If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
You don't think Scotland's large banking sector might see it as an issue that they have in effect no lender of last resort?
Or the EU while negotiating accession terms?
They all left the last time we went down this route and now either have English registration or the ability to get it by means of a holding company. Unfortunately, this did absolutely nothing for our tax base.
"Where [Trading Standards] capacity exists, results can be dramatic. Operation Vulcan, a joint effort involving Greater Manchester Police, Trading Standards, Immigration Enforcement, HMRC and even the Intellectual Property Office, targeted Cheetham Hill, the “counterfeit capital of Europe”. They closed 206 criminal establishments, seized 1048 tonnes of counterfeit goods with a value of £1.56bn, and as a result saw a dramatic reduction in other crimes — public order offences down 45 per cent, vehicle and violent crime both down 69 per cent, burglary down 58 per cent and theft cut in half. For crime clusters, and targeting visible, rampant criminality makes us all safer."
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
It may not seem a problem to some, but IIRC at the last referendum the SNP were desperate not to talk about it more than they had to, and failed to announce a clear decision on the way ahead.
In reality unless you are a tiny and fairly unambitious country you need your own currency. German, France etc are in a monetary union with ever closer political union so that the Eurozone acts as the nation state for monetary purposes. Good luck with Scotland agreeing that with the remaining UK and the pound. And is Scotland want the Euro, they would need to say so.
Scotland’s share of the UK deficit per capita is north of £10bn. The actual figure is more because no one north of the border has shown any interest in our economy for a long time. I am pretty sure that an independent Scotland would really struggle to borrow even a proportion of that at a sensible rate, that is less than 6%. The result would be that an independent Scotland would either have to increase taxes yet further or cut spending or both. You might argue that this is a good thing: we are certainly borrowing far too much at the moment and our children and grandchildren will pay the price. But it’s not what the delusionists want to believe or what the SNP think they can sell. So they try to avoid talking about it.
Scotland has huge power generation potential over particularly England with wind, some gas and oil though
With the right government I think it could do well
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
You're not alone. I'm a big fan of d'Hondt.
We need it for Westminster.
No. It's incomprehensible to the average voter, and was originally formulated by that massive arse Thomas Jefferson.
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
The rupturing of the United Kingdom would be, to say the least, consequential.
If Scotland is to leave, then it really should clearly be the "settled will" of the population. That is simply not the case now, regardless of which party comes out on top tomorrow. For one thing, Indy is not a priority for most people, and for a second thing judging by the polling there is not a stable majority for Yes. As often as not No is ahead.
The SNP are being flattered by a split in the Unionist vote magnified by Reform. There is no case for a second independence referendum. It's only 12 years since Scotland voted no. Starmer can simply say no, few in Scotland will be that bothered, and life will go on. And, maybe, just maybe, the SNP will do something about Scotland's lamentable public services - though I'm not holding my breath.
We should learn from Brexit. Any future referendum should be on the full published prospective agreement that would be put into effect by both sides in the event of a Yes vote. Neither side can then hide behind evasion or failing to answer the hard questions.
Yes Cameron was particularly stupid in not allowing anybody to do any planning for a Yes vote.
I think an alternative is two referenda, one to start negotiations and the second on a final deal.
Of course any such deal would contain something to upset everybody so it would probably be rejected. Then you'd probably have to have a third referendum to decide whether to leave with no deal or to remain.
The whole process would probably take a decade. But at least the outcome would have democratic legitimacy.
Meanwhile are the other 26 countries supposed to stand still while we arse around.
Cameron's problem and the reason he lost was that Yes became everyone else's desired unicorn outcome no matter how impossible that scenario was in the real world.
And that is why Cameron should have insisted the Brexiteers devise and put some flesh on the bones of an agreed position to be put to a referendum, not just leave and a miracle happens.
They did, to be fair.
Vote Leave set out a vision of what Leave would look like under their terms, which including things some Brexiteers such as our own @Richard_Tyndall did not like but could accept such as explicitly saying we would leave the Single Market.
What was ultimately agreed was almost identical to what Vote Leave promised beforehand. Unsurprising perhaps as it was agreed by their leaders.
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
It may not seem a problem to some, but IIRC at the last referendum the SNP were desperate not to talk about it more than they had to, and failed to announce a clear decision on the way ahead.
In reality unless you are a tiny and fairly unambitious country you need your own currency. German, France etc are in a monetary union with ever closer political union so that the Eurozone acts as the nation state for monetary purposes. Good luck with Scotland agreeing that with the remaining UK and the pound. And is Scotland want the Euro, they would need to say so.
Scotland’s share of the UK deficit per capita is north of £10bn. The actual figure is more because no one north of the border has shown any interest in our economy for a long time. I am pretty sure that an independent Scotland would really struggle to borrow even a proportion of that at a sensible rate, that is less than 6%. The result would be that an independent Scotland would either have to increase taxes yet further or cut spending or both. You might argue that this is a good thing: we are certainly borrowing far too much at the moment and our children and grandchildren will pay the price. But it’s not what the delusionists want to believe or what the SNP think they can sell. So they try to avoid talking about it.
Scotland has huge power generation potential over particularly England with wind, some gas and oil though
With the right government I think it could do well
Wind is not going to do anything. It's only been built at such a pace to harvest subsidies from UK billpayers.
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
You don't think Scotland's large banking sector might see it as an issue that they have in effect no lender of last resort?
Or the EU while negotiating accession terms?
I'm sure RBS has moved back to being Natwest with HQ in London (and it has which took way too much time to confirm).
Lloyds is in theory still got it's HQ is in Scotland.]
that's ironic given how few Lloyds staff actually remain in Scotland and the fact that RBS has it's own tram stop in Edinburgh.
Bascailly if a referendum was called both banks would be in England within weeks and I doubt anyone would notice,
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
You don't think Scotland's large banking sector might see it as an issue that they have in effect no lender of last resort?
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
You don't think Scotland's large banking sector might see it as an issue that they have in effect no lender of last resort?
Or the EU while negotiating accession terms?
It seems Scotland is uniquely too wee, too poor and too stupid to become an independent country. After 319 years of Westminster rule, it doesn’t say much for the current arrangements benefiting Scotland.
The irony is if it were genuinely wee, poor and stupid a la Montenegro this wouldn't be a problem. As it wouldn't be for Wales, for instance, which has no banks (or anything else that doesn't piggy back on England).
It does seem to fall into the unenviable position of being slightly too small for its economic ambitions and rather too big to abandon them.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 18m Do we think anyone from Labour is really going to go for Starmer tomorrow or within the next week or two, or are they all going to wait for each other for so long that the moment passes & Starmer survives (as has happened up until now)?
Prof John Curtice commenting on the problems with the sample data for the Quiet Revival Yougov Survey that lead the BIble Society to draw conclusions not supported by the full data.
TLDR: Bible Society did not have complete access to the fully detailed data, and Yougov did not run all of their quality checks. Bible Society could have done even more cross-checking than they did by getting a full peer review as the conclusions were not perhaps expected, but that there are perhaps some sampling problems with opt-in channel surveys - one being higher payments made to rarer types of people incentivising fake demographic identities.
It's a deep link to a Youtube conversation - 15 minutes or so from him, and the whole thing is an hour.
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
You're not alone. I'm a big fan of d'Hondt.
We need it for Westminster.
No. It's incomprehensible to the average voter, and was originally formulated by that massive arse Thomas Jefferson.
EXCL: Downing Street could use delaying tactics to block Andy Burnham from storming back into Parliament as Labour braces for an election bloodbath.
Labour MPs have been told No10 could drag out any by-election for months – even if an MP quit to hand the Greater Manchester Mayor a safe seat.
Insiders told The Sun ministers could simply refuse to move the Commons writ needed to formally trigger the vote, leaving any seat sitting empty while freezing Mr Burnham out of Westminster.
If Burnham's ego is big enough, he should try a Macron-style reverse takeover and leave the Labour party, stand as an independent, and then invite Labour MPs to defect to him.
Easier in France's second ballot system than here in the UK and Macron was more centrist than Burnham, basically a Cameroon Tory/Cleggite LD in UK terms and most French Socialist Party MPs ended up in Melenchon's leftist block not Macron's group
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
The rupturing of the United Kingdom would be, to say the least, consequential.
If Scotland is to leave, then it really should clearly be the "settled will" of the population. That is simply not the case now, regardless of which party comes out on top tomorrow. For one thing, Indy is not a priority for most people, and for a second thing judging by the polling there is not a stable majority for Yes. As often as not No is ahead.
The SNP are being flattered by a split in the Unionist vote magnified by Reform. There is no case for a second independence referendum. It's only 12 years since Scotland voted no. Starmer can simply say no, few in Scotland will be that bothered, and life will go on. And, maybe, just maybe, the SNP will do something about Scotland's lamentable public services - though I'm not holding my breath.
We should learn from Brexit. Any future referendum should be on the full published prospective agreement that would be put into effect by both sides in the event of a Yes vote. Neither side can then hide behind evasion or failing to answer the hard questions.
Yes Cameron was particularly stupid in not allowing anybody to do any planning for a Yes vote.
I think an alternative is two referenda, one to start negotiations and the second on a final deal.
Of course any such deal would contain something to upset everybody so it would probably be rejected. Then you'd probably have to have a third referendum to decide whether to leave with no deal or to remain.
The whole process would probably take a decade. But at least the outcome would have democratic legitimacy.
Meanwhile are the other 26 countries supposed to stand still while we arse around.
Cameron's problem and the reason he lost was that Yes became everyone else's desired unicorn outcome no matter how impossible that scenario was in the real world.
And that is why Cameron should have insisted the Brexiteers devise and put some flesh on the bones of an agreed position to be put to a referendum, not just leave and a miracle happens.
Cameron himself should have done it, otherwise the referendum might as well have been a general election.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 18m Do we think anyone from Labour is really going to go for Starmer tomorrow or within the next week or two, or are they all going to wait for each other for so long that the moment passes & Starmer survives (as has happened up until now)?
If Labour comes third or worse yes, if second or better Starmer survives anyway
Labour poltics is completely irrelevant to the results - the question is does
1) Streeting have the votes 2) does Rayner have the votes attached to a clean bill of health from HRMC 3) does anyone else want the job (and it seems very few other people outside of somerone who fails because of not being an MP do)
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
It may not seem a problem to some, but IIRC at the last referendum the SNP were desperate not to talk about it more than they had to, and failed to announce a clear decision on the way ahead.
In reality unless you are a tiny and fairly unambitious country you need your own currency. German, France etc are in a monetary union with ever closer political union so that the Eurozone acts as the nation state for monetary purposes. Good luck with Scotland agreeing that with the remaining UK and the pound. And is Scotland want the Euro, they would need to say so.
Scotland’s share of the UK deficit per capita is north of £10bn. The actual figure is more because no one north of the border has shown any interest in our economy for a long time. I am pretty sure that an independent Scotland would really struggle to borrow even a proportion of that at a sensible rate, that is less than 6%. The result would be that an independent Scotland would either have to increase taxes yet further or cut spending or both. You might argue that this is a good thing: we are certainly borrowing far too much at the moment and our children and grandchildren will pay the price. But it’s not what the delusionists want to believe or what the SNP think they can sell. So they try to avoid talking about it.
Scotland has huge power generation potential over particularly England with wind, some gas and oil though
With the right government I think it could do well
It does not need to be independent to do that, and the fact that the SNP have failed to do anything constructive with the powers THEY ACTUALLY HAVE, is yet another reason I am "unimpressed".
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
The rupturing of the United Kingdom would be, to say the least, consequential.
If Scotland is to leave, then it really should clearly be the "settled will" of the population. That is simply not the case now, regardless of which party comes out on top tomorrow. For one thing, Indy is not a priority for most people, and for a second thing judging by the polling there is not a stable majority for Yes. As often as not No is ahead.
The SNP are being flattered by a split in the Unionist vote magnified by Reform. There is no case for a second independence referendum. It's only 12 years since Scotland voted no. Starmer can simply say no, few in Scotland will be that bothered, and life will go on. And, maybe, just maybe, the SNP will do something about Scotland's lamentable public services - though I'm not holding my breath.
We should learn from Brexit. Any future referendum should be on the full published prospective agreement that would be put into effect by both sides in the event of a Yes vote. Neither side can then hide behind evasion or failing to answer the hard questions.
Yes Cameron was particularly stupid in not allowing anybody to do any planning for a Yes vote.
I think an alternative is two referenda, one to start negotiations and the second on a final deal.
Of course any such deal would contain something to upset everybody so it would probably be rejected. Then you'd probably have to have a third referendum to decide whether to leave with no deal or to remain.
The whole process would probably take a decade. But at least the outcome would have democratic legitimacy.
Meanwhile are the other 26 countries supposed to stand still while we arse around.
Cameron's problem and the reason he lost was that Yes became everyone else's desired unicorn outcome no matter how impossible that scenario was in the real world.
And that is why Cameron should have insisted the Brexiteers devise and put some flesh on the bones of an agreed position to be put to a referendum, not just leave and a miracle happens.
Cameron himself should have done it, otherwise the referendum might as well have been a general election.
Exactly. Cameron was in Government, a post 'one of the options' plan was very much his responsibility.
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
The rupturing of the United Kingdom would be, to say the least, consequential.
If Scotland is to leave, then it really should clearly be the "settled will" of the population. That is simply not the case now, regardless of which party comes out on top tomorrow. For one thing, Indy is not a priority for most people, and for a second thing judging by the polling there is not a stable majority for Yes. As often as not No is ahead.
The SNP are being flattered by a split in the Unionist vote magnified by Reform. There is no case for a second independence referendum. It's only 12 years since Scotland voted no. Starmer can simply say no, few in Scotland will be that bothered, and life will go on. And, maybe, just maybe, the SNP will do something about Scotland's lamentable public services - though I'm not holding my breath.
We should learn from Brexit. Any future referendum should be on the full published prospective agreement that would be put into effect by both sides in the event of a Yes vote. Neither side can then hide behind evasion or failing to answer the hard questions.
Yes Cameron was particularly stupid in not allowing anybody to do any planning for a Yes vote.
I think an alternative is two referenda, one to start negotiations and the second on a final deal.
Of course any such deal would contain something to upset everybody so it would probably be rejected. Then you'd probably have to have a third referendum to decide whether to leave with no deal or to remain.
The whole process would probably take a decade. But at least the outcome would have democratic legitimacy.
Meanwhile are the other 26 countries supposed to stand still while we arse around.
Cameron's problem and the reason he lost was that Yes became everyone else's desired unicorn outcome no matter how impossible that scenario was in the real world.
And that is why Cameron should have insisted the Brexiteers devise and put some flesh on the bones of an agreed position to be put to a referendum, not just leave and a miracle happens.
They did, to be fair.
Vote Leave set out a vision of what Leave would look like under their terms, which including things some Brexiteers such as our own @Richard_Tyndall did not like but could accept such as explicitly saying we would leave the Single Market.
What was ultimately agreed was almost identical to what Vote Leave promised beforehand. Unsurprising perhaps as it was agreed by their leaders.
"Where [Trading Standards] capacity exists, results can be dramatic. Operation Vulcan, a joint effort involving Greater Manchester Police, Trading Standards, Immigration Enforcement, HMRC and even the Intellectual Property Office, targeted Cheetham Hill, the “counterfeit capital of Europe”. They closed 206 criminal establishments, seized 1048 tonnes of counterfeit goods with a value of £1.56bn, and as a result saw a dramatic reduction in other crimes — public order offences down 45 per cent, vehicle and violent crime both down 69 per cent, burglary down 58 per cent and theft cut in half. For crime clusters, and targeting visible, rampant criminality makes us all safer."
If they can achieve those sort of results, why are they not doing this everywhere ?
If it means a load of empty retail properties, so be it. Convert them to residential.
Win/win.
Same reason for not going full bore on a lot of things - partly resources, partly fear of economic consequences.
In some areas gangs have threatened to kick off Extreme Retail Therapy if operations get too disrupted. This is standard in Northern Ireland - too many drug dealers arrested, a Man Of Violence finds his tax take drops, and cars burst into flames…
Been out to exercise my prerogative but I voted first.
I walked round Wall End, East Ham and Plashet Wards this afternoon - Newham Independent Party (NIP) people out in large numbers outside each station - a few Conservatives, the odd Reform, Green and CPA person but no Labour. Is this how decades of Labour rule ends?
Polling Day in Newham is nothing like I was used to in Sutton and elsewhere. There are no tellers in the stations - rosetted men and women accost you as you approach the entrance and ask for your vote but no one is recording polling numbers so how does anyone run a Polling Day operation? The three local Conservatives have bene outside my local station for much of the day talking to their mates - if any LD candidate did that on my watch, I'd give them a huge knocking up list and tell them to get moving.
It may be Labour is fighting a defensive battle in places like Canning Town, Stratford and Beckton but that's a dangerous play if they've surrendered most of the centre of the Borough to the NIP whose electoral machine has been impressive and brought a tear to this old ex-LD's eye.
I begin to suspect this could be a landslide for the NIP with Mirza becoming the new Mayor.
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
You don't think Scotland's large banking sector might see it as an issue that they have in effect no lender of last resort?
Or the EU while negotiating accession terms?
Vote Remain to re-enter the EU? As a great president said (in comparison to now natch) "Fool me once, shame on...you. Fool me twice, can't get fooled again."
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
You don't think Scotland's large banking sector might see it as an issue that they have in effect no lender of last resort?
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
You don't think Scotland's large banking sector might see it as an issue that they have in effect no lender of last resort?
Or the EU while negotiating accession terms?
It seems Scotland is uniquely too wee, too poor and too stupid to become an independent country. After 319 years of Westminster rule, it doesn’t say much for the current arrangements benefiting Scotland.
FFS, Playing the victim does not answer the F**king question. Of course Scotland *could* be independent quite easily, but there is a price, and it is price that the SNP refuses to acknowledge. That lack of basic honesty is why if the SNP did fluke some independence vote, the result would be years of unbelievable mess while reality took a hold and the price was extracted with little preparation and maximum chaos.
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
You're not alone. I'm a big fan of d'Hondt.
We need it for Westminster.
No. It's incomprehensible to the average voter, and was originally formulated by that massive arse Thomas Jefferson.
If D'Hondt is incomprehensible, how about STV?
STV is quite intelligible to the meanest intellect.
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
The rupturing of the United Kingdom would be, to say the least, consequential.
If Scotland is to leave, then it really should clearly be the "settled will" of the population. That is simply not the case now, regardless of which party comes out on top tomorrow. For one thing, Indy is not a priority for most people, and for a second thing judging by the polling there is not a stable majority for Yes. As often as not No is ahead.
The SNP are being flattered by a split in the Unionist vote magnified by Reform. There is no case for a second independence referendum. It's only 12 years since Scotland voted no. Starmer can simply say no, few in Scotland will be that bothered, and life will go on. And, maybe, just maybe, the SNP will do something about Scotland's lamentable public services - though I'm not holding my breath.
We should learn from Brexit. Any future referendum should be on the full published prospective agreement that would be put into effect by both sides in the event of a Yes vote. Neither side can then hide behind evasion or failing to answer the hard questions.
Yes Cameron was particularly stupid in not allowing anybody to do any planning for a Yes vote.
I think an alternative is two referenda, one to start negotiations and the second on a final deal.
Of course any such deal would contain something to upset everybody so it would probably be rejected. Then you'd probably have to have a third referendum to decide whether to leave with no deal or to remain.
The whole process would probably take a decade. But at least the outcome would have democratic legitimacy.
Meanwhile are the other 26 countries supposed to stand still while we arse around.
Cameron's problem and the reason he lost was that Yes became everyone else's desired unicorn outcome no matter how impossible that scenario was in the real world.
And that is why Cameron should have insisted the Brexiteers devise and put some flesh on the bones of an agreed position to be put to a referendum, not just leave and a miracle happens.
Cameron himself should have done it, otherwise the referendum might as well have been a general election.
Exactly. Cameron was in Government, a post 'one of the options' plan was very much his responsibility.
Nor really. Cameron, quite reasonably assumed he would win. However the Leave leaders like Johnson and Farage didn't have a clue what to do either, as they took were anticipating a Remain win. Farage of course conceded defeat in the late hours, explaining that a best of three might be appropriate.
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
You're not alone. I'm a big fan of d'Hondt.
We need it for Westminster.
No. It's incomprehensible to the average voter, and was originally formulated by that massive arse Thomas Jefferson.
If D'Hondt is incomprehensible, how about STV?
STV is quite intelligible to the meanest intellect.
Approval voting is my preferred option precisely because it’s as simple as possible whilst still being enormously better than FPTP.
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
The rupturing of the United Kingdom would be, to say the least, consequential.
If Scotland is to leave, then it really should clearly be the "settled will" of the population. That is simply not the case now, regardless of which party comes out on top tomorrow. For one thing, Indy is not a priority for most people, and for a second thing judging by the polling there is not a stable majority for Yes. As often as not No is ahead.
The SNP are being flattered by a split in the Unionist vote magnified by Reform. There is no case for a second independence referendum. It's only 12 years since Scotland voted no. Starmer can simply say no, few in Scotland will be that bothered, and life will go on. And, maybe, just maybe, the SNP will do something about Scotland's lamentable public services - though I'm not holding my breath.
We should learn from Brexit. Any future referendum should be on the full published prospective agreement that would be put into effect by both sides in the event of a Yes vote. Neither side can then hide behind evasion or failing to answer the hard questions.
Yes Cameron was particularly stupid in not allowing anybody to do any planning for a Yes vote.
I think an alternative is two referenda, one to start negotiations and the second on a final deal.
Of course any such deal would contain something to upset everybody so it would probably be rejected. Then you'd probably have to have a third referendum to decide whether to leave with no deal or to remain.
The whole process would probably take a decade. But at least the outcome would have democratic legitimacy.
Meanwhile are the other 26 countries supposed to stand still while we arse around.
Cameron's problem and the reason he lost was that Yes became everyone else's desired unicorn outcome no matter how impossible that scenario was in the real world.
And that is why Cameron should have insisted the Brexiteers devise and put some flesh on the bones of an agreed position to be put to a referendum, not just leave and a miracle happens.
Cameron himself should have done it, otherwise the referendum might as well have been a general election.
Exactly. Cameron was in Government, a post 'one of the options' plan was very much his responsibility.
Nor really. Cameron, quite reasonably assumed he would win. However the Leave leaders like Johnson and Farage didn't have a clue what to do either, as they took were anticipating a Remain win. Farage of course conceded defeat in the late hours, explaining that a best of three might be appropriate.
Yes really. Even if the result wasn't set to be tight (which is was) there needed to be a plan and a process for that eventuality. That's being a half decent Government. We here a lot about how shambolic the Johnson era was, but he was never cocky on that level.
Denizens of this board who were here this morning may remember me eulogising my polling station this morning. Happy to report that I have just voted and in addition to all the other bemefits I mentioned, I also have the opportunity to enjoy a Carribean food evening there and/or a history talk. Can anyone beat that?
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
You're not alone. I'm a big fan of d'Hondt.
We need it for Westminster.
No. It's incomprehensible to the average voter, and was originally formulated by that massive arse Thomas Jefferson.
If D'Hondt is incomprehensible, how about STV?
STV is quite intelligible to the meanest intellect.
They're both OK from the point of view of the voter. In d'Hondt, you pick the party you like best. In STV, you rank the candidates in order. In FPTP in 2024, you decide are you are voting for what you want or against what you hate and then what's the best chance of stopping what you hate[1]? Much messier.
The complications are all in the counting, which is someone else's problem.
[1] In Romford St Edward's, probably Labour. They did a day-of-poll card, which nobody else did. But that might be flame shadows on a cave wall; it might be just that a really madly active activist has moved in nearby.
Denizens of this board who were here this morning may remember me eulogising my polling station this morning. Happy to report that I have just voted and in addition to all the other bemefits I mentioned, I also have the opportunity to enjoy a Carribean food evening there and/or a history talk. Can anyone beat that?
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
You're not alone. I'm a big fan of d'Hondt.
We need it for Westminster.
D'Hondt go breaking my heart.
D'Hondt stop me now?
I D'Hondt want to set the world on fire..
For a local election round it surely has to be:
D'hondt stand so close to me
Starmer will soon be singing "D'hondt you want me?"
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
You're not alone. I'm a big fan of d'Hondt.
We need it for Westminster.
D'Hondt go breaking my heart.
D'Hondt stop me now?
I D'Hondt want to set the world on fire..
For a local election round it surely has to be:
D'hondt stand so close to me
Starmer will soon be singing "D'hondt you want me?"
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
You're not alone. I'm a big fan of d'Hondt.
We need it for Westminster.
D'Hondt go breaking my heart.
D'Hondt stop me now?
I D'Hondt want to set the world on fire..
For a local election round it surely has to be:
D'hondt stand so close to me
Starmer will soon be singing "D'hondt you want me?"
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
You don't think Scotland's large banking sector might see it as an issue that they have in effect no lender of last resort?
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
I don’t understand the problem who think currency will be a problem. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling, Euro, or even USD as the official currency. They will be able to make payments in it, take payments in it, even borrow in it. All it doesn't give them is the ability to set interest rates, or print money, but it's probably in their best interests not to have those levers available initially anyway, as they'll be too tempted to try pulling them.
You don't think Scotland's large banking sector might see it as an issue that they have in effect no lender of last resort?
Or the EU while negotiating accession terms?
It seems Scotland is uniquely too wee, too poor and too stupid to become an independent country. After 319 years of Westminster rule, it doesn’t say much for the current arrangements benefiting Scotland.
That is just polemic. The reason Scotland is not independent is that the Scots voted not to be in a free and fair referendum. For me that is good news, not because I don't like Scotland and the Scots but because I do. I live in England and can see Scotland from the place where I live.
Denizens of this board who were here this morning may remember me eulogising my polling station this morning. Happy to report that I have just voted and in addition to all the other bemefits I mentioned, I also have the opportunity to enjoy a Carribean food evening there and/or a history talk. Can anyone beat that?
Won’t work with anyone and he’ll poll even worse. He has to go.
Not being funny CHB but you tirelessly cheerleaded for Magic Grandpa when he was leader and then disavowed him, then cheerleaded for Korma and are now disavowing him.
Won’t work with anyone and he’ll poll even worse. He has to go.
Not being funny CHB but you tirelessly cheerleaded for Magic Grandpa when he was leader and then disavowed him, then cheerleaded for Korma and are now disavowing him.
Denizens of this board who were here this morning may remember me eulogising my polling station this morning. Happy to report that I have just voted and in addition to all the other bemefits I mentioned, I also have the opportunity to enjoy a Carribean food evening there and/or a history talk. Can anyone beat that?
Treating! (Though a history talk as 'treating' is new. Trollope would not have recognised it).
Wikipedia: In law and politics, treating is the act of serving food, drink, and other refreshments to influence people for political gain, often shortly before an election. In various countries, treating is considered a form of corruption, and is illegal as such.
Locals prediction: the Lib Dem result will be ignored by all commentators come what may. If they do very well and get into second place ahead of Labour, nobody will notice. The story will be Reform surge and Labour drubbing, with a seasoning of Tory woes. If they disappoint and make little or no progress, there will be a passing reference to the Lib Dems going backwards and fading to irrelevance, but the main story will be Reform surge and Labour drubbing, with a seasoning of Tory woes.
Won’t work with anyone and he’ll poll even worse. He has to go.
Not being funny CHB but you tirelessly cheerleaded for Magic Grandpa when he was leader and then disavowed him, then cheerleaded for Korma and are now disavowing him.
So pretty representive of the Labour Party.
I was led to believe the Labour Party were a party of principles though. Above and beyond the principal. Maybe principles and principals have been confused in some committee meeting.
Won’t work with anyone and he’ll poll even worse. He has to go.
Not being funny CHB but you tirelessly cheerleaded for Magic Grandpa when he was leader and then disavowed him, then cheerleaded for Korma and are now disavowing him.
Starmer has been an incredible disappointment. Odd political decisions, U turns, no political antenna whatsoever and the worst communications of any Prime Minister in the modern age.
Even non Conservatives have a right to change their mind.
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
The rupturing of the United Kingdom would be, to say the least, consequential.
If Scotland is to leave, then it really should clearly be the "settled will" of the population. That is simply not the case now, regardless of which party comes out on top tomorrow. For one thing, Indy is not a priority for most people, and for a second thing judging by the polling there is not a stable majority for Yes. As often as not No is ahead.
The SNP are being flattered by a split in the Unionist vote magnified by Reform. There is no case for a second independence referendum. It's only 12 years since Scotland voted no. Starmer can simply say no, few in Scotland will be that bothered, and life will go on. And, maybe, just maybe, the SNP will do something about Scotland's lamentable public services - though I'm not holding my breath.
We should learn from Brexit. Any future referendum should be on the full published prospective agreement that would be put into effect by both sides in the event of a Yes vote. Neither side can then hide behind evasion or failing to answer the hard questions.
Yes Cameron was particularly stupid in not allowing anybody to do any planning for a Yes vote.
I think an alternative is two referenda, one to start negotiations and the second on a final deal.
Of course any such deal would contain something to upset everybody so it would probably be rejected. Then you'd probably have to have a third referendum to decide whether to leave with no deal or to remain.
The whole process would probably take a decade. But at least the outcome would have democratic legitimacy.
Meanwhile are the other 26 countries supposed to stand still while we arse around.
Cameron's problem and the reason he lost was that Yes became everyone else's desired unicorn outcome no matter how impossible that scenario was in the real world.
And that is why Cameron should have insisted the Brexiteers devise and put some flesh on the bones of an agreed position to be put to a referendum, not just leave and a miracle happens.
They did, to be fair.
Vote Leave set out a vision of what Leave would look like under their terms, which including things some Brexiteers such as our own @Richard_Tyndall did not like but could accept such as explicitly saying we would leave the Single Market.
What was ultimately agreed was almost identical to what Vote Leave promised beforehand. Unsurprising perhaps as it was agreed by their leaders.
That sounds far more organised than the reality.
Its true though.
Most of the chaos came from the intermission of the Remainer Parliament of 2017-19 and the disastrous May tenure.
Once May went and we had a new Government, a new agreement in the shape of what had been promised, then an election, then ratification and exit all happened rather rapidly.
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
The rupturing of the United Kingdom would be, to say the least, consequential.
If Scotland is to leave, then it really should clearly be the "settled will" of the population. That is simply not the case now, regardless of which party comes out on top tomorrow. For one thing, Indy is not a priority for most people, and for a second thing judging by the polling there is not a stable majority for Yes. As often as not No is ahead.
The SNP are being flattered by a split in the Unionist vote magnified by Reform. There is no case for a second independence referendum. It's only 12 years since Scotland voted no. Starmer can simply say no, few in Scotland will be that bothered, and life will go on. And, maybe, just maybe, the SNP will do something about Scotland's lamentable public services - though I'm not holding my breath.
We should learn from Brexit. Any future referendum should be on the full published prospective agreement that would be put into effect by both sides in the event of a Yes vote. Neither side can then hide behind evasion or failing to answer the hard questions.
Yes Cameron was particularly stupid in not allowing anybody to do any planning for a Yes vote.
I think an alternative is two referenda, one to start negotiations and the second on a final deal.
Of course any such deal would contain something to upset everybody so it would probably be rejected. Then you'd probably have to have a third referendum to decide whether to leave with no deal or to remain.
The whole process would probably take a decade. But at least the outcome would have democratic legitimacy.
Meanwhile are the other 26 countries supposed to stand still while we arse around.
Cameron's problem and the reason he lost was that Yes became everyone else's desired unicorn outcome no matter how impossible that scenario was in the real world.
And that is why Cameron should have insisted the Brexiteers devise and put some flesh on the bones of an agreed position to be put to a referendum, not just leave and a miracle happens.
Cameron himself should have done it, otherwise the referendum might as well have been a general election.
Exactly. Cameron was in Government, a post 'one of the options' plan was very much his responsibility.
Nor really. Cameron, quite reasonably assumed he would win. However the Leave leaders like Johnson and Farage didn't have a clue what to do either, as they took were anticipating a Remain win. Farage of course conceded defeat in the late hours, explaining that a best of three might be appropriate.
He was an idiot, there was an review with Hollande where he recounted that both he and Merkel told Cameron that they wouldn't risk an EU referendum in their far more pro-EU countries. Further proof of his idiocy/carelessness is lobbyiing for Greensill with the Australian underwriter.
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
The rupturing of the United Kingdom would be, to say the least, consequential.
If Scotland is to leave, then it really should clearly be the "settled will" of the population. That is simply not the case now, regardless of which party comes out on top tomorrow. For one thing, Indy is not a priority for most people, and for a second thing judging by the polling there is not a stable majority for Yes. As often as not No is ahead.
The SNP are being flattered by a split in the Unionist vote magnified by Reform. There is no case for a second independence referendum. It's only 12 years since Scotland voted no. Starmer can simply say no, few in Scotland will be that bothered, and life will go on. And, maybe, just maybe, the SNP will do something about Scotland's lamentable public services - though I'm not holding my breath.
We should learn from Brexit. Any future referendum should be on the full published prospective agreement that would be put into effect by both sides in the event of a Yes vote. Neither side can then hide behind evasion or failing to answer the hard questions.
Yes Cameron was particularly stupid in not allowing anybody to do any planning for a Yes vote.
I think an alternative is two referenda, one to start negotiations and the second on a final deal.
Of course any such deal would contain something to upset everybody so it would probably be rejected. Then you'd probably have to have a third referendum to decide whether to leave with no deal or to remain.
The whole process would probably take a decade. But at least the outcome would have democratic legitimacy.
Meanwhile are the other 26 countries supposed to stand still while we arse around.
Cameron's problem and the reason he lost was that Yes became everyone else's desired unicorn outcome no matter how impossible that scenario was in the real world.
And that is why Cameron should have insisted the Brexiteers devise and put some flesh on the bones of an agreed position to be put to a referendum, not just leave and a miracle happens.
They did, to be fair.
Vote Leave set out a vision of what Leave would look like under their terms, which including things some Brexiteers such as our own @Richard_Tyndall did not like but could accept such as explicitly saying we would leave the Single Market.
What was ultimately agreed was almost identical to what Vote Leave promised beforehand. Unsurprising perhaps as it was agreed by their leaders.
That sounds far more organised than the reality.
Its true though.
Most of the chaos came from the intermission of the Remainer Parliament of 2017-19 and the disastrous May tenure.
Once May went and we had a new Government, a new agreement in the shape of what had been promised, then an election, then ratification and exit all happened rather rapidly.
I don't disagree that May had no plans. Triggering Article 50 with no plan was a dereliction of duty. That said Johnson's deal was a disaster, recovered to a degree by Sunak's Windsor Agreement.
If they want to have another vote, let them vote. If they want to leave, let them go. Sad & all that but no point in compulsion to stay.
No, that is weakness and nationalist appeasement. The SNP of course just want referendum after referendum until they win
I know! I mean one referendum in 307 years is just excessive.
It was a miserable divided time. Not to mention the economic joke of the so-called white paper. Gong through all of that again is a more or less entirely negative process, so I truly hope the result stuffs up all those who think having a heated and pointless argument based on the economic illiteracy of independence is a good idea.
Using highly developed diagnostic methods and deep psychological analysis I have come to a sophisticated hypothesis regarding Unionists.
They won’t allow Scots another referendum because they’re shiting it they’d lose.
Bollocks. You lost last time, and you will lose again.
The economic basis YES put forward was laughable, and you still do not have the answers to the absolutely basic questions- 1) how do you manage a new currency- because neither Sterling nor the Euro will be available on day one? 2) How do you manage the national debt especially since the Scottish credit rating will be significantly lower for several years, while the new credit is assessed by the global markets? 3) how do manage the banking system and transfer assets that cannot be taken in by the new and separate banks in Scotland? 4) What public sector cuts do you intend to make, given the unsustainable level of expenditure across the board.?
The truth is that the SNP promises jelly and ice cream for everyone, starting tomorrow, but in the real world independence will be a massive slog that would take decades to come good, if it ever did, but few -if any- have the actual balls to say so and I have lost all patience with the economic bullshite that lies at the heart of the nationalist hoodwink of the Scottish people.
And before you start, I have actually done this stuff and worked with several governments including establishing new currencies, and new public policies, involving huge and wrenching restructuring and unemployment and even decades later, it is not clear that the right choices were made.
Then one more little joker: How do you manage defence when Putin is a constant threat?
How could it be done then since it clearly can (or I presume it can if you have done it a few times)
Almost certainly you have to choose a new currency, because the Bank of England -nor any foreign central bank- will not stand behind the newly independent Scottish banking system, even if major assets were simply transferred to rUK based operations. Neither could Scotland use the Euro unilaterally like Montenegro or Kosovo because the ECB will not stand behind the banking system either. But here's the thing- the economy will need banks, so you cant just plant the whole banking system on London, even in the highly unlikely case that they actually agreed to it. So, a fairly quick transition to a new Scottish currency is the only realistic option, even if the ultimate goal is to formally adopt the Euro in the medium term.
As others have noted, that has implications for borrowing limits, especially in early years. You have to get your fiscal house in order, which in Scotland's case means major deficit reduction- and I mean major- the current 11% annual deficit is not sustainable even in the short run, even if you try and mitigate some of the initial shock with a limited devaluation.The Maastricht criteria is a deficit below 3%.
Basically the public sector, which represents one fifth of the Scottish economy would need to reduce in size by a minimum of 20%- possibly much higher- and these public sector jobs are higher paying that the median private sector wages. Even with a devaluation, you are looking at a very severe recession- especially as the Scottish non bank financial sector basically leaves, taking further jobs. So the short term price is a significant devaluation of the new currency and major lay offs in government and non government employment. It is hard to put a number, but the experience in Central Europe suggests a hit to GDP comparable to Poland or Estonia between 1990 and 1994, that is about between 20%- 36%.
New oil and gas revenues will take time to hit the Scottish Treasury, it may even take incentives to encourage investment in the relatively expensive potential new fields in the West Shetland basin etc.
Renewables - things like hydrogen projects, data centres etc will also take a long time to get to revenue, especially with relatively unproven technology, but its a drop in the bucket compared to the massive economic shock Scotland would have to go through..
For years unemployment will be high- not merely early 1980s highs of about 10%, but probably at least double that.
All of this coming under a government that has not been straight with the Scottish people about what is need to transition to an independent economy, when rows will break out about stuff like Faslane and restructuring the naval posture to face Putins threats and any one of a thousand policies in a messy divorce.
Given that we're expecting Labour to come third in the Welsh election I am petty enough to recall a PBer denouncing the new voting system in use today as being a gerrymander to ensure perpetual Labour rule in Wales.
Lol.
Pollcheck has them projected as joint fourth. I remember that too. I thought I was virtually alone on here in thinking it a much fairer system. I wonder what result we'd have under the old system?
You're not alone. I'm a big fan of d'Hondt.
We need it for Westminster.
No. It's incomprehensible to the average voter, and was originally formulated by that massive arse Thomas Jefferson.
If D'Hondt is incomprehensible, how about STV?
STV is quite intelligible to the meanest intellect.
They're both OK from the point of view of the voter. In d'Hondt, you pick the party you like best. In STV, you rank the candidates in order. In FPTP in 2024, you decide are you are voting for what you want or against what you hate and then what's the best chance of stopping what you hate[1]? Much messier.
The complications are all in the counting, which is someone else's problem.
[1] In Romford St Edward's, probably Labour. They did a day-of-poll card, which nobody else did. But that might be flame shadows on a cave wall; it might be just that a really madly active activist has moved in nearby.
Must be the latter - I was in St Edward's (Romford Town before it) for the previous 6 elections and never had a leaflet from Labour for any of them. Or maybe in 2014 there was one. It has always been ultra safe Tory. Andrew Curtin made a decent failed attempt at re-election as an Indy after deselection but otherwise nobody has come close.
Comments
If they can achieve those sort of results, why are they not doing this everywhere ?
If it means a load of empty retail properties, so be it.
Convert them to residential.
Win/win.
With the right government I think it could do well
It's incomprehensible to the average voter, and was originally formulated by that massive arse Thomas Jefferson.
Vote Leave set out a vision of what Leave would look like under their terms, which including things some Brexiteers such as our own @Richard_Tyndall did not like but could accept such as explicitly saying we would leave the Single Market.
What was ultimately agreed was almost identical to what Vote Leave promised beforehand. Unsurprising perhaps as it was agreed by their leaders.
Lloyds is in theory still got it's HQ is in Scotland.]
that's ironic given how few Lloyds staff actually remain in Scotland and the fact that RBS has it's own tram stop in Edinburgh.
Bascailly if a referendum was called both banks would be in England within weeks and I doubt anyone would notice,
It does seem to fall into the unenviable position of being slightly too small for its economic ambitions and rather too big to abandon them.
Prof John Curtice commenting on the problems with the sample data for the Quiet Revival Yougov Survey that lead the BIble Society to draw conclusions not supported by the full data.
TLDR: Bible Society did not have complete access to the fully detailed data, and Yougov did not run all of their quality checks. Bible Society could have done even more cross-checking than they did by getting a full peer review as the conclusions were not perhaps expected, but that there are perhaps some sampling problems with opt-in channel surveys - one being higher payments made to rarer types of people incentivising fake demographic identities.
It's a deep link to a Youtube conversation - 15 minutes or so from him, and the whole thing is an hour.
https://youtu.be/6efLOrwyldg?t=1980
1) Streeting have the votes
2) does Rayner have the votes attached to a clean bill of health from HRMC
3) does anyone else want the job (and it seems very few other people outside of somerone who fails because of not being an MP do)
In some areas gangs have threatened to kick off Extreme Retail Therapy if operations get too disrupted. This is standard in Northern Ireland - too many drug dealers arrested, a Man Of Violence finds his tax take drops, and cars burst into flames…
Been out to exercise my prerogative but I voted first.
I walked round Wall End, East Ham and Plashet Wards this afternoon - Newham Independent Party (NIP) people out in large numbers outside each station - a few Conservatives, the odd Reform, Green and CPA person but no Labour. Is this how decades of Labour rule ends?
Polling Day in Newham is nothing like I was used to in Sutton and elsewhere. There are no tellers in the stations - rosetted men and women accost you as you approach the entrance and ask for your vote but no one is recording polling numbers so how does anyone run a Polling Day operation? The three local Conservatives have bene outside my local station for much of the day talking to their mates - if any LD candidate did that on my watch, I'd give them a huge knocking up list and tell them to get moving.
It may be Labour is fighting a defensive battle in places like Canning Town, Stratford and Beckton but that's a dangerous play if they've surrendered most of the centre of the Borough to the NIP whose electoral machine has been impressive and brought a tear to this old ex-LD's eye.
I begin to suspect this could be a landslide for the NIP with Mirza becoming the new Mayor.
Thanks.
(You are now another data point on the survey: "Do Apple Ear Pods make EVERYONE look like a Cyberman ?")
The only place which has a Public Spaces Protection Order banning pavement parking known to me.
It’s was an AE report not a side effect
D'hondt stand so close to me
The complications are all in the counting, which is someone else's problem.
[1] In Romford St Edward's, probably Labour. They did a day-of-poll card, which nobody else did. But that might be flame shadows on a cave wall; it might be just that a really madly active activist has moved in nearby.
guesstheparty.co.uk
https://x.com/burnsidewastosh/status/2052115119111389283?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
As a Leicester fan its one of those games that you want both Forest and Villa to lose.
Won’t work with anyone and he’ll poll even worse. He has to go.
Wikipedia: In law and politics, treating is the act of serving food, drink, and other refreshments to influence people for political gain, often shortly before an election. In various countries, treating is considered a form of corruption, and is illegal as such.
Even non Conservatives have a right to change their mind.
Most of the chaos came from the intermission of the Remainer Parliament of 2017-19 and the disastrous May tenure.
Once May went and we had a new Government, a new agreement in the shape of what had been promised, then an election, then ratification and exit all happened rather rapidly.
Further proof of his idiocy/carelessness is lobbyiing for Greensill with the Australian underwriter.
NEW THREAD
As others have noted, that has implications for borrowing limits, especially in early years. You have to get your fiscal house in order, which in Scotland's case means major deficit reduction- and I mean major- the current 11% annual deficit is not sustainable even in the short run, even if you try and mitigate some of the initial shock with a limited devaluation.The Maastricht criteria is a deficit below 3%.
Basically the public sector, which represents one fifth of the Scottish economy would need to reduce in size by a minimum of 20%- possibly much higher- and these public sector jobs are higher paying that the median private sector wages. Even with a devaluation, you are looking at a very severe recession- especially as the Scottish non bank financial sector basically leaves, taking further jobs. So the short term price is a significant devaluation of the new currency and major lay offs in government and non government employment. It is hard to put a number, but the experience in Central Europe suggests a hit to GDP comparable to Poland or Estonia between 1990 and 1994, that is about between 20%- 36%.
New oil and gas revenues will take time to hit the Scottish Treasury, it may even take incentives to encourage investment in the relatively expensive potential new fields in the West Shetland basin etc.
Renewables - things like hydrogen projects, data centres etc will also take a long time to get to revenue, especially with relatively unproven technology, but its a drop in the bucket compared to the massive economic shock Scotland would have to go through..
For years unemployment will be high- not merely early 1980s highs of about 10%, but probably at least double that.
All of this coming under a government that has not been straight with the Scottish people about what is need to transition to an independent economy, when rows will break out about stuff like Faslane and restructuring the naval posture to face Putins threats and any one of a thousand policies in a messy divorce.
So that is a hard NO from me.