politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » …meanwhile in the race to win GE2015 now less than seven mo

First?

Whilst the MORI poll was interesting, and will no doubt provide a fillip to the Tory side, I do wonder how large a pinch of salt should be taken with any polls at the moment given the Scotland issue is dominating all politics. (Understandably)

Scott_P said:

@PickardJE: Comments from SNP former deputy leader Sillars vowing to wreke vengeance on pro-union companies are a big deal - not a lone voice.

The mask has slipped and the true nature of Scottish nationalism is revealed.

Personally, I wouldn't want this nasty chap anywhere near the levers of power.

The way the Scottish referendum has panned out makes me even more sure UKIP will get a good voteshare in next year's election. Far from people going back to the status quo or the "serious" options, if anything it seems that people become even more determined to give the "Westminster elite" a kicking as they start focussing on an election/referendum. Even 15% for them is a possibility imo.

A graph of the yes and no lines in the indyref would be nice

Danny565 said:

The way the Scottish referendum has panned out makes me even more sure UKIP will get a good voteshare in next year's election. Far from people going back to the status quo or the "serious" options, if anything it seems that people become even more determined to give the "Westminster elite" a kicking as they start focussing on an election/referendum. Even 15% for them is a possibility imo.

I agree Mr. 565. Now take that one step further and let's say the Lib Dems pick-up, say, 9% of the vote and 30 seats and UKIP get 15% and 2 seats. Now throw in a Labour government sustained by MPs from Scottish constituencies. We don't do revolutions but the pressure for change would be enormous. Under the constitution HMG could just ignore it but that might not be the wisest thing.

TGOHF said:

Given the borders are strong "NO" - Cameron should offer any region that votes "NO" can remain in the rUk should they wish to.

Only fair right ?

Would it not be simpler to just move Hadrian’s Wall 50 miles north. ; )

Plato said:

I thought Mr Hodges point here was a real humdinger.

HurstLlama said:

Beverley_C said:

If Scotland goes YES, will the May 2015 election still go ahead? Would a parliament where 10% of the candidates where going to depart in May 2016 be anything other than a lame duck?

Would such a parliament have any legitimacy?

The Parliament would have legitimacy, whether any government formed as a result of the GE would have is another matter. For example, imagine a Labour government whose majority is smaller than its number of Scottish MPs.

They would have an incentive to string out negotiations beyond the May 2016 date Salmond has set.

I'm sure he would accept it ("in the interests of an orderly transition") in return for material concessions on the substantive matters.

Hence a Labour government in this position would have a direct conflict of interests and would not be able to negotiate an optimal outcome for rUK.

This is a very good example of why, immediately following a vote, there should be an Act (ie in 2014):

- devolving all domestic powers (including financial) to Holyrood
- fixing a cash lump sum transfer to iScot for the 2015/16 budget for all these domestic matters (ie ending the Barnett formula and meaning that Scottish MPs have no interest in rUK money bills)
- limiting the voting rights of Scottish MPs to a very limited set of truly UK wide issues (eg defence/foreign affairs)
- providing that in GE2015 there will be no Scottish MPs elected but that Holyrood will appoint 58 representatives (with the limited powers above) in proportion to the votes cast for parties at the last Holyrood elections (ie 2011)

@Plato

"Swinney is totally off the reservation"

I think you meant Sillars rather than Swinney, but you are right on the substantive point the man is bonkers. However, it would seem that lots of Scots like what he says, will back him and then expect him to deliver. Sad innit.

Sillars is soft. Why not outlaw making a Scotsman unemployed?

Charles said:

Plato said:

I thought Mr Hodges point here was a real humdinger.

HurstLlama said:

Beverley_C said:

If Scotland goes YES, will the May 2015 election still go ahead? Would a parliament where 10% of the candidates where going to depart in May 2016 be anything other than a lame duck?

Would such a parliament have any legitimacy?

The Parliament would have legitimacy, whether any government formed as a result of the GE would have is another matter. For example, imagine a Labour government whose majority is smaller than its number of Scottish MPs.

They would have an incentive to string out negotiations beyond the May 2016 date Salmond has set.

I'm sure he would accept it ("in the interests of an orderly transition") in return for material concessions on the substantive matters.

Hence a Labour government in this position would have a direct conflict of interests and would not be able to negotiate an optimal outcome for rUK.

This is a very good example of why, immediately following a vote, there should be an Act (ie in 2014):

- devolving all domestic powers (including financial) to Holyrood
- fixing a cash lump sum transfer to iScot for the 2015/16 budget for all these domestic matters (ie ending the Barnett formula and meaning that Scottish MPs have no interest in rUK money bills)
- limiting the voting rights of Scottish MPs to a very limited set of truly UK wide issues (eg defence/foreign affairs)
- providing that in GE2015 there will be no Scottish MPs elected but that Holyrood will appoint 58 representatives (with the limited powers above) in proportion to the votes cast for parties at the last Holyrood elections (ie 2011)

Good plan, Mr. Charles, and very sensible. Now, tell us, do you think Cameron would ever have the courage in bring in such a bill and fight it through Parliament to get it enacted?

SimonStClare said:

TGOHF said:

Given the borders are strong "NO" - Cameron should offer any region that votes "NO" can remain in the rUk should they wish to.

Only fair right ?

Would it not be simpler to just move Hadrian’s Wall 50 miles north. ; )

I think that actually happened once. My memory may be failing me but I'm pretty sure that for some time (50 years?) the Romans moved the border north, and constructed a new wall round about the Edinburgh-Glasgow line.

It didn't work out (lots of wars and too expensive for minimal gain ) so they moved back again to Hadrian's wall after a while.

Beverley_C said:

Well, it is an early night for me. I am off to wine and dine in central Manchester ...

Sincere condolences, Mrs C. When dinning in Manchester I found the best rule was to get pissed early, that way much of the pain passed me by. However, I am not sure how applicable that rule is for ladies.

HurstLlama said:

Charles said:

Plato said:

I thought Mr Hodges point here was a real humdinger.

HurstLlama said:

Beverley_C said:

If Scotland goes YES, will the May 2015 election still go ahead? Would a parliament where 10% of the candidates where going to depart in May 2016 be anything other than a lame duck?

Would such a parliament have any legitimacy?

The Parliament would have legitimacy, whether any government formed as a result of the GE would have is another matter. For example, imagine a Labour government whose majority is smaller than its number of Scottish MPs.

They would have an incentive to string out negotiations beyond the May 2016 date Salmond has set.

I'm sure he would accept it ("in the interests of an orderly transition") in return for material concessions on the substantive matters.

Hence a Labour government in this position would have a direct conflict of interests and would not be able to negotiate an optimal outcome for rUK.

This is a very good example of why, immediately following a vote, there should be an Act (ie in 2014):

- devolving all domestic powers (including financial) to Holyrood
- fixing a cash lump sum transfer to iScot for the 2015/16 budget for all these domestic matters (ie ending the Barnett formula and meaning that Scottish MPs have no interest in rUK money bills)
- limiting the voting rights of Scottish MPs to a very limited set of truly UK wide issues (eg defence/foreign affairs)
- providing that in GE2015 there will be no Scottish MPs elected but that Holyrood will appoint 58 representatives (with the limited powers above) in proportion to the votes cast for parties at the last Holyrood elections (ie 2011)

Good plan, Mr. Charles, and very sensible. Now, tell us, do you think Cameron would ever have the courage in bring in such a bill and fight it through Parliament to get it enacted?

Can I plead the 5th?

TGOHF said:

Given the borders are strong "NO" - Cameron should offer any region that votes "NO" can remain in the rUk should they wish to.

Only fair right ?

Cuckoo, Cuckoo

Looking a bit more into the ICM poll and there seems some results which are interesting. The 20% Dont Know is very high. Yesterday we had a South Scotland poll that was 67/33 but ICM is almost dead level. About 50% of the people polled did not vote or did not know what they voted at the last Scottish election. In such a situation weightings are very hard to get right.

My gut feeling is that the vote is still going 55/45 No/Yes and not sure this poll says anything different.

TGOHF said:

Given the borders are strong "NO" - Cameron should offer any region that votes "NO" can remain in the rUk should they wish to.

Only fair right ?

When Yessers keep saying they are governed by a Tory government they didn't vote for it's only fair that any of the Regions who vote No should be allowed to stay with the Union.

Stark_Dawning said:

The utterances of this Sillars character are shocking in the extreme. Who or what the hell is he? Lunatics like that will turn Scotland into a pariah state. Salmond must distance himself and the SNP from such ravings. He should make a statement that Sillars represents only a lunatic fringe within nationalism and that most fair-minded nationalist folk abhor and condemn his comments.

He's a former deputy leader of the SNP - he had a massive falling out with Alex Salmond and has spent the last couple of decades criticising everything Salmond has done.

Charles said:

HurstLlama said:

Charles said:

Plato said:

I thought Mr Hodges point here was a real humdinger.

HurstLlama said:

Beverley_C said:

If Scotland goes YES, will the May 2015 election still go ahead? Would a parliament where 10% of the candidates where going to depart in May 2016 be anything other than a lame duck?

Would such a parliament have any legitimacy?

The Parliament would have legitimacy, whether any government formed as a result of the GE would have is another matter. For example, imagine a Labour government whose majority is smaller than its number of Scottish MPs.

They would have an incentive to string out negotiations beyond the May 2016 date Salmond has set.

I'm sure he would accept it ("in the interests of an orderly transition") in return for material concessions on the substantive matters.

Hence a Labour government in this position would have a direct conflict of interests and would not be able to negotiate an optimal outcome for rUK.

This is a very good example of why, immediately following a vote, there should be an Act (ie in 2014):

- devolving all domestic powers (including financial) to Holyrood
- fixing a cash lump sum transfer to iScot for the 2015/16 budget for all these domestic matters (ie ending the Barnett formula and meaning that Scottish MPs have no interest in rUK money bills)
- limiting the voting rights of Scottish MPs to a very limited set of truly UK wide issues (eg defence/foreign affairs)
- providing that in GE2015 there will be no Scottish MPs elected but that Holyrood will appoint 58 representatives (with the limited powers above) in proportion to the votes cast for parties at the last Holyrood elections (ie 2011)

Good plan, Mr. Charles, and very sensible. Now, tell us, do you think Cameron would ever have the courage in bring in such a bill and fight it through Parliament to get it enacted?

Can I plead the 5th?

LOL

Carnyx said:

SimonStClare said:

TGOHF said:

Given the borders are strong "NO" - Cameron should offer any region that votes "NO" can remain in the rUk should they wish to.

Only fair right ?

Would it not be simpler to just move Hadrian’s Wall 50 miles north. ; )

That wouldn't even reach Berwick, would it?

Not entirely sure Mr Carnyx - I remember walking a large chunk of it in my childhood, stunning scenery but rather bleak imr - and always forget how 'south' it actually is.

Plato said:

I wish I didn't feel this was possible, nevermind likely. Yessers have totally lost the plot when it comes to democracy. Intimidation, threats and now this on polling day.

I'm appalled. It's Venezuelan politics.

For very good reasons, Britain's political parties do not campaign on election day. By that point everyone has had their say, the rallies and the shouting must stop. Between the opening and closing of the polling stations, voters can get on with casting their vote in peace, unimpeded by noisy displays of partisan politicking. The parties are limited to being able to offer lifts to supporters and outside the polling station they are allowed a minimal presence. You will also notice that in order to comply with electoral law there is no reporting on the airwaves, or online either, beyond simple statements that voting is happening and it is "brisk".

...On Radio 4 this morning, Jim Naughtie delivered a fascinating report from Glasgow Shettleston, one of the poorest constituencies in Glasgow. The Yes activists sound well-organised as they try to convince voters who have never voted before to turn out. Here was old-fashioned on the ground grassroots politics. Fair enough. But towards the end of the report the organiser from Yes explained about a Nationalist march, on the day itself, designed to sweep families along to vote.

At first I was sure he must have misspoken. Even the Yes campaign – whose brutal tactics of intimidation are coming to the fore now on the streets of Scotland – would surely not stoop to rabble rousing on the day? But no, it is happening elsewhere.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100286216/the-nationalist-pied-piper-plan-to-march-voters-to-the-polling-booths-next-week-is-deeply-sinister/

How terrible those nasty YES people are going to give poor people a lift to the polling station , how bad can they be I say.

Carnyx said:

HurstLlama said:

Charles said:

Plato said:

I thought Mr Hodges point here was a real humdinger.

HurstLlama said:

Beverley_C said:

If Scotland goes YES, will the May 2015 election still go ahead? Would a parliament where 10% of the candidates where going to depart in May 2016 be anything other than a lame duck?

Would such a parliament have any legitimacy?

The Parliament would have legitimacy, whether any government formed as a result of the GE would have is another matter. For example, imagine a Labour government whose majority is smaller than its number of Scottish MPs.

They would have an incentive to string out negotiations beyond the May 2016 date Salmond has set.

I'm sure he would accept it ("in the interests of an orderly transition") in return for material concessions on the substantive matters.

Hence a Labour government in this position would have a direct conflict of interests and would not be able to negotiate an optimal outcome for rUK.

This is a very good example of why, immediately following a vote, there should be an Act (ie in 2014):

- devolving all domestic powers (including financial) to Holyrood
- fixing a cash lump sum transfer to iScot for the 2015/16 budget for all these domestic matters (ie ending the Barnett formula and meaning that Scottish MPs have no interest in rUK money bills)
- limiting the voting rights of Scottish MPs to a very limited set of truly UK wide issues (eg defence/foreign affairs)
- providing that in GE2015 there will be no Scottish MPs elected but that Holyrood will appoint 58 representatives (with the limited powers above) in proportion to the votes cast for parties at the last Holyrood elections (ie 2011)

Good plan, Mr. Charles, and very sensible. Now, tell us, do you think Cameron would ever have the courage in bring in such a bill and fight it through Parliament to get it enacted?

Serious question, why should he not be able to get it through pmt given the reasons Mr Charles adduces?

Because Labour - being tactially savvy and strategically foolish - would fight it tooth and nail.

Charles said:

Carnyx said:

HurstLlama said:

Charles said:

Plato said:

I thought Mr Hodges point here was a real humdinger.

HurstLlama said:

Beverley_C said:

If Scotland goes YES, will the May 2015 election still go ahead? Would a parliament where 10% of the candidates where going to depart in May 2016 be anything other than a lame duck?

Would such a parliament have any legitimacy?

The Parliament would have legitimacy, whether any government formed as a result of the GE would have is another matter. For example, imagine a Labour government whose majority is smaller than its number of Scottish MPs.

They would have an incentive to string out negotiations beyond the May 2016 date Salmond has set.

I'm sure he would accept it ("in the interests of an orderly transition") in return for material concessions on the substantive matters.

Hence a Labour government in this position would have a direct conflict of interests and would not be able to negotiate an optimal outcome for rUK.

This is a very good example of why, immediately following a vote, there should be an Act (ie in 2014):

- devolving all domestic powers (including financial) to Holyrood
- fixing a cash lump sum transfer to iScot for the 2015/16 budget for all these domestic matters (ie ending the Barnett formula and meaning that Scottish MPs have no interest in rUK money bills)
- limiting the voting rights of Scottish MPs to a very limited set of truly UK wide issues (eg defence/foreign affairs)
- providing that in GE2015 there will be no Scottish MPs elected but that Holyrood will appoint 58 representatives (with the limited powers above) in proportion to the votes cast for parties at the last Holyrood elections (ie 2011)

Good plan, Mr. Charles, and very sensible. Now, tell us, do you think Cameron would ever have the courage in bring in such a bill and fight it through Parliament to get it enacted?

Serious question, why should he not be able to get it through pmt given the reasons Mr Charles adduces?

Because Labour - being tactially savvy and strategically foolish - would fight it tooth and nail.

So make them. Even I'd vote Cameron again for that lot.

Why can't cameron do politics ?

manofkent2014 said:

I'm not sure there is any justification for allowing Scottish MPs to vote on anything after an independence vote. After all would the government continue to use Scottish resources (e.g. the Scottish Divisions of The Army) on UK issues? Surely anything that was bound up with Scotland would be wholly involved in transitioning and therefore subject to the scrutiny of the British Government in direct negotiation with Scottish Government. Scottish MPs would effectively be surplus to requirements other than in addressing any transitional issues for their constituents?

Didn't spell it out, but the Scottish MPs would only be in place from GE15 - iDay. During that time they should get a say

Sillars has about much chance of power making decisions as Galloway. Even less really Galloway was elected.

@Casino_Royal & @TGOHF – cheers for the link, fascinating stuff.

@MrG – I shall try in future ; )

Plato said:

And they were snuggled up together only TWO DAYS ago.

Really, when one sleeps with dogs - you get fleas. And Alex did exactly that.

It's like campaigning with Red Ken.

Alistair said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The utterances of this Sillars character are shocking in the extreme. Who or what the hell is he? Lunatics like that will turn Scotland into a pariah state. Salmond must distance himself and the SNP from such ravings. He should make a statement that Sillars represents only a lunatic fringe within nationalism and that most fair-minded nationalist folk abhor and condemn his comments.

He's a former deputy leader of the SNP - he had a massive falling out with Alex Salmond and has spent the last couple of decades criticising everything Salmond has done.

Plato said:

And they were snuggled up together only TWO DAYS ago.

Really, when one sleeps with dogs - you get fleas. And Alex did exactly that.

It's like campaigning with Red Ken.

Alistair said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The utterances of this Sillars character are shocking in the extreme. Who or what the hell is he? Lunatics like that will turn Scotland into a pariah state. Salmond must distance himself and the SNP from such ravings. He should make a statement that Sillars represents only a lunatic fringe within nationalism and that most fair-minded nationalist folk abhor and condemn his comments.

He's a former deputy leader of the SNP - he had a massive falling out with Alex Salmond and has spent the last couple of decades criticising everything Salmond has done.

Just like Ruth Davidson and Galloway yesterday?

Eh_ehm_a_eh said:

Sillars has about much chance of power making decisions as Galloway. Even less really Galloway was elected.

Though Sillars is not as senile as Galloway

RodCrosby said:

Current forecast 2015 Tory leads from various methodologies.

Byelection swingback: -1.2% (nc)
Fisher: 2.6% (down)
2009-2010 repeat: 3.5% (down)
Prosser: 5.0% (nc)
L&N: 8.8% (up)

L&N seems like a bit of an outlier but I also get the sense that it's your new favourite?

TGOHF said:

SeanT said:

welshowl said:

Plato said:

Swinney is totally off the reservation. If it wasn't so serious, I'd rolling in the aisles of Next and B&Q, and M&S. telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11091801/Big-business-warned-of-day-of-reckoning-if-Scots-vote-Yes.html?fb

New employment laws will force Standard Life to give two years’ warning on redundancies, he said, meaning it could not follow through its plans to move savings, pensions and investment business to England.

Adrian Grace, chief executive of insurance and pensions giant Aegon, told Radio Four’s Today programme it may be “forced” to move staff from its Edinburgh base if the separatists win the referendum. Sir Ian Cheshire, the chief executive of Kingfisher, which includes the B&Q and Screwfix DIY chains, is behind the letter that is expected to be published at the weekend. Along with Mr Bolland, the other signatories are expected to include Mr Clarke and John Timpson, boss of the Timpson shoe repair business.

Std Life if you are reading this get the money south 8.30 on Friday morning if it's a yes. In fact better still do it now and don't bother sending it back.

Like I said, during the Czech/Slovak "velvet divorce" they had to literally seal the border, with armed guards, to prevent Slovaks smuggling their cash into the Czech republic. Thereafter the Slovak economy crashed by 4% in a year.

And that's regarded as a model of dissolution: one that went incredibly smoothly.

But it was two small economies with different languages, different cultures, and much less shared history to unpick. There was also no massively divisive referendum campaign beforehand, stirring up resentment.

It's a fair guess that our divorce, should it happen, will be messier, nastier, longer and more dangerous. And we have the huge extra complication of EU membership. The Scots will be OUT until they can negotiate their way IN, the UK will be IN.

Ghastly mess.

If I had any money in Scottish banks or pension funds I would move it now, if I could. Why take the risk?

Surely electronic transfers mean that this wouldn't be an issue - unless you are suggesting a bank run next Friday and deposits are frozen ?

And look how that has turned out Slovakia booming , GDP soaring , Czech's stagnant and moribund. All the crap will move south and we will get real businesses.

Non loony Tory MP Rory Stewart made a recent TV series about the border country. One of his points was that the locals have far more in common with each other in terms of shared history whether they fall on the English or Scottish side than with the rest of Scotland to the north or England to the south.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Presumably Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, as well as all the SNP bloggers and cheerleaders, have dissociated themselves from the lunatic menaces of Jim Sillars in the strongest possible terms?

Hmm, ask us that again after the weekend, would you? (Hint: Orange Order and UKIP.)

Plato said:

As a Geordie, I love Hadrian's Wall. And the council in Wallsend who have the great humour to have signs in Latin.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallsend_Metro_station

The Byker Wall really isn't playing in the same league.

Carnyx said:

SimonStClare said:

Carnyx said:

SimonStClare said:

TGOHF said:

Given the borders are strong "NO" - Cameron should offer any region that votes "NO" can remain in the rUk should they wish to.

Only fair right ?

Would it not be simpler to just move Hadrian’s Wall 50 miles north. ; )

That wouldn't even reach Berwick, would it?

Not entirely sure Mr Carnyx - I remember walking a large chunk of it in my childhood, stunning scenery but rather bleak imr - and always forget how 'south' it actually is.

Part of it actually goes along a street just north of Newcastle Central station! The western end is rather closer, though.

Though I've never forgiven General Wade for using much of the eastern part as the foundation for the Newcastle to Carlisle military road (1740s edition, not the Roman one a bit to the south). Lethal if one goes off the road, with the Roman ditches on either side.