politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The referendum claims its first casualty – Alex Salmond
Comments
-
Given the number of times you changed your mind and posted entirely contrary views yesterday I'd be surprised if you couldn't pluck something impressive-sounding out of the archives.SeanT said:OK this is my last smug self regarding comment, at least for the next 20 minutes,
Get a grip next time, man. And at the same time maybe have the humility to realise your evident loathing for Cameron is misplaced. The boy did good. Not bad for someone who read PPE.
0 -
Salmond arguably blundered by not holding the referendum just after the next general election.0
-
Given the trends in the Eurozone - unemployment at almost 12 percent, virtually unchanged since a year ago - it's quite possible that the next Eurozone crisis will kill off the In side for an EU referendum too.SeanT said:OK this is my last smug self regarding comment, at least for the next 20 minutes, but when the eurozone first went into crisis, I noted on here that it killed off Salmond's chances of winning any indyref, because he would have no answer to the currency question.
And so it proved, about four years later. The currency was the killer.
If the euro had been functioning smoothly, I reckon he would have won this referendum.0 -
To lose the regferendum may be regarded as a misfortune: to lose your leader as well looks like carelessness.
Scottish Nationalists are going to be very demoralised.
Time for the opposition to kick a party while it's down.0 -
Wonder if Labour will push for that as part of constitutional reform. Is it popular in the UK?AndyJS said:
Because voting is for adults and we define that as 18+.Hugh said:Sadiq Khan spot on
Most important vote in generation saw 1000s of 16 & 17 year olds vote in indyref. How can we deny them vote in General Election?0 -
I'm getting cheap airfares to Buenos Aires (I depart on Monday) and 'build your non-profit business plan before lunch" (I work for an NGO), so pretty apposite - scarily so. Big Brother is Watching.Carnyx said:
I'm getting endabuse.org ads with a soulful teenager looking out at me ...Socrates said:I'm getting adverts for the impeach Obama campaign and for Muslim dating websites. You have to question their targeting mechanism.
0 -
That was certainly the most irritating part that I can recall as well. Some very theatrical touches throughout which played well to his supporters, but little else.Stereotomy said:
Watching him stand there and pretend that the fact that Scotland could use the pound without a currency union was some new revelation he'd just forced Darling to admit for the first time, and get a huge round of applause for it, and knowing that the media was never going to call him out on it, was absolutely sickening.SeanT said:
Yeah, it's important to remember he is a total liar. Worse than that, a dangerous liar. A classic example of that deeply pernicious thing: the charismatic but amoral politicianPatrick said:Salmond lied and lied and lied again. His promises of freedom and jam were deeply mendacious. It would have been freedom and vinegar - by the bucketful. He deserves this.
0 -
*APPLAUSE*
Great post, Sir.Stereotomy said:
The second Darling vs Salmond debate was just gruelling to watch, with the combination of Salmond's bare-faced deceptions and Darling's complete inability to handle them.SeanT said:
Yeah, it's important to remember he is a total liar. Worse than that, a dangerous liar. A classic example of that deeply pernicious thing: the charismatic but amoral politicianPatrick said:Salmond lied and lied and lied again. His promises of freedom and jam were deeply mendacious. It would have been freedom and vinegar - by the bucketful. He deserves this.
Watching him stand there and pretend that the fact that Scotland could use the pound without a currency union was some new revelation he'd just forced Darling to admit for the first time, and get a huge round of applause for it, and knowing that the media was never going to call him out on it, was absolutely sickening.
It was the same low, obvious tricks over and over, throughout the campaign. Pretending that not liking No's "negativity" was a good reason to vote Yes, as if the referendum was some kind of reality TV show competition where viewers phoned in to vote on which campaign had more flair and panache. Somehow managing to turn their inability to answer the most basic questions into a positive point by claiming that No was harping on the same points. The ridiculous Hope vs Fear dichotomy (when you stand on the edge of a cliff, do you choose Fear of splattering on the rocks below, or Hope that you'll somehow learn to fly on the way down?)
And I guess mentioning how stupid you have to be to fall for all that would have been patronising or something, so of course nobody ever did. No let Yes set the agenda again and again. I'm sure it was a joint success for Yes, but Salmond really was the face of those awful tactics, and he absolutely exemplified them. So no matter what his achievements or history, it's very hard for me to be anything other than glad to see the back of him.0 -
He managed to convince 1,617,989 to vote 'Yes'.Speedy said:
That is also the problem.surbiton said:
Sometimes the "velvet" approach does not work ! The SNP started winning Parliamentary seats since 1967. You have to ask who took them from a rag bag team , first to government and then to the cusp of independence. Only one man !Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.
The government, by all accounts, is also reasonably popular !
I heard his Perth speech on Wednesday night. I am a socialist. I could hardly disagree with anything he said. No wonder they carried Glasgow. It is the middle class Labour vote who stuck to NO.
Salmond promised the moon and stars, he promised to turn scotland into a gay religious socialist state with low taxes and deregulation for businesses, all funded by oil and green power.
So he lied heavily to either the poor or the rich, to the gays or the priests, to the oilmen or the greens, or simply to everyone including you.
He only cared to have scotland under his boot, he didn't care how.0 -
Sorry I'm not shedding any false tears. He was only interested in power and passing the trappings of his new state on to his cronies. I'd have thought more of him if her stuck around to ensure the best Devo Max deal for Scotland0
-
I have asked before - but please, how can you do that in an indyref if they are not living in the territory whose departure s actually in question, by international standards? Exactly the same problem applies to any indyref in the world, so it cannot be regarded as UK exceptionalism.Socrates said:
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.rottenborough said:
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.
And the sole counterargument (and a weak one) is that it affects their passport rights at some future time. But so too does it affect the rights of all Scots worldwide. And, in the absence of a Scottish passport (!) as evidence of identity, it's impossible to achieve reliablhy or practically or securely.
0 -
Who will qualify as a "Scot" living in rUK ?Socrates said:
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.rottenborough said:
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.0 -
They're only one MSP away from losing their majority...David_Evershed said:To lose the regferendum may be regarded as a misfortune: to lose your leader as well looks like carelessness.
(Not that it would matter hugely.)0 -
Salmond lying to the end - the pledge did not promise 2nd reading by March.
0 -
Of all the people arguing 'no' last night I didn't hear (on the BBC) a single one of them saying they wanted extra powers and were satisfied with the level of extra powers the three leaders had proposed. Rather they were terrified of the uncertainty regarding prices, pensions, currency etc. or had some emotional reaction to the yes campaign.
People have not spoken for more devolution.0 -
IndyRef would affect their future for years to come not just the next electoral cycle.AndyJS said:
Because voting is for adults and we define that as 18+.Hugh said:Sadiq Khan spot on
Most important vote in generation saw 1000s of 16 & 17 year olds vote in indyref. How can we deny them vote in General Election?
Makes sense to allow 16+ to vote.
However, Ref and GE totally different situations.
0 -
If Labour is in power the "NO TORIES GOVERNING SCOTLAND" would not work.AndyJS said:Salmond arguably blundered by not holding the referendum just after the next general election.
He calculated every aspect of the referendum in his favour, even down to the date, yet he lost by a margin of 10%.0 -
And at the same time, another politician is reborn: Sarkozy announces his candidacy to lead the UMP in France.0
-
an election and a referendum are different . A referendum like this would have affected the 16 and 17 years olds to their dying day , an election would have affected them for a maximum of 5 years (say to the age of 21 , when on average most 21 year olds are still not in gainful employment)AndyJS said:
Because voting is for adults and we define that as 18+.Hugh said:Sadiq Khan spot on
Most important vote in generation saw 1000s of 16 & 17 year olds vote in indyref. How can we deny them vote in General Election?0 -
I have been getting those for months, no idea why. I also get a load of other stuff which seems to have no connection to me or my lifestyle, including this afternoon a a call for me to "Learn 15 Brutally Effective Fight Enders". Frankly, I am unimpressed by this targeted ad stuff and think that in the main it is just random.Carnyx said:
I'm getting endabuse.org ads with a soulful teenager looking out at me ...Socrates said:I'm getting adverts for the impeach Obama campaign and for Muslim dating websites. You have to question their targeting mechanism.
Else0 -
1,617,988 - presumably he was the 1,617,989th...TheWatcher said:
He managed to convince 1,617,989 to vote 'Yes'.Speedy said:
That is also the problem.surbiton said:
Sometimes the "velvet" approach does not work ! The SNP started winning Parliamentary seats since 1967. You have to ask who took them from a rag bag team , first to government and then to the cusp of independence. Only one man !Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.
The government, by all accounts, is also reasonably popular !
I heard his Perth speech on Wednesday night. I am a socialist. I could hardly disagree with anything he said. No wonder they carried Glasgow. It is the middle class Labour vote who stuck to NO.
Salmond promised the moon and stars, he promised to turn scotland into a gay religious socialist state with low taxes and deregulation for businesses, all funded by oil and green power.
So he lied heavily to either the poor or the rich, to the gays or the priests, to the oilmen or the greens, or simply to everyone including you.
He only cared to have scotland under his boot, he didn't care how.0 -
Quite. I disagreed with giving them the vote for this, but having been done for such an important event, what rationale to deny it them for other elections? Not convincing ones from what I've seen.Hugh said:Sadiq Khan spot on
Most important vote in generation saw 1000s of 16 & 17 year olds vote in indyref. How can we deny them vote in General Election?
Alzheimer's Association and an exhortation to 'Ditch the man purse' for meCarnyx said:
I'm getting endabuse.org ads with a soulful teenager looking out at me ...Socrates said:I'm getting adverts for the impeach Obama campaign and for Muslim dating websites. You have to question their targeting mechanism.
0 -
Him saying he had "multiple plan Bs" and asking Darling to name "3 job-creating powers that will be devolved" were annoying too, in both cases because Darling handled them so incompetently.kle4 said:
That was certainly the most irritating part that I can recall as well. Some very theatrical touches throughout which played well to his supporters, but little else.Stereotomy said:
Watching him stand there and pretend that the fact that Scotland could use the pound without a currency union was some new revelation he'd just forced Darling to admit for the first time, and get a huge round of applause for it, and knowing that the media was never going to call him out on it, was absolutely sickening.SeanT said:
Yeah, it's important to remember he is a total liar. Worse than that, a dangerous liar. A classic example of that deeply pernicious thing: the charismatic but amoral politicianPatrick said:Salmond lied and lied and lied again. His promises of freedom and jam were deeply mendacious. It would have been freedom and vinegar - by the bucketful. He deserves this.
Probably Darling's worst handling of a question was in debate 1, when he was given the absolute gift of a question of "Could an independent Scotland be successful", and he just stammered and awkwardly avoided answering. But that was overshadowed by Salmond's generally terrible performance during that debate, so it wasn't quite so frustrating.0 -
I'm still a bit surprised by the Glasgow result. You'd have expected Rangers supporters to have voted No in large numbers. Hope they keep investigating the alleged voting fraud there.0
-
Because they are the ones that have the most interest in the continuation of the union. The have not emigrated internationally - merely they are living in another part of the country that is the UK. Given that the event could change their nationality, it's only right they get a vote.Carnyx said:
I have asked before - but please, how can you do that in an indyref if they are not living in the territory whose departure s actually in question, by international standards? Exactly the same problem applies to any indyref in the world, so it cannot be regarded as UK exceptionalism.Socrates said:
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.rottenborough said:
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.
And the sole counterargument (and a weak one) is that it affects their passport rights at some future time. But so too does it affect the rights of all Scots worldwide. And, in the absence of a Scottish passport (!) as evidence of identity, it's impossible to achieve reliablhy or practically or securely.0 -
Possibly from jail.williamglenn said:And at the same time, another politician is reborn: Sarkozy announces his candidacy to lead the UMP in France.
0 -
Golly, are you PB's own Brad Pitt from Fight Club?HurstLlama said:
I have been getting those for months, no idea why. I also get a load of other stuff which seems to have no connection to me or my lifestyle, including this afternoon a a call for me to "Learn 15 Brutally Effective Fight Enders". Frankly, I am unimpressed by this targeted ad stuff and think that in the main it is just random.Carnyx said:
I'm getting endabuse.org ads with a soulful teenager looking out at me ...Socrates said:I'm getting adverts for the impeach Obama campaign and for Muslim dating websites. You have to question their targeting mechanism.
Else0 -
A couple of polling day anecdotes.
1) My wife took an elderly lady to her polling station. She was 92 years old. And this was the first time she had voted. Imagine that, 71 years without exercising the franchise.
2) My son, while voting in Edinburgh, saw polling station staff assisting an elderly lady. She was overcome with emotion. She wondered how she could possibly find herself voting to prevent her country from being broken up.
I've no doubt that there will be some Yes people feeling a degree of angst and upset today. But let's not forget the angst and upset Salmond et al have caused to so many people in the run up to this referendum.
Post-polling day anecdote:
My neighbour has just presented me with a chilled bottle of Czech beer to show his appreciation for my having stood up to be counted. Fairly made my day! (Even better than the news of the Salmond despatch.)
And I'm still marvelling at 58% in Moray.0 -
I don't see why Scotland should set a precedent for the rest of us. We've danced to their tune long enough. Under the new system, you won't even leave full time education until you're 18. It's absurd for an age group where the majority has little experience of taking full responsibility for themselves should have a say in what happens nationally.kle4 said:
Quite. I disagreed with giving them the vote for this, but having been done for such an important event, what rationale to deny it them for other elections? Not convincing ones from what I've seen.Hugh said:Sadiq Khan spot on
Most important vote in generation saw 1000s of 16 & 17 year olds vote in indyref. How can we deny them vote in General Election?
Alzheimer's Association and an exhortation to 'Ditch the man purse' for meCarnyx said:
I'm getting endabuse.org ads with a soulful teenager looking out at me ...Socrates said:I'm getting adverts for the impeach Obama campaign and for Muslim dating websites. You have to question their targeting mechanism.
0 -
Last post from me: women. We don't yet have the breakdown, but Salmond appears to have substantially lost the female vote. It wasn't just his hectoring and bullying, but crucially the household purse that he buggered up on, as ruthlessly exploited by Better Together.
Cameron needs to watch that he doesn't ape Salmond's macho posturing because it's a massive turnoff to women, and they are crucial for power. If you're a male political leader you need to show a softer side. A female leader has it slightly easier on that front if, like Maggie early on, she appears to talk our language.
Who was it that reminded us again near the end of this campaign that 'it's the economy stupid'? It's one of the aphorisms Mike dislikes but it has once again proved true.0 -
Any odds quoted on Kenny McAskill ?
0 -
0
-
I can only guess it's because I spend a fair about of time reading about Syria, Iraq and the Arab Spring, plus the odd read of verses from the Koran to see whether the moderates or extremists are right about an interpretation.surbiton said:
Stop looking at Muslim dating websites. tim was right all along. You do have this Muslim thing.Socrates said:I'm getting adverts for the impeach Obama campaign and for Muslim dating websites. You have to question their targeting mechanism.
0 -
There was a lot of social democratic rhetoric, probably even well meant, in the YES campaign. For example, the NHS will always be in public hands. That could have swated many Labour voters.AndyJS said:I'm still a bit surprised by the Glasgow result. You'd have expected Rangers supporters to have voted No in large numbers. Hope they keep investigating the alleged voting fraud there.
0 -
Quite. They can be trusted to decide the entire future of their country until their dying day, but not to choose a Government for 5 years?state_go_away said:
an election and a referendum are different . A referendum like this would have affected the 16 and 17 years olds to their dying day , an election would have affected them for a maximum of 5 years (say to the age of 21 , when on average most 21 year olds are still not in gainful employment)AndyJS said:
Because voting is for adults and we define that as 18+.Hugh said:Sadiq Khan spot on
Most important vote in generation saw 1000s of 16 & 17 year olds vote in indyref. How can we deny them vote in General Election?
Not sustainable. They'll have the vote soon enough.0 -
Lol, yes. I'm getting ads for £250,000 investment portfolios (I wish) and holidays in Malta (eh?).Socrates said:I'm getting adverts for the impeach Obama campaign and for Muslim dating websites. You have to question their targeting mechanism.
Last week's Economist had a special supplement on how marketing agencies track our tastes (a LOT) and target accordingly. Up to a point I don't mind if they do target me accurately - I'd rather see adverts for board games and left-wing books and special offers on curry than trips to Malta or whatever. But I basically avoid looking at adverts whatever they are (and hadn't noticed the ones mentioned above till I scrolled to check).
0 -
-
Perhaps you are not allowing for the fact that any such statement would instantly have been seized on (rather illogically given the Unionist attitudes to pre-referendum discussions, and post-referendum for that matter, but never mind) as a concession which would have been used to damage Scottish negotiations after a Yes. Add to that the refusal of Westminster to discuss possibilities in any sort of proactive manner, and the media presentation. I think a great deal of what seems anomalous had to do with the need to hold the fort without being seen to retreat. That doesn't mean that a different approach mightn't have worked better, but I have never felt that the SNP approach was as irrational as it might seem to some, or as it was touted.Socrates said:
Even on the currency, if he had just said "The preferred option is a currency union, but if Westminster proves to be vindictive about this, then a Scottish pound would be a perfectly adequate alternative." It would have been very hard for the No campaign to have a clear message against that.Richard_Nabavi said:
The most remarkable thing about the nonsense he spouted was that much of it was unnecessary and counter-prductive.Patrick said:Salmond lied and lied and lied again. His promises of freedom and jam were deeply mendacious. It would have been freedom and vinegar - by the bucketful. He deserves this.
Instead of the ludicrous claim that Scotland would be able to borrow at the same rate as the UK, why not say: "Of course as a new country we'll have to show the markets that we are fiscally responsible, but I'm confident that in a very short time we'll have an excellent credit rating and low borrowing costs".
Instead of the ludicrous claim that Scotland would somehow magically automatically become a full member of the EU, why not say "After a Yes vote we'll immediately start talking with the EU about formal accession, and in the meantime I'm confident that we can agree an interim agreement which will allow trade and investment to continue without disruption, which is in everyone's interest"?
Admittedly on the currency issue he had a harder problem, but making the ludicrous claim that a currency union could be conjured out of thin air without the consent of the other side was just bizarre.
Perhaps with sane answers to questions like this it might have gone the other way. We'll never know.
0 -
A final farewell, and be careful as ye' gaes', to the Wee-Eck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLRuMKzgUYs
Welcome to the real world....0 -
Alex Salmond has resigned.
Gutted.
I posted the rumour this morning. and didn't back it...0 -
Despicable. How can a group that migrated here so many generations ago still be unintegrated? No appreciation of long-standing British liberal principles.SeanT said:0 -
Ed Wells wrote: "More information on the signs would be better. It does come across very badly if you don't know the reason".SeanT said:
Oh, sure, that's it. It wouldn't come across badly at all then.0 -
Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
In England, he becomes the English hero, standing up for English votes on England only issues. Labour have to oppose, kick into the long grass, invent new dodgy English regional bollox etc. A very bad position for Labour, will not be popular with anyone.
In Scotland, he runs with the "Vow" at his pace, linked to English changes, which is not what Comrade Brown promised. The only direction for any anger this creates is at SLAB as there's only 1 Tory MP to rant at and its a Brown/SLAB promise anyway. Equally bad for Labour.
Then in 2015 election, voters will support the parties that are going provide the best deal & strongest negotiators. In Scotland that's the SNP; in England, the Tories. Miliband screwed.0 -
Ah, Miliband's next desperate wheeze to try and win the prize.Hugh said:
Quite. They can be trusted to decide the entire future of their country until their dying day, but not to choose a Government for 5 years?state_go_away said:
an election and a referendum are different . A referendum like this would have affected the 16 and 17 years olds to their dying day , an election would have affected them for a maximum of 5 years (say to the age of 21 , when on average most 21 year olds are still not in gainful employment)AndyJS said:
Because voting is for adults and we define that as 18+.Hugh said:Sadiq Khan spot on
Most important vote in generation saw 1000s of 16 & 17 year olds vote in indyref. How can we deny them vote in General Election?
Not sustainable. They'll have the vote soon enough.0 -
But they still seem so bitter! Must be something eating them up inside.TGOHF said:
0 -
Also, I love how the proposed solution is to only have them in Hebrew next year! Appalling political correctness.
I don't care what your religious parade is: you don't get to force half the population onto one side of the street, even for one day. We have to stop bending over backwards for these people.0 -
Perhaps, you could answer this question: Why didn't the YES carry what are now-a-days considered SNP territory after the 2007 and 2011 elections except Dundee ? Glasgow and North Lanarkshire would not be typical SNP territory.NorthBriton said:A couple of polling day anecdotes.
1) My wife took an elderly lady to her polling station. She was 92 years old. And this was the first time she had voted. Imagine that, 71 years without exercising the franchise.
2) My son, while voting in Edinburgh, saw polling station staff assisting an elderly lady. She was overcome with emotion. She wondered how she could possibly find herself voting to prevent her country from being broken up.
I've no doubt that there will be some Yes people feeling a degree of angst and upset today. But let's not forget the angst and upset Salmond et al have caused to so many people in the run up to this referendum.
Post-polling day anecdote:
My neighbour has just presented me with a chilled bottle of Czech beer to show his appreciation for my having stood up to be counted. Fairly made my day! (Even better than the news of the Salmond despatch.)
And I'm still marvelling at 58% in Moray.
Therefore, many SNP voters either did not vote YES or virtually everyone else voted NO.0 -
Indeed, and if we use the 'might get a passport' and take the White Paper proposals as an example, grandchildren too would qualify. Which would make it a terribly blood and soil referendum. (We've discussed some of this before, somewhwer erecently, of course.)surbiton said:
Who will qualify as a "Scot" living in rUK ?Socrates said:
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.rottenborough said:
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.
0 -
Why don't we give 16/17 year olds half a vote?
0 -
Avast, Miss P, and don't be silly. We have met, remember? I was the elderly, somewhat overweight, chap with the walrus moustache and wearing a tie. Anyway I don't even know who this Brad Pitt fellow is, let alone his club.Plato said:Golly, are you PB's own Brad Pitt from Fight Club?
HurstLlama said:
I have been getting those for months, no idea why. I also get a load of other stuff which seems to have no connection to me or my lifestyle, including this afternoon a a call for me to "Learn 15 Brutally Effective Fight Enders". Frankly, I am unimpressed by this targeted ad stuff and think that in the main it is just random.Carnyx said:
I'm getting endabuse.org ads with a soulful teenager looking out at me ...Socrates said:I'm getting adverts for the impeach Obama campaign and for Muslim dating websites. You have to question their targeting mechanism.
Else
Else Belike.0 -
Hmmmm who is Mike paraphrasing here?
Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB)
19/09/2014 16:27
As they say - all politial careers end in tears
0 -
Well I suspect the idea is only people on that parade are supposed to follow the signs.Socrates said:Also, I love how the proposed solution is to only have them in Hebrew next year! Appalling political correctness.
I don't care what your religious parade is: you don't get to force half the population onto one side of the street, even for one day. We have to stop bending over backwards for these people.0 -
If that's too much "blood and soil" (how isn't it "soil" already?) then why would you give up passports on that basis?Carnyx said:
Indeed, and if we use the 'might get a passport' and take the White Paper proposals as an example, grandchildren too would qualify. Which would make it a terribly blood and soil referendum. (We've discussed some of this before, somewhwer erecently, of course.)surbiton said:
Who will qualify as a "Scot" living in rUK ?Socrates said:
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.rottenborough said:
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.
0 -
The Catalonian Parliament has today passed a law to enable a referendum on independence to take place on 9th November. The central government has said it will ask Spain's constitutional court to declare it illegal, which it undoubtedly will. The Spanish PM has already made a television address in which he praised the vote in Scotland and the fact that it took place legally. Things are going to get nasty over there.0
-
-
Half of UK claim to have Irish descent ? Probably true too !Carnyx said:
Indeed, and if we use the 'might get a passport' and take the White Paper proposals as an example, grandchildren too would qualify. Which would make it a terribly blood and soil referendum. (We've discussed some of this before, somewhwer erecently, of course.)surbiton said:
Who will qualify as a "Scot" living in rUK ?Socrates said:
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.rottenborough said:
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.0 -
Afternoon all.
A massive thank you to whoever (PfP?) it was that tipped the 40-45% YES band.
0 -
It would not be at all difficult to allow people born in Scotland and resident in rUK to register for such a referendum. All you need is a British birth certificate or passport (Passports show town of birth) and proof of residence elsewhere in the UK.Carnyx said:
Indeed, and if we use the 'might get a passport' and take the White Paper proposals as an example, grandchildren too would qualify. Which would make it a terribly blood and soil referendum. (We've discussed some of this before, somewhwer erecently, of course.)surbiton said:
Who will qualify as a "Scot" living in rUK ?Socrates said:
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.rottenborough said:
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.
Similarly resident EU nationals can easily be excluded as they are for UK General elections and as resident UK nationals are excluded from Irish Presidential ones (but not parliamentary ones).0 -
Because it would be frowned on even more if you were importing people from outside the defined territory (or their votes, same thing) to have a decision on the territory. You still haven't explained to me how you get round the fundamental international norm of a separation referendum being confined to the territory in question.Socrates said:
If that's too much "blood and soil" (how isn't it "soil" already?) then why would you give up passports on that basis?Carnyx said:
Indeed, and if we use the 'might get a passport' and take the White Paper proposals as an example, grandchildren too would qualify. Which would make it a terribly blood and soil referendum. (We've discussed some of this before, somewhwer erecently, of course.)surbiton said:
Who will qualify as a "Scot" living in rUK ?Socrates said:
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.rottenborough said:
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.
0 -
-
An interesting way to put it, given the UK vote was legal precisely because the national government decided not to stand in the way of holding a vote when one was asked for, the exact opposite of his situation.SouthamObserver said:The Spanish PM has already made a television address in which he praised the vote in Scotland and the fact that it took place legally.
0 -
Boris is on fine form in radio interviews today, labelling Miliband an 'invertebrate'.0
-
I think it's for attendees to the festival.Stereotomy said:
Well I suspect the idea is only people on that parade are supposed to follow the signs.Socrates said:Also, I love how the proposed solution is to only have them in Hebrew next year! Appalling political correctness.
I don't care what your religious parade is: you don't get to force half the population onto one side of the street, even for one day. We have to stop bending over backwards for these people.0 -
Good riddance to Salmond.
He very nearly destroyed the greatest Union of nations in history with his lies, bluster, class warfare and divisive tendencies.
But mostly because he was such a shrewd and canny operator who continually ran rings round the UK political class. A dangerous man, and the danger of independence recedes still further.0 -
Alternatively millions of ordinary people who are still feeling economically squeezed will wonder why Cameron and the Tories are devoting so much time to efforts to engineer partisan constitutional advantage instead of focusing all their energies on developing measures to improve living standards.saddo said:Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
In England, he becomes the English hero, standing up for English votes on England only issues. Labour have to oppose, kick into the long grass, invent new dodgy English regional bollox etc. A very bad position for Labour, will not be popular with anyone.
In Scotland, he runs with the "Vow" at his pace, linked to English changes, which is not what Comrade Brown promised. The only direction for any anger this creates is at SLAB as there's only 1 Tory MP to rant at and its a Brown/SLAB promise anyway. Equally bad for Labour.
Then in 2015 election, voters will support the parties that are going provide the best deal & strongest negotiators. In Scotland that's the SNP; in England, the Tories. Miliband screwed.
0 -
Superintendent Andy Walker, from Hackney police, said officers had spoken to the parade organisers about "potential misinterpretation" of the signs.Neil said:
In what sense has anyone bent over backwards for them? They put the posters up and they were taken down.Socrates said:We have to stop bending over backwards for these people.
He added: "They have agreed that next year they will only by written in Hebrew and will be removed more swiftly after the event."
They shouldn't be allowed to put up such sexist commands next year.
There's also a broader issue here: why do we not speak out more against sub-groups in our society with deeply regressive views about the role of women? Women deserve an equal role in our society, that means our whole society, not just among those of a white Christian background.0 -
Discussed on and off a thread or three back - tentative consensus is that a lot of people in some areas vote SNP to run the country (and/or keep Labour out) but not necessarily for independence. Especially in the NE and rural areas.surbiton said:
Perhaps, you could answer this question: Why didn't the YES carry what are now-a-days considered SNP territory after the 2007 and 2011 elections except Dundee ? Glasgow and North Lanarkshire would not be typical SNP territory.NorthBriton said:A couple of polling day anecdotes.
1) My wife took an elderly lady to her polling station. She was 92 years old. And this was the first time she had voted. Imagine that, 71 years without exercising the franchise.
2) My son, while voting in Edinburgh, saw polling station staff assisting an elderly lady. She was overcome with emotion. She wondered how she could possibly find herself voting to prevent her country from being broken up.
I've no doubt that there will be some Yes people feeling a degree of angst and upset today. But let's not forget the angst and upset Salmond et al have caused to so many people in the run up to this referendum.
Post-polling day anecdote:
My neighbour has just presented me with a chilled bottle of Czech beer to show his appreciation for my having stood up to be counted. Fairly made my day! (Even better than the news of the Salmond despatch.)
And I'm still marvelling at 58% in Moray.
Therefore, many SNP voters either did not vote YES or virtually everyone else voted NO.
0 -
Yes.Plato said:*APPLAUSE*
Great post, Sir.Stereotomy said:
The second Darling vs Salmond debate was just gruelling to watch, with the combination of Salmond's bare-faced deceptions and Darling's complete inability to handle them.SeanT said:
Yeah, it's important to remember he is a total liar. Worse than that, a dangerous liar. A classic example of that deeply pernicious thing: the charismatic but amoral politicianPatrick said:Salmond lied and lied and lied again. His promises of freedom and jam were deeply mendacious. It would have been freedom and vinegar - by the bucketful. He deserves this.
Watching him stand there and pretend that the fact that Scotland could use the pound without a currency union was some new revelation he'd just forced Darling to admit for the first time, and get a huge round of applause for it, and knowing that the media was never going to call him out on it, was absolutely sickening.
It was the same low, obvious tricks over and over, throughout the campaign. Pretending that not liking No's "negativity" was a good reason to vote Yes, as if the referendum was some kind of reality TV show competition where viewers phoned in to vote on which campaign had more flair and panache. Somehow managing to turn their inability to answer the most basic questions into a positive point by claiming that No was harping on the same points. The ridiculous Hope vs Fear dichotomy (when you stand on the edge of a cliff, do you choose Fear of splattering on the rocks below, or Hope that you'll somehow learn to fly on the way down?)
And I guess mentioning how stupid you have to be to fall for all that would have been patronising or something, so of course nobody ever did. No let Yes set the agenda again and again. I'm sure it was a joint success for Yes, but Salmond really was the face of those awful tactics, and he absolutely exemplified them. So no matter what his achievements or history, it's very hard for me to be anything other than glad to see the back of him.
I like the hope fear bit. Lovely stuff.0 -
There is trouble ahead...........SouthamObserver said:The Catalonian Parliament has today passed a law to enable a referendum on independence to take place on 9th November. The central government has said it will ask Spain's constitutional court to declare it illegal, which it undoubtedly will. The Spanish PM has already made a television address in which he praised the vote in Scotland and the fact that it took place legally. Things are going to get nasty over there.
0 -
Bang on. SNP got loads of votes last time for that reason.Carnyx said:
Discussed on and off a thread or three back - tentative consensus is that a lot of people in some areas vote SNP to run the country (and/or keep Labour out) but not necessarily for independence. Especially in the NE and rural areas.surbiton said:
Perhaps, you could answer this question: Why didn't the YES carry what are now-a-days considered SNP territory after the 2007 and 2011 elections except Dundee ? Glasgow and North Lanarkshire would not be typical SNP territory.NorthBriton said:A couple of polling day anecdotes.
1) My wife took an elderly lady to her polling station. She was 92 years old. And this was the first time she had voted. Imagine that, 71 years without exercising the franchise.
2) My son, while voting in Edinburgh, saw polling station staff assisting an elderly lady. She was overcome with emotion. She wondered how she could possibly find herself voting to prevent her country from being broken up.
I've no doubt that there will be some Yes people feeling a degree of angst and upset today. But let's not forget the angst and upset Salmond et al have caused to so many people in the run up to this referendum.
Post-polling day anecdote:
My neighbour has just presented me with a chilled bottle of Czech beer to show his appreciation for my having stood up to be counted. Fairly made my day! (Even better than the news of the Salmond despatch.)
And I'm still marvelling at 58% in Moray.
Therefore, many SNP voters either did not vote YES or virtually everyone else voted NO.0 -
Depends on the situation. If the tripartite vow falls through, for instance? It also depends on other parties.SeanT said:
Interesting question, tho, can the SNP go into the next Holyrood election promising another referendum?Carnyx said:
Indeed, and if we use the 'might get a passport' and take the White Paper proposals as an example, grandchildren too would qualify. Which would make it a terribly blood and soil referendum. (We've discussed some of this before, somewhwer erecently, of course.)surbiton said:
Who will qualify as a "Scot" living in rUK ?Socrates said:
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.rottenborough said:
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.
Surely not. It would be a huge vote loser. So what will be their position?
0 -
Personally I think it's highly unlikely Labour will win the next election, and experts like Peter Kellner agree. So the aftermath of the next general election would have increased the chances of a Yes vote since Brown wouldn't have been able to say a Labour government is just round the corner.Speedy said:
If Labour is in power the "NO TORIES GOVERNING SCOTLAND" would not work.AndyJS said:Salmond arguably blundered by not holding the referendum just after the next general election.
He calculated every aspect of the referendum in his favour, even down to the date, yet he lost by a margin of 10%.0 -
Hm. Well, if it's some kind of event, and the poster is supposed to be informing people who are there for that event, then it's fine in theory, though obviously it needs to be a LOT clearer that that's the intent. Whoever put it together was obviously not nearly mindful enough about how something like that comes across, either willfully or through stupidity.Socrates said:
I think it's for attendees to the festival.Stereotomy said:
Well I suspect the idea is only people on that parade are supposed to follow the signs.Socrates said:Also, I love how the proposed solution is to only have them in Hebrew next year! Appalling political correctness.
I don't care what your religious parade is: you don't get to force half the population onto one side of the street, even for one day. We have to stop bending over backwards for these people.
If it really is trying to direct the public then it's terrible0 -
Well said.Bob__Sykes said:Good riddance to Salmond.
He very nearly destroyed the greatest Union of nations in history with his lies, bluster, class warfare and divisive tendencies.
But mostly because he was such a shrewd and canny operator who continually ran rings round the UK political class. A dangerous man, and the danger of independence recedes still further.0 -
As I explained before, the SNP promised everything to everyone, as a result some people became suspicious of their promises.surbiton said:
Perhaps, you could answer this question: Why didn't the YES carry what are now-a-days considered SNP territory after the 2007 and 2011 elections except Dundee ? Glasgow and North Lanarkshire would not be typical SNP territory.NorthBriton said:A couple of polling day anecdotes.
1) My wife took an elderly lady to her polling station. She was 92 years old. And this was the first time she had voted. Imagine that, 71 years without exercising the franchise.
2) My son, while voting in Edinburgh, saw polling station staff assisting an elderly lady. She was overcome with emotion. She wondered how she could possibly find herself voting to prevent her country from being broken up.
I've no doubt that there will be some Yes people feeling a degree of angst and upset today. But let's not forget the angst and upset Salmond et al have caused to so many people in the run up to this referendum.
Post-polling day anecdote:
My neighbour has just presented me with a chilled bottle of Czech beer to show his appreciation for my having stood up to be counted. Fairly made my day! (Even better than the news of the Salmond despatch.)
And I'm still marvelling at 58% in Moray.
Therefore, many SNP voters either did not vote YES or virtually everyone else voted NO.
They juggled too many balls.
For instance, the SNP made a push in the last days towards poor Labour voters, as a result they lost wealthy former Tory voters.
Imagine if Labour, Tories or the LD's had a target of winning 51% of the vote in a general election, they would follow the same strategy as the SNP with the same results of turning off some part of their own electorate.0 -
I think it is to do with the contrasting socio-economic profiles. I'm no expert but I suspect Dundee (and the other places that went for Yes) have a lot of DE voters who were susceptible to the Yes message for various reasons. Places like Moray, Perthshire, Angus etc are completely different - for one thing they were formerly Tory seats and retain a lot of solid unionist supporters. Clearly some of the SNP voters in these seats were unpersuaded by the economic arguments of the Yes campaign and felt it was too risky. The folk in Dundee etc probably felt they had very little to lose and hence no risk.surbiton said:
Perhaps, you could answer this question: Why didn't the YES carry what are now-a-days considered SNP territory after the 2007 and 2011 elections except Dundee ? Glasgow and North Lanarkshire would not be typical SNP territory.NorthBriton said:A couple of polling day anecdotes.
1) My wife took an elderly lady to her polling station. She was 92 years old. And this was the first time she had voted. Imagine that, 71 years without exercising the franchise.
2) My son, while voting in Edinburgh, saw polling station staff assisting an elderly lady. She was overcome with emotion. She wondered how she could possibly find herself voting to prevent her country from being broken up.
I've no doubt that there will be some Yes people feeling a degree of angst and upset today. But let's not forget the angst and upset Salmond et al have caused to so many people in the run up to this referendum.
Post-polling day anecdote:
My neighbour has just presented me with a chilled bottle of Czech beer to show his appreciation for my having stood up to be counted. Fairly made my day! (Even better than the news of the Salmond despatch.)
And I'm still marvelling at 58% in Moray.
Therefore, many SNP voters either did not vote YES or virtually everyone else voted NO.0 -
We're British. We don't need to get round anything. We should do what is fair, not what is done elsewhere.Carnyx said:
Because it would be frowned on even more if you were importing people from outside the defined territory (or their votes, same thing) to have a decision on the territory. You still haven't explained to me how you get round the fundamental international norm of a separation referendum being confined to the territory in question.Socrates said:
If that's too much "blood and soil" (how isn't it "soil" already?) then why would you give up passports on that basis?Carnyx said:
Indeed, and if we use the 'might get a passport' and take the White Paper proposals as an example, grandchildren too would qualify. Which would make it a terribly blood and soil referendum. (We've discussed some of this before, somewhwer erecently, of course.)surbiton said:
Who will qualify as a "Scot" living in rUK ?Socrates said:
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.rottenborough said:
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.0 -
@JamesMills1984: if #indyref was not about the vanity of Salmond & the SNP, he'd not be resigning today, but instead be getting involved in devolution talks!0
-
I don't think it's even acceptable for those that are there for that event. We shouldn't indulge these regressive religious denominations that say men and women can't mix. If men and women want to voluntary walk on different sides, then fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to make it a rule for a public event.Stereotomy said:
Hm. Well, if it's some kind of event, and the poster is supposed to be informing people who are there for that event, then it's fine in theory, though obviously it needs to be a LOT clearer that that's the intent. Whoever put it together was obviously not nearly mindful enough about how something like that comes across, either willfully or through stupidity.Socrates said:
I think it's for attendees to the festival.Stereotomy said:
Well I suspect the idea is only people on that parade are supposed to follow the signs.Socrates said:Also, I love how the proposed solution is to only have them in Hebrew next year! Appalling political correctness.
I don't care what your religious parade is: you don't get to force half the population onto one side of the street, even for one day. We have to stop bending over backwards for these people.
If it really is trying to direct the public then it's terrible0 -
Who's to say they will spend that much time on it anyway?SouthamObserver said:
Alternatively millions of ordinary people who are still feeling economically squeezed will wonder why Cameron and the Tories are devoting so much time to efforts to engineer partisan constitutional advantage instead of focusing all their energies on developing measures to improve living standards.saddo said:Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
In England, he becomes the English hero, standing up for English votes on England only issues. Labour have to oppose, kick into the long grass, invent new dodgy English regional bollox etc. A very bad position for Labour, will not be popular with anyone.
In Scotland, he runs with the "Vow" at his pace, linked to English changes, which is not what Comrade Brown promised. The only direction for any anger this creates is at SLAB as there's only 1 Tory MP to rant at and its a Brown/SLAB promise anyway. Equally bad for Labour.
Then in 2015 election, voters will support the parties that are going provide the best deal & strongest negotiators. In Scotland that's the SNP; in England, the Tories. Miliband screwed.
And in the meantime, the economic reality keeps getting better & better.
One big lesson from the No vote is that folk don't like risk when it comes to economics. And boy oh boy is Labour a risk.
0 -
Pah @HurstLlama - if you've ever looked at ZeroHedge on Twitter - his avatar is Brad Pitt in Fight Club.
And beauty is in the eye of the beholder, never forget!HurstLlama said:
Avast, Miss P, and don't be silly. We have met, remember? I was the elderly, somewhat overweight, chap with the walrus moustache and wearing a tie. Anyway I don't even know who this Brad Pitt fellow is, let alone his club.Plato said:Golly, are you PB's own Brad Pitt from Fight Club?
HurstLlama said:
I have been getting those for months, no idea why. I also get a load of other stuff which seems to have no connection to me or my lifestyle, including this afternoon a a call for me to "Learn 15 Brutally Effective Fight Enders". Frankly, I am unimpressed by this targeted ad stuff and think that in the main it is just random.Carnyx said:
I'm getting endabuse.org ads with a soulful teenager looking out at me ...Socrates said:I'm getting adverts for the impeach Obama campaign and for Muslim dating websites. You have to question their targeting mechanism.
Else
Else Belike.0 -
Lib Dem Charlotte Henry is now retweeting all of the people who assured her Salmond would not be resigning today. Entertaining stuff0
-
Miliband giving a Presser now - Radio 5.
House of Lords reforms and devolution to the regions.0 -
Quite. But conversely the same applies to 'not SNP, not independence' for all those Labour Yes voters in Glasgow etc. when asked to vote Labour in 2016.Scott_P said:
But some of the people who voted for "not Labour, not independence" will be very wary of voting SNP again after the last 2 yearsAllyM said:
Bang on. SNP got loads of votes last time for that reason.
Very hard to judge the likely result.
0 -
Garner the best deal for Scotland ?SeanT said:
Interesting question, tho, can the SNP go into the next Holyrood election promising another referendum?Carnyx said:
Indeed, and if we use the 'might get a passport' and take the White Paper proposals as an example, grandchildren too would qualify. Which would make it a terribly blood and soil referendum. (We've discussed some of this before, somewhwer erecently, of course.)surbiton said:
Who will qualify as a "Scot" living in rUK ?Socrates said:
I can't imagine the powers that be ever being stupid enough to exclude Scots living in rUK from the electorate again.rottenborough said:
Sorry, there'll be no referendum in 10 years. It has gone for a generation as Cameron has said, indeed a lifetime. In order for there to be sufficient pressure to change this result within our lifetimes there would have to be the clear, settled will of the Scots to vote again and vote 'Yes'. This would mean, to my mind, polls consistently showing 70 or 80% in favour of separation and a clear mandate from across all of the political parties. It aint gonna happen.Danny565 said:Quite shocking.
I do think Nicola Sturgeon leading would give them a better chance in the next independence referendum (inevitably within the next 10 years surely?). Salmond might be better at firing up the diehard nationalists, but I feel Sturgeon would've appealed more to the more moderate people who liked the idea of a more "left-wing" state but were turned off by Salmond's tub-thumping "us vs them" approach.
Surely not. It would be a huge vote loser. So what will be their position?
Slamond going right now was probably the best thing for the SNP - if he'd have hung on like you'd have said it would be worse.0 -
Crumbs, Mr. O., that is a bit of a swing from your position this morning. This morning it was let us has have constitutional change and PR. This afternoon it is millions of ordinary people won't be happy about politicians talking about constitutional change and PR. What has brought that about?SouthamObserver said:
Alternatively millions of ordinary people who are still feeling economically squeezed will wonder why Cameron and the Tories are devoting so much time to efforts to engineer partisan constitutional advantage instead of focusing all their energies on developing measures to improve living standards.saddo said:Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
In England, he becomes the English hero, standing up for English votes on England only issues. Labour have to oppose, kick into the long grass, invent new dodgy English regional bollox etc. A very bad position for Labour, will not be popular with anyone.
In Scotland, he runs with the "Vow" at his pace, linked to English changes, which is not what Comrade Brown promised. The only direction for any anger this creates is at SLAB as there's only 1 Tory MP to rant at and its a Brown/SLAB promise anyway. Equally bad for Labour.
Then in 2015 election, voters will support the parties that are going provide the best deal & strongest negotiators. In Scotland that's the SNP; in England, the Tories. Miliband screwed.0 -
Indeed. The Conservatives big Achilles heel is on immigration. They need to set out pretty clearly how they will meet their target in the next parliament.saddo said:
Who's to say they will spend that much time on it anyway?SouthamObserver said:
Alternatively millions of ordinary people who are still feeling economically squeezed will wonder why Cameron and the Tories are devoting so much time to efforts to engineer partisan constitutional advantage instead of focusing all their energies on developing measures to improve living standards.saddo said:Cameron has, more by luck than judgement, an enormous opportunity.
In England, he becomes the English hero, standing up for English votes on England only issues. Labour have to oppose, kick into the long grass, invent new dodgy English regional bollox etc. A very bad position for Labour, will not be popular with anyone.
In Scotland, he runs with the "Vow" at his pace, linked to English changes, which is not what Comrade Brown promised. The only direction for any anger this creates is at SLAB as there's only 1 Tory MP to rant at and its a Brown/SLAB promise anyway. Equally bad for Labour.
Then in 2015 election, voters will support the parties that are going provide the best deal & strongest negotiators. In Scotland that's the SNP; in England, the Tories. Miliband screwed.
And in the meantime, the economic reality keeps getting better & better.
One big lesson from the No vote is that folk don't like risk when it comes to economics. And boy oh boy is Labour a risk.0 -
Regional devolution was rejected just ten years ago! Is this the EU tactic - keep asking until you get the right answer?TheWatcher said:Miliband giving a Presser now - Radio 5.
House of Lords reforms and devolution to the regions.0 -
The catalonian gvernment should follow the Croatian model quickly, into forming their own police, courts and most importantly army, if they don't want to be crushed by the spanish.surbiton said:
There is trouble ahead...........SouthamObserver said:The Catalonian Parliament has today passed a law to enable a referendum on independence to take place on 9th November. The central government has said it will ask Spain's constitutional court to declare it illegal, which it undoubtedly will. The Spanish PM has already made a television address in which he praised the vote in Scotland and the fact that it took place legally. Things are going to get nasty over there.
If catalonia votes for independence, or even if it tries to hold a vote, the spanish army will invade Barcelona triggering a second spanish civil war.0
