Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Will it be English Tories that swings the IndyRef for the Y
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Will it be English Tories that swings the IndyRef for the Yes Side?
For those of us betting and/or wanting Scotland to voting, bar one poll that was commissioned by the SNP, the general thrust of the recent polling hasn’t been favourable for us, so where will this surge in support for the Yes Side come from?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
New Populus Voting Intention figures: Lab 38 (-1); Cons 35 (+1); LD 12 (=); UKIP 7 (=); Oth 8 (=) Tables here: http://popu.lu/s_vi291113
This may or may not be related to my betting position.
The negativity coming from the unionist parties is pathetic and only Annabel Goldie came out with any credit from the unionist side on QT.
On Topic - while the Tories getting stuck into the Indie debate would lose it for the Union, Labour not getting stuck in could also lose it - why are Labour leaving it all up to Darling and the z-lists of SLAB?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25155294
Bit gimmicky, but then, the circuit's bloody atrocious. I suspect potentially low reliability may make 2014 more entertaining than usual, though.
English Tory hoping (but not expecting) independence from the Scots here.
At the moment Cameron is playing this safe leaving it to Darling and other Scots to make the running. Osborne comes in to puncture some absurd nonsense and then wanders off again. As long as the polls remain stable and solidly no I don't think that will change.
But what if the polls do change? At what point does the PM fight for the Union? There has already been implied criticism from Sir John Major and pretty express criticism from Boris (who said that Maggie would have fought like a lion for the Union) about Cameron's low profile. His intervention in the AV referendum seemed pretty decisive.
Those that rely very heavily on the absurd bias built into our elections have convinced themselves that Labour might be just dreadful at running the country but they are very good at winning elections. The experience of 2011 suggests otherwise. I am not at all sure that we can rely on SLAB, even with Westminster reinforcements, to bring home the bacon.
As I have said before on here Independence cannot be about whether we are individually or collectively a few quid better or worse off. It is about whether we think are indeed better together or better on our own.
Like a marriage it is hard to conclude that we are better together if the spouse is cool or indifferent as to our decision. I recognise the risks and I accept that there is much to be said for playing it safe but I would like the British PM and the British Chancellor to be a lot more vocal and involved in the preservation of the UK. At the end of the day, like a spouse, Scots need to feel wanted if they are going to hang around. There is insufficient evidence of that at the moment.
Counterintuitively, because David Cameron is presently poorly thought of in Scotland, he may be able to make a mildly positive impact by showing he is at least engaging with the topic. The single most dangerous thing that an English Prime Minister who wants to keep Scotland in the union can do is appear to be completely indifferent to the referendum. I'm not suggesting that he should engage in the debate on a daily basis, but he shouldn't be afraid to express his views occasionally - though he would be well-advised to leave the process questions to others and concentrate on explaining how he thinks the union makes both Scotland and the rest of the UK stronger.
That is a good thing not a bad thing. While unsecured Wonga debts are a terrible idea, they are falling. More people being able to afford their own home is good news and a sign that the economy is improving.
CRY FREEDOM!!!
The continued lead of the No side suggests that so far Cameron and Osborne are doing the right thing.
Scotland had 13 years of having their 'team' in control in Westminster, and they clearly aren't content with the deal they got.
Conclusion: No pan UK party will ever give the Scots what they want.
Fingers crossed they go.
Its as simple as that.
Of course the immediate electoral impact in rUK will be favourable for the Tories, but you would imagine that will fade away as Labour re-calibrate slightly to the right.
I had to laugh at the moronic English caller to R5Live last night (on Question Time Extra Time) who demanded that the Electoral Commission would have to re-draw constituencies in preparation for independence as he didn't want Tory government in perpetuity ("they'll need to move some of the rural seats into the cities").
I think you seriously underestimate England's resilience. The response of the vast majority of rUK will be 'bovered', I'm off to work...
Then you don't know most scottish labour MPs very well.
I assure you that, just in the way Rifkind was parachuted into a safe seat for the tories down south, scottish labour MPs would be elbowing their way to the front of the queue should they cease to have a seat in scotland. I can think of several who would jump at the chance to do so. Of course places will be limited so there's going to be a cull but most of the same 'big beasts' who have shown zero interest in standing for the scottish parliament all this time will not easily forsake their westminster ambitions and lifestyle they have become accustomed to.
Would there be technical problems with them standing? Perhaps so, but they have shown remarkable 'flexibility' in the past to overcome mere technical obstructions to their ambitions.
I go back to the point that the No side continues to lead. They must be doing something right, I don't see the point in a big change of personnel at this stage.
Hang on a second. We can debate whether Scotland subsidises England or Vice Versa. What is beyond debate is that England subsidises Wales. Big time.
Labour have always seen Scotland as their own personal fiefdom...
Complacent, remember The then Labour Shadow Secretary State for Scotland Scottish Devolution was meant to kill Scottish Nationalism Stone Dead.
Ind R 1150 Ind S 593 SNP 546 Con 171 Ind I 128
Interesting Mick, do you think English voters would support a 'foreigner' even in the heartlands??
Surely there must be enough Islington based Oxford PPE graduates who are qualified or nationality grounds....
His duties as Mayor of London never seem to get in the way of other commitments, so I'm sure he can spare a few days to save the Union.
Whatever you think of the Yes campaign (and it's not solely the SNP whatever folk on here like to say), it has unity of purpose.
No
Independent Scotland who gives a t*ss
yes.
Which is why we should give the Scots all the oil and keep all the debt. If you're gonna go, go. We don't want a generation of ar$ing about. You get on with it, and so will we.
All our major political parties have always worked on the assumption that they are British parties. They no longer will be. The Tories would just about have won a majority in 2010 without Scotland. That was against Brown and after 13 years of what had become a totally discredited Labour government. It is far from clear to me that they would be close to dominating politics in the rUK.
*chortle*
The most bizarre thing about Clegg's utter incompetence in appointing the buffoon Carmichael is that the lib dems are currently an afterthought in scotland with a mere taxi full of MSPs and their activist base melting away. In other words the ideal time to have Carmichael joining Clegg's other yes man Rennie aboard the sinking ship. I think it's safe to assume Clegg is as hopeless at tactics as ever and would prefer to appease his whip rather than put someone competent in place. To be fair it's not as if Clegg seems to care much anymore and all that seems to matter to him is keeping the ostrich faction around him happy and oblivious as the carnage of 2015 gets ever closer.
Consider, for example, the 1987 general election. The Labour campaign was streets ahead of the Tores in terms of presentation and style but the voters took no notice because they had already decided that the policy programme on offer was unacceptable. More recently, in 2005, the Labour campaign was a complete shambles from beginning to end but they still won because voters were unwilling to trust the Tories. The quality of the campaigns did not influence the voters on either occasion.
Scottish independence has been hovering around as a possibility for many years. The voters have had a long time to think about it and most of them seem to have well-formed and pretty definite opinions about it. There has been very little sign that these opinions have changed much over the past few years and it's not likely that the campaigns will have much influence.
Scotland is 8% of the UK by population. Its independence would not change our position on the world stage at all.
1. The US will veto their membership of NATO.
2. The UK Treasury will veto the use of Sterling.
3. Spain will veto their automatic right to be part of the EU.
France's loss of Algeria was proportionately twice as large as Scotland's loss to rUK....
What happened to the Labour/Lib Dem filibuster?
Point 2 is a big issue. I'm sure Scotland could retain Sterling but not on the entirely favourable basis the SNP proposes.
Point 3. Bit of an issue but not one I think people get that excited about.
On a wider point I don't really see why the No campaign are being accused of complacency. There doing a good job so far, I'm not entirely sure what else people think they should be doing at this stage.
Maybe. But potentially a very, very wealthy one. A sort of mega Switzerland.
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=169
And for SeanT - books published:
http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/343.png
On what basis is the Scottish government going to seize these assets? How are they going to pay for them? Can the rUK government even reach an agreement on this sort of dissolution? Would (at the risk of all of an English tory's christmases coming at once) it be necessary to dissolve the BBC?
There are many, many such practical problems which arise when a country has been a unity for 300 years. The dissolution of the recent invention of Czechoslovakia apparently took several hundred arbitrations which might be good news for lawyers I suppose. To say that such a dissolution would not completely dominate the political and economic landscape of the British Isles for a very long time to come seems wildly optimistic to me.
Unionists are certainly desperately eager to make currency into an Achilles heel, but the last proper Indy poll had 13% of the respondees saying that they needed more info on currency, I think about fifth down the list of their concerns. Kippery agonising about the EU, the pound, immigration and the greatness of Britain just don't have the same salience in Scotland.
Would Scots living outside Scotland become English? Would all current UK passport holders be entitled to have rUK citizenship? Would English in Scotland lose rUK citizenship? If we split this area is going to be a gigantic mess, a mega clusterfu<k and christmas for lawyers.
Current UK citizens could not be stripped of their citizenship, and their children, born in Scotland would also be rUK citizens.
So Scots living outside Scotland could hold both Scottish and UK passports.
What is unknown is what would happen to Scots born to Scottish parents in Scotland - there must be a good chance they would not get a UK passport - but why would they want one?
He could give a speech in which he proclaims himself to be Malleus Scotorum, and reveals that he plans to replace the Scottish Parliament with a Cromwellian type of military government.
Can you have assumed citizenship put upon you, as presumably Scottish residents would have upon independence?