politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A key factor at GE2015: Will UKIP be deemed a “major party”
Comments
-
Indy odds out to 3.6 on Betfair but once again there's a big wash of money suddenly come in to support that price down to 3.5 and to keep No at 1.38-1.39.
I'd love a more detailed view of the betting patterens ecause it certainly seems like the liquidity in the market comes in big, easy to spot chunks. Some of the big price falls and rises have occurred on very small amounts of cash.0 -
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the German border because they've just gone to Germany.0 -
A life on benefits with housing and free education is heaven compared to the economic life where many of the African immigrants come from.Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.0 -
Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least
Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England
We lose only 8% of the population
Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work
No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
0 -
King Cole, so you reckon Sochi will go ahead this year, but perhaps not next?
One would've thought if it goes ahead this year it'll likely stay. A one year suspension isn't impossible, though (cf Bahrain).0 -
There are upsides and downsides to both a strong or a weak currency, but I dislike the intellectual dishonesty of always finding the angle that is disastrous for Scotland.Alanbrooke said:
Horses for courses.OblitusSumMe said:
Hmm.Scott_P said:@iainmartin1: Know anyone in Scotland with a mortgage? Send them this by Andrew Critchlow (@baldersdale) http://t.co/KfolhUBuaJ
Alternatively, a new Scottish currency could appreciate compared to Sterling, as it would at least have the support of North Sea oil income. You would expect that Sterling - North Sea oil would be a far weaker currency than at present. Then Scottish homeowners could be seeing their mortgage payments cut drastically in an instant.
How much worse does the English trade deficit get if you take out North Sea Oil?
If you treat the McPoond as a petro currency then the rest of scottish goods get hammered on the exchange rate and industry hollows out, nobody goes to the Edinburgh Festival because it's too expensive and the natives go on lots of shopping trips to Newcastle.
Then when oil tanks, as it must, you've got Middlesboro in kilts.0 -
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.edmundintokyo said:
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
0 -
Are bookie on BetFair? Are they allowed to be (if, say, Labrokes cutting its odds would shape its own market)?Alistair said:Indy odds out to 3.6 on Betfair but once again there's a big wash of money suddenly come in to support that price down to 3.5 and to keep No at 1.38-1.39.
I'd love a more detailed view of the betting patterens ecause it certainly seems like the liquidity in the market comes in big, easy to spot chunks. Some of the big price falls and rises have occurred on very small amounts of cash.0 -
yes I agree with you, whatever happens change will bring side effects for both sides of the border and pretending otherwise achieves nothing.OblitusSumMe said:
There are upsides and downsides to both a strong or a weak currency, but I dislike the intellectual dishonesty of always finding the angle that is disastrous for Scotland.Alanbrooke said:
Horses for courses.OblitusSumMe said:
Hmm.Scott_P said:@iainmartin1: Know anyone in Scotland with a mortgage? Send them this by Andrew Critchlow (@baldersdale) http://t.co/KfolhUBuaJ
Alternatively, a new Scottish currency could appreciate compared to Sterling, as it would at least have the support of North Sea oil income. You would expect that Sterling - North Sea oil would be a far weaker currency than at present. Then Scottish homeowners could be seeing their mortgage payments cut drastically in an instant.
How much worse does the English trade deficit get if you take out North Sea Oil?
If you treat the McPoond as a petro currency then the rest of scottish goods get hammered on the exchange rate and industry hollows out, nobody goes to the Edinburgh Festival because it's too expensive and the natives go on lots of shopping trips to Newcastle.
Then when oil tanks, as it must, you've got Middlesboro in kilts.0 -
The English language is probably also a factor.eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.0 -
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?Neil said:
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.edmundintokyo said:
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.0 -
Or Eire,Neil said:
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.edmundintokyo said:
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-emigration-one-person-left-41116240 -
Anyone expecting Publicity Shy Paddy Power to do an early payout on their Indyref markets?0
-
There's plenty of empty housing for them.Alanbrooke said:
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?Neil said:
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.edmundintokyo said:
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.0 -
Sentiment is the only downside.saddo said:Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least
Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England
We lose only 8% of the population
Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work
No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
Logically we should persuading Wales to follow ,,,0 -
The smart ones go to Sweden where they can get automatic refugee status. They can then apply for Swedish citizenship in a few years, and travel to London via EU's freedom of movement. It's what a lot of Somali asylum seekers have done via France.Neil said:
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.edmundintokyo said:
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.0 -
IndyRef is producing endless amusement, but that is the funniest reason I've yet seen for breaking up a 300-year old union, with all the risks to the Scottish economy which that entails.Carnyx said:Lesley Riddoch in the Scotsman on how BT are messing up. Inter aliis
" Meanwhile, with consummate bad timing, the Commons expenses watchdog has confirmed MPs’ pay will rise by 10 per cent next year, taking salaries to £74,000. "0 -
Mr Dancer, I will inquire of my sources. Won’t be able to do so immediately though.Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, so you reckon Sochi will go ahead this year, but perhaps not next?
One would've thought if it goes ahead this year it'll likely stay. A one year suspension isn't impossible, though (cf Bahrain).0 -
Mr. T, on a similar note, in reverse, the southwest has opened a first tungsten mine (I think it was this year).
Tungsten's becoming very popular for lots of things, include weapons and body armour.0 -
Whether we subsidise Scotland at all is a moot point and we could debate it until the cows come home without ever reaching a conclusion. There are some downsides to Scotland going such as the damage to our already ghastly balance of trade. However, on the whole I am damned if I can see a positive case for keeping the Union from either side.saddo said:Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least
Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England
We lose only 8% of the population
Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work
No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters0 -
Maybe.saddo said:Maybe I'm being completely dim
0 -
1 million empty houses, higher benefits than the UK, the famous Irish welcome ( cough, cough ) higher average slaries and lots of open space. Yet no influx.TheWatcher said:
There's plenty of empty housing for them.Alanbrooke said:
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?Neil said:
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.edmundintokyo said:
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.0 -
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!0
-
Proportionately far more people emigrated to Ireland than to the UK over the last year for which statistics are available.Alanbrooke said:
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?Neil said:
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.edmundintokyo said:
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
0 -
One mine was almost re-opened following large increases in the price of tin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Crofty - but it seems that UNESCO put the nail in the coffin of the latest attempt for farcical reasons.SeanT said:
Exactly right. There is said to be more tin still underground, in Cornwall, than has ever been mined. Yet all the mines are shut. It's just not economic to get it out.Financier said:
As well as the global oil price, the other factor is extracting more oil from N Sea fields that are already mature. The more oil you try to extract from a mature field, in general the more costly the oil becomes. So owners of mature fields may decide just to cap those fields, if that oil becomes more expensive than the global price.Alanbrooke said:
The issue isn't oil running out, it's oil maintaining its current high price. The first peak oil was based on volume the second is based on price.TheWatcher said:
So you wouldn't come crawling for extra wee handouts when the oil run outs?Carnyx said:
Devomax (proper devomax, not devo-a-little-wee-bittockie-more-maybe like this week) would not be a matter of giving treats to the north - the Scots would keep their own resources and fend for themselves, and charged a sub for foreign affairs and defence etc. Subsidy junkie problem solved. What's not to like for a DM reader?TheWatcher said:
The Union shouldn't favour Scotland financially over the other nations.Bob__Sykes said:I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
English politicians offering Devomax and more treats for the north will be slaughtered at the polls.
The USA has quickly moved from being an oil importer to being able to export oil. Currently legislation from 40 years ago stops major exporting but this is now being challenged not least becasue the USA has a BOP problem worse than ours.
So the premium on oil because it comes from unstable nations run by whackjobs may gradually start to disappear. Then add in the growth of renewables.
So Cornwall has theoretically 8 billion pounds' worth of tin reserves, yet it is entirely illusory. In the real world it has none.0 -
Good day to bury bad news?
Rotherham Council Chief Executive steps down.
http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/news/article/243/statement_from_martin_kimber0 -
There is an influx - over 60,000 in the last year for which data is available.Alanbrooke said:
1 million empty houses, higher benefits than the UK, the famous Irish welcome ( cough, cough ) higher average slaries and lots of open space. Yet no influx.TheWatcher said:
There's plenty of empty housing for them.Alanbrooke said:
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?Neil said:
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.edmundintokyo said:
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
0 -
People returning from Cheltenham don't count.Neil said:
Proportionately far more people emigrated to Ireland than to the UK over the last year for which statistics are available.Alanbrooke said:
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?Neil said:
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.edmundintokyo said:
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.0 -
The vast majority of immigrants to Ireland are foreigners and not returning nationals.Alanbrooke said:
People returning from Cheltenham don't count.Neil said:
Proportionately far more people emigrated to Ireland than to the UK over the last year for which statistics are available.Alanbrooke said:
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?Neil said:
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.edmundintokyo said:
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
0 -
Thanks to the economist, I've found out that there's a village/town in the West Bank called Wadi Fukin
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21615644-binyamin-netanyahu-orders-biggest-land-grab-generation-another-thousand?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/anotherthousandacres0 -
You appear (perhaps deliberately) to miss the point about public perceptions running up to a referendum that is, in part, about comparing respective forms of governance. You're usually a bit sharper than that.Richard_Nabavi said:
IndyRef is producing endless amusement, but that is the funniest reason I've yet seen for breaking up a 300-year old union, with all the risks to the Scottish economy which that entails.Carnyx said:Lesley Riddoch in the Scotsman on how BT are messing up. Inter aliis
" Meanwhile, with consummate bad timing, the Commons expenses watchdog has confirmed MPs’ pay will rise by 10 per cent next year, taking salaries to £74,000. "0 -
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 1m
I think Ed Miliband is deliberately trying to wreck the No campaign. He wants to force me streak naked as an act of petty revenge...0 -
According to UNICEF Africa's population will jump from 1.1bn to 4.2bn at the end of this century. Almost all of them would move here if they could. Our country is being literally invaded and our response is to shrug our shoulders and send soldiers to Poland.Financier said:
A life on benefits with housing and free education is heaven compared to the economic life where many of the African immigrants come from.Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Africa's average IQ level is 70, the UK's 100.-1 -
Mr. Eagles, at school we did some coursework about an African village, called Tossa.0
-
'You're leaving me, you bitch? You must be really dumb. I love you.'SeanT said:Here's something simple, easy and positive people can do, if they want to help keep Britain together.
Just sign this.
https://www.letsstaytogether.org.uk/
And tell all your friends. 60,000 have signed so far. We need 100,000, then 200,000
Sign!0 -
@WelshDalaiLama: Alex Salmond has announced he is also pregnant, but of course hasn't yet worked out all the details of how this is going to work in practice0
-
Neil, I do know this and the bulk of people leaving are natives. But it is odd that Ireland isn't being targeted as a refugee sanctuary, even if only as a conduit to the UK.Neil said:
The vast majority of immigrants to Ireland are foreigners and not returning nationals.Alanbrooke said:
People returning from Cheltenham don't count.Neil said:
Proportionately far more people emigrated to Ireland than to the UK over the last year for which statistics are available.Alanbrooke said:
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?Neil said:
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.edmundintokyo said:
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are:Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.0 -
as opposed toTheuniondivvie said:
'You're leaving me, you bitch? You must be really dumb. I love you.'SeanT said:Here's something simple, easy and positive people can do, if they want to help keep Britain together.
Just sign this.
https://www.letsstaytogether.org.uk/
And tell all your friends. 60,000 have signed so far. We need 100,000, then 200,000
Sign!
" I'm off, I'm taking up with Alex he knows how to treat a woman, he's got a taxi-driving business in Rotherham"0 -
Precisely, Mr. Booth. The Union is broken as it no longer works at the political level. Why that has come about is neither here nor there but come about it has and the Union should be dissolved. If the Scots don't take this opportunity then we will have nothing but festering rancour for years to come until, eventually, they do vote yes (or, maybe, England gets a vote).FrankBooth said:Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
0 -
Here we go, the fruitcakes are at it again...FalseFlag said:
According to UNICEF Africa's population will jump from 1.1bn to 4.2bn at the end of this century. Almost all of them would move here if they could. Our country is being literally invaded and our response is to shrug our shoulders and send soldiers to Poland.Financier said:
A life on benefits with housing and free education is heaven compared to the economic life where many of the African immigrants come from.Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Africa's average IQ level is 70, the UK's 100.
You can only but laugh!0 -
If you have less than 16k in savings, which is the case for 'asylum seekers' if not indigenous Brits, you get housing benefits, JSA, state funded education, state funded healthcare and all the other benefits labour introduced. So yes.Smarmeron said:@Neil
Anyone on benefits is entitled to a mansion (with free rent), a 48 inch colour TV, three mobile phones, and a holiday at an international resort once a year,
I read that in the tabloids, so it must be true.
(cosmetic surgery is available on request)0 -
Mark Wallace @wallaceme 7s
If ever you doubted the sheer oddity of some cybernats, they're currently berating @OwenJones84 (and Ed Miliband) for being right wing.0 -
Oi Mr Dancer, keep your greedy eyes off our tungsten. With it, your enormo-haddock would be surely invincible....and I for one am not ready to live under the Tyranny of the Wiffle Stick!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. T, on a similar note, in reverse, the southwest has opened a first tungsten mine (I think it was this year).
Tungsten's becoming very popular for lots of things, include weapons and body armour.
0 -
That is just silly Mr L. The issue is the overcentralisation of the UK and concentration of power in Westminster. The model has had its day and needs to be changed something I thought your purple friends actually advocated.HurstLlama said:
Precisely, Mr. Booth. The Union is broken as it no longer works at the political level. Why that has come about is neither here nor there but come about it has and the Union should be dissolved. If the Scots don't take this opportunity then we will have nothing but festering rancour for years to come until, eventually, they do vote yes (or, maybe, England gets a vote).FrankBooth said:Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
That the Scots have got the gumption to say basta and force the pace is to their credit. Roll on Federalism.0 -
According to various reports this morning, if Scotland secedes the average life expectancy of the fUK goes up while the average rainfall goes down...saddo said:Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least
Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England
We lose only 8% of the population
Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work
No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters0 -
I wonder whether the much, much lower rate of granting asylum has anything to do with it. Or fewer ferry services from mainland Europe. But again, proportionately, I'm not even sure that Ireland receives fewer asylum seekers than the UK (couldnt find statistics from a quick look).Alanbrooke said:But it is odd that Ireland isn't being targeted as a refugee sanctuary, even if only as a conduit to the UK.
0 -
Inhabited by Mustafa Kunt, and Anal Sheikh?TheScreamingEagles said:Thanks to the economist, I've found out that there's a village/town in the West Bank called Wadi Fukin
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21615644-binyamin-netanyahu-orders-biggest-land-grab-generation-another-thousand?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/anotherthousandacres
0 -
You feel Switzerland is a disaster area? Or was that irony?rcs1000 said:
Yes: just look at the disaster in Switzerland from being part of Schengenedmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
0 -
On more important matters I see that Her Royal Qilfiness has got knocked up again.0
-
As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.0 -
Mr. Mark, just imagine a wiffle stick made of tungsten!0
-
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
0 -
Don't be silly.Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.0 -
I was much in favour of a decentralised system of government, Mr. Brooke, in fact I still am. However, having listened to the arguments from the Scots on here over the months I no longer believe that Scotland can ever be a happy part of the UK. It really is best that they go.Alanbrooke said:
That is just silly Mr L. The issue is the overcentralisation of the UK and concentration of power in Westminster. The model has had its day and needs to be changed something I thought your purple friends actually advocated.HurstLlama said:
Precisely, Mr. Booth. The Union is broken as it no longer works at the political level. Why that has come about is neither here nor there but come about it has and the Union should be dissolved. If the Scots don't take this opportunity then we will have nothing but festering rancour for years to come until, eventually, they do vote yes (or, maybe, England gets a vote).FrankBooth said:Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
That the Scots have got the gumption to say basta and force the pace is to their credit. Roll on Federalism.0 -
Neil said:
I wonder whether the much, much lower rate of granting asylum has anything to do with it. Or fewer ferry services from mainland Europe. But again, proportionately, I'm not even sure that Ireland receives fewer asylum seekers than the UK (couldnt find statistics from a quick look).Alanbrooke said:But it is odd that Ireland isn't being targeted as a refugee sanctuary, even if only as a conduit to the UK.
0 -
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't be silly.Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
0 -
@edmundintokyo
Other reasons asylum seekers want to come here:
(1) Non-contributory welfare system
(2) Amnesty and citizenship if you've been here 20 years
(3) Useless Home Office that isn't likely to catch you for 20 years.0 -
Rotherham.murali_s said:
Here we go, the fruitcakes are at it again...FalseFlag said:
According to UNICEF Africa's population will jump from 1.1bn to 4.2bn at the end of this century. Almost all of them would move here if they could. Our country is being literally invaded and our response is to shrug our shoulders and send soldiers to Poland.Financier said:
A life on benefits with housing and free education is heaven compared to the economic life where many of the African immigrants come from.Neil said:
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?eek said:
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....edmundintokyo said:
Want to expand on that?Slackbladder said:
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Africa's average IQ level is 70, the UK's 100.
You can only but laugh!0 -
With 800k barrels per day at 100$ per barrel, that is 29$ billion per year, so lets say 18 billion pounds. If Britain loses the north sea oil, then it will have to import the whole amount.OblitusSumMe said:
Hmm.Scott_P said:@iainmartin1: Know anyone in Scotland with a mortgage? Send them this by Andrew Critchlow (@baldersdale) http://t.co/KfolhUBuaJ
Alternatively, a new Scottish currency could appreciate compared to Sterling, as it would at least have the support of North Sea oil income. You would expect that Sterling - North Sea oil would be a far weaker currency than at present. Then Scottish homeowners could be seeing their mortgage payments cut drastically in an instant.
How much worse does the English trade deficit get if you take out North Sea Oil?
Exports in the past 12 months are 495 billion pounds, imports at 526 billion pounds.
That might warrant a devaluation of the pound of about 4%, on top of what is already needed to balance the trade figures.0 -
@FalseFlag
State education and healthcare is of course a benefit to the individual, but it is also a benefit to employers, who seem very keen that they should not have to pay taxes to fund it.
Truly the "something for nothing" society?0 -
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.Neil said:
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't be silly.Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
It makes no sense.0 -
Actually I would expect universal healthcare to be ended in the future, education will also revert to a more basic provision, university tuition fees is the first sensible step in this direction.Smarmeron said:@FalseFlag
State education and healthcare is of course a benefit to the individual, but it is also a benefit to employers, who seem very keen that they should not have to pay taxes to fund it.
Truly the "something for nothing" society?0 -
For all those thinking that scottish independence will revive scottish industry I have to say that north sea oil post independence will decimate what's left of it due to the dutch disease.
It will make scottish goods too expensive to buy and it will make english goods cheaper.0 -
well on that basis you should also lop off the North of England and a chunk of the Midlands while you're at it since they don't like Southerners either.HurstLlama said:
I was much in favour of a decentralised system of government, Mr. Brooke, in fact I still am. However, having listened to the arguments from the Scots on here over the months I no longer believe that Scotland can ever be a happy part of the UK. It really is best that they go.Alanbrooke said:
That is just silly Mr L. The issue is the overcentralisation of the UK and concentration of power in Westminster. The model has had its day and needs to be changed something I thought your purple friends actually advocated.HurstLlama said:
Precisely, Mr. Booth. The Union is broken as it no longer works at the political level. Why that has come about is neither here nor there but come about it has and the Union should be dissolved. If the Scots don't take this opportunity then we will have nothing but festering rancour for years to come until, eventually, they do vote yes (or, maybe, England gets a vote).FrankBooth said:Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
That the Scots have got the gumption to say basta and force the pace is to their credit. Roll on Federalism.
I would hardly say the 24 hour sledging on PB is typical of Scots. More likely they worry about paying the mortgage, paying the bills, he nips off for a pint while she watches Coronation Street.
The Labour tactic of fomenting discontent and setting groups against each other is why we are here. In this instance they have put so many dividing lines in they're in danger of slicing themselves out of the pie altogether.
Instead of trying to make the cake bigger they're in danger of shrinking it by 8% overnight. Idiots at work.
0 -
If Scotland secedes, the people of rUK would expect their government to negotiate the best settlement they can with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. A government that's dependent on Scottish votes to survive can't do that.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.Neil said:
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't be silly.Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
It makes no sense.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
0 -
True - but its hard to forget that the SNP has historical form in this area. One its founders listed "Anglophobia" as a hobby in Who's Who (1) and as recently as 2003 the Scottish Social Attitudes survey found that "Conservative voters scored low on Anglophobia but high on every other phobia; SNP voters scored high on Anglophobia but not on other phobias" (2) (the exact inverse of Scottish Tories!). So a lingering suspicion, no doubt misplaced today, is understandableFrankBooth said:Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_MacDiarmid
(2) http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/0199280711.003.0004
0 -
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.Neil said:
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't be silly.Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
It makes no sense.
0 -
Meddlesome eunuchs to go ahead with more sanctions against Russia:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29107832
I know the ceasefire is more of a theoretical concept than real, but I wonder if the sanctions might be used as an excuse by Putin for a full-blown resumption of hostilities (having used the delay to fortify defensive positions and bring in more men and machines).0 -
No, I am not agreeing that none of the people currently in Calais trying to get to the UK are genuine refugees. By pointing out that some of them had fled Syria in recent times I thought that even you would realise that some of them were obviously refugees from a war-torn country.john_zims said:@Neil
'Have you ever been to France?'
Is that the best you can come up with or just agreeing that they are not genuine refugees?
0 -
@FalseFlag
Pre Victorian values?
The dream of the far right, a peasant class that can service their every whim, at a price they can set.
There was a reason that that idea collapsed into the dust of history, and trying to resurrect it under modern conditions is not going to happen without a "police state".0 -
The irony of sanctions against Russia is they will lead that country to cure its Dutch disease by fixing its broken industry. What could possibly go wrong?Speedy said:For all those thinking that scottish independence will revive scottish industry I have to say that north sea oil post independence will decimate what's left of it due to the dutch disease.
It will make scottish goods too expensive to buy and it will make english goods cheaper.
0 -
They've voted to secede. They have to deal with the consequences.FrankBooth said:
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.Neil said:
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't be silly.Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
It makes no sense.
0 -
Who is John Redmond?Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.0 -
The consequences dont include the suspension of democracy in the UK.TheScreamingEagles said:
They've voted to secede. They have to deal with the consequences.FrankBooth said:
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.Neil said:
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't be silly.Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
It makes no sense.
0 -
It seems quite likely to me that if Miliband is PM by next summer, the negotiations over independence post a Yes will give Scottish Labour a dowry for the beginning of post-independence Scottish politics.
My guess is he'll give them the currency union they want, so in Scottish Labour can have a good story to tell in the 2016 Scottish election. I wouldn't be surprised if they also agree to keep the Scottish MPs in the Commons for as long as possible. With the Lib Dems' help, he can push some electoral / boundary reforms through to persist Labour's ability to form a majority government while coming second in the vote.
Essentially any negotiations between Miliband and Salmond would be an auction for post-Yes votes with England funding the bids.
It is quite extraordinary that UKIPpers have persuaded themselves that Miliband will only be in for one term and can't do too much harm. This is so far fetched that one has to choose the alternative explanation: they know they can't win an In / Out referendum anyway, so they need Miliband to win in 2015 so UKIP won't have to disband in 2017.0 -
otohSpeedy said:
With 800k barrels per day at 100$ per barrel, that is 29$ billion per year, so lets say 18 billion pounds. If Britain loses the north sea oil, then it will have to import the whole amount.OblitusSumMe said:
Hmm.Scott_P said:@iainmartin1: Know anyone in Scotland with a mortgage? Send them this by Andrew Critchlow (@baldersdale) http://t.co/KfolhUBuaJ
Alternatively, a new Scottish currency could appreciate compared to Sterling, as it would at least have the support of North Sea oil income. You would expect that Sterling - North Sea oil would be a far weaker currency than at present. Then Scottish homeowners could be seeing their mortgage payments cut drastically in an instant.
How much worse does the English trade deficit get if you take out North Sea Oil?
Exports in the past 12 months are 495 billion pounds, imports at 526 billion pounds.
That might warrant a devaluation of the pound of about 4%, on top of what is already needed to balance the trade figures.
a lack of a currency union will have a major impact on Scotlands Financial Services. If half of it goes South then it's 5% of Scotland's 8% of UK GDP or 0.4% of £ 1.5 trillion. So £6 billion heads south leaving a £12bn gap.0 -
Why
it's not going to be the UK however - how can it be a United Kingdom when the Union has been broken.Scott_P said:
According to various reports this morning, if Scotland secedes the average life expectancy of the fUK goes up while the average rainfall goes down...saddo said:Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least
Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England
We lose only 8% of the population
Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work
No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters0 -
My mind inserted John Redwood when I first read it.HanDodges said:
Who is John Redmond?Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
0 -
Can Mike set up a fist fight between SeanT and George Monbiot?0
-
Why would we be entitled to their tax revenues? Are you suggesting that rUK could just do whatever it wanted in such a scenario because Scotland has 'to deal with the consequences?' A Crimea style coup around Faslane?TheScreamingEagles said:
They've voted to secede. They have to deal with the consequences.FrankBooth said:
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.Neil said:
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't be silly.Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
It makes no sense.0 -
These are unprecedented times.Neil said:
The consequences dont include the suspension of democracy in the UK.TheScreamingEagles said:
They've voted to secede. They have to deal with the consequences.FrankBooth said:
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.Neil said:
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't be silly.Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
It makes no sense.
The Scots are like a husband who has told his wife he wants a divorce but still expects her to give him steak and blowjobs everyday until the decree absolute is granted.0 -
But it is happening now. The concentration of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands and the decline of the middle classes is a current phenomena yet we don't have a police state, though admittedly we have a much more authoritarian one.Smarmeron said:@FalseFlag
Pre Victorian values?
The dream of the far right, a peasant class that can service their every whim, at a price they can set.
There was a reason that that idea collapsed into the dust of history, and trying to resurrect it under modern conditions is not going to happen without a "police state".0 -
I'm not sure that follows. Post-2015, Labour can use Scottish votes to force through electoral reforms to keep itself in power in perpetuity, with the quid pro quo being they agree to Salmond's currency union. By not having an In / Out referendum he keeps UKIP alive, which will be worth another 15 or 20 seats to him as well.Sean_F said:
If Scotland secedes, the people of rUK would expect their government to negotiate the best settlement they can with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. A government that's dependent on Scottish votes to survive can't do that.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.Neil said:
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't be silly.Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
It makes no sense.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.0 -
Is there no topic that you cant turn into a UKIP rant?Bond_James_Bond said:It seems quite likely to me that if Miliband is PM by next summer, the negotiations over independence post a Yes will give Scottish Labour a dowry for the beginning of post-independence Scottish politics.
My guess is he'll give them the currency union they want, so in Scottish Labour can have a good story to tell in the 2016 Scottish election. I wouldn't be surprised if they also agree to keep the Scottish MPs in the Commons for as long as possible. With the Lib Dems' help, he can push some electoral / boundary reforms through to persist Labour's ability to form a majority government while coming second in the vote.
Essentially any negotiations between Miliband and Salmond would be an auction for post-Yes votes with England funding the bids.
It is quite extraordinary that UKIPpers have persuaded themselves that Miliband will only be in for one term and can't do too much harm. This is so far fetched that one has to choose the alternative explanation: they know they can't win an In / Out referendum anyway, so they need Miliband to win in 2015 so UKIP won't have to disband in 2017.
Would it help you if we all acknowledged that you dont like UKIP to save you having to make these posts?
0 -
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?FrankBooth said:Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.0 -
@Alanbrooke
And if Scotland offers better tax incentives than England?
The answer is that it becomes a bidding war in which only the better off win, but someone will try it, they always do.0 -
The latest Populus is a mildly encouraging one for the Tories (especially for a Monday), but yet again they appear incapable of breaking through that 34%/35% ceiling.
Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?0 -
Electoral reform would see Labour thrown out of power. They need First Past the Post to say in place.Bond_James_Bond said:
I'm not sure that follows. Post-2015, Labour can use Scottish votes to force through electoral reforms to keep itself in power in perpetuity, with the quid pro quo being they agree to Salmond's currency union. By not having an In / Out referendum he keeps UKIP alive, which will be worth another 15 or 20 seats to him as well.Sean_F said:
If Scotland secedes, the people of rUK would expect their government to negotiate the best settlement they can with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. A government that's dependent on Scottish votes to survive can't do that.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.Neil said:
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.TheScreamingEagles said:
Don't be silly.Neil said:
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.TheScreamingEagles said:As foretold by me, expect more Tory MPs to express similar sentiments.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
It makes no sense.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
0 -
The swingback theory says a week ago.peter_from_putney said:The latest Populus is a mildly encouraging one for the Tories (especially for a Monday), but yet again they appear incapable of breaking through that 34%/35% ceiling.
Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?0 -
No, quite the opposite. I agree that it is quite possible that the decision might be swayed by spectacularly trivial considerations such as the recommended* MP pay increase. That is what is so funny.Theuniondivvie said:You appear (perhaps deliberately) to miss the point about public perceptions running up to a referendum that is, in part, about comparing respective forms of governance. You're usually a bit sharper than that.
* Recommended by a body created by a Scot, BTW!0 -
It's a trade off. Lower tax for a duff currency ? Companies will go with the safety of currency.Smarmeron said:@Alanbrooke
And if Scotland offers better tax incentives than England?
The answer is that it becomes a bidding war in which only the better off win, but someone will try it, they always do.
However Ireland already has a much lower rate of taxation than the UK and is under pressure to increase it so I can't see an iScotland being allowed to repeat the trick if it wants into the EU quickly.0 -
What is a police state? Our movements are tracked and recorded, along with our shopping, bank accounts and almost every other aspect of our lives, including our mitherings on pb. Surely Erich Honecker's wet dream, were he not dead.HurstLlama said:
But it is happening now. The concentration of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands and the decline of the middle classes is a current phenomena yet we don't have a police state, though admittedly we have a much more authoritarian one.Smarmeron said:@FalseFlag
Pre Victorian values?
The dream of the far right, a peasant class that can service their every whim, at a price they can set.
There was a reason that that idea collapsed into the dust of history, and trying to resurrect it under modern conditions is not going to happen without a "police state".0 -
In that case england would be forced to close those tax loopholes, that allow businesses to sell their products and services in england while paying no tax in england.Smarmeron said:@Alanbrooke
And if Scotland offers better tax incentives than England?
The answer is that it becomes a bidding war in which only the better off win, but someone will try it, they always do.0 -
Scott_P said:
According to various reports this morning, if Scotland secedes the average life expectancy of the fUK goes up while the average rainfall goes down...saddo said:Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least
Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England
We lose only 8% of the population
Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work
No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
The problem is that with Labour in power, none of the subsidies will stop. You will have Labour on one side of the table wanting to negotiate a nice little package for SLAB to take into the first Scottish GE, and you will have Wee Eck on the other side wanting the same thing, with the costs to be borne by the English taxpayer.saddo said:Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least
Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England
We lose only 8% of the population
Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work
No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
My guess would be that as well as getting the currency union they will also get Barnett formula handouts indefinitely. Labour is never penalised for this kind of thing by its supporters and for the 2020 GE they'll just bang on about the Tories wanting to privatise the NHS to make sure they win.
0 -
"You're free to post anything that Neil approves"Neil said:
Is there no topic that you cant turn into a UKIP rant?Bond_James_Bond said:It seems quite likely to me that if Miliband is PM by next summer, the negotiations over independence post a Yes will give Scottish Labour a dowry for the beginning of post-independence Scottish politics.
My guess is he'll give them the currency union they want, so in Scottish Labour can have a good story to tell in the 2016 Scottish election. I wouldn't be surprised if they also agree to keep the Scottish MPs in the Commons for as long as possible. With the Lib Dems' help, he can push some electoral / boundary reforms through to persist Labour's ability to form a majority government while coming second in the vote.
Essentially any negotiations between Miliband and Salmond would be an auction for post-Yes votes with England funding the bids.
It is quite extraordinary that UKIPpers have persuaded themselves that Miliband will only be in for one term and can't do too much harm. This is so far fetched that one has to choose the alternative explanation: they know they can't win an In / Out referendum anyway, so they need Miliband to win in 2015 so UKIP won't have to disband in 2017.
Would it help you if we all acknowledged that you dont like UKIP to save you having to make these posts?
Last time I looked it was still Mike S's site.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
