politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The impacts of the floods on the 2015 General Election

TheLastBoyScout said:

isam said:

TheLastBoyScout said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS ***

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?

YES 36% .. No 64%

Turnout Projection 79%

.......................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

Another 'poll' just pulled out of your Arse

Why do people give @JackW stick for trying to predict elections & referendums? I don't think he is saying it is a poll is he?

I have asked him his methodology time after time and been hit with a range of quasi-humorous ripostes. This morning he has snapped.

Why would he tell you his methodology, and why do you think you are entitled to know?

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

malcolmg said:

So explain your hatred of Scotland, SNP and Salmond.

There's your problem. Scotland /= SNP or Salmond

Compare and contrast

Islamic fundamentalist: A cartoon of The Prophet denigrates Islam

ScotNat FundaMentalist: A cartoon of Eck 'The Prophet' Salmond denigrates Scotland

Salmond is not Scotland.

I love Scotland. I have no love for Salmond. I haven't drunk the KoolAid. I don't believe his agenda is good for Scotland or Scots.

You are a typical BT supporter , no principles, no hope.

Who was accusing the other side of "negative campaigning"?

As you are interested in Scotland's future, what do you think the currency plan should be, now that currency union is off the table?

It is not off the table.

The criticism I have of ASalmond (and in many respects I admire him as a conviction politician) is that he is "neglecting" to tell the Scottish electorate just what a currency union actually means with the consequent loss of fiscal and monetary autonomy (I'm sure the fiscal pact and banking union issues could be addressed).

This verges on disingenuousness and for that reason it is legitimate to criticise him.

There are four problems with a currency union - the fiscal pact only addresses one of them - the other three may be insoluble: 1) the markets have to believe it is irreversible and will "last forever" - the SNP have made clear its a stop-gap, 2) the burden of risk is grossly asymmetrical and 3) the impositions on Holyrood spending from "London politicians" will poison relations between the two countries.

Added to that it's now electorally unpopular in rUK, why would an rUK government agree to it?

It's dead. Move on.

You are right on each count. But this is politics (as Mark Carney astutely observed) and should there be a YES vote (there won't be) then you can expect some kind of fudged agreement but for sure with disadvantageous terms for Scotland.

The only reason that it is not a 100% waste of time discussing this is that following a NO vote there will be some kind of Devo max negotiations and I believe that Devo max won't look a whole lot different to a YES with currency union.

CarlottaVance said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS ***

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?

YES 36% .. No 64%

Turnout Projection 79%

.......................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

May one enquire how this compares with previous effusions?

Yes indeed.

Sep .. Yes 42% .. No 58%
Oct .. Yes 39.5% .. No 60.5%
Jan .. Yes 38% .. No 62%
Feb .. Yes 36% .. No 64%

isam said:

TheLastBoyScout said:

isam said:

TheLastBoyScout said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS ***

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?

YES 36% .. No 64%

Turnout Projection 79%

.......................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

Another 'poll' just pulled out of your Arse

Why do people give @JackW stick for trying to predict elections & referendums? I don't think he is saying it is a poll is he?

I have asked him his methodology time after time and been hit with a range of quasi-humorous ripostes. This morning he has snapped.

Why would he tell you his methodology, and why do you think you are entitled to know?

If I were guessing at the result of an election, I would simply say so. Man up. There's no harm in it.

TheLastBoyScout said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS ***

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?

YES 36% .. No 64%

Turnout Projection 79%

.......................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

Another 'poll' just pulled out of your Arse

No: it's JackW's best guess/estimate at the likely outcome, based on all sorts of factors some of which are relevant, others of which are not.

He did well in the US presidential elections, but don't know about other previous predictions.

You may think he's wrong, but it's always useful to know what smart analysts are thinking

OblitusSumMe said:

@JosiasJessop - in the video I link to Monbiot does say that dredging has a role to play at some points in the Somerset Levels. It is however far from being the cure-all that the farming lobby claims.

Land-use practices, things that sound as simple as not leaving the ground bare in winter - it doesn't necessarily have to be covered in trees - can have a much larger impact.

The thing that particularly impresses me about Monbiot is that he follows things through and gets into the detail - in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods as a result of removing regulations on soil erosion prevention for farmers growing maize.

Much more convincing than the dredging drones.

It didn't take much science to say in December 2013 that there would be floods in the future on the levels, given that there were (admittedly lesser but disruptive) floods in the previous two winters.

I'm not convinced about the maize arguments (it will be a factor of some size, but I doubt it's major). However I am fairly convinced that lack of dredging *is* a major factor. It will not have stopped these floods, but it may have the 2011 and 2012 ones.

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.

Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.

It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.

*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.

There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.

I rather dislike many Westminster politicians , of all nationalities and the troughers in HOL and I strongly hope the union is broken. The threats are all coming one way , usual big boy trying to bully the smaller opponent. If Westminster threaten to keep the assets then it is unreasonable to expect Scotland to accept Westminster's debts.
The unionists seem determined to make it acrimonious as they have little positive to offer.
As ever your myopic view regarding UK banks regulated by Westminster is rather disingenuous.
Westminster caused the problem and then bailed out UK banks, Scotland had little say in the regulation of the bankers and therin lies the problem. A nameplate in Edinburgh does not make a bank Scottish.

You do realise that a currency is a liability, not an asset, right?

JosiasJessop said:

OblitusSumMe said:

@JosiasJessop - in the video I link to Monbiot does say that dredging has a role to play at some points in the Somerset Levels. It is however far from being the cure-all that the farming lobby claims.

Land-use practices, things that sound as simple as not leaving the ground bare in winter - it doesn't necessarily have to be covered in trees - can have a much larger impact.

The thing that particularly impresses me about Monbiot is that he follows things through and gets into the detail - in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods as a result of removing regulations on soil erosion prevention for farmers growing maize.

Much more convincing than the dredging drones.

It didn't take much science to say in December 2013 that there would be floods in the future on the levels, given that there were (admittedly lesser but disruptive) floods in the previous two winters.

I'm not convinced about the maize arguments (it will be a factor of some size, but I doubt it's major). However I am fairly convinced that lack of dredging *is* a major factor. It will not have stopped these floods, but it may have the 2011 and 2012 ones.

The research was not specifically about the Somerset Levels.

The GOOD NEWS really IS here now.

UK inflation falls to 1.9%

Fantastic.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.

Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.

It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.

*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.

There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.

Much or all of this is not Mr Salmond but down to the media's classic personalization/trivialisation strategy of equating indy with Mr Salmond. It seems to me that Mr Osborne and his allies are also whipping up divisiveness to their own ends (waving the patriotism card to fend off UKIP, and damage Labour as a bonus).

The SNP position is consistent and positive - that the Scots lay claim to pro rata share of the assets, apparatus [including BoE ], and debts of the UK of which Scotland is legally a full partner. The other option is of course the new state, no assets, no debts option, but that is not what the SNP have offered, except latterly as a default should the unionist side demand it. The unionist position has in general been far more negative and incoherent but tending to the new state view.

Now some horsetrading is inevitable - the Scots would hardly want 17% of a QE2 class aircraft carrier, for instance. But to deny currency union so early, without negotiation, is not convincing except as propaganda to influence the vote. Mr Osborne's speech has not been probed as it should be, given the obvious problems and careful omissions in it; and it is significant that he disappeared after his speech rather than be questioned on it. To give two examples: how Scottish financial sector assets being 12X GDP somehow equated directly to a banking regulatory disaster; and Mr Osborne's reluctance to discuss the advantages for EWNI of currency union - no mention of balance of payments issues, for instance. Or whether EWNI itself could meet the BoE's proposed controls which - as Mr Carney stressed - apply to both parties. Too early to say so far.

Big legal day today:

Court of Appeal to announce ruling on whole-life terms

I heard on the radio a human rights lawyer talking about the 'possibility' of release after each block of 25 years. But whenever I hear a human rights/parole type person mention the word 'possibility' I always consider them to mean 'will be unless there is cause not to' - which generally then means 'will be let out'

I hope our court of appeal stands firm on this one.

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.

Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.

It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.

*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.

There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.

. Mr Osborne's speech has not been probed as it should be, given the obvious problems and careful omissions in it

Why did Salmind not do that yesterday?

And Sterling is not "an asset" of the UK - it is a monetary instrument of the UK government - which Salmind knows, but chooses to misrepresent. If the UK splits, Sterling stays with the continuing state, the country departing having given up its right to use it.

@TGOHF

You seem very easily confused. There is no 'class war' here - and I am a unionist. I merely want to know what Jack's methodology is. I have asked him quite politely a number of times and he has simply fobbed me off. All he had to say was "I'd prefer not to tell you thanks". How you equate that with class war, only you know.

With regards to your specific point - there have been no polls since the currency row. Even Jack doesn't classify his projection as a poll.

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

OblitusSumMe said:

@JosiasJessop - in the video I link to Monbiot does say that dredging has a role to play at some points in the Somerset Levels. It is however far from being the cure-all that the farming lobby claims.

Land-use practices, things that sound as simple as not leaving the ground bare in winter - it doesn't necessarily have to be covered in trees - can have a much larger impact.

The thing that particularly impresses me about Monbiot is that he follows things through and gets into the detail - in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods as a result of removing regulations on soil erosion prevention for farmers growing maize.

Much more convincing than the dredging drones.

It didn't take much science to say in December 2013 that there would be floods in the future on the levels, given that there were (admittedly lesser but disruptive) floods in the previous two winters.

I'm not convinced about the maize arguments (it will be a factor of some size, but I doubt it's major). However I am fairly convinced that lack of dredging *is* a major factor. It will not have stopped these floods, but it may have the 2011 and 2012 ones.

The research was not specifically about the Somerset Levels.

So they were predicting floods *somewhere*?

Wow, what great prediction that was.

Personalisation of the campaign is hardly a phenomenon of the No campaign, earlier this thread we had malcolmg construing dislike of Salmond as hatred of Scotland.

I am not opposed to Scottish independence, but Salmond has not been telling the truth to the Electorate on a variety of issues, a currency union being the most recent.

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.



There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.

Much or all of this is not Mr Salmond but down to the media's classic personalization/trivialisation strategy of equating indy with Mr Salmond. It seems to me that Mr Osborne and his allies are also whipping up divisiveness to their own ends (waving the patriotism card to fend off UKIP, and damage Labour as a bonus).

The SNP position is consistent and positive - that the Scots lay claim to pro rata share of the assets, apparatus [including BoE ], and debts of the UK of which Scotland is legally a full partner. The other option is of course the new state, no assets, no debts option, but that is not what the SNP have offered, except latterly as a default should the unionist side demand it. The unionist position has in general been far more negative and incoherent but tending to the new state view.

Now some horsetrading is inevitable - the Scots would hardly want 17% of a QE2 class aircraft carrier, for instance. But to deny currency union so early, without negotiation, is not convincing except as propaganda to influence the vote. Mr Osborne's speech has not been probed as it should be, given the obvious problems and careful omissions in it; and it is significant that he disappeared after his speech rather than be questioned on it. To give two examples: how Scottish financial sector assets being 12X GDP somehow equated directly to a banking regulatory disaster; and Mr Osborne's reluctance to discuss the advantages for EWNI of currency union - no mention of balance of payments issues, for instance. Or whether EWNI itself could meet the BoE's proposed controls which - as Mr Carney stressed - apply to both parties. Too early to say so far.

TGOHF said:

Would be refreshing if a "Yes" poster could be honest about the last week and give a positive appraisal of how they can turn it around - could even be a thread.

We just don't know whether it's been good or bad for Yes until we have seen some polling!

I lived in Somerset for over 8 years...I can't remember seeing fields and fields of much maize.

Easterross said:

OblitusSumMe said:

It's also worth considering the curious franchise for the referendum, which includes 16-18 year olds and EU citizens resident in Scotland.

A good friend of mine is a German living in Scotland who has decided not to vote in the referendum on the principle that it's the sort of decision that should be made by Scottish people. If some of the English temporarily resident in Scotland take the same view then the turnout could be relatively low for reasons of principle rather than apathy.

foxinsoxuk said:

Far from being malodorous hot air, the outpourings of Jacks ARSE and McARSE are solid and regular. They should not be ignored, or they may cause a few slip ups.

To my mind the 79% turnout figure looks rather high. In 1978 the turnout was only 63%, in a time when electoral turnouts were rather higher generally.

In my experience the most rabid pro independence residents of Scotland include many who have not lost the English accents they hold having been born on the southern side of the border. I well remember in the late 1960s a London born friend of my father's joined the SNP. The SNP has a very active group among the Asian communities in Scotland with people who were not born here being very pro independence as much as those who are 2nd, 3rd or even 4th generation Scots Asians.

That's an interesting observation, thanks.

I would have assumed that English residents in Scotland would be most likely to vote for the Union, if they vote, because they will have first-hand experience of the advantages that being in the Union bring to making it easier to move across the border.

CarlottaVance said:

JackW said:

CarlottaVance said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS ***

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?

YES 36% .. No 64%

Turnout Projection 79%

.......................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

May one enquire how this compares with previous effusions?

Yes indeed.

Sep .. Yes 42% .. No 58%
Oct .. Yes 39.5% .. No 60.5%
Jan .. Yes 38% .. No 62%
Feb .. Yes 36% .. No 64%

Thank you - a clear move away from "Yes"..... Have you sniffed any movement as a result of the McSterling McFandango?

Yes, the drift has accelerated somewhat and the currency issue has, not unsurprisingly, shot up the McARSE "Issues Ratio"

Slackbladder said:

I lived in Somerset for over 8 years...I can't remember seeing fields and fields of much maize.

Maize needs a lot of water, doesn't it? So it's great when there is a lot of water. But not so great when there isn't. And remember, it was only two years ago that we had a major drought on our hands. There has to be a better solution than that.

Slackbladder said:

Dominic Casciani ‏@BBCDomC · 37 secs
Court of Appeal upholds the principle of whole life terms for most serious killers in England and Wales.

Excellent....

Very good news.

TGOHF said:

Would be refreshing if a "Yes" poster could be honest about the last week and give a positive appraisal of how they can turn it around - could even be a thread.

You want honesty and positivity?
There's no need to disfigure Irony's cold, dead body.

TheLastBoyScout said:

@TGOHF

You seem very easily confused. There is no 'class war' here - and I am a unionist. I merely want to know what Jack's methodology is. I have asked him quite politely a number of times and he has simply fobbed me off. All he had to say was "I'd prefer not to tell you thanks". How you equate that with class war, only you know.

With regards to your specific point - there have been no polls since the currency row. Even Jack doesn't classify his projection as a poll.

The penny has dropped ?!?

You have indeed politely requested the ARSE methodology and I have rebuffed you. I do not issue details of my own patent methodology.

Might I suggest that you simply embrace my ARSE and not try to over anal-yse it.

On thing is for certain now - the 40+ Scottish Labour MPs are going absolutely nowhere before May 2015 even in the event of a Yes vote.

Far too many rows to be had.

SouthamObserver said:

Slackbladder said:

I lived in Somerset for over 8 years...I can't remember seeing fields and fields of much maize.

Maize needs a lot of water, doesn't it? So it's great when there is a lot of water. But not so great when there isn't. And remember, it was only two years ago that we had a major drought on our hands. There has to be a better solution than that.

A couple of weeks ago I did suggest turning parts of the levels into a water supply-reservoir for London and the southeast. Mind, that 'idea' was only the febrile result of a dream and would require massive engineering, and have severe ecological and social effects.

But it would at least be more honest to the residents than EA's current policy.

SouthamObserver said:

@foxinsox - "Salmond has not been telling the truth to the Electorate on a variety of issues, a currency union being the most recent"

The SNP leadership do not trust the Scottish electorate to make the right decision if the full facts of independence are discussed. In that sense they are very different to other members of the Yes side, such as Jim Sillars and Patrick Harvie. Salmond and Sturgeon both know that the vision of the independence process they are peddling is complete nonsense, but their aim is to win the vote - nothing more.

That's a hideously cynical view of politics...

but you might not be wrong.

Suicide stats. are out,important public health indicator.Males aged between 40-44 ie born 1970-74 at particular risk.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/suicides-in-the-united-kingdom/2012/index.html?WT.mc_id=a67630d79aa3a85d0468225f5df3bef2&WT.z_taxonomy=population&WT.z_format=headline&WT.z_content=post&WT.z_trigger=proactive

Pulpstar said:

On thing is for certain now - the 40+ Scottish Labour MPs are going absolutely nowhere before May 2015 even in the event of a Yes vote.

Far too many rows to be had.

"Rows"? Care to elaborate, or is something happening, please?

perdix said:

Extraordinary rainfall. Blame the government!

Spot on. They should also be blamed for any drought, snow and wind. Hail is, of course, the Catholic Church's fault.

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.

Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.

It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.

*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.

There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.

I rather dislike many Westminster politicians , of all nationalities and the troughers in HOL and I strongly hope the union is broken. The threats are all coming one way , usual big boy trying to bully the smaller opponent. If Westminster threaten to keep the assets then it is unreasonable to expect Scotland to accept Westminster's debts.
The unionists seem determined to make it acrimonious as they have little positive to offer.
As ever your myopic view regarding UK banks regulated by Westminster is rather disingenuous.
Westminster caused the problem and then bailed out UK banks, Scotland had little say in the regulation of the bankers and therin lies the problem. A nameplate in Edinburgh does not make a bank Scottish.

You do realise that a currency is a liability, not an asset, right?

Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn
A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum

Ishmael_X said:

Mick_Pork said:

Good to see the scottish tory surgers and PB Romneys are still shrieking away pointlessly.
Next thing they'll be sniffing some old codgers arse for comfort.

*chortle*

Arbroath 4, Forfar 5

ROFLPBtorypandashrieksurge 359, substantive comment nil.

I'm sure that, like me, you're looking forward to Mick's outpourings on Friday the 19th of September. It will be a day to treasure.

CarlottaVance said:

JackW said:

CarlottaVance said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS ***

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?

YES 36% .. No 64%

Turnout Projection 79%

.......................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

May one enquire how this compares with previous effusions?

Yes indeed.

Sep .. Yes 42% .. No 58%
Oct .. Yes 39.5% .. No 60.5%
Jan .. Yes 38% .. No 62%
Feb .. Yes 36% .. No 64%

Thank you - a clear move away from "Yes"..... Have you sniffed any movement as a result of the McSterling McFandango?

LOL, toom tabard is easily taken in, only a fool would think the polls are moving to NO.
Even flipper Darling had to admit that last night after being called out on the same LIE.

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.

Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.

It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.

*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.

There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.

I rather dislike many Westminster politicians , of all nationalities and the troughers in HOL and I strongly hope the union is broken. The threats are all coming one way , usual big boy trying to bully the smaller opponent. If Westminster threaten to keep the assets then it is unreasonable to expect Scotland to accept Westminster's debts.
The unionists seem determined to make it acrimonious as they have little positive to offer.
As ever your myopic view regarding UK banks regulated by Westminster is rather disingenuous.
Westminster caused the problem and then bailed out UK banks, Scotland had little say in the regulation of the bankers and therin lies the problem. A nameplate in Edinburgh does not make a bank Scottish.

You do realise that a currency is a liability, not an asset, right?

Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn
A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum

What are you talking about?

"A share of the pound is ours."

As teens across the globe would put it:

What does that even mean?

Ishmael_X said:

MikeK said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS ***

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?

YES 36% .. No 64%

Turnout Projection 79%

.......................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

My, my! Clearly a hugely oversold ARSE here. A hole in one, one might say.

There are indeed flaws in JackW's methodology. To iron these out I am working on a set of equations which could loosely be described as a Riemannian electoral calculus tensor unity matrix. The bottom, as it were, line is: do not trust the output of Jack's ARSE unless it has also passed through my RECTUM.

Madam !! .... We've not even been introduced ......

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

JackW said:

CarlottaVance said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS *** BREAKING WIND NEWS ***

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection :

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?

YES 36% .. No 64%

Turnout Projection 79%

.......................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - Magnificent Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

May one enquire how this compares with previous effusions?

Yes indeed.

Sep .. Yes 42% .. No 58%
Oct .. Yes 39.5% .. No 60.5%
Jan .. Yes 38% .. No 62%
Feb .. Yes 36% .. No 64%

Thank you - a clear move away from "Yes"..... Have you sniffed any movement as a result of the McSterling McFandango?

LOL, toom tabard is easily taken in, only a fool would think the polls are moving to NO.
Even flipper Darling had to admit that last night after being called out on the same LIE.

You guys are fascinating to watch.

It's like a convention of the Flat Earth Society held on a space station, with everyone sitting with their back to the window.

malcolmg said:

Easterross said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Gosh, I'm sure if Eck were even aware of PB.com he'd be gratified to see so many PB Unionists dancing to a Scottish jig.

Surprised no one has commented on Al Darling's performance on C4 News last night; he was given a rougher ride than he's used to with BBC Scotland interviewers, the blink count was up to at least 100 per minute. Not comforting viewing for Unionists I'd surmise.

In today's other news, Gordon Brown is launching a campaign to tell us how our pensions would be really ****ed up in an independent Scotland.

http://tinyurl.com/nnmhldl

Irony has been tortured, executed and its body dumped in a ditch.

Eck and his team of advisers are well aware of PB.com. No.10 is not the only political office which keeps a regular eye on this august political organ. There will be much angst in YESNP circles this morning at the results predicted by Jack's arse.

They will be rolling in the aisles.

Then they should keep off the meths before breakfast.

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

So they were predicting floods *somewhere*?

Wow, what great prediction that was.

The paper was not specifically about predicting floods, but about soil degradation - one of the consequences of which would be flooding.

If you can't be bothered to read the things I link to why can you be bothered to argue about them?

It's pointless to argue about something you haven't read, because you are arguing about things that you *think* it says, rather than the things it *actually* says.

Stop being so silly.

Further upthread you said: " ... in this case he's using a scientific paper from December 2013 that all but predicted the floods"

At least you now admit that the paper did no such thing.

The sad thing is I don't think we're a million miles apart on this issue, it's just the degree the causes (and there will be multiple) have on the floods.

In my understanding of the phrase "... all but predicted the floods" the meaning is that it does not predict the floods - hence the "but" in the sentence - but it very nearly does.

Which if you'd bother to read the extract from the abstract that I posted in the thread, or the abstract itself, or Monbiot's article, or understood basic grammar, you might have understood.

Your blind insistence on disagreeing with Monbiot for ideological reasons is clouding your judgement.

Oh Lordy. What do you think are my 'ideological' reasons for disagreeing with Monbiot? Go on, I could do with a laugh.

I do understand basic grammar thanks, and I understand what it means when someone uses 'all but'.

It's you who is trying to big up your opinion, even when there is no basis behind it. So let's take your modified sentence. 'But it very nearly does' 'predict the floods'. How nearly? A little? A lot? And which floods? You've already said it isn't the ones on the Levels.

So we have a paper 'very nearly' (but not actually) predicting floods that have occurred (in the Levels) for two previous years, or in various parts of the country most years.

foxinsoxuk said:

Personalisation of the campaign is hardly a phenomenon of the No campaign, earlier this thread we had malcolmg construing dislike of Salmond as hatred of Scotland.

I am not opposed to Scottish independence, but Salmond has not been telling the truth to the Electorate on a variety of issues, a currency union being the most recent.

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.



There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.

Much or all of this is not Mr Salmond but down to the media's classic personalization/trivialisation strategy of equating indy with Mr Salmond. It seems to me that Mr Osborne and his allies are also whipping up divisiveness to their own ends (waving the patriotism card to fend off UKIP, and damage Labour as a bonus).

The SNP position is consistent and positive - that the Scots lay claim to pro rata share of the assets, apparatus [including BoE ], and debts of the UK of which Scotland is legally a full partner. The other option is of course the new state, no assets, no debts option, but that is not what the SNP have offered, except latterly as a default should the unionist side demand it. The unionist position has in general been far more negative and incoherent but tending to the new state view.

Now some horsetrading is inevitable - the Scots would hardly want 17% of a QE2 class aircraft carrier, for instance. But to deny currency union so early, without negotiation, is not convincing except as propaganda to influence the vote. Mr Osborne's speech has not been probed as it should be, given the obvious problems and careful omissions in it; and it is significant that he disappeared after his speech rather than be questioned on it. To give two examples: how Scottish financial sector assets being 12X GDP somehow equated directly to a banking regulatory disaster; and Mr Osborne's reluctance to discuss the advantages for EWNI of currency union - no mention of balance of payments issues, for instance. Or whether EWNI itself could meet the BoE's proposed controls which - as Mr Carney stressed - apply to both parties. Too early to say so far.

You seem to have lost of your senses and joined the other stooges on here. Name one lie from Alex Salmond. He has said he favours a currency union and believes Westminster will to when faced with reality , where is the lie in that perchance.

Intresting on the Mayoral race for London - The LAY prices are often a decent guide as to who the runners and riders are right now:

Only 3 with cash wanting to back them below 20-1 Khan, Jowell and Coe.

I can honestly see Coe going for it for the Conservatives, the IAAF top job will be the one to watch - if he doesn't go for it I think it is a strong pointer he will run for the Conservatives for the Mayor. A popular figure with the legacy of a very good Olympics held crucially in London behind him I also think he has the best chance of defeating Labour there. I'm on him at 16-1 btw.

Whilst I respect JackW's perspicacity (and that's not easy to spell at this time of day) I think he is being very optimistic for the "no" vote.

I think it will be a lot closer. If I had to guess at the moment I would say 56:44 no. I also think he is a little optimistic in turnout, especially with 16 year olds on the register.

The yes campaign has been embarrassing but there is a campaign and there is a GOTV operation dedicated to the cause. The no campaign to me seems only to exist in TV studios and it is far from clear that Labour will be in a position to use their GOTV operation to help. The Labour vote will be too fragmented for that.

So despite the absurdities I think this will get closer. And there is still the risk of a black swan event shaking everything up and making the result less predictable.

This is not over.

malcolmg said:

TOPPING said:

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, it's worth considering that Salmond's approach to antagonise non-Scots to drive up division between Scotland and the rest of the UK also has the effect of making Salmond very easy to dislike.

Furthermore, disliking Salmond or even the SNP is not the same thing as disliking Scotland. Some of the nicest posters on pb.com are Scottish, and I strongly hope the union remains intact. I rather dislike Salmond, not merely his political position, because it's divisive and even deceitful. In one breath he claims (post-independence) England and Scotland will be 'best pals' and in another he attempts to propose to inflict a currency union on a country he hopes to leave and threatens to ignore 100% of Scotland's debts* if he doesn't get his way.

It's not a fantastic way to encourage bilateral trade if independence should occur.

*Technically, Scotland would not have any debt. But tell that to Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen who have seen two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister prop up two Scottish banks with British taxpayers' money and then Scotland taking no debt whatsoever.

There's still a long way to go. Perhaps the debate will become more cordial. I suspect it will become more acrimonious.

I rather dislike many Westminster politicians , of all nationalities and the troughers in HOL and I strongly hope the union is broken. The threats are all coming one way , usual big boy trying to bully the smaller opponent. If Westminster threaten to keep the assets then it is unreasonable to expect Scotland to accept Westminster's debts.
The unionists seem determined to make it acrimonious as they have little positive to offer.
As ever your myopic view regarding UK banks regulated by Westminster is rather disingenuous.
Westminster caused the problem and then bailed out UK banks, Scotland had little say in the regulation of the bankers and therin lies the problem. A nameplate in Edinburgh does not make a bank Scottish.

You do realise that a currency is a liability, not an asset, right?

Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn
A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum

What are you talking about?

"A share of the pound is ours."

As teens across the globe would put it:

What does that even mean?

For thickos like yourself it means we currently use the pound and we will continue to use it as long as we like, and we own 10% of all those in circulation.

Priceless.

JackW said:

malcolmg said:

Easterross said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Gosh, I'm sure if Eck were even aware of PB.com he'd be gratified to see so many PB Unionists dancing to a Scottish jig.

Surprised no one has commented on Al Darling's performance on C4 News last night; he was given a rougher ride than he's used to with BBC Scotland interviewers, the blink count was up to at least 100 per minute. Not comforting viewing for Unionists I'd surmise.

In today's other news, Gordon Brown is launching a campaign to tell us how our pensions would be really ****ed up in an independent Scotland.

http://tinyurl.com/nnmhldl

Irony has been tortured, executed and its body dumped in a ditch.

Eck and his team of advisers are well aware of PB.com. No.10 is not the only political office which keeps a regular eye on this august political organ. There will be much angst in YESNP circles this morning at the results predicted by Jack's arse.

They will be rolling in the aisles.

Then they should keep off the meths before breakfast.

Did you see my offer to test your ARSE's accuracy

DavidL said:

Whilst I respect JackW's perspicacity (and that's not easy to spell at this time of day) I think he is being very optimistic for the "no" vote.

I think it will be a lot closer. If I had to guess at the moment I would say 56:44 no. I also think he is a little optimistic in turnout, especially with 16 year olds on the register.

The yes campaign has been embarrassing but there is a campaign and there is a GOTV operation dedicated to the cause. The no campaign to me seems only to exist in TV studios and it is far from clear that Labour will be in a position to use their GOTV operation to help. The Labour vote will be too fragmented for that.

So despite the absurdities I think this will get closer. And there is still the risk of a black swan event shaking everything up and making the result less predictable.

This is not over.

With respect I think you fear a YES vote, and like someone who has backed the favourite a mile out in front you are worried about a fall at the last. Yes could win but it is a mile behind.

Life_ina_market_town said:

For those who have read the judgment of the Court of Appeal, it will be noted that the appeal turned on the interpretation of s. 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. The Court essentially made clear, quite rightly, that the Strasbourg Court's construction of that provision had been seriously erroneous. How any one can think that a court which simply failed to grasp what the law of England and Wales was (when it was perfectly clear and had been stated by the previous but one Lord Chief in Bieber) ought to have any jurisdiction over this country I fail to understand. The Strasbourg Court used an executive policy to construe primary legislation, contrary to every principle of English public law. The court is a disgrace.

I completely agree. The quality of the judgments by the ECtHR is the worst I have read. Decisions of the ECJ are a paragon of clarity and reasoning by comparison. It brings the Court and the Convention itself into disrepute.

Socrates said:

malcolmg said:

Yes just like oil , whisky , natural resources , etc , quick we better vote to stay in union ..............yawn
A share of the pound is ours , a share of the BofE is ours , a share of all currency reserves is ours, ad infinitum

You're quite entitled to have your share of UK currency reserves after the split, as well as a share of the Bank's assets. What you're not entitled to is for the UK Government to consider your interests when setting monetary policy, or for the UK Government to act as a lender of last resort for your economy. In the same way, you don't get a share of the Treasury's decisions, or a share of the Defence department's decisions. That's what separation means: removing yourself from UK institutions.

who wants a share of the morons at defence. If we have 10% of the currency reserves and we own 10% of the Treasury ( BofE ) then I would suspect we would get some say in the matter. We would need to check rumpUK budgets to ensure they did not drag us down with their profligate borrowing habits.