All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust. as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower in Denmark and Sweden than most of the rest of Europe. 4. Both Denmark and Sweden have parent chose in education Sweden has 900 for profit 'free schools' in Denmark 40% of children go to 'free schools' 5. taxes, any taxes are bad, but the real problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
Her attempt failed. Another woman who took over had other ideas, mostly involving scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Though now even the Tories support a 'living wage'
I almost cried, when Osborn announced that, so so sad.
As Hayek observed there as socialists in all partys!
The Tories are not really a libertarian party, indeed UKIP in 2010 and Orange Book LDs in 2015 had more claim to be libertarian than Cameroon Tories and May is certainly not libertarian
I would defiantly agree with you there, Hannan is trying to push a slightly more libertarian direction with the 'Conservatives for Liberty' group but I'm not expecting it to take over any time soon!
I think there is still a possibility that the LibDems over the next 10-15 years will 1) grow larger and over take Labour party, 2) realise that Brexit has worked and drop its opposition. 3) revert to Orange Book/classical Liberalism. 4) welcome me as a member!!
That must be why Brown claimed we were "best placed"
Except he must have misspoke as we were "worst placed"
Given the importance of banking to our economy - clearly we weren't best placed. Gordon Brown actually responded very well to the financial crisis - i think history will judge him much more favourably than Cameron/Osbourne on the economy.
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
The UK appears to want its Union cake and to eat it, believing Tessy should delay a referendum, seeing Scotland leaving the UK as a price worth paying for Brexit, but opposing Scottish independence.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance.
Absolutely. Also, last time round it didn't register much in the rest of the UK until very late on when the polls narrowed. Andy Murray's tacit support for independence was regarded as something weird and anti-English rather than a legitimate position.
Once it becomes clear that a referendum is inevitable, the realisation that a Yes vote is highly likely will lead to a very different political dynamic as people instead try to position themselves for the post-independence reality and a very convincing Yes victory is plausible.
Lets say we run that deficit for another 15 years.
What will total debt be then and what will our interest payments be (assuming no change in borrowing rates from today)
What could we have spent those interest payments on instead? - you know stuff like schools and teachers perhaps
I think its a common misconception that deficits are necessarily bad for future generations. Obviously if we borrowed money to have a big party today... That's not great for future taxpayers.
But if we borrow money to build new roads, schools, hospitals - that benefits future generations also. Particularly if we borrow that money at a time when interest rates are low rather than high.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
The Debt/GDP ratio is well below the 120% level when Harold Macmillan informed the nation that it had 'never had it so good'! Moroever a Budget Deficit of circa 3% of GDP should be sustainable.
"should be"
What do you base that on?
Lets say we run that deficit for another 15 years.
What will total debt be then and what will our interest payments be (assuming no change in borrowing rates from today)
What could we have spent those interest payments on instead? - you know stuff like schools and teachers perhaps
A Budget Deficit is very much the 'norm'. In very few years since World War 2 has the UK run a Budget Surplus - and a couple of those were in the late 80s under Lawson when North Sea oil receipts were peaking and being supplemented by Privatisation revenues. A Budget Deficit of 10% per annum would not be sustainable longterm because of resultant interest rate burdens - but 3% should be manageable.Moreover, the burden of interest rate payments on the National Debt over the last 10 years is well below that which faced Neville Chamberlain as Chancellor in the National Government of the 1930s.
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
The UK appears to want its Union cake and to eat it, believing Tessy should delay a referendum, seeing Scotland leaving the UK as a price worth paying for Brexit, but opposing Scottish independence.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance. The back drop of a potential generation of Tory rule would be an interesting dynamic and focus the minds of SLAB and SLID, irrespective of their current positions.
SLAB and SLDs would run their own pro Union campaigns but I cannot see May granting another independence referendum before the next general election, most likely she will require an SNP majority at the 2021 Holyrood elections first
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
The UK appears to want its Union cake and to eat it, believing Tessy should delay a referendum, seeing Scotland leaving the UK as a price worth paying for Brexit, but opposing Scottish independence.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance.
Absolutely. Also, last time round it didn't register much in the rest of the UK until very late on when the polls narrowed. Andy Murray's tacit support for independence was regarded as something weird and anti-English rather than a legitimate position.
Once it becomes clear that a referendum is inevitable, the realisation that a Yes vote is highly likely will lead to a very different political dynamic as people instead try to position themselves for the post-independence reality and a very convincing Yes victory is plausible.
It is not 'highly likely' indeed most polls still have No in much the same position as they were before they won the 2014 referendum
"Support for Brexit has hit a five month high, with 55 per cent of the population now backing Britain’s exit from the European Union, a new poll has found.
A new survey from Orb International shows a four per cent boost for Theresa May in days after she triggered the start of Brexit talks at the end of last month.
Dissatisfaction with Brexit is now at its lowest level since the survey started last November, with just 45 per cent opposed to leaving the EU."
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
The UK appears to want its Union cake and to eat it, believing Tessy should delay a referendum, seeing Scotland leaving the UK as a price worth paying for Brexit, but opposing Scottish independence.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance.
Absolutely. Also, last time round it didn't register much in the rest of the UK until very late on when the polls narrowed. Andy Murray's tacit support for independence was regarded as something weird and anti-English rather than a legitimate position.
Once it becomes clear that a referendum is inevitable, the realisation that a Yes vote is highly likely will lead to a very different political dynamic as people instead try to position themselves for the post-independence reality and a very convincing Yes victory is plausible.
It is not 'highly likely' indeed most polls still have No in much the same position as they were before they win the 2014 referendum
But much tighter than the polls when the last indyref started. YES substantially closed the gap.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
The Debt/GDP ratio is well below the 120% level when Harold Macmillan informed the nation that it had 'never had it so good'! Moroever a Budget Deficit of circa 3% of GDP should be sustainable.
"should be"
What do you base that on?
Lets say we run that deficit for another 15 years.
What will total debt be then and what will our interest payments be (assuming no change in borrowing rates from today)
What could we have spent those interest payments on instead? - you know stuff like schools and teachers perhaps
If it was 'just' a deficit of 3 % a year then it could be sustainable, dependant on GDP growth and inflation.
However we are not it that lucky situation there is a huge hided deficit and debt, in the form of Government workers pensions.
Estimates are that using realistic life expectancies this debt could be 200% of GDP
While G brown with his increase in the size of the state is mostly responsible, to little has been done by the Torys to correct it.
Lets say we run that deficit for another 15 years.
What will total debt be then and what will our interest payments be (assuming no change in borrowing rates from today)
What could we have spent those interest payments on instead? - you know stuff like schools and teachers perhaps
I think its a common misconception that deficits are necessarily bad for future generations. Obviously if we borrowed money to have a big party today... That's not great for future taxpayers.
But if we borrow money to build new roads, schools, hospitals - that benefits future generations also. Particularly if we borrow that money at a time when interest rates are low rather than high.
But we have borrowed hugely to have a big party. We are still borrowing to pay the weekly bills. We have after n years of economic growth a £50bn plus p.a. deficit. Interest rates maybe low but such is the scale of our debt that they are costing us tens of billions p.a. and that number is only going up.
That is not sustainable. It is however stealing the future from our children and grand children.
Despite being a Tory I would certainly support a universal basic income if automation starts to remove large numbers of full time, permanent jobs indeed in Finland the centre right government is experimenting with a basic income now
I have yet to see any credible figure as to how UBI can remotely be afforded with a tax base that is going to be remotely acceptable to the electorate and leave our economy any chance of being competitive.
46 million adults in the UK. A £80/week (wholly inadequate) would cost around 190bn a year, pretty close to the whole social security budget, which it would in no way replace.
I am not totally adverse to the principle, but utterly against taking on more uncosted open-ended commitments that will be impossible to repeal, and guaranteed to grow substantially over time.
I oppose it at the moment with unemployment reasonably low but if large numbers of full time jobs get replaced by robots without replacement I would support the idea funded by a tax on those same robots and every developed nation would have to consider doing the same, not just the UK
Lets us for the moment change the name and call robots machines. For the best part of three hundred years jobs done by humans have been replaced by machines. The result has been throughout more, and more interesting, jobs, and higher standards of living. Why should these new machines produce a result that is different?
The idea of taxing machines seems daft to me. What people who suggest this seem to want is higher taxes on companies that try and innovate to produce better things at a lower cost. That will not end well.
Well if new full time and permanent jobs are created to replace all those lost through automation then fine and there will be no need for a basic income
That must be why Brown claimed we were "best placed"
Except he must have misspoke as we were "worst placed"
Given the importance of banking to our economy - clearly we weren't best placed. Gordon Brown actually responded very well to the financial crisis - i think history will judge him much more favourably than Cameron/Osbourne on the economy.
Daniel Hannan is a fantastic speaker with very little understanding of economics. He doesn't really go beyond free markets good government bad.
I particularly enjoy the fact that he slates Gordon for a devaluation of the pound but now that beloved Brexit has had a similar effect argues it was much needed.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust. as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years eal problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
Her attempt failed. Another woman who took over had other ideas, mostly involving scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Though now even the Tories support a 'living wage'
I almost cried, when Osborn announced that, so so sad.
As Hayek observed there as socialists in all partys!
The Tories are not really a libertarian party, indeed UKIP in 2010 and Orange Book LDs in 2015 had more claim to be libertarian than Cameroon Tories and May is certainly not libertarian
I would defiantly agree with you there, Hannan is trying to push a slightly more libertarian direction with the 'Conservatives for Liberty' group but I'm not expecting it to take over any time soon!
I think there is still a possibility that the LibDems over the next 10-15 years will 1) grow larger and over take Labour party, 2) realise that Brexit has worked and drop its opposition. 3) revert to Orange Book/classical Liberalism. 4) welcome me as a member!!
But I may be a bit optimistic there!
I think so, the fact the LDs won just under 10% in 2015 when at their most libertarian suggests there is a ceiling of about 10% for a libertarian party in the UK
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance.
Absolutely. Also, last time round it didn't register much in the rest of the UK until very late on when the polls narrowed. Andy Murray's tacit support for independence was regarded as something weird and anti-English rather than a legitimate position.
Once it becomes clear that a referendum is inevitable, the realisation that a Yes vote is highly likely will lead to a very different political dynamic as people instead try to position themselves for the post-independence reality and a very convincing Yes victory is plausible.
It is not 'highly likely' indeed most polls still have No in much the same position as they were before they win the 2014 referendum
But much tighter than the polls when the last indyref started. YES substantially closed the gap.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
The Debt/GDP ratio is well below the 120% level when Harold Macmillan informed the nation that it had 'never had it so good'! Moroever a Budget Deficit of circa 3% of GDP should be sustainable.
"should be"
What do you base that on?
Lets say we run that deficit for another 15 years.
What will total debt be then and what will our interest payments be (assuming no change in borrowing rates from today)
What could we have spent those interest payments on instead? - you know stuff like schools and teachers perhaps
A Budget Deficit is very much the 'norm'. In very few years since World War 2 has the UK run a Budget Surplus - and a couple of those were in the late 80s under Lawson when North Sea oil receipts were peaking and being supplemented by Privatisation revenues. A Budget Deficit of 10% per annum would not be sustainable longterm because of resultant interest rate burdens - but 3% should be manageable.Moreover, the burden of interest rate payments on the National Debt over the last 10 years is well below that which faced Neville Chamberlain as Chancellor in the National Government of the 1930s.
Gordon Brown ran more surpluses than any Tory Chancellor since the war. It really does not mean very much though. If we ever get near to a surplus again, Conservatives will be agitating for tax cuts.
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
The UK appears to want its Union cake and to eat it, believing Tessy should delay a referendum, seeing Scotland leaving the UK as a price worth paying for Brexit, but opposing Scottish independence.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance.
Absolutely. Also, last time round it didn't register much in the rest of the UK until very late on when the polls narrowed. Andy Murray's tacit support for independence was regarded as something weird and anti-English rather than a legitimate position.
Once it becomes clear that a referendum is inevitable, the realisation that a Yes vote is highly likely will lead to a very different political dynamic as people instead try to position themselves for the post-independence reality and a very convincing Yes victory is plausible.
It is not 'highly likely' indeed most polls still have No in much the same position as they were before they win the 2014 referendum
But much tighter than the polls when the last indyref started. YES substantially closed the gap.
Yes got the 45% the SNP got in 2011, in 2016 the SNP got 47%
But much tighter than the polls when the last indyref started. YES substantially closed the gap.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
How many of the people who thought deeply about it and decided to vote No did so on the basis of assumptions that turned out to be wrong? If asked again they won't need to think twice before voting Yes, even if they would prefer not to be asked the question.
43 dead in Syria today. But no posts here on PB. The "wrong" people died. And Jabhat-Al-Nusra are now our allies !
50 people die in Syria every day, don't they? Every one a horror, every one a sadness. But it's a civil war. They are notoriously nasty. What should we do? Bomb them like Trump?
I say: Leave Well Alone, and maybe hope Assad wins. As the least worst of several deeply evil options.
President Assad is actually the only secular leader left.
I hope Assad wins, even though he is an evil c*nt. The alternatives, for us, and the Syrians, are still worse, remarkably.
Trump is a twat. Putin is shrewd.
I don't think the Optometrist and his fragrant wife are evil. Certainly he had nothing to do with the latest chemical attack, just like the others - there hasn't even been a pretense of an enquiry for that reason.
Clearly you'd be happy with a form of government which involves employing people who are keen to attach to testicles. I'd suggest that's evil. That you don't goes directly to your perverse and pro-Russian morality.
Perhaps you can tell me which Syria you would prefer to live in, Assad's secular multi-religious dicatorship with a semblance of democracy, or a Syria run by the people that we wish to replace him with. I know which I'd prefer.
That must be why Brown claimed we were "best placed"
Except he must have misspoke as we were "worst placed"
Given the importance of banking to our economy - clearly we weren't best placed. Gordon Brown actually responded very well to the financial crisis - i think history will judge him much more favourably than Cameron/Osbourne on the economy.
Daniel Hannan is a fantastic speaker with very little understanding of economics. He doesn't really go beyond free markets good government bad.
The biggest systemic weakness in European democracy at the moment seems to be the way the European parliament gives a platform to such people to deliver plausible but false rants with a view to becoming viral Youtube stars and raking in speaking fees telling people what they want to hear.
But much tighter than the polls when the last indyref started. YES substantially closed the gap.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
How many of the people who thought deeply about it and decided to vote No did so on the basis of assumptions that turned out to be wrong? If asked again they won't need to think twice before voting Yes, even if they would prefer not to be asked the question.
How do you know that when you haven't predicted how many voted no on the basis of assumptions that turned out to be wrong?
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance.
Absolutely. Also, last time round it didn't register much in the rest of the UK until very late on when the polls narrowed. Andy Murray's tacit support for independence was regarded as something weird and anti-English rather than a legitimate position.
Once it becomes clear that a referendum is inevitable, the realisation that a Yes vote is highly likely will lead to a very different political dynamic as people instead try to position themselves for the post-independence reality and a very convincing Yes victory is plausible.
It is not 'highly likely' indeed most polls still have No in much the same position as they were before they win the 2014 referendum
But much tighter than the polls when the last indyref started. YES substantially closed the gap.
The solid Unionist MSM facade is already shattered - even the Sunday Times ran an article today criticising Saint Ruth - with the likes of Farquerson, Massie & Deerin starting to waver !!
Post 4th May, SLAB will again disintegrate into its normal state of civil war and blaming the voters for inflicting yet another record breaking defeat upon them. I'd envisage a break away pro Indy group emerging with the likes of Eric Joyce and Denis Cannavan potentially giving it initial leadership.
But much tighter than the polls when the last indyref started. YES substantially closed the gap.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
How many of the people who thought deeply about it and decided to vote No did so on the basis of assumptions that turned out to be wrong? If asked again they won't need to think twice before voting Yes, even if they would prefer not to be asked the question.
Where's your evidence that the 55% have changed their minds?
Lets say we run that deficit for another 15 years.
What will total debt be then and what will our interest payments be (assuming no change in borrowing rates from today)
What could we have spent those interest payments on instead? - you know stuff like schools and teachers perhaps
I think its a common misconception that deficits are necessarily bad for future generations. Obviously if we borrowed money to have a big party today... That's not great for future taxpayers.
But if we borrow money to build new roads, schools, hospitals - that benefits future generations also. Particularly if we borrow that money at a time when interest rates are low rather than high.
But we have borrowed hugely to have a big party. We are still borrowing to pay the weekly bills. We have after n years of economic growth a £50bn plus p.a. deficit. Interest rates maybe low but such is the scale of our debt that they are costing us tens of billions p.a. and that number is only going up.
That is not sustainable. It is however stealing the future from our children and grand children.
The deficit is steadily falling. It would have fallen faster IMO but for the mismanagement of Osborne and Cameron who decided to cut investment dramatically and harmed growth.
Despite being a Tory I would certainly support a universal basic income if automation starts to remove large numbers of full time, permanent jobs indeed in Finland the centre right government is experimenting with a basic income now
I have yet to see any credible figure as to how UBI can remotely be afforded with a tax base that is going to be remotely acceptable to the electorate and leave our economy any chance of being competitive.
46 million adults in the UK. A £80/week (wholly inadequate) would cost around 190bn a year, pretty close to the whole social security budget, which it would in no way replace.
I am not totally adverse to the principle, but utterly against taking on more uncosted open-ended commitments that will be impossible to repeal, and guaranteed to grow substantially over time.
I oppose it at the moment with unemployment reasonably low but if large numbers of full time jobs get replaced by robots without replacement I would support the idea funded by a tax on those same robots and every developed nation would have to consider doing the same, not just the UK
Lets us for the moment change the name and call robots machines. For the best part of three hundred years jobs done by humans have been replaced by machines. The result has been throughout more, and more interesting, jobs, and higher standards of living. Why should these new machines produce a result that is different?
The idea of taxing machines seems daft to me. What people who suggest this seem to want is higher taxes on companies that try and innovate to produce better things at a lower cost. That will not end well.
Well if new full time and permanent jobs are created to replace all those lost through automation then fine and there will be no need for a basic income
Mr. HYFUD, more new jobs have been created than have been lost to automation for nearly three hundred years (actually if you include technological innovation rather than just automation then you could expand the time frame to something like 4,000 years). I really don't see why this new generation of machines will change that.
Whether in the future people will want full-time and permanent jobs is another matter. Society is changing, some young people, at least, seem to have different ideas about jobs and careers than my generation had.
But much tighter than the polls when the last indyref started. YES substantially closed the gap.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
How many of the people who thought deeply about it and decided to vote No did so on the basis of assumptions that turned out to be wrong? If asked again they won't need to think twice before voting Yes, even if they would prefer not to be asked the question.
Surely this would be partly balanced (at least) by those who voted Yes as a means of leaving the EU and now no longer need to.
That must be why Brown claimed we were "best placed"
Except he must have misspoke as we were "worst placed"
Given the importance of banking to our economy - clearly we weren't best placed. Gordon Brown actually responded very well to the financial crisis - i think history will judge him much more favourably than Cameron/Osbourne on the economy.
Daniel Hannan is a fantastic speaker with very little understanding of economics. He doesn't really go beyond free markets good government bad.
The biggest systemic weakness in European democracy at the moment seems to be the way the European parliament gives a platform to such people to deliver plausible but false rants with a view to becoming viral Youtube stars and raking in speaking fees telling people what they want to hear.
That covers many politicans from all parties
But we applaud your concern for freedom of speech, it sits well with your respect for democracy, both ofcourse only count in your book if they express the right views or vote for the right parties and outcomes.
For the first time in a long time Macron's odds in the French Presidential Election have widened to Evens with Ladbrokes and others, whilst those against Fillon have shortened to 7/2 from the likes of Betfair Sportsbook and stablemate Paddy Power (are these two finally singing from the same hymn sheet?).
Perhaps the outcome won't quite be the foregone conclusion we had been given to believe.
That must be why Brown claimed we were "best placed"
Except he must have misspoke as we were "worst placed"
Given the importance of banking to our economy - clearly we weren't best placed. Gordon Brown actually responded very well to the financial crisis - i think history will judge him much more favourably than Cameron/Osbourne on the economy.
Daniel Hannan is a fantastic speaker with very little understanding of economics. He doesn't really go beyond free markets good government bad.
The biggest systemic weakness in European democracy at the moment seems to be the way the European parliament gives a platform to such people to deliver plausible but false rants with a view to becoming viral Youtube stars and raking in speaking fees telling people what they want to hear.
That covers many politicans from all parties
But we applaud your concern for freedom of speech, it sits well with your respect for democracy, both ofcourse only count in your book if they express the right views or vote for the right parties and outcomes.
He wants to dissolve the people and elect another.
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance.
Absolutely. Also, last time round it didn't register much in the rest of the UK until very late on when the polls narrowed. Andy Murray's tacit support for independence was regarded as something weird and anti-English rather than a legitimate position.
Once it becomes clear that a referendum is inevitable, the realisation that a Yes vote is highly likely will leadincing Yes victory is plausible.
It is not 'highly likely' indeed most polls still have No in much the same position as they were before they win the 2014 referendum
But much tighter than the polls when the last indyref started. YES substantially closed the gap.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
If we do they will want another referendum next year, and then the year after ad infinitum. If they once vote to go, do the unionists get to vote for the next decade every year to reverse the decision ? No, thought not.
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
The UK appears to want its Union cake and to eat it, believing Tessy should delay a referendum, seeing Scotland leaving the UK as a price worth paying for Brexit, but opposing Scottish independence.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance. The back drop of a potential generation of Tory rule would be an interesting dynamic and focus the minds of SLAB and SLID, irrespective of their current positions.
Yep, it's not just being out of the EU. In 2014, the Torirs being out of power after the 2015 general election also looked very possible. If I remember correctly, Ruth Davidson even said as much during the campaign.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
If we do they will want another referendum next year, and then the year after ad infinitum. If they once vote to go, do the unionists get to vote for the next decade every year to reverse the decision ? No, thought not.
That would be up to the Scottish people, wouldn't it? And it would also rather depend on whether the English wanted to restore the Union.
For the first time in a long time Macron's odds in the French Presidential Election have widened to Evens with Ladbrokes and others, whilst those against Fillon have shortened to 7/2 from the likes of Betfair Sportsbook and stablemate Paddy Power (are these two finally singing from the same hymn sheet?).
Perhaps the outcome won't quite be the foregone conclusion we had been given to believe.
IIRC the latest polling has a Le Pen/Fillon run-off producing a 47.5/52.5 result.
Painfully, painfully close.
Some people still think Fillon could sneak through but the head-to-head polls surely suggest he's more likely to fall through the trap door to 4th or worse. Another poll has him losing 70-30 to Macron which is just staggering as the main centre-right candidate up against one of Hollande's cabinet.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
For the first time in a long time Macron's odds in the French Presidential Election have widened to Evens with Ladbrokes and others, whilst those against Fillon have shortened to 7/2 from the likes of Betfair Sportsbook and stablemate Paddy Power (are these two finally singing from the same hymn sheet?).
Perhaps the outcome won't quite be the foregone conclusion we had been given to believe.
IIRC the latest polling has a Le Pen/Fillon run-off producing a 47.5/52.5 result.
Painfully, painfully close.
Indeed, but first of all Fillon has to deal with the small matter of overcoming Macron.
For the first time in a long time Macron's odds in the French Presidential Election have widened to Evens with Ladbrokes and others, whilst those against Fillon have shortened to 7/2 from the likes of Betfair Sportsbook and stablemate Paddy Power (are these two finally singing from the same hymn sheet?).
Perhaps the outcome won't quite be the foregone conclusion we had been given to believe.
IIRC the latest polling has a Le Pen/Fillon run-off producing a 47.5/52.5 result.
Painfully, painfully close.
Some people still think Fillon could sneak through but the head-to-head polls surely suggest he's more likely to fall through the trap door to 4th or worse. Another poll has him losing 70-30 to Macron which is just staggering as the main centre-right candidate up against one of Hollande's cabinet.
Fillon has an ostinately strong core vote. Beyond that he really struggles. If he did make it to R2 v anyone, including Le Pen, it's hard to see how he will grow his support significantly. Him v Le Pen would essentially sideline 50% of the electorate and would lead to a very low turnout.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
More like idiots selling CDOs and synthetic CDOs on the back of Mortgage Bonds, where the CDOs were worth more than 20 times the value of the market they were underwriting.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
When you say the SNP, you mean the democratically elected government of Scotland?
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
They run Scotland. A majority in the Scottish parliament has backed a referendum.
Despite being a Tory I would certainly support a universal basic income if automation starts to remove large numbers of full time, permanent jobs indeed in Finland the centre right government is experimenting with a basic income now
I have yet to see any credible figure as to how UBI can remotely be afforded with a tax base that is going to be remotely acceptable to the electorate and leave our economy any chance of being competitive.
46 million adults in the UK. A £80/week (wholly inadequate) would cost around 190bn a year, pretty close to the whole social security budget, which it would in no way replace.
I am not totally adverse to the principle, but utterly against taking on more uncosted open-ended commitments that will be impossible to repeal, and guaranteed to grow substantially over time.
I oppose it at the moment with unemployment reasonably low but if large numbers of full time jobs get replaced by robots without replacement I would support the idea funded by a tax on those same robots and every developed nation would have to consider doing the same, not just the UK
Lets us for the moment change the name and call robots machines. For the best part of three hundred years jobs done by humans have been replaced by machines. The result has been throughout more, and more interesting, jobs, and higher standards of living. Why should these new machines produce a result that is different?
The idea of taxing machines seems daft to me. What people who suggest this seem to want is higher taxes on companies that try and innovate to produce better things at a lower cost. That will not end well.
Well if new full time and permanent jobs are created to replace all those lost through automation then fine and there will be no need for a basic income
Mr. HYFUD, more new jobs have been created than have been lost to automation for nearly three hundred years (actually if you include technological innovation rather than just automation then you could expand the time frame to something like 4,000 years). I really don't see why this new generation of machines will change that.
Whether in the future people will want full-time and permanent jobs is another matter. Society is changing, some young people, at least, seem to have different ideas about jobs and careers than my generation had.
I hope you are right but what young people want and middle aged people need to raise a family is rather different
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
When you say the SNP, you mean the democratically elected government of Scotland?
Scotland is a bit of a one-party state at the moment.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
They run Scotland. A majority in the Scottish parliament has backed a referendum.
For the first time in a long time Macron's odds in the French Presidential Election have widened to Evens with Ladbrokes and others, whilst those against Fillon have shortened to 7/2 from the likes of Betfair Sportsbook and stablemate Paddy Power (are these two finally singing from the same hymn sheet?).
Perhaps the outcome won't quite be the foregone conclusion we had been given to believe.
IIRC the latest polling has a Le Pen/Fillon run-off producing a 47.5/52.5 result.
Painfully, painfully close.
Some people still think Fillon could sneak through but the head-to-head polls surely suggest he's more likely to fall through the trap door to 4th or worse. Another poll has him losing 70-30 to Macron which is just staggering as the main centre-right candidate up against one of Hollande's cabinet.
Fillon is on about 19 to 20% and Macron and Le Pen 22 to 24% and Fillon leads with pensioners who are the group most likely to vote
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
When you say the SNP, you mean the democratically elected government of Scotland?
Representing, as you continue to remind us south of the border, less than a quarter of the Scottish people (44% of the vote x 55% turnout).
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Indeed, the SNP should count themselves lucky the British government allowed them even 1 official referendum. Catalan nationalists have not been allowed even that and when they held an unofficial referendum in 2015 the Spanish government arrested the Catalan President and he was fined and banned from public office for 2 years
9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments.
In this respect, the H2B scheme is similar to the subprime mortgage scandal. At least the people being lent the money actually have decent incomes, but it's still an inbuilt interest rate rise five years later. The first loans are due to reach their five year terms this year, and given that you repay 20% (or whatever you were lent) of the current value of the property, some people will be in for a nasty shock.
You do not repay the loan in year 5.
You just start paying interest on the government loan; the principal is repaid when the house is sold.
It is still too high - I have a friend who recently bought, and his ability to pay off that interest on the loan is based on him expecting to earn more per annum in five years time.
You also have the problem of people buying 400k flats and houses in London on 50k incomes effectively on a 25k deposit. House prices would only need to go down 5-6% from where they are now to push people into negative equity. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
For the first time in a long time Macron's odds in the French Presidential Election have widened to Evens with Ladbrokes and others, whilst those against Fillon have shortened to 7/2 from the likes of Betfair Sportsbook and stablemate Paddy Power (are these two finally singing from the same hymn sheet?).
Perhaps the outcome won't quite be the foregone conclusion we had been given to believe.
IIRC the latest polling has a Le Pen/Fillon run-off producing a 47.5/52.5 result.
Painfully, painfully close.
Some people still think Fillon could sneak through but the head-to-head polls surely suggest he's more likely to fall through the trap door to 4th or worse. Another poll has him losing 70-30 to Macron which is just staggering as the main centre-right candidate up against one of Hollande's cabinet.
Fillon has an ostinately strong core vote. Beyond that he really struggles. If he did make it to R2 v anyone, including Le Pen, it's hard to see how he will grow his support significantly. Him v Le Pen would essentially sideline 50% of the electorate and would lead to a very low turnout.
And Fillon is the one who might really tackle the French malaise. Macron would be Hollande with a few tweaks. Melenchon would be Chavez. Le Pen would be chaos.
Macron with a Les Republicains legislature as I think likely would actually help France reform or at least move in the right direction
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
The Debt/GDP ratio is well below the 120% level when Harold Macmillan informed the nation that it had 'never had it so good'! Moroever a Budget Deficit of circa 3% of GDP should be sustainable.
"should be"
What do you base that on?
Lets say we run that deficit for another 15 years.
What will total debt be then and what will our interest payments be (assuming no change in borrowing rates from today)
What could we have spent those interest payments on instead? - you know stuff like schools and teachers perhaps
A Budget Deficit is very much the 'norm'. In very few years since World War 2 has the UK run a Budget Surplus - and a couple of those were in the late 80s under Lawson when North Sea oil receipts were peaking and being supplemented by Privatisation revenues. A Budget Deficit of 10% per annum would not be sustainable longterm because of resultant interest rate burdens - but 3% should be manageable.Moreover, the burden of interest rate payments on the National Debt over the last 10 years is well below that which faced Neville Chamberlain as Chancellor in the National Government of the 1930s.
Gordon Brown ran more surpluses than any Tory Chancellor since the war. It really does not mean very much though. If we ever get near to a surplus again, Conservatives will be agitating for tax cuts.
Indeed so. No Tory Government has bequeathed a Budget Surplus to a Labour Government. Labour did manage to pass on a surplus in both 1970 and 1951.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
The SNP, Scottish Greens and substantial minorities within SLAB & SLID favour at least holding an IndyRef2 - the prospect of a generation of Tory rule will focus many minds in Scotland after 4th May is out of the way !!
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
When you say the SNP, you mean the democratically elected government of Scotland?
Could be that the fact they are the Scottish govt harms the chances of independence. Maybe the Scottish people are happy inside the Union with a Nationalist govt, and a referendum win is more likely without such a one party state. The trick might be to get a referendum off a Unionist Scottish govt
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
No it wasn't.
Yes it was,
It's amazing how libertarians mange to blame the global financial crisis on Democratic Government and black people rather than, you know, the banks and ratings agencies who respectively created a new class of investment product, mis-marketed it and then systematically mis-rated it and the rush of investment money that flooded out of the stock market post 9/11 dotCom crash.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
We'll ask ourselves as 'often' and as 'many times' as we want.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
They run Scotland. A majority in the Scottish parliament has backed a referendum.
Meanwhile, all the polls show that a majority of Scots don't WANT a referendum right now. Moreover, as we are a United Kingdom, the decision on when and whether to hold that referendum still resides at Westminster, not Holyrood.
Logically and reasonably, TMay has decided that it would make a decent Brexit deal impossible to negotiate if the Scots were simultaneously having a vote on independence. And TMay has to act in the interests of the entire UK, which voted to leave the EU. So she has, rightly, told Sturgeon to cool her jets.
No doubt Scots will get their second referendum in time (in the early 2020s, I reckon).
They may well vote YES, especially if they are outraged by London overruling Edinburgh; if so, good luck to them, and God speed. Equally they may vote NO, for reasons we might not even imagine, at the moment. A lot of things are going to change between now and then.
9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments.
In this respect, the H2B scheme is similar to the subprime mortgage scandal. At least the people being lent the money actually have decent incomes, but it's still an inbuilt interest rate rise five years later. The first loans are due to reach their five year terms this year, and given that you repay 20% (or whatever you were lent) of the current value of the property, some people will be in for a nasty shock.
You do not repay the loan in year 5.
You just start paying interest on the government loan; the principal is repaid when the house is sold.
It is still too high - I have a friend who recently bought, and his ability to pay off that interest on the loan is based on him expecting to earn more per annum in five years time.
You also have the problem of people buying 400k flats and houses in London on 50k incomes effectively on a 25k deposit. House prices would only need to go down 5-6% from where they are now to push people into negative equity. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
My friend has done this and he thinks when the five years is up he'll be able to move house, repay the government loan and get a mortgage to cover the rest. But as you say, it might not be as simple as that.
For the first time in a long time Macron's odds in the French Presidential Election have widened to Evens with Ladbrokes and others, whilst those against Fillon have shortened to 7/2 from the likes of Betfair Sportsbook and stablemate Paddy Power (are these two finally singing from the same hymn sheet?).
Perhaps the outcome won't quite be the foregone conclusion we had been given to believe.
IIRC the latest polling has a Le Pen/Fillon run-off producing a 47.5/52.5 result.
Painfully, painfully close.
Some people still think Fillon could sneak through but the head-to-head polls surely suggest he's more likely to fall through the trap door to 4th or worse. Another poll has him losing 70-30 to Macron which is just staggering as the main centre-right candidate up against one of Hollande's cabinet.
Fillon has an ostinately strong core vote. Beyond that he really struggles. If he did make it to R2 v anyone, including Le Pen, it's hard to see how he will grow his support significantly. Him v Le Pen would essentially sideline 50% of the electorate and would lead to a very low turnout.
And Fillon is the one who might really tackle the French malaise. Macron would be Hollande with a few tweaks. Melenchon would be Chavez. Le Pen would be chaos.
France needs change, no doubt. But it also has a lot going for it. They are a good leader away from real opportunity.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
The Debt/GDP ratio is well below the 120% level when Harold Macmillan informed the nation that it had 'never had it so good'! Moroever a Budget Deficit of circa 3% of GDP should be sustainable.
"should be"
What do you base that on?
Lets say we run that deficit for another 15 years.
What will total debt be then and what will our interest payments be (assuming no change in borrowing rates from today)
What could we have spent those interest payments on instead? - you know stuff like schools and teachers perhaps
A Budget Deficit is very much the 'norm'. In very few years since World War 2 has the UK run a Budget Surplus - and a couple of those were in the late 80s under Lawson when North Sea oil receipts were peaking and being supplemented by Privatisation revenues. A Budget Deficit of 10% per annum would not be sustainable longterm because of resultant interest rate burdens - but 3% should be manageable.Moreover, the burden of interest rate payments on the National Debt over the last 10 years is well below that which faced Neville Chamberlain as Chancellor in the National Government of the 1930s.
Gordon Brown ran more surpluses than any Tory Chancellor since the war. It really does not mean very much though. If we ever get near to a surplus again, Conservatives will be agitating for tax cuts.
And how would that statistic look had Brown remained as Chancellor beyond 2007?
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
We'll ask ourselves as 'often' and as 'many times' as we want.
9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments.
In this respect, the H2B scheme is similar to the subprime mortgage scandal. At least the people being lent the money actually have decent incomes, but it's still an inbuilt interest rate rise five years later. The first loans are due to reach their five year terms this year, and given that you repay 20% (or whatever you were lent) of the current value of the property, some people will be in for a nasty shock.
You do not repay the loan in year 5.
You just start paying interest on the government loan; the principal is repaid when the house is sold.
It is still too high - I have a friend who recently bought, and his ability to pay off that interest on the loan is based on him expecting to earn more per annum in five years time.
You also have the problem of people buying 400k flats and houses in London on 50k incomes effectively on a 25k deposit. House prices would only need to go down 5-6% from where they are now to push people into negative equity. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
My friend has done this and he thinks when the five years is up he'll be able to move house, repay the government loan and get a mortgage to cover the rest. But as you say, it might not be as simple as that.
Indeed - Our friends are making a very brave gamble on house prices going up or even staying the same over the next few years - I read earlier today house prices have declined nationally this year by 1% so far and London is a bubble ready to burst.
The thing about help to buy of course is you're not just pushed into negative equity and therefore unable to sell up and move on, you may be unable to keep up the repayments on the government loan as well.
A fire sale of overpriced rabbit hutches in zones 3 and 4 in 5 years time? Best start saving now, could be a buying opportunity for some...
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
We'll ask ourselves as 'often' and as 'many times' as we want.
No you won't, Westminster is sovereign and will decide if and when you get another official referendum
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
When you say the SNP, you mean the democratically elected government of Scotland?
Could be that the fact they are the Scottish govt harms the chances of independence. Maybe the Scottish people are happy inside the Union with a Nationalist govt, and a referendum win is more likely without such a one party state. The trick might be to get a referendum off a Unionist Scottish govt
A Unionist Scottish government will, by definition, not hold a referendum on independence
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
When you say the SNP, you mean the democratically elected government of Scotland?
Could be that the fact they are the Scottish govt harms the chances of independence. Maybe the Scottish people are happy inside the Union with a Nationalist govt, and a referendum win is more likely without such a one party state. The trick might be to get a referendum off a Unionist Scottish govt
A Unionist Scottish government will, by definition, not hold a referendum on independence
Well a pro EU UK govt held one on the EU. At the moment the situation in Scotland is like a man who has a mistress and a family. While he gets to shag the mistress and enjoy the excitement of that relationship, he isn't going to leave the wife and kids. If he had a moribunf relationship with the missus and that's that, he may well leave.
The Scots already have soft independence, this may be exactly what the majority want
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
We'll ask ourselves as 'often' and as 'many times' as we want.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
We'll ask ourselves as 'often' and as 'many times' as we want.
No you won't, Westminster is sovereign and will decide if and when you get another official referendum
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
We'll ask ourselves as 'often' and as 'many times' as we want.
No you won't, Westminster is sovereign and will decide if and when you get another official referendum
Probably best not to test this in court !
Westminster is sovereign and can overrule the courts through statute and abolish Holyrood if it wants, as the Supreme Court decided Holyrood must accept the judgement of Westminster
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
It's a Union. It's up to the Scots to decide whether they want to remain part of it.
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
When you say the SNP, you mean the democratically elected government of Scotland?
Could be that the fact they are the Scottish govt harms the chances of independence. Maybe the Scottish people are happy inside the Union with a Nationalist govt, and a referendum win is more likely without such a one party state. The trick might be to get a referendum off a Unionist Scottish govt
A Unionist Scottish government will, by definition, not hold a referendum on independence
Well a pro EU UK govt held one on the EU. At the moment the situation in Scotland is like a man who has a mistress and a family. While he gets to shag the mistress and enjoy the excitement of that relationship, he isn't going to leave the wife and kids. If he had a moribunf relationship with the missus and that's that, he may well leave.
The Scots already have soft independence, this may be exactly what the majority want
Question for Welsh PBers: Assuming that (at some undefined point) Scotland becomes independent and Ireland reunifies, would you be content for the remaining state to go back to being called simply the Kingdom of England?
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
2 points:
The 'finical crises' started in this with Northern Rock, supposedly regulated by the FSA.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
The ratings agencies were highly culpable in all this. They rated subprime junk loans as 'A' grade.
Yes, but the ratings agencies where coming under regulatory presser to do that.
This is proper bonkers. The Ratings agencies were under no such regulatory pressure to rate CDO's as AAA investment grade.
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance.
Absolutely. Also, last time round it didn't register much in the rest of the UK until very late on when the polls narrowed. Andy Murray's tacit support for independence was regarded as something weird and anti-English rather than a legitimate position.
Once it becomes clear that a referendum is inevitable, the realisation that a Yes vote is highly likely will leadincing Yes victory is plausible.
It is not 'highly likely' indeed most polls still have No in much the same position as they were before they win the 2014 referendum
But much tighter than the polls when the last indyref started. YES substantially closed the gap.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
What's your point? The vast majority of the Scottish electorate had thought deeply about independence by September 2014, which wasn't the case when the campaign started. Most people's views haven't changed, and a second campaign would not change much.
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
So why not just ask them directly in a referendum? If you're right No will win again.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
We'll ask ourselves as 'often' and as 'many times' as we want.
No you won't, Westminster is sovereign and will decide if and when you get another official referendum
Probably best not to test this in court !
Westminster is sovereign and can overrule the courts through statute and abolish Holyrood if it wants, as the Supreme Court decided Holyrood must accept the judgement of Westminster
Comments
Once it becomes clear that a referendum is inevitable, the realisation that a Yes vote is highly likely will lead to a very different political dynamic as people instead try to position themselves for the post-independence reality and a very convincing Yes victory is plausible.
But if we borrow money to build new roads, schools, hospitals - that benefits future generations also. Particularly if we borrow that money at a time when interest rates are low rather than high.
"Support for Brexit has hit a five month high, with 55 per cent of the population now backing Britain’s exit from the European Union, a new poll has found.
A new survey from Orb International shows a four per cent boost for Theresa May in days after she triggered the start of Brexit talks at the end of last month.
Dissatisfaction with Brexit is now at its lowest level since the survey started last November, with just 45 per cent opposed to leaving the EU."
Bit of a downer for OGH, TSE & company.
If it was 'just' a deficit of 3 % a year then it could be sustainable, dependant on GDP growth and inflation.
However we are not it that lucky situation there is a huge hided deficit and debt, in the form of Government workers pensions.
Estimates are that using realistic life expectancies this debt could be 200% of GDP
While G brown with his increase in the size of the state is mostly responsible, to little has been done by the Torys to correct it.
That is not sustainable. It is however stealing the future from our children and grand children.
I particularly enjoy the fact that he slates Gordon for a devaluation of the pound but now that beloved Brexit has had a similar effect argues it was much needed.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/07/daniel-hannan-instead-of-tantrums-remainers-should-accept-the-result-and-work-for-a-better-future.html
The Scottish nationalists don't have a magical ability to persuade another 20% of the electorate to support their position from the start to the end of the campaign, regardless of circumstance.
Perhaps you can tell me which Syria you would prefer to live in, Assad's secular multi-religious dicatorship with a semblance of democracy, or a Syria run by the people that we wish to replace him with. I know which I'd prefer.
Post 4th May, SLAB will again disintegrate into its normal state of civil war and blaming the voters for inflicting yet another record breaking defeat upon them. I'd envisage a break away pro Indy group emerging with the likes of Eric Joyce and Denis Cannavan potentially giving it initial leadership.
Whether in the future people will want full-time and permanent jobs is another matter. Society is changing, some young people, at least, seem to have different ideas about jobs and careers than my generation had.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604087/the-dark-secret-at-the-heart-of-ai/?set=604193
But we applaud your concern for freedom of speech, it sits well with your respect for democracy, both ofcourse only count in your book if they express the right views or vote for the right parties and outcomes.
Perhaps the outcome won't quite be the foregone conclusion we had been given to believe.
How many times and how often should we ask them?
Exactly, it's a union. One that the Scottish people recently decided to remain part of.
The SNP are the ones agitating and causing problems for the union. If they accepted the result for a generation, as they said they would, then there wouldn't be a problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25EUhZGBws
Scotland is a bit of a one-party state at the moment.
None of which changes my point.
You also have the problem of people buying 400k flats and houses in London on 50k incomes effectively on a 25k deposit. House prices would only need to go down 5-6% from where they are now to push people into negative equity. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
The thing about help to buy of course is you're not just pushed into negative equity and therefore unable to sell up and move on, you may be unable to keep up the repayments on the government loan as well.
A fire sale of overpriced rabbit hutches in zones 3 and 4 in 5 years time? Best start saving now, could be a buying opportunity for some...
The Scots already have soft independence, this may be exactly what the majority want
NEW THREAD