politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB does come top in the Euros then he should send a tha

Carnyx said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

NO campaign are getting ever more desperate , having to resort to violence.

Nationalist MSP 'assaulted' during pub debate on independence
http://news.stv.tv/tayside/270936-david-torrance-msp-allegedly-attacked-in-novar-bar-in-kirkcaldy/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

A deplorable incident. But taking the action of one man - which may or may not have been prompted by the independence conversation - and tarring an entire campaign with it seems rather desperate.

I would agree, with two provisos. Firstly, it was presumably the TV station who ran with it, rather than the Yes campaign (no sign so far of the usual No Campaign type orchestration). Secondly, we don't know who the assailant was and therefore if his or her identity is significant politically.

And the other side have in fact been trying it on for a long time, often with much less excuse. Only the other week a Labour MP tried to concoct a story about Nat vandalism of his constituency office, complete with media and police. But it seems to have amounted to the odd sticker on the window, and some spraypainted slogans which turned out to be (a) old and (b) the local youth gang's territorial markers*. There is some very sharp investigative journalism and comment on this, inclouding a most interesting analysis of a Scotsman piece

http://wingsoverscotland.com/whats-that-secret-youre-keeping/#more-52889
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-cornered-rats/ (esp later on)
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9020-a-big-boy-dun-it-and-ran-away

*of course, they may be voting ... but I don't think the spray painting was political!

I was referring to Malc saying that it was the no campaign getting ever more desperate, and having to resort to violence. Which is directly linking this incident and the campaign.

Both sides are getting really silly on this. You're f'ing Scotsman, for God's sake. Act like it and not like a bunch of namby-pamby children. You're trying to debate the future way forward to Scotland, not act like kids in the schoolground.

JosiasJessop said:

Carnyx said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

NO campaign are getting ever more desperate , having to resort to violence.

Nationalist MSP 'assaulted' during pub debate on independence
http://news.stv.tv/tayside/270936-david-torrance-msp-allegedly-attacked-in-novar-bar-in-kirkcaldy/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

A deplorable incident. But taking the action of one man - which may or may not have been prompted by the independence conversation - and tarring an entire campaign with it seems rather desperate.

I would agree, with two provisos. Firstly, it was presumably the TV station who ran with it, rather than the Yes campaign (no sign so far of the usual No Campaign type orchestration). Secondly, we don't know who the assailant was and therefore if his or her identity is significant politically.

And the other side have in fact been trying it on for a long time, often with much less excuse. Only the other week a Labour MP tried to concoct a story about Nat vandalism of his constituency office, complete with media and police. But it seems to have amounted to the odd sticker on the window, and some spraypainted slogans which turned out to be (a) old and (b) the local youth gang's territorial markers*. There is some very sharp investigative journalism and comment on this, inclouding a most interesting analysis of a Scotsman piece

http://wingsoverscotland.com/whats-that-secret-youre-keeping/#more-52889
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-cornered-rats/ (esp later on)
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9020-a-big-boy-dun-it-and-ran-away

*of course, they may be voting ... but I don't think the spray painting was political!

I was referring to Malc saying that it was the no campaign getting ever more desperate, and having to resort to violence. Which is directly linking this incident and the campaign.

Both sides are getting really silly on this. You're f'ing Scotsman, for God's sake. Act like it and not like a bunch of namby-pamby children. You're trying to debate the future way forward to Scotland, not act like kids in the schoolground.

Exactly. Which is why I couldn't be bothered to post that story before. But I wouldn't say 'both' sides in anything like strict equivalence - such rubbish is being orchestrated far more from the No campaign. As things are, I really do wonder if it is possible to have a debate with people who act like that MP.

I cannot believe that you managed to keep a straight face when trying to put that kind of spin on this incident and that article.

Carnyx said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

NO campaign are getting ever more desperate , having to resort to violence.

Nationalist MSP 'assaulted' during pub debate on independence
http://news.stv.tv/tayside/270936-david-torrance-msp-allegedly-attacked-in-novar-bar-in-kirkcaldy/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

A deplorable incident. But taking the action of one man - which may or may not have been prompted by the independence conversation - and tarring an entire campaign with it seems rather desperate.

I would agree, with two provisos. Firstly, it was presumably the TV station who ran with it, rather than the Yes campaign (no sign so far of the usual No Campaign type orchestration). Secondly, we don't know who the assailant was and therefore if his or her identity is significant politically.

And the other side have in fact been trying it on for a long time, often with much less excuse. Only the other week a Labour MP tried to concoct a story about Nat vandalism of his constituency office, complete with media and police. But it seems to have amounted to the odd sticker on the window, and some spraypainted slogans which turned out to be (a) old and (b) the local youth gang's territorial markers*. There is some very sharp investigative journalism and comment on this, inclouding a most interesting analysis of a Scotsman piece

http://wingsoverscotland.com/whats-that-secret-youre-keeping/#more-52889
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-cornered-rats/ (esp later on)
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9020-a-big-boy-dun-it-and-ran-away

*of course, they may be voting ... but I don't think the spray painting was political!

volcanopete said:

The Maria Miller affair is worrying Tory candidates in the marginals.Bad news for Cameron.I hope Miliband goes for him at PMQs over this staggering lack of judgement.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10752820/Maria-Miller-could-cost-Tories-election-if-she-stays-say-MPs.html

God yes, labour going on expenses should be worth the popcorn. Maybe former PM trough snout will be there to watch.

volcanopete said:

The Maria Miller affair is worrying Tory candidates in the marginals.Bad news for Cameron.I hope Miliband goes for him at PMQs over this staggering lack of judgement.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10752820/Maria-Miller-could-cost-Tories-election-if-she-stays-say-MPs.html

I doubt Ed will go for Dave too hard on this issue.

You might want to consult this article to see why: http://bit.ly/1hcWxYI

On second thoughts, given what Ed did to David, he might well try it on.

Seant, been warning for months on here that this Indy Ref campaign was going to get quite heated and very nasty before the vote. And it will also leave a lingering bitterness for a long time after the result in announced too. What ever the outcome of the Indy Ref, the SNP desire for Independence has finally managed to split the nation and pit Scot against Scot in a way that is causing arguments among families and friends up and down the country right now.

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

Carnyx said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

NO campaign are getting ever more desperate , having to resort to violence.

Nationalist MSP 'assaulted' during pub debate on independence
http://news.stv.tv/tayside/270936-david-torrance-msp-allegedly-attacked-in-novar-bar-in-kirkcaldy/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

A deplorable incident. But taking the action of one man - which may or may not have been prompted by the independence conversation - and tarring an entire campaign with it seems rather desperate.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/whats-that-secret-youre-keeping/#more-52889
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-cornered-rats/ (esp later on)
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9020-a-big-boy-dun-it-and-ran-away

*of course, they may be voting ... but I don't think the spray painting was political!

I was referring to Malc saying that it was the no campaign getting ever more desperate, and having to resort to violence. Which is directly linking this incident and the campaign.

Both sides are getting really silly on this. You're f'ing Scotsman, for God's sake. Act like it and not like a bunch of namby-pamby children. You're trying to debate the future way forward to Scotland, not act like kids in the schoolground.

If and when it gets closer, it is going to get nastier. There are hundreds of thousands of Scots very attached to their British identitiy (check the terraces at any Rangers game) just as their are hundreds of thousands of Scots who revile Britishness, and are desperate for independence.

Nationalism is a demon, and once evoked it is hard to unsummon.

Easterross, you don't worry that the almost OTT behaviour of some Yes supporters online etc is in fact not just turning some voters more determinedly off their campaign, but also making these voters less likely to raise their heads above the parapet and voice an opinion at all? Just look at the steady stream of abuse that some celebrities have been subjected to if they openly support the Scots voting to remain in the UK. I know that I tend to avoid discussing the Indy Ref and skim over the debate far more often than I used to here on PB these days. Way back in 1992 we discovered the shy Tory vote, I suspect that we are also going to discover the shy No vote come the day of the election.

Easterross said:

RodCrosby said:

corporeal said:

I think that's probably an old stat Rod, afaiaa they've got a lot better in recent years at updating the registers regularly.

Maybe... I'd love to know the answer. I believe Glasgow is the worst in the UK.

Rod it is reckoned there are 400,000 potential voters missing from the registers in Scotland. The YESNP has been systematically tracking them down for some months. Not surprisingly, most are either students or people who live in areas identified as being 'deprived', i.e. safe rotten Labour burghs. It is this sort of dedicated ground work being done by the YES side which makes me think they will win. They are also going after the 2million Scots who were registered but didn't vote in 2011.

isam said:

@dyedwoolie‌

General Election 2010: Thurrock[7]

Conservative Jackie Doyle-Price 16,869 36.8 +3.6
Labour Carl Morris 16,777 36.6 −9.6
Liberal Democrat Carys Davis 4,901 10.7 −0.4
BNP Emma Colgate 3,618 7.9 +2.1
UKIP Clive Broad 3,390 7.4 +4.0
Christian Peoples Arinola Araba 267 0.6 N/

The way I have worked it out, which is plausible I think.. if LDS keep 70% of their vote, Tories keep 60% of theirs, Labour 75% of their plus 15% of LDs, UKIP keep all of their plus 75% BNP, 30% Tory, 15% Labour and 15% LDs the result would be

UKIP 14415 (34%)
Labour 13317 (31.5%)
Tory 10121 (23.9%)
LD 3430 (8.1%)
BNP 723 (1.7%)

Obv if you disagree with the way I have split the numbers up then it would be a lot different.

I haven't actually added any DNVs into it, which may make UKIP stronger, and compensate for adding too much from one party or another

Just took Ladbrokes 25/1 UKIP to win Telford as well

Yes, possible and value at 16/1. Thurrock is like Gt Yarmouth, a hole. You get good traction in a hole if you are agin the establishment.

SeanT said:

Easterross said:

RodCrosby said:

corporeal said:

I think that's probably an old stat Rod, afaiaa they've got a lot bteresetter in recent years at updating the registers regularly.

Maybe... I'd love to know the answer. I believe Glasgow is the worst in the UK.

Rod it is reckoned there are 400,000 potential voters missing from the registers in Scotland. The YESNP has been systematically tracking them down for some months. Not surprisingly, most are either students or people who live in areas identified as being 'deprived', i.e. safe rotten Labour burghs. It is this sort of dedicated ground work being done by the YES side which makes me think they will win. They are also going after the 2million Scots who were registered but didn't vote in 2011.

This cuts both ways.

It is quite possible that there are 1000s of previously apathetic Scots, uninterested in politics, who had hitherto presumed NO would win easily. Now that YES is gaining they are maybe registering so they can do their best to stop it.

This referendum really is very hard to call, for a billion reasons. The huge disparity in results from different pollsters does not help.

Seems naïve to think that if it is a close result, with either side winning by less than 8%, that there wont be some kind of aggro/division in Scotland in the aftermath. It would defy human nature

malcolmg said:

john_zims said:

NAT ON NAT INCOMING

'An SNP attempt to downplay Alex Salmond's five-star hotel bills has backfired spectacularly after it emerged he stayed at luxury accommodation singled out by Nicola Sturgeon for direct criticism.'

Salmoan caught troughing again.

Yes , big news , First minister stays in hotel

" But Ms Lamont wouldn't budge, demanding to know "how much taxpayers' cash Alex Salmond spent on himself in the Peninsula Hotel?"

Not that our politicians are petty, you understand, but Ms Sturgeon retorted that Jack McConnell used to stay in New York's Benjamin Hotel, as "frequented by Paul McCartney" " and Alex Salmond.

MarkSenior said:

dyedwoolie said:

isam said:

@dyedwoolie‌

General Election 2010: Thurrock[7]

Conservative Jackie Doyle-Price 16,869 36.8 +3.6
Labour Carl Morris 16,777 36.6 −9.6
Liberal Democrat Carys Davis 4,901 10.7 −0.4
BNP Emma Colgate 3,618 7.9 +2.1
UKIP Clive Broad 3,390 7.4 +4.0
Christian Peoples Arinola Araba 267 0.6 N/

The way I have worked it out, which is plausible I think.. if LDS keep 70% of their vote, Tories keep 60% of theirs, Labour 75% of their plus 15% of LDs, UKIP keep all of their plus 75% BNP, 30% Tory, 15% Labour and 15% LDs the result would be

UKIP 14415 (34%)
Labour 13317 (31.5%)
Tory 10121 (23.9%)
LD 3430 (8.1%)
BNP 723 (1.7%)

Obv if you disagree with the way I have split the numbers up then it would be a lot different.

I haven't actually added any DNVs into it, which may make UKIP stronger, and compensate for adding too much from one party or another

Just took Ladbrokes 25/1 UKIP to win Telford as well

Yes, possible and value at 16/1. Thurrock is like Gt Yarmouth, a hole. You get good traction in a hole if you are agin the establishment.

2012 local elections in Thurrock Lab 39% Con 30% UKIP 18% Ind 7% LD 4%

16/1 good value from that start

Very disappointed by the lack of coverage of the Quebec election in the British media. It's a more important story than Pistorius IMO.

TheWatcher said:

malcolmg said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

I have to laugh at the way malcolmg, who unquestionably in real life sounds like Prince Charles, lards his posts with abstruse bits of Scotchspeak in an apparent attempt to sound more authentic.

After Googling for a few seconds I reckon I have identified how he does it. He finds his usual post wherever he has it saved written in normal English and pastes it into http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/scottish-translator.asp

And voila! Instant ethnic Scotch!

so "You English bastards saved our little arses and subsidise us so obviously we'll never forgive you" becomes, courtesy of scottish-translator, "Ye sassenach bastards saved uir wee arses an' subsidise us sae obvioosly we'll ne'er forgife ye."

In fact, it seems likeliest that the PB Nats are all actually 'bots from Somerset.

Good one Mr Bond , but just a little out unless you mean the real Bonnie Prince Charlie. I am just a country boy from Burns country.

Monty Burns?

Rabbie you turnip

Carnyx said:

Exactly. Which is why I couldn't be bothered to post that story before. But I wouldn't say 'both' sides in anything like strict equivalence - such rubbish is being orchestrated far more from the No campaign. As things are, I really do wonder if it is possible to have a debate with people who act like that MP.

I'm not sure that anyone with a horse in the trace can truly judge which side is doing this sort of rubbish more - we all tend to notice things that advantage us, and ignore those that do not. It's human nature. (*) There are examples on both sides, as any campaign this large will attract idiots.

In addition, it's not just who does it *more*, but who uses it to the best effect, gets it noticed, fires up its supporters and gets undecided voters' notice.

(*) And before anyone says, I'm as bad as anyone else at this ...

MonikerDiCanio said:

Easterross said:

All the froth about Eck's hotel expenses or George Robertson pinning the future of world peace on the outcome of IndyRef shows just how desperate the side I support, the Better Together team is getting. The vast majority of Scots will either not hear about it or totally disregard it.

My experience tells me there are far fewer undecided voters now and it will all come down to the weather and GOTV.

We are rapidly getting to the 'fcuk you we won't be told what to do' stage and as happened in 1998 from that tipping point on, it will all be one way, towards YES. I hear precious few positive reasons for holding the UK together and the more prominent figures based in London, especially Scots based in London, lecture the resident Scots on what is good for them, the more the votes will tip to YES.

Surely the Maria Miller story shows that strange expenses claims are ultra-toxic in today's politics. I'm sure The Telegraph has got some cards up their sleeve on The Peninsula Hotel mystery.

Doh, it is because they are not strange that no-one, apart from deranged Labour MSP's and you , cares a hoot about them. Normal people do not expect him to stay in a hostel when he is on official Government business.

dyedwoolie said:

MarkSenior said:

dyedwoolie said:

MarkSenior said:

dyedwoolie said:

isam said:

@dyedwoolie‌

General Election 2010: Thurrock[7]

Conservative Jackie Doyle-Price 16,869 36.8 +3.6
Labour Carl Morris 16,777 36.6 −9.6
Liberal Democrat Carys Davis 4,901 10.7 −0.4
BNP Emma Colgate 3,618 7.9 +2.1
UKIP Clive Broad 3,390 7.4 +4.0
Christian Peoples Arinola Araba 267 0.6 N/

The way I have worked it out, which is plausible I think.. if LDS keep 70% of their vote, Tories keep 60% of theirs, Labour 75% of their plus 15% of LDs, UKIP keep all of their plus 75% BNP, 30% Tory, 15% Labour and 15% LDs the result would be

UKIP 14415 (34%)
Labour 13317 (31.5%)
Tory 10121 (23.9%)
LD 3430 (8.1%)
BNP 723 (1.7%)

Obv if you disagree with the way I have split the numbers up then it would be a lot different.

I haven't actually added any DNVs into it, which may make UKIP stronger, and compensate for adding too much from one party or another

Just took Ladbrokes 25/1 UKIP to win Telford as well

Yes, possible and value at 16/1. Thurrock is like Gt Yarmouth, a hole. You get good traction in a hole if you are agin the establishment.

2012 local elections in Thurrock Lab 39% Con 30% UKIP 18% Ind 7% LD 4%

16/1 good value from that start

BNP polled 21.3% in 2008 Thurrock locals

That's the idiot BNP though. It does show there is capacity for anti-establishment voting.
I'm saying 16/1 is value, not that UKIP will take the seat.
They will take Gt Yarmouth though.

On GE day in the 2010 Thurrock locals BNP got 13% and UKIP 8%

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

Carnyx said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

NO campaign are getting ever more desperate , having to resort to violence.

Nationalist MSP 'assaulted' during pub debate on independence
http://news.stv.tv/tayside/270936-david-torrance-msp-allegedly-attacked-in-novar-bar-in-kirkcaldy/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

A deplorable incident. But taking the action of one man - which may or may not have been prompted by the independence conversation - and tarring an entire campaign with it seems rather desperate.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/whats-that-secret-youre-keeping/#more-52889
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-cornered-rats/ (esp later on)
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9020-a-big-boy-dun-it-and-ran-away

*of course, they may be voting ... but I don't think the spray painting was political!

I was referring to Malc saying that it was the no campaign getting ever more desperate, and having to resort to violence. Which is directly linking this incident and the campaign.

Both sides are getting really silly on this. You're f'ing Scotsman, for God's sake. Act like it and not like a bunch of namby-pamby children. You're trying to debate the future way forward to Scotland, not act like kids in the schoolground.

If and when it gets closer, it is going to get nastier. There are hundreds of thousands of Scots very attached to their British identitiy (check the terraces at any Rangers game) just as their are hundreds of thousands of Scots who revile Britishness, and are desperate for independence.

Nationalism is a demon, and once evoked it is hard to unsummon.

I wonder if the song "Rule Britannia" will be permitted at football in Scotland after a YES vote.

LOL< the only place that would ever be sung is at the Ramsden's runners up gaff

And the Scottish Cup semi on Sat

A thrashing will take place I am afraid, it will not be pretty and old Ally will be picking up his jotters. Great striker , crap manager.

RodCrosby said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

It's unclear whom the Yessers hate more: the English or the Noers.

The way some people are talking you might think they are preparing for a Scots version of the Irish Civil War...

Rod , they ain't right in the head

isam said:

MarkSenior said:

dyedwoolie said:

isam said:

@dyedwoolie‌

General Election 2010: Thurrock[7]

Conservative Jackie Doyle-Price 16,869 36.8 +3.6
Labour Carl Morris 16,777 36.6 −9.6
Liberal Democrat Carys Davis 4,901 10.7 −0.4
BNP Emma Colgate 3,618 7.9 +2.1
UKIP Clive Broad 3,390 7.4 +4.0
Christian Peoples Arinola Araba 267 0.6 N/

The way I have worked it out, which is plausible I think.. if LDS keep 70% of their vote, Tories keep 60% of theirs, Labour 75% of their plus 15% of LDs, UKIP keep all of their plus 75% BNP, 30% Tory, 15% Labour and 15% LDs the result would be

UKIP 14415 (34%)
Labour 13317 (31.5%)
Tory 10121 (23.9%)
LD 3430 (8.1%)
BNP 723 (1.7%)

Obv if you disagree with the way I have split the numbers up then it would be a lot different.

I haven't actually added any DNVs into it, which may make UKIP stronger, and compensate for adding too much from one party or another

Just took Ladbrokes 25/1 UKIP to win Telford as well

Yes, possible and value at 16/1. Thurrock is like Gt Yarmouth, a hole. You get good traction in a hole if you are agin the establishment.

2012 local elections in Thurrock Lab 39% Con 30% UKIP 18% Ind 7% LD 4%

What were UKIP polling nationally at that time?

They were averaging around 8-9%.

Bond_James_Bond said:

malcolmg said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

I have to laugh at the way malcolmg, who unquestionably in real life sounds like Prince Charles, lards his posts with abstruse bits of Scotchspeak in an apparent attempt to sound more authentic.

After Googling for a few seconds I reckon I have identified how he does it. He finds his usual post wherever he has it saved written in normal English and pastes it into http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/scottish-translator.asp

And voila! Instant ethnic Scotch!

so "You English bastards saved our little arses and subsidise us so obviously we'll never forgive you" becomes, courtesy of scottish-translator, "Ye sassenach bastards saved uir wee arses an' subsidise us sae obvioosly we'll ne'er forgife ye."

In fact, it seems likeliest that the PB Nats are all actually 'bots from Somerset.

Good one Mr Bond , but just a little out unless you mean the real Bonnie Prince Charlie. I am just a country boy from Burns country.

This affords me an excuse to repeat my second-favourite joke about Prince Charles.

Prince Charles is visiting a Scottish hospital. He enters a ward full of patients with no obvious sign of injury or illness and greets one. "Hellay. What are you suffering from?" he inquires. The patient replies:

"Fair fa your honest sonsie face,
Great chieftain o' th' puddin' race,
Aboon them a' ye take yer place,
Painch, tripe or the airm,
As langs my airm."

Baffled, Charles just grins, fiddles with his cufflinks and moves on to the next patient. "Hellay. What are you suffering from?" he inquires, hoping for a more intelligible answer. Unfortunately the reply is:

"Some hae meat an' canna eat,
And some wad eat that want it,
But we hae meat an' we can eat,
So let the Lord be thankit."

Even more confused, and his grin now rictus-like, the Prince moves on to the next patient, who without waiting to be spoken to immediately declaims:

"Wee sleekit, cowerin', tim'rous beasty,
O' th' panic in thy breasty,
Thou needna' start awa' sae hastie,
Wi bickering brattle."

Completely bewildered, Charles turns to the accompanying doctor and asks "So one presumes this is the psychiatric ward?"

"No," replies the doctor, "it's the Burns Unit."

Shaggy dog par excellence!

Life_ina_market_town said:

RodCrosby said:

Presumably an independent state north of the border will revert to its old official name of the Kingdom of Scotland?

The Commonwealth of Scotland, Scottish Free State and Dominion of Scotland are all possibilities.

Kingdom sounds best to me.

Re expenses for MPs: someone said (apologies cannot remember who) that - "we'd like a system that was fair, simple and honest."

Well, yes: why can't MPs claim expenses which under Inland Revenue rules would be allowable, just like the rest of us? In short, I can't claim for travel to/from my place of work so neither should MPs.

Really, what is the problem with subjecting MPs to the same laws as the rest of us?

Cyclefree said:

Re expenses for MPs: someone said (apologies cannot remember who) that - "we'd like a system that was fair, simple and honest."

Well, yes: why can't MPs claim expenses which under Inland Revenue rules would be allowable, just like the rest of us? In short, I can't claim for travel to/from my place of work so neither should MPs.

Really, what is the problem with subjecting MPs to the same laws as the rest of us?

That's one of the reasons a flat-salary system might be best, travel expenses excepted.

The other day I mentioned colleagues and associates that travel great distance for work from their homes. But that is their choice; they could choose to be nearer. It is their responsibility to ensure they are in the office when required, and do not get expenses for that travel. Some stay over locally during the week; again, they do not get rent paid.

The problem is that being an MP is not an ordinary job. An MP has two workplaces: the House of Commons and his/her constituency, and these can be at opposite ends of the country. Add in some fairly unsociable working hours (the HoC sittings not being the least), and you have a fairly unusual, or possibly unique, occupation in terms of requirements.

Therefore the HoC and the constituency are both work places, and travel between them should be claimable IMHO.

RodCrosby said:

malcolmg said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

RodCrosby said:

Presumably an independent state north of the border will revert to its old official name of the Kingdom of Scotland?

The Commonwealth of Scotland, Scottish Free State and Dominion of Scotland are all possibilities.

Kingdom sounds best to me.

You'll get to be called Royaume d'Écosse on Eurovision!

Sounds good to me , rolls off the tongue

Not usually able to comment while at work, so this is on the subject of the last thread:

The simple number of defectors to UKIP from 2010 Con, 2010 Lab, 2010 LD, etc, pools bunches of voters. The main segments of voters tend to be:

Tribal Tory (15%)
Tribal Labour (15%)
Tribal LD (demonstrably smaller than others) (5%)
Tribal Others (5%)
Anti-Tory (7%)
Anti-Labour (5%)
Anti-LD (usually far smaller than the anti-Big-Two, but overlapping now with the Anti-Tory) (3%)
Anti-Others (different segments) (2%)
Anti-Establishment (sod 'em all) (5%)
Swing Voters (15%?)
Can't be bothered (largest segment) (23%?)

(NB: Numbers are estimated by the PDOMA method)

You can usually discount the "Can't be bothered" because the scores are normalised against only those turning out.
Winning elections tend to be by fashioning Coalitions of these. Eg most Tribal Tory + most anti-Labour + most Anti-LD + most Swing Voters = Maggie's victories

Tribal Labour + Anti-Tory + Swing Voters = Blair's victories

Tribal Tory + some swing voters + some anti-Labour = Cameron in 2010.

Tribal LD + Leftover anti-Labour + leftover anti-Tory + leftover swing + anti-Establishment = 2005-2010 LD vote.

Blair's numbers fell election to election because he couldn't enthuse his own tribe to turn out. Cameron didn't get a majority because he couldn't convince the swing voters.

LD polling numbers have crashed because they've lost the leftover anti-Tory (which were swelled by the anti-Tory fraction that swung to them rather than Labour) and the anti-Establishment vote, and the tribal LDs are unenthused.

So - bearing in mind that 2010 Labour was pretty much just the Labour core plus a few anti-Tory and anti-LDs, peeling these away is most difficult.

The 2010 Con vote was the Tory core augmented by a big chunk of anti-Labour and swing voters (albeit not enough to get across the line), so that segment is the most weakly bound. You'd expect a big chunk of the defectors to be swingers* and anti-Labour. Probably with some core Tory that have never before had anywhere to go, but the frequent implication is that the big chunk is former core-Tory.

If it is the swingers, then they - by definition - are the most swingy of voters and have the biggest chance of reverting to the fold. In essence, the effect that you usually see of recovery to the Government as the election looms would be most likely to manifest in UKIP-Con returnees. In other cycles, these would have migrated to Labour in the intervening period; this time, they'll have wandered to UKIP.

*By "swinger", please read "swing voter", of course. I don't mean to imply that UKIP support has a large chunk of "excessively friendly" married voters ...

"working the grimier streets of Glasgow"

If Scarlett Johansson can do it, Labour Party activists ought to be able to do it.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/scarlett-johansson-trawling-glasgow-streets-3229041

SeanT said:

Easterross said:

Sean, in 1979 Glasgow had more council housing (70+%) than Moscow. Even with the sale of council housing, there is still a large percentage of the population who have little or nothing beyond their pay packet on a Friday.

The £, the stock exchange, investment, property, growth - north and south of the border - will all suffer, for years.

Maybe so but for those people, as one prominent YES campaigner from that community pointed out, your comments are meaningless as these are matters which will never directly affect them as far as they are concerned.

Yes, but unless they are COMPLETE idiots - and I know a few people like this, and they aren't idiots - they know where their benefits come from. And they will know that their benefits/tax credits come from the British state.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of Labour activists to put the fear of God in them, and get them worried that an indy Scotland will not be able to afford such generosity, at least for the first decade of independence (and this has the advantage of being probably true).

But again, this relies on Labour recognising the real danger of a YES, getting off their arses, and working the grimier streets of Glasgow and the central belt. If Labour can persuade their people to vote NO, the union is saved - its as simple as that. There aren't enough hardcore Nats to win it, by themselves.

Happily there are the first tiny signs of Labour waking up to the danger. Far too late, but better than nothing.

This is one reason I am writing these blogs in the Telegraph, to get Labour motivated. I'm doing my bit!

And now: a walk up Primrose Hill. Slainte.

Considering they know for sure their benefits will be cut if it is a NO vote , but may not be cut on a YES vote it is not a hard decision for them. Labour are a busted flush in Scotland.

If Cameron plans to get rid of Maria Miller after the euros he should just do it now.

''Considering they know for sure their benefits will be cut if it is a NO vote , but may not be cut on a YES vote it is not a hard decision for them. Labour are a busted flush in Scotland. ''

I wonder what the future is for a country where the benefit vote is decisive...

Very good.

Bond_James_Bond said:

malcolmg said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

I have to laugh at the way malcolmg, who unquestionably in real life sounds like Prince Charles, lards his posts with abstruse bits of Scotchspeak in an apparent attempt to sound more authentic.

After Googling for a few seconds I reckon I have identified how he does it. He finds his usual post wherever he has it saved written in normal English and pastes it into http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/scottish-translator.asp

And voila! Instant ethnic Scotch!

so "You English bastards saved our little arses and subsidise us so obviously we'll never forgive you" becomes, courtesy of scottish-translator, "Ye sassenach bastards saved uir wee arses an' subsidise us sae obvioosly we'll ne'er forgife ye."

In fact, it seems likeliest that the PB Nats are all actually 'bots from Somerset.

Good one Mr Bond , but just a little out unless you mean the real Bonnie Prince Charlie. I am just a country boy from Burns country.

This affords me an excuse to repeat my second-favourite joke about Prince Charles.

Prince Charles is visiting a Scottish hospital. He enters a ward full of patients with no obvious sign of injury or illness and greets one. "Hellay. What are you suffering from?" he inquires. The patient replies:

"Fair fa your honest sonsie face,
Great chieftain o' th' puddin' race,
Aboon them a' ye take yer place,
Painch, tripe or the airm,
As langs my airm."

Baffled, Charles just grins, fiddles with his cufflinks and moves on to the next patient. "Hellay. What are you suffering from?" he inquires, hoping for a more intelligible answer. Unfortunately the reply is:

"Some hae meat an' canna eat,
And some wad eat that want it,
But we hae meat an' we can eat,
So let the Lord be thankit."

Even more confused, and his grin now rictus-like, the Prince moves on to the next patient, who without waiting to be spoken to immediately declaims:

"Wee sleekit, cowerin', tim'rous beasty,
O' th' panic in thy breasty,
Thou needna' start awa' sae hastie,
Wi bickering brattle."

Completely bewildered, Charles turns to the accompanying doctor and asks "So one presumes this is the psychiatric ward?"

"No," replies the doctor, "it's the Burns Unit."

Oh dear , Conservatives now saying that we would have £143B black hole, so we have to vote NO as it would be just impossible to survive. Can they get any sillier, it appears to be a competition now.
Labour have us destabilising the world, Tories counterpunch with £143B black hole, one can only wait with bated breath for the Lib Dems play.
http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2014/04/separate-scotland-write-ruk-iou-worth-billions/