UK general election May 2015

[Jason]

I don't know how politicians should answer questions. Very often the answers are complicated, and very often they require at least some knowledge of economics. A survey in the UK a while ago found that the MAJORITY of people do not know what a million and a billion are, and that amazingly large numbers thought they were equivalent or couldn't say which is bigger. A tiny number - a single figure percentage - knew the difference between debt and deficit. People think it is possible to raise £100m from taxing those horrible bankers and use it to wipe out the national debt. People hear Cameron saying he's reduced the deficit then think he must by lying when Miliband says the debt is larger.

What Cameron should be saying is that by about 2020 we should be in a position where the debt is not actually getting bigger. We've demonstrated that we can apply very gentle austerity and keep employment high. However austerity will have to continue. In particular we need to make substantial cuts to benefits.

What Labour should be saying is that Cameron is right. The performance of the UK economy since 2010 has been at the top end of expectations, though held back by the head-winds of the Eurozone underperformance.

Then there's SNP. Their fundamental idea of independence is a lie. There's a debate around the extent to which the UK can be truly independent in an interconnected world, even a debate about whether the UK can leave the EU and prosper. For a nation the size of the UK this is a debate with two points of view - my personal view is that the UK could function well as a truly independent state. There is however no doubt about Scotland however - Scotland outside the UK would flounder. Possibly it could become a part of the EU (but the Commission says no); in any event it would be bankrupt. That Braveheart is a great film and an independent Scotland would remain solvent (or even prosper) is the lie from SNP. It's dangerous.

 

[eurotop40]

Oh dear me.That analysis is so adrift of reality and demonstrates such poor understanding of Scottish politics, it is hard to know where to begin - but you could start by throwing overboard your baggage of labels, which tend to be simplistic, superfluous and have the intellectual precision of the scattergun.

I belong to no party, but support the objectives of the SNP in respect of returning the power of self-determination to the people of Scotland and enabling us to live under a fully functional, representative and responsive democracy, which the UK never has been.

The SNP is a broad church of opinions so to suggest it is hard left is just rubbish. In general, Scots tend to be more communitarian and egalitarian in outlook than our neighbours on the wrong side of the border, so it is only natural that our politics will be representative of those values.

If by hard left you mean being opposed to the renewal of the superfluous, immoral and unuseable trident WMD system (imposed in our midst without consent); being opposed to the pillaging of our resources, rather than the creation of a sovereign wealth fund; being opposed to an incompetent, self-serving, abusive and corrupt system of power in whitehall and westminster; striving for the repatriation of power from the most centralised state in Europe, for the benefit of the citizens rather than the elite and their corporate backers..... not hard left, just pro-humanity.

The SNP has not created a divided Scotland - it has given voice to the growing number of people (now a majority) who wish our country to determine its own future according to the values of its population. To suggest that this expression of national aspiration has anything whatever to do with "the policies which in the twentieth century directly caused the greatest human misery and greatest body count" is not just laughable, it is beyond contempt.

Indeed, one of the most strident embodiments of militaristic, murderous and racist nationalism - the British empire - is a major league player in the dishonourable rolls of bringers of death and destruction, alongside the Roman empire, soviet Russia and communist China. Of course, one of the strategies of the successful empire is to integrate and assimilate conquered and "merged" populations into its enterprises of conquest and we Scots must accept that many of our forbears became leading players in the exploitation of other peoples (Glasgow being as much built on the profits of slavery as Liverpool or Bristol). There is no point in pretending to be holier than thou, when an evaluation of the red and green benches of westminster shows that there is a line-up of some truly shocking Scots. But we are working on a clear-out in May of the worst elements of our body politic who inhabit the commons. For the sake of rUK democracy, I hope the lords can also be abolished with SNP assistance before Scotland achieves independence - which will probably be within the next five years, or ten at most.

The SNP has been so successful, it has achieved what the unionist politicians sought to prevent by legislation - an overall majority at Holyrood. They run a popular and competent government and truly strive to represent the people of Scotland. The same can not be said for the status quo unionist establishment parties, which is why they are doomed to virtual extinction.

Have a nice remaining few years of keeping us within Britain, unionists.
UK as you know it is living on borrowed time. The upside for the people of England is that Scottish independence will be good for democracy in rUK, as change will be immense, of necessity.

Interesting contribution. Best wishes (seriously and not ironically).

 

[ttmax]

There is however no doubt about Scotland however - Scotland outside the UK would flounder. Possibly it could become a part of the EU (but the Commission says no); in any event it would be bankrupt. That Braveheart is a great film and an independent Scotland would remain solvent (or even prosper) is the lie from SNP. It's dangerous.

Oh dear, that Jason won't take a telling. He is like one of those crazy US right wingers who keep coming back with more bollocks arguments, even after being blown out of the water.... a bit like the Monty Python character challenging everyone to combat after all limbs have been hacked off.

First, to bring Braveheart into the argument is risible and invites the question: just how old are you? Ten?

Apparently, Jason disagrees with many international economists who believe that an independent Scotland would be financially successful. With so many resources and an educated population with a history of discovery and inventions greater than any country in the world, why wouldn't we be?

Even the liars in project fear had to concede, when pressed, that an independent Scotland would prosper. The unfortunate starting point for an independent Scotland is that it would start off with a share of the disastrous westminster debt, which continues to increase by the day.

Britain needs Scotland's contribution to help with its balance of payments crisis and to maintain its place on the security council, but Scotland does not need the burden of London policies and debt.

The fact that the London establishment was scared out of its boots by the poll which gave independence a lead (and which led to the disingenuous Gordon Brown "vow" to sway those who would be happy with devo-max) demonstrates that London is absolutely determined to hang on to Scotland.

Yes Jason, Scotland would definitely be bankrupt without westminster's caring hand and subsidies, so in their caring sharing way they fought tooth and nail and employed all the disinformation and scare stories they could to keep us within the shotgun marriage, like some drunken abusive husband who fails to see that the game is up.

Those who were swayed by the vow now regret being fooled. Independence is not a question of if, rather: how soon?

Jason, from someone who is crazy and "dangerous" enough to believe in the fundamental principle of self-determination for nations just as much as for individuals, could I offer some advice, if you wish not to expose yourself as a fool.... please resist the temptation to spout away on Scottish politics.

Analysis requires understanding and, as far as Scotland is concerned, this is most definitely not your strong point. At all.

 

[Jason]

The nastiness of Scottish politics and the damage that the referendum has done is illustrated by the post above.

The union between England and Scotland is over three centuries old - and the union of the crowns takes it back another century. In all ways these nations are entwined. Self detmination is sacrosanct - and the people of Scotland rejected it. The union should be preserved.

The figures SNP presented for the acounts of an independent Scotland included an unrealistic view on oil prices (already exposed by the fall in oil prices), whispers that Scotland would renege on its share of UK debt (while taking its share of assets) and an assertion that Scotland would remain within the EU although the stated view of the Commission is that Scotland would be out. If Scotland does leave it will be as poor as Greece, and if it remains in the EU as much ruled from Berlin as is Greece. Oh, and Scotland asserts that it will use the same currency as England, forgetting that single currencies require a single sovereign state (or in the case of the EU a gallop to create such a single sovereign state.)

I find the animosity that many Scots now feel for the UK desperately sad. The nationalist genie is now out of the bottle. It is now as problematic for the rest of the UK as for Scotland. I propose a new referendum taking into account what we all assume will be a resounding SNP win I the General Election:
* 60% must vote to stay in the Union for Scotland to stay, else Scotland will be out.
* In means end of the Barnett formula, end of the excess constituencies in Scotland and reduction of powers of the Scottish parliament to an assembly.

I think we're approaching a time when the Scottish catastrophe has to happen. We're seeing a circumatance where Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK is becoming parasitic. The idea of MPs from Scotland voting on policies which don't affect them to prop up a government the rest of the UK hasn't voted for is unacceptable. The demand for Scottish independence could be strongest in England and Wales.

It would in effect be the grand experiment. Could an independent Scotland make a go of it? Say renounce all debt so it starts with a clean sheet of paper? Put to the test assertions that the EU would welcome Scotland when the clear statement is otherwise. I'm sure that it would lead to poverty for Scotland - quite literally soup kitchens in Princes Street - but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[ttmax]

The nastiness of Scottish politics and the damage that the referendum has done is illustrated by the post above..... says the man who disgustingly conflated the campaign for Scottish independence with "the policies which in the twentieth century directly caused the greatest human misery and greatest body count." How low can you get? And you take umbrage when called out on it?

The union between England and Scotland is over three centuries old - and the union of the crowns takes it back another century...... The union's long existence does not justify its continuation (or its shameful creation).

In all ways these nations are entwined..... complete rubbish. Apart from our separate and distinct identity, Scotland has always had its own legal system and superior education system. Under the half-way house of devolution, other important powers are devolved to our much more competent and caring Scottish government, but not nearly enough.

Self detmination is sacrosanct - and the people of Scotland rejected it...... because the hastily cobbled-together vow, which can never be fully delivered because of the competing self-serving interests of the three unionist parties, was enough to sway the vote at the eleventh hour, at the end of a dishonourable No campaign of lies, scares, threats and deceit.

The union should be preserved.... Why? There is no moral or logical argument in favour of this artificial construct.

The figures SNP presented for the acounts of an independent Scotland included an unrealistic view on oil prices (already exposed by the fall in oil prices), whispers that Scotland would renege on its share of UK debt (while taking its share of assets) and an assertion that Scotland would remain within the EU although the stated view of the Commission is that Scotland would be out.

If Scotland does leave it will be as poor as Greece, and if it remains in the EU as much ruled from Berlin as is Greece..... You're really excelling yourself now. Why not Albania, while you're at it.

Oh, and Scotland asserts that it will use the same currency as England, forgetting that single currencies require a single sovereign state (or in the case of the EU a gallop to create such a single sovereign state.)... Economists can find no reason why this would be impossible, but maybe you know something they don't.

I find the animosity that many Scots now feel for the UK desperately sad..... We have no animosity to our neighbours (although they have always been hostile to us), just to the rotten, corrupt and incompetent system of misgovernment from the wee whorehouse on the Thames. Holyrood has demonstrated that we can do things better for ourselves. Scottish unionist MP's owe their loyalty to career, self-enrichment and party, which is why they are facing electoral wipe-out in Scotland.

The nationalist genie is now out of the bottle. It is now as problematic for the rest of the UK as for Scotland. I propose a new referendum taking into account what we all assume will be a resounding SNP win I the General Election:
* 60% must vote to stay in the Union for Scotland to stay, else Scotland will be out.
* In means end of the Barnett formula, end of the excess constituencies in Scotland and reduction of powers of the Scottish parliament to an assembly..... That's very grand of you. Your commitment to democracy is amazing.

I think we're approaching a time when the Scottish catastrophe has to happen. We're seeing a circumatance where Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK is becoming parasitic ..... From someone whose country has ruthlessly exploited and squandered our resources (along with many other countries), you say that without a hint of irony!

The idea of MPs from Scotland voting on policies which don't affect them ....... It is only the labour party which indulges in that practice and which is so resistant to following the practice of SNP MP's of not voting on legislation affecting only rUK. But hang on - where were those English voices of outrage all the time that the boot was on the other foot! The SNP will only vote on rUK matters if there is a consequence for Scotland - seems perfectly reasonable.

to prop up a government the rest of the UK hasn't voted for is unacceptable...... mmm, a government we have not voted for; you really don't do irony, do you?

The demand for Scottish independence could be strongest in England and Wales. ..... All support is welcome, but I think you will find that your politicians are dead against losing control and downsizing their fiefdom.

It would in effect be the grand experiment. Could an independent Scotland make a go of it?.... Has any other nation, having gained its independence, ever expressed the desire to be re-absorbed by its larger, domineering neighbour?

It is to our shame that enough people wobbled and were swayed by a deceitful promise at the eleventh hour but next time, we won't be fooled again.

You'll find your soup kitchen at the end of the mall. You might even find the wee German wifey wielding a ladle. Or maybe not.

 

[Jason]

... who disgustingly conflated the campaign for Scottish independence with "the policies which in the twentieth century directly caused the greatest human misery and greatest body count." How low can you get? And you take umbrage when called out on it?

...Has any other nation, having gained its independence, ever expressed the desire to be re-absorbed by its larger, domineering neighbour?

I've set out that the economic policies of SNP are hard left socialist, the policies of Marx and Trotsky. Every nations that has ever tried such policies has ended up poorer (without any exceptions) and very many have ended up as totalitarian systems. We're all too polite about SNP - their economic policies are akin to the policies of Sinn Fein (until a few years ago the political wing of terrorist murderers) and their ideological bent is that of Trotsky - the environment that gave rise to Stalin and the horrors of his regime. We rightly condemn the fascists in the UK, particularly BNP, but the left have had more success in presenting themselves as cuddly.

The concept of national independence is of course a respectable aspiration. The pity for Scotland is that the idea is led by a political movement that is utterly repugnant.

Many national splits and national independence movements produce states which don't work well. In Europe the fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire led to a system where the German states came together, ultimately creating in 1871 a single German nation very much dominated by Prussia. Germany's recent reunification is a different sort of process, but is again a drawing together. Italy and Spain have both unified once-independent nations, including nations that split away from a bigger entity. Switzerland is a confederation. Belarus has all but reunited with Russia. Romania is a union of parts. France includes territories that were once independent, some of which had an earlier time been part of France.

It is of course much easier to split a nation than to unify it. If Scotland does go independent then it should be regarded as a forever decision. The idea that five years after independence the people of Scotland decide it is a mistake and want to rejoin the UK is problematic.

There is the concept of a transitional period for independence with a second, ratification vote. In the case of Scotland this would include the separation of sterling and the pound Scots, on parity but a new central bank for Scotland setting the economic policies necessary to maintain this parity. This would test the assertion of SNP that Scotland has an economy with a per-capita strength comparable to rUK. The people of Scotland would see the extent of tax hikes and service cuts necessary to maintain the peg, while the markets would price Scottish bonds. If Scotland went through with independence then the markets would act as they act. The point is that it's not a game. SNP can't produce a fictious budget and think the markets will believe it. An independent Scotland would need hefty tax rises and service cuts to stabilise a currency, which would devalue. If the people of Scotland don't believe this then unfortunately it is because they have swallowed the lies of the SNP. However it is possible to test the idea - become independent. Of course national prosperity isn't everything, and identity does matter, but I'm not sure that people believe this.

As for Scotland's identity we have an example of a mythologised history. When people talk about Braveheart or 1707 or Bonnie Prince Charlie or just about anything before living memory then they are into the realms of myth.

 

[eurotop40]

Angie and Barry discussing about Davie's virility:

 

[superbot]

Oh dear me.That analysis is so adrift of reality and demonstrates such poor understanding of Scottish politics, it is hard to know where to begin - but you could start by throwing overboard your baggage of labels, which tend to be simplistic, superfluous and have the intellectual precision of the scattergun.

I belong to no party, but support the objectives of the SNP in respect of returning the power of self-determination to the people of Scotland and enabling us to live under a fully functional, representative and responsive democracy, which the UK never has been.

The SNP is a broad church of opinions so to suggest it is hard left is just rubbish. In general, Scots tend to be more communitarian and egalitarian in outlook than our neighbours on the wrong side of the border, so it is only natural that our politics will be representative of those values.

If by hard left you mean being opposed to the renewal of the superfluous, immoral and unuseable trident WMD system (imposed in our midst without consent); being opposed to the pillaging of our resources, rather than the creation of a sovereign wealth fund; being opposed to an incompetent, self-serving, abusive and corrupt system of power in whitehall and westminster; striving for the repatriation of power from the most centralised state in Europe, for the benefit of the citizens rather than the elite and their corporate backers..... not hard left, just pro-humanity.

The SNP has not created a divided Scotland - it has given voice to the growing number of people (now a majority) who wish our country to determine its own future according to the values of its population. To suggest that this expression of national aspiration has anything whatever to do with "the policies which in the twentieth century directly caused the greatest human misery and greatest body count" is not just laughable, it is beyond contempt.

Indeed, one of the most strident embodiments of militaristic, murderous and racist nationalism - the British empire - is a major league player in the dishonourable rolls of bringers of death and destruction, alongside the Roman empire, soviet Russia and communist China. Of course, one of the strategies of the successful empire is to integrate and assimilate conquered and "merged" populations into its enterprises of conquest and we Scots must accept that many of our forbears became leading players in the exploitation of other peoples (Glasgow being as much built on the profits of slavery as Liverpool or Bristol). There is no point in pretending to be holier than thou, when an evaluation of the red and green benches of westminster shows that there is a line-up of some truly shocking Scots. But we are working on a clear-out in May of the worst elements of our body politic who inhabit the commons. For the sake of rUK democracy, I hope the lords can also be abolished with SNP assistance before Scotland achieves independence - which will probably be within the next five years, or ten at most.

The SNP has been so successful, it has achieved what the unionist politicians sought to prevent by legislation - an overall majority at Holyrood. They run a popular and competent government and truly strive to represent the people of Scotland. The same can not be said for the status quo unionist establishment parties, which is why they are doomed to virtual extinction.

Have a nice remaining few years of keeping us within Britain, unionists.
UK as you know it is living on borrowed time. The upside for the people of England is that Scottish independence will be good for democracy in rUK, as change will be immense, of necessity.

The vote's been cast...that's it.the next time you vote North Sea oil reserves will be all but spent.Blame blame blame typical SNP!!

 

[rbkwp]

Banksy for the next British PM

i hate that FM for Britain currently the lackey for Cameron
a Warmonger like Kerry, sooner he/they are out the better
another term and he/they will be dangerous buggers ..
sooner you fellers vote Cameron OUT, hopefully he is gone also huh?

vote YES' OUT


Gaza man sells bombed-out doorway adorned with Banksy painting for pittance - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[ttmax]

The vote's been cast...that's it.the next time you vote North Sea oil reserves will be all but spent.Blame blame blame typical SNP!!

That particular battle was lost (because of Westminster lies and deception sufficient to sway the outcome) but the campaign continues.

Of course, those with a casual indifference toward democratic principles prefer the silly proposition that it should be a once and forever referendum, but the electoral roll changes every few years, so - particularly as there is now a majority in favour of independence in the wake of the post-vote unionist falling out and reneging on the vow - this issue will definitely be re-visited.

Scotland's economy is not predicated on the bonus of oil - although where would Westminster have been without the Scottish windfall which they have squandered.

Blame? Yes, there is a lot of pain involved in bearing the burden of London misrule and having our resources stolen. Happily, the unionists will pay a heavy price in May - labour and libdem politicians are about to join the tories as endangered species north of the border, which will be no less than they deserve.

Anyone who believes this issue is settled is living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[ttmax]

More gems from Jason....
"I've set out that the economic policies of SNP are hard left socialist, the policies of Marx and Trotsky. " ....... incredible!

"The pity for Scotland is that the idea is led by a political movement that is utterly repugnant." .... only to reactionary types like you

"Many national splits and national independence movements produce states which don't work well. In Europe the fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire led to a system where the German states came together, ultimately creating in 1871 a single German nation very much dominated by Prussia. Germany's recent reunification is a different sort of process, but is again a drawing together. Italy and Spain have both unified once-independent nations, including nations that split away from a bigger entity. Switzerland is a confederation. Belarus has all but reunited with Russia. Romania is a union of parts. France includes territories that were once independent, some of which had an earlier time been part of France." ..... relevant how?

"The idea that five years after independence the people of Scotland decide it is a mistake and want to rejoin the UK is problematic." ..... For problematic, read: a concept which no one has seriously proposed, except some bonkers Britnats with malice towards Scotland. That would never happen, nor has it ever been on the table.

"There is the concept of a transitional period for independence with a second, ratification vote. In the case of Scotland this would include the separation of sterling and the pound Scots, on parity but a new central bank for Scotland setting the economic policies necessary to maintain this parity. This would test the assertion of SNP that Scotland has an economy with a per-capita strength comparable to rUK. The people of Scotland would see the extent of tax hikes and service cuts necessary to maintain the peg, while the markets would price Scottish bonds. If Scotland went through with independence then the markets would act as they act. The point is that it's not a game. SNP can't produce a fictious budget and think the markets will believe it. An independent Scotland would need hefty tax rises and service cuts to stabilise a currency, which would devalue. If the people of Scotland don't believe this then unfortunately it is because they have swallowed the lies of the SNP. However it is possible to test the idea - become independent. Of course national prosperity isn't everything, and identity does matter, but I'm not sure that people believe this." ...... Jason, where were you when the economic prospects of an independent Scotland were being debated in the Royal Society and elsewhere by respected experts? Your valuable insights, expertise and peculiar take on Scotland would have truly enlivened the discussions!

As for Scotland's identity we have an example of a mythologised history. When people talk about Braveheart or 1707 or Bonnie Prince Charlie or just about anything before living memory then they are into the realms of myth. .........Only person linking Braveheart or Charles Stuart to national identity is you.

 

[Jason]

The Scotsman has a review of Gavin Bowd's book on the SNP. Gavin Bowd reveals some uncomfortable truths in Fascist Scotland - The Scotsman
The SNP has a nasty side that they have managed to conceal. They are an extreme group. Their economic dogma (which they call "progressive") is hard left, the hard left that finds overlap with the hard right.

 

[ttmax]

The Scotsman has a review of Gavin Bowd's book on the SNP. Gavin Bowd reveals some uncomfortable truths in Fascist Scotland - The Scotsman
The SNP has a nasty side that they have managed to conceal. They are an extreme group. Their economic dogma (which they call "progressive") is hard left, the hard left that finds overlap with the hard right.

If you are taking your opinions from Gavin Dowd, you are indeed on shaky ground.

Anyway, what's it to you if we achieve independence? Divorce is the best solution for a fraught abusive relationship which is what lawyers would term "fruit of a poisoned vine" (in this case, a shotgun wedding).

Independence is not too far away, so just get over it. You have far too many problems in your own dysfunctional political landscape which require to be fixed.

Here's a hint as to how to do better - ditch the old Londoncentric model and try to be more like Germany. Auf wiederschoen!

 

[Jason]

If you are taking your opinions from Gavin Dowd, you are indeed on shaky ground.

Anyway, what's it to you if we achieve independence? Divorce is the best solution for a fraught abusive relationship which is what lawyers would term "fruit of a poisoned vine" (in this case, a shotgun wedding).

Independence is not too far away, so just get over it. You have far too many problems in your own dysfunctional political landscape which require to be fixed.

Here's a hint as to how to do better - ditch the old Londoncentric model and try to be more like Germany. Auf wiederschoen!

The worse possible scenario is where Scotland is split down the middle, which is pretty much what the 45/55 referendum split tells us. It would be better if either Scotland embraced the Union or Scotland went independent.

Let's imagine that at a subsequent referendum the figures are reversed and 55% vote for independence. This leaves 45% living in a new nation they didn't want to exist. There is no way this can be regarded as a good thing. Scotland would be off sterling (as the three main political parties and the Bank of England have clearly set out) and therefore on the pound Scots. Scotland would also be outside the EU (as the Commission and some EU nations have stated) and could not easily adopt the euro. The economic strength of Scotland would be determined not by the statements of politicians but by the markets. Scotland could not possibly sustain its proportional share of the UK national debt (let alone the RBS debt) as small nations cannot sustain as much debt as larger nations. Presumably Scotland would start with a default. My view is that the sort of poverty we are seeing in Greece would be the inevitable fate of Scotland. Notwithstanding a sense of national identity is important and it may be that this trumps other issues. Perhaps Scots would support independence even with the costs, and be happy to do this.

The issues for rUK are similarly problematic. First off is the likelihood that Scotland would default on its share of the national debt, which leaves rUK to pick this up. Then there's the issue of migration from outside the British Isles. Unless Scotland agreed the same policies as rUK we would inevitably be looking at a closed border. The issues of managing this and the reduction in cross-border travel are substantial. There's also issues around rUK having a border with a much poorer nation - in this case it would be migration from Scotland to England. Curiously I suspect we are fast moving to a position where a majority in England and Wales (not Northern Ireland) would support Scottish independence and be willing to put up with the problems, so it may be that it could be a happy divorce as far as rUK are concerned.

The NO campaign on the referendum aimed to stress the benefits of the union. I think this was wrong. They needed to get across the realities of the economic problems and the realities of the closed border. If the people of Scotland had heard this argument then their vote would have carried more weight. As it was the referendum was conducted on an illusion, the idea that an independent Scotland could be some socialist paradise with a great education, health and benefits system and sunshine every day.

The choice must be that of the people of Scotland, and they have of course rejected independence. However I think the situation will have to be revisited very soon. A constructive way forward might be to federalise the UK. Federal systems do work (think USA, Germany) and would seem to give all parts most of what they want. Perhaps a referendum in a few years should be on whether Scotland wants to be part of a federal UK or independent. Of course exactly the same referendum could be held at the same time in each of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, perhaps Channel Islands and Isle of Man. I think every part would have to want the solution.

No-one is seriously talking of an independent England - but a parliament run by a Labour-SNP deal could lead to just this. I think we have to move very fast towards federalism. I don't think any of the political parties are talking about this, which seems a shame.

 

[rbkwp]

going by that masterbate

Millibands going to be a clear WINNER leader for the finals

boo hoo Cameron
sorry the rest of yous Farage Clegg and co no show no charisma,
the 3 La... good try?
may do OK as coalition supporters? ha


and now for a cuppa down yonder !

 

[Jason]

Are you talking about the UK political debate tonight?

I don't think the debate polls are out, but it seems to me Cameron did well. The narrative is back the Conservatives who are halfway through a process that is working, or go for Miliband and the others who seem very short on policies. The point that won't go away is that Miliband will be dependent on SNP in order to form a government. He's ruled out a coalition so it would be confidence-and-supply, with SNP negotiating their requirements with Labour before every single vote.

 

[dandelion]

The vote's been cast...that's it.the next time you vote North Sea oil reserves will be all but spent.

Not really. The referendum we just had more created a precedent than settled an issue. Whether Scotland becomes independant will depend on whether the scots nats persuade more people they want it. If SNP get into government after the next election it will probably cement the union. If Cameron gets back he will probably attack the union by trying to disenfranchise scottish MPs. We could have another referendum next parliament under Cameron. He would have another chance to be the man who broke the UK.

Jason, you are excessively apocalyptic. In my opinion Scotland would be worse off not part of the Uk. However, if this becomes acrimonious, as leader of the new Scotland I would most definitely default on any inherited debt. As an Englishman, I would not tolerate any government of the Uk which then set about building barbed wire fences between Scotland and England. It would be totally unacceptable whether Scotland was a separate nation or not.

 

[Jason]

Jason, you are excessively apocalyptic.

I've done a lot of travel in the former USSR and Eastern Europe. States can and do fail. We need to look at the apocalypse to understand what we are seeking to avoid.

 

[rbkwp]

Are you talking about the UK political debate tonight?


vote YES' i was
watched the whole 2 hours/bugger the polls, usually crap anyway

and as i said
people are going to vote as to what they SEE performance wise, compared to non performance Jason wise

Cameron was his usuall dodo self

Milliband was i will we will etc, no pissing around
seen it all in our elections,, a good indicator on how things swing hahah

place a hundred es on it Jason, M will end up better than C !!!

yahooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ..
of course i have nothing to lose'

 

[Jason]

The polls on the debate are in. Basically:

YouGov: Cameron best PM.
ICM - Cameron best leader.
Survation - Cameron best leader.
ComRes - Cameron, best PM.

Yes they've all looked at other factorts as well. Farage has come out well. Survation in effect has a Cameron, Miliband, Farage tie.

I think Con will be VERY pleased with this result. They will also be pleased with a debate that in effect had everyone v Cameron. Basically vote Cameron, or vote chaos.