Look at the bookies' odds, Brian. Last time I looked Yes about 3-1, No 4-11. Forget the polls. The bookies are a better bet (sorry that's terrible!).
They will pay more for devo-max ultimately because the three stooges have promised to fund it. Independence at least allows the rUK to walk away from that. Damned it you do, damned if you don't, as the say. Once they had the Edinburgh Agreement in place it could have been so very easy, easier if devo-max had been permitted by he who is now shedding tears or far more pleasant if the misguided Better Together campaign had never sparked off the ridiculous tit-for-tat that has gone on. Cameron and Salmond should both resign ASAP irrespective of the result. As for Clegg and Miliband, well they have proven what their colours really are and are no better but neither was actually party to setting up the Edinburgh Agreement. So, I agree that everybody is p-ed off and with good reason all round. I still stand firmly for independence and hope it comes this week. If not the retributions are going to be worse than we have seen thus far. It ain't worth it.
OK OK Brian. However I think that practically everybody I know and speak to is now totally p****d off with the undue amount of time and money being spent on this referendum, let alone any long dragged out period of adjustment after, what ever the result. There will be a frenzy of feeding sharks making hay of the cadaver. Scotland represents at most about 10% of the whole of Great Britain and that 90% do not want to be spending the rest of their lives paying for Scottish independence.
The latest vows are not going to help the spineless trio. Under the terms of the Edinburgh agreement that allowed and set up the referendum, Clause 29 states:
'It is customary for there to be a period before elections in the UK, during which Ministers and other public bodies refrain from publishing material that would have a bearing on the election. Section 125 of PPERA sets out the restrictions that apply to Ministers and public bodies in the 28 days preceding referendums held under that Act. Both governments recognise the importance of respecting the 28-day period prior to a referendum, in the same way that both governments already respect each other’s pre-election period for Parliamentary elections. The Scottish Government will set out details of restricted behaviour for Scottish Ministers and devolved public bodies in the Referendum Bill to be introduced into the Scottish Parliament. These details will be based on the restrictions set out in PPERA. The UK Government has committed to act according to the same PPERA-based rules during the 28-day period.'
(PPERA = Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000)
I made an enquiry to the Electoral Commission about the conduct of parties to the referendum, their leaders, campaigns such as Better Together, Yes Scotland and also the government, its PM, ministers and other politically involved persons the during the campaign. They claim it is outside of their remit. They referred me on to the Cabinet Office's Ethics Department. I have no great expectations there.
William Hague and others have stated categorically that there is no policy that allows this, that support in their party is insufficient to see it through parliament and certainly the other two parties are little more sympathetic. With there being only eight months until the general election there is too little time to put this through in this session of parliament, even on an Emergency Bill which would be heavily opposed. All reports are of voters in the rUK massively not supporting it, thus constituents and local parties could make life very difficult if not impossible for their MPs and demand they appear to support it and members of the Welsh Assembly and some Welsh MPs have just said overnight that they can offer no support unless Wales gets additional powers.
So, if it does not work out on tomorrow's vote, we could easily see a troop of constitutional lawyers demanding the referendum be annulled on the grounds of broken terms of Clause 29. They might also wait to see what happens in parliament and if one comma of the 'vow' is diluted then use the joint statement against the three leaders with Clause 29 and see sympathy lost among no voters and a new referendum in just a couple of years that would walk through. So Ken, if it does not happen now, in the near future it might well. It is likely to be Miliband's watch if that happens but Cameron has blown it. There we are people, those are the politicians who supposedly support us who are tearing the UK apart whatever they do.
I still hope the polls are wrong and on Friday I shall be able to tip a large malt in celebration!
A lighter look at the referendum by an old friend and colleague http://lustigletter.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-referendum-by-mills-boon.html
Didn't see it Shirley, but I have a lot of first class books I have learned form over the decades. I wanted to know Scots history and anyway my ex- did her doctoral research on the effects of oil on the Western Isles and thus I inherited her Scotland books along the way.
Shirley I have sent you a friend request as I need to pass on information which may be able to help you get treatment in UK.
They do not need to pay for the treatment of UK retirees, as the UK is the competent state.
They have misunderstood the EU Regulations and although they have admitted that I personally was discriminated against, I took on this problem as it applied to all British retirees.
Shirley, there are discussions going on between various parties to sort out this problem, but we UK pensioners are the pawns in this international game.
There is a pressure group which has taken up this problem on our behalf.
" the French are discriminating against all of us British, at the moment, retirees by refusing to grant us our right to travel to UK for medical treatment which we cannot find in France!"
I'm assuming they aren't actually preventing anyone going anywhere they like, to do anything legal they like; just refusing to pay for it. I'm more than willing to be corrected if I'm wrong.
As I have discovered Brian, the French are discriminating against all of us British, at the moment, retirees by refusing to grant us our right to travel to UK for medical treatment which we cannot find in France!
There is discrimination everywhere.
Must look for my 'vote for Wolfie' badge, same as your pic below but with a superb metallic red background.
Ah Wolfie, there's my man!!!!
More or less Vic, huffing is matched by a lot of puffing though :-D
On a lighter note!
Q: Why did Bonny Prince Charlie go back to Scotland having reached Derby and with the road to London open to him?
A: He took one look at Derby and could not get back to Scotland quick enough.
Note: I am a Scot living in France, and would vote YES! Why am in I France? Because my darling wife, who is from Derby, loves France and hates the cold of Scotland: and I was too much of a coward to get divorced and live up to my principles. Sorry for offending anyone from Derby, I enjoyed working there for 16 years.
Assertions about personal habits! Light humour of a kind that our referee and I banter in day in day out, oftides with Peter Bird and Shirley Morgan in cahoots.
I live in France because I loathe what the UK has become and it strengthened that by treating the person I am married to disgracefully. Fortunately the university was looking for people to leave so she shocked them all by stepping forward and getting a large settlement for voluntarily going. That was because her head of school even defied a central government demand that my OH be allowed to do the research they were paying for but boss put her on something else then lied to government people. Last straw we left. Thatcher followed by Blair made the place into a ****hole morally. As far as Scotland goes, yes I would return to an independent Scotland, my OH and children agree. So much for expat fervour for nostalgic places and living in the other as per Joyce.
As far as information goes, the MSM - including Scots - is weighted against any argument for independence by their proprietors. Therefore I have given up on those sources for hard data, preferring to use impartial academic research sources from outside the UK entirely. Yes there is conspiracy, on both sides and plenty of it but not my cup of tea except as the occasional spectator sport watching people tear each other's hair out - metaphorically.
Of course we change nothing here, but we express opinions and try to do so politely. Mind you, I must admit your Churchill and Blair human rights bit had me hooting with laughter. As for angry, well yes just a bit but then it was in response to you emphatically telling a couple of people how wrong we are because...
I debate hard. I think Véro did some of that in her time too. The Cambridge debates we have behind us have no boundaries, one just fights on and probably never wins but also never loses. Only ever debate in possession of facts but for the contemporary 'rule': do not use 'facts' from Wikipedia they are often so grossly inaccurate.
As for Hell, I doubt they would have me and the other would not even look out of the peep hole if I knocked. But not believing in afterlives, personally I shall enjoy my long sleep for eternity in peace and quiet with no debates ;-)
Hi Vic, that will be fun then, though I anticipate that the Devil himself might ask God if he can move to Heaven as it is a well known historical, political and economic fact, and widely described in all the best Social Scientific literature that he (the Devil that is ) cannot abide Scottish "dander" be it up or indeed down.
:)
Brian, shouting at me, being offensive making assertions about my personal habits (about which you know nothing) tells our community more about your personality than, I at least, wish to know.
I note that despite all that you have written at no time have you (or the SNP if it comes to that) offered an economic case that show why all those who are advising Scotland to vote NO are so wrong.
I am reminded of James Joyce, another ex-pat though Irish of course, who left Dublin to live Paris and spent his life extolling the virtues of Dublin.
Perhaps that tells us more about some ex-pats. But hey, ho
For those with a wider grip on the events, this week's Sunday Times contains some very good material, though I think it should be either censored or best left alone for those with a closed mind or who believe in the Finance Industry/Westminster/Global Political leaders/ Media/ probably others/ conspiracy.
No names, no pack drill of course.
Brian, lighten up. Absolutely nothing anyone writes on this board is of any consequence.
And in any event, be nice to me, we may end up in Hell together! Eternity with me! Just imagine, me getting all my history wrong and with all my economic and political illiteracy - and you posting angry notes and forever!
Tsk, Tsk! How would you cope?
Is that what you really want?
Brian, re prisoners voting. That may be right for parliamentary elections but this is what I read:
"Convicted prisoners may not vote in the referendum. The European Court of Human Rights earlier ruled that this restriction was unlawful, but Lord Glennie said that he believed the ECHR judgment would apply only to parliamentary elections.[35] Appeals against his ruling were rejected by the Court of Session in Edinburgh[36] and the UK Supreme Court.[37]"
Don't know if that's accurate but it sounds authoritative.
Brian, you can have an identity and a sentimental attitude without causing such a rift.
I am a Lancastrian, but also British. I do not advocate independence for Lancashire!