take advantage of that. Indeed, a substantial part of me feels that I'm being too cautious arranging to clear my debts now.
Comments
Got a new pen name, Mr. T? Tobias Merryweather? Jeremiah Farwood? Clarence Silveroak?
"Surely ‘austerity’ should be aiming to reduce household debt"
No - households should be aiming to reduce household debt.
I'll give you a clue, no-one goes to a Telegraph comment section to address the 'arguments'.
Utterly sensible advice, yet from a macro economic point of view, not so good.
I'm getting nervous about the IndyRef now, not so much by today's Telegraph article (although it hasn't helped) but because No are losing the campaign. We see it on here all the time – people concentrating on sophistry about the EU and Sterling. Last night reached new levels of geekery with absurd leaps of logic that "Scotland is not currently in the EU". It was like debating at sixth form with the class geek.
Wise up. THIS WHATABOUTTERY IS THE WRONG STRATEGY.
We need to make the emotional, philosophical case for the union or the very clever Salmond and Sturgeon will run rings around us. They are both extremely talented politicians who, by a twist of fate, have ended up in a nationalist party rather than one of the three mainstream ones.
Just ask Stuart Dickson.
Scottish labour is subservient to Westminster Labour, and it always will be.. Unless the Westminster Scottish labour start fighting tooth and claw, they're in trouble.
As Martin Kettle observed yesterday, if Miliband hasn't got a vision for the UK, he can hardly have one for Scotland.....
Now do you understand why Falkirk is important?
I have a thread on Scotland going up at lunchtime.
It absolutely has to be Scottish voices having this discussion...
The arguments I think the Yes camp should be countering are primarily those regarding the currency and EU membership status of an independent Scotland. Critical issues for a newly independent country, ISTM (contrary to Bobajob's post a few minutes ago), but ones that the Yes camp seem remarkably reluctant to address sensibly.
Throughout his entire political life, Canavan played a leading part in the campaign for a Scottish Parliament. When Labour was in opposition, he led a nationwide consultation about devolution, on behalf of the Scottish Group of Labour MPs, leading to the publication of a bill to establish a Scottish Parliament with revenue-raising powers. However, in 1999, when the first elections to the Scottish Parliament were held, the New Labour leadership rejected him as an official Labour candidate, despite the fact that he had the support of 97% of local party members. He therefore stood as an Independent and won. He was consequently expelled from the party. He had the highest majority of any MSP in the 1999 election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Canavan
It's a lot easier to argue *against* change because the debate is always about that specific change. Even if there's a general feeling that 'something must be done', a vote will still be lost if the consensus is that 'this isn't that something'.
But you can fight for your share of the settlement.
If there's a yes vote, then Westminsters approach to Scotland needs to change pretty much overnight. They need to then act in the interests of rUK in any settlement.
Sherlock is to return to BBC One on January 1, 2014.
After months of speculation, the BBC confirmed today that the hit detective drama's third series will premiere on New Year's Day.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s129/sherlock/news/a534665/sherlock-series-3-air-date-revealed-by-bbc-one.html
Another bad week for the Tories - immigration & energy prices top of the agenda, the former driving voters to UKIP and the latter to Labour.
We all know why I was banned, and it was nothing to do with Scottish sub-samples or false e-mail addresses.
And on the currency, it isn't that rUK wouldn't consider a currency union (is this really not clear yet?), but that such a union would leave Scotland with little to no control over the currency it uses. Any action taken to strengthen or weaken the pound would be done in (the government of the day's perception of) rUK's best interest, not Scotland's.
Get your iPad mini?
We also need a change of culture. An Italian friend of mine from a very ordinary working class family told me earlier in the year that his parents were worried that Italy would follow the Cypriot example of levying deposits of more than 100,000 euros. When I expressed surprise that his family had more than an academic interest in such matters, he was astonished to find out just how debtladen most British families were.
I'll be picking up my mini later on
Which why as SeanT says, the 'big beasts' of labour (which are Scottish) need to be the ones making the running.. those at Holyrood can't do it..
Personal Debt increasing under The Coalition = Very Bad
Perhaps our indebtedness is also something to do with the terms of the debate regarding the debtor and the creditor in Britain.
Debt is never the fault of the debtor. Here, it's always the creditor who is culpable.
Plus, cheap credit for all is seen as some sort of democratic right here, as evidenced by Osborne's stupid crackdown on payday lenders.
If Scotland votes yes, presumably the UK government will say to the EU - 'we need to sort this out, ideally while Scotland is still part of the UK, to keep all our lives simpler'. It would be in the interests of both rUK, Scotland and the EU to get it fixed - though what terms the Scots could extract under such a speedy timetable are unlikely to be generous - they will probably be 'take it or leave it.' It certainly won't be 'automatic'.
This does not set a precedent for Spain/Catalonia - as the precedent is 'sovereign member asks us to do something' - and Spain is extremely unlikely to do the same for Catalonia, given the Spanish constitution says any secession must be approved by plebiscite of whole country - so as far as Madrid is concerned, Catalonia can hold referendums until it is blue in the face and it won't make one jot of difference. That the UK has chosen to break up is irrelevant.
On the currency union the terms are likely to be onerous - whether this pushes it into the 'not worth it' territory, time will tell.
The Yes campaign talk, for example, about childcare and wages.
The No campaign talk about the EU and currency.
Guess which issues swing voters are most interested in?
I know that the EU and macroeconomics fascinates political geeks, but it turns normal people right off. As the Lib Dems used to know, but seem to have forgotten, elections on the ground are fought on issues close to the hearts of the electorate (the classic example always given is dog poo on the pavements). There is a kernal of truth in there. If No wants to win they must start presenting their proposals for improving the lives of ordinary Scots. Waffling on about the EU and currency will only end in tears.
I confidently predict that my advice will be comprehensively ignored.
magnificent India Buildings upgraded to Grade II*
http://www.c20society.org.uk/news/india-buildings-liverpool-upgraded-to-grade-ii/
Sir Charles Reilly said in the 1940s "It would not disgrace Fifth Avenue; indeed it would sit very happily there..."
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=india+buildings+liverpool&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=jW2YUvTTKcG_0QWBv4H4CA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1536&bih=770#q=india-buildings+liverpool&tbm=isch&imgdii=_
Coming back to the UK, private sector debt as fallen sharply since 2008 - if you look down thread you'll see that it's fallen from c. 220% to 185%. So, the idea that we're leveraging up to grow is simply incorrect.
Corporate debt has fallen faster than personal debt, but personal debt levels - relative to GDP - are coming down too.
Right, back to work.
The PB Tories are not relevant to the campaign, but I obviously read a fair bit of what they are thinking. I don't usually respond though, mainly because I am delighted to see them running around like dogs chasing their own tails. They really don't have the faintest clue about Scottish electoral behaviour, and boy does it show.
I've just changed PCs and can't get the widget to work on Firefox 25 - any ideas? I've tried installing the PB Enhanced widget on my toolbar and it won't load as a Greasemonkey script.
All help much appreciated.
I don't recall 'the PB tories' either being particularly in favour of Scotland staying, or predicting that a 'no' vote is 'nailed on'. As often with PB, the polls are cited in arguments.
For many toriesI suspect a yes vote is a double edged sword. It will be a shame to see Scotland go but also delicious to see what happens to Labour in England.
For me the most distasteful part of the debate is the obvious hatred that some nationalists bear for modern English people who can take no blame for the iniquities of the past.
Actually, there's no reason whatsoever why Salmond or anyone else couldn't send a letter to the Commission asking for clarification. Whether Barrosso or anyone would provide a substantive reply is a different matter but if the question is couched in general rather than specific terms then at the least it should elicit a response as to whether an official policy even exists.
My firm view is that there will be a NO vote followed by some kind of Devomax-type arrangement (and I wish we could avoid the referendum in order to get to that place more efficiently buy still..).
But there is an interesting dilemma emerging. As BoE/UK Govt wants to be seen as modern, accommodating and, inclusive, the danger now is that if they are too willing to discuss, eg currency unions, etc in a touchy feely way towards Scotland, that might allay fears that Scotland will be cut adrift, thus making a YES vote more attractive.
The "correct" response is to play hardball on eg currency thus encouraging the status quo bias of the Scots.
Absolutely but we can all read what the polls say.
For the record, I reckon most PB tories care far less about Scotland or the result of the independence vote than you think they do.
What a week they're having.
UK household debt hits a record
Household debt in the UK has reached a record level, according to figures from the Bank of England.
Individuals now owe a total of £1.43 trillion, including mortgage lending, slightly above the previous high.
Mentioned at the bottom of the page:
However, the total debt figure is not adjusted for inflation.
The Bank of England has pointed out that relative to income, debt levels have been falling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25152556#TWEET969685
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/
Are you advocating that banks should extend more and cheaper credit to people who can't pay back??
Because that's what the US lenders did in spades before 2008 came along.
It didn't end well.
That said, Mr. Antifrank is right. It's quite inept.
I was talking about the politics of it. Tories accused of doing good and popular thing. Tories quickly and angrily deny doing good and popular thing, leading to headlines "Tories deny doing good and popular thing", and all round confusion.
Slick.
The difficulty I think the 'Yes' side has is that a large chunk of people seem to be fairly committed No's, who will be very hard to shift. Polls consistently put the 'No' side very close to the 50% mark and I'm not sure how easy it will be to break down that chunk of the electorate. I'm not sure what difference the White Paper will make either. Outwith people who are keenly interested in politics it's not really been much of a topic of conversation.
"If Scots want to change Coalition policies Scots should vote for other parties at the next general election."
Sturgeon: "They did that last time."
Words fail me.
I have hopes for shifting *some* of the green levies onto general taxation; this should reduce energy bills *and* be redistributive, if done well. Hence much better than Miliband's stupidity.
Talking about confusion: how much confusion do you think Miliband's grand plan has caused for the energy investment we desperately need?
Excellent at reminding me it was a great move not to marry a fellow Scot - they all turn out to be hatchet faced nippy sweeties in the end.
Of course that could just mean buy the cheapest floating rate you can find, but short fixes seem to be priced at a tighter spread than trackers at the minute - not sure why.
[nothing in this post should be construed as financial advice and the author probably doesn't even know what a mortgage is etc etc]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-25149988
Apparently not knowing how to sit a maths test is "not the be all and end all".
However, most British people took Osborne's austerity message to heart, and have been reducing their debt levels - see for example this from the spectator blog.
So I would worry if our recent better GDP figures were simply a result of this deleveraging going into reverse, but unfortunately Mr Manson presents no figures to back up his argument, when you would think they would be at the core of it.
And it's not the companies threatening to turn out the lights: it is a long-standing and worsening risk going back as far as (from memory) 2002; just see the various OFGEM reports.
For instance, this from October:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23081695
It seems that all Labour does is try to create enemies and then try to bash them, whether deserved or not. And if it diverts attention from their own problems and failures, all the better.
If you can get a portable 10 year fix at under 5% I'd argue that it's a very good deal long-term.
Agree with you on the 10y thing tho. Someone was offering a 6 year at 2.99% for 60% LTV recently which looks like a great deal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtssVsgo3ss - the overdubbing is very good and must have taken ages.
Americans will think you came through Ellis Island
Honestly, if Tories get confused by simple concepts like that they prove they're not fit to govern anything.
So we *desperately need* energy investment now? How long have the companies had to provide that investment? Decades.
A failing market that shouldn't be in the private sector. Simple as that.
But, you know, I'm an ignorant fool with a financial strategy of picking up dropped coins outside the corner shop and putting them in a piggy bank...
By far, the biggest element of household debt is mortgage debt, which has fallen by 15% in real terms since 2008.
It is up to other people to point this out, i.e. an idea might sound good, but will not work.
Is there anything wrong in pointing out that some plans will not work?
It's never been any different. The only thing that may be different than at some other time in the past is that we seem to have a generation of politicians who file "sensible industrial and energy policy" under "too hard" and bleat about the opposition playing politics rather than using the power at their disposal to lead.
Sadly missing this one:
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandssongs/primary/yecannyshoveyergranny.asp