Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

51 Yes 49 No - Rumoured Yougov Poll Tomorrow


R K

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

Would have been simpler if the Rest of UK kicked City of London/Westminster out of the Onion

The location of the federal capital is usually a key to the functioning of federated states. The normal principle is to locate it somewhere other than the largest population centre or the financial capital. This is the case in the US where the government is in Washington not New York, Los Angeles or Chicago. The Federal German Republic was set up this way with Bonn as the capital though since reunification it has moved to Berlin ( a decision which in my opinion will cause them problems in the future). If any proposal for a UK federation has the capital in London then it will be a sure sign the politicians are hoping for business as usual. The problem for a federated UK is that England has been a centralised state since at least the Norman Conquest. You have to go to Anglo-Saxon times and probably before King Alfred to find something different.

I don't see federalism working as the established Westminster political parties currently propose it but for the Scottish Nationalists it offers the possibility to work towards full Independence with lots of safety nets if things turn sticky. In fact a federation with hugely devolved powers underwritten by English taxpayers and the BOE, and with a continuing Westminster establishment to take the blame would be pretty much perfect for Salmond and the Nationalists. It is certainly the least risky route to a fully independent state. Sadly, he is likely to get his way because the other political parties are desperate to keep the Westminster show on the road for as long as possible whatever it costs their constituents.

Edited by stormymonday_2011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

EFA.

IMO this "poll" is meant to get lazy "no" voters who may not have actually turned out to vote, thinking it was a forgone conclusion, to now do so out of fear.

So you are saying, without any evidence, that one of our most respected polling companies is deliberately giving out false results prior to an important referendum. Something that would have required the collusion of a great many people, most of whom would take pride in their job and be repulsed by dishonesty and corruption.

A company's entire reputation and future potentially wrecked for the possibility that it may get a few more no voters out.

I realise now that I live in a world where cynicism and conspiracy theory is the default response to just about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
3
HOLA444

So what is the Government to do send the army in and make them vote yes under gunpoint? Again another surprise Army commanders up and down the chain of command have opinions too and would not follow the bidding of Government.

More likely there would be a Military coup (to remove stupid Government) with free and fair elections to follow soon after.

I think that the Queen is the head of the military and so she could in principle remove a tyrant by force, or simply block any attempted coup in such a drastic scenario. At least I know that the Queen is head of the military, whether that translates into being a supreme commander of the military I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

So you are saying, without any evidence, that one of our most respected polling companies is deliberately giving out false results prior to an important referendum. Something that would have required the collusion of a great many people, most of whom would take pride in their job and be repulsed by dishonesty and corruption.

A company's entire reputation and future potentially wrecked for the possibility that it may get a few more no voters out.

I realise now that I live in a world where cynicism and conspiracy theory is the default response to just about anything.

There won't have been any outright dishonesty on the company's part, but it's rather unusual to present a poll without the don't knows included, and commissioners of polls aren't beyond tweaking the poll question to get the results they want, or releasing those results at tactically useful times.

I suggest the commissioners wanted this poll's results to shock, and have done their best to make them do so.

Edited by StainlessSteelCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

Indeed. Hard to judge from here how that comes across to a Jock. I wouldn't blame them in the least for crying "Plague on both your houses" on that question.

In reality, if there's a yes vote, I expect they'll haggle at length over currency, and a price will be set for Jockland keeping the pound. Price will be something along the lines of BoE having some supervisory power/oversight and even veto over Jock economy. How that might work long term, I couldn't say.

There really is very little in it for the UK to agree to it.

The nats' nuclear option of not taking on any debt is so easily quashable that it is nothing more than a hollow threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

There won't have been any outright dishonesty on the company's part, but it's rather unusual to present a poll without the don't knows included, and commissioners of polls are beyond tweaking the poll question to get the results they want, or releasing those results at tactically useful times.

I suggest the commissioners wanted this poll's results to shock, and have done their best to make them do so.

Fair enough. I have a suspicion that the don't knows are actually No voters in disguise, so they may swing it for the no campaign.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

Such an act would require primary legislation.

Effectively cancelling General Elections which is what you are proposing is anti constitutional and will not carry the support of MP's. Erto the bill would not cross the first hurdle.

It may come as a bit of surprise to you but MP's do not always do the bidding of their masters. Particularly when there is a good chance their constituents would string them up for supporting such a radical measure as this.

So what is the Government to do send the army in and make them vote yes under gunpoint? Again another surprise Army commanders up and down the chain of command have opinions too and would not follow the bidding of Government.

More likely there would be a Military coup (to remove stupid Government) with free and fair elections to follow soon after.

The British Parliament is still not the Third Reich, not just yet anyway..............

I'm not saying it's likely to happen in practice, I'm saying that the way the rules are laid out it would be possible for MPs to vote for primary legislation to postpone the next general election until the year 2100, for this legislation to pass through the Lords and for the Queen to give royal assent. If this happened and nothing else changed the next general election would be in the year 2100. No coup d'etat, no procedural rules or laws broken, no need for a referendum or a general election. This is how the UK constitution works.

So given that it's technically possible, in the event that Scotland voted for independence would the Westminster elite push something like this through to delay the election until 2016? In my opinion yes, I can easily imagine them doing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

Indeed. Hard to judge from here how that comes across to a Jock. I wouldn't blame them in the least for crying "Plague on both your houses" on that question.

In reality, if there's a yes vote, I expect they'll haggle at length over currency, and a price will be set for Jockland keeping the pound. Price will be something along the lines of BoE having some supervisory power/oversight and even veto over Jock economy. How that might work long term, I couldn't say.

I simply cannot see what is in for the RUk is agreeing to a currency union. Salmond can't even come up anything beyond bluster about the "sovereign will of the Scottish people". Apparently the will of 5m people trumps that of 60m RUk, dunno how he worked that out.

On the one hand I hope they go for it, anything that sticks 2 fingers up at Brusselminister is good in my book but I think a lot of the SNP are delusional. They will have to really go their own way, or give up so much sovereignty that independence is a word only. I really hope the SNP has a decent plan B, am highly concerned they don't. Have they battle planned this out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

I think that the Queen is the head of the military and so she could in principle remove a tyrant by force, or simply block any attempted coup in such a drastic scenario. At least I know that the Queen is head of the military, whether that translates into being a supreme commander of the military I don't know.

Head of State who all service people have to swear allegiance too on joining the service. There is no supreme commander of the Military as such simply a Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). CDS is the most senior military officer and acts as military advisor to SOS Defence and the PM, he may sit on COBRA or other cabinet meetings where military input is needed. If more specialist advice is required it will be the duty of CDS to obtain it.

It would not automatically follow that CDS would allow the armed services to be used as any particularly Government wished. Strict observance of International (and Domestic) law would also be a consideration. It was reported that Blair's ideas about how British Forces were to be used in the Gulf War 2 were kicked back a couple of times before a compromise was reached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Defence_Staff_(United_Kingdom)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army#Oath_of_allegiance

All soldiers must take an oath of allegiance upon joining the Army, a process known as attestation. Those who wish to swear by God use the following words:

“ I, [soldier's name], swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.[167]

Others replace the words "swear by Almighty God" with "solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm".[168] Under the reign of another monarch, the name of the monarch and all pronouns with gender are replaced appropriately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

There won't have been any outright dishonesty on the company's part, but it's rather unusual to present a poll without the don't knows included, and commissioners of polls aren't beyond tweaking the poll question to get the results they want, or releasing those results at tactically useful times.

I suggest the commissioners wanted this poll's results to shock, and have done their best to make them do so.

The result including don't knows was presented. Yougov are very good at presenting their full data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

I simply cannot see what is in for the RUk is agreeing to a currency union. Salmond can't even come up anything beyond bluster about the "sovereign will of the Scottish people". Apparently the will of 5m people trumps that of 60m RUk, dunno how he worked that out.

On the one hand I hope they go for it, anything that sticks 2 fingers up at Brusselminister is good in my book but I think a lot of the SNP are delusional. They will have to really go their own way, or give up so much sovereignty that independence is a word only. I really hope the SNP has a decent plan B, am highly concerned they don't. Have they battle planned this out?

You are right that there is nothing in it for the rUK to agree to a CU. It would be a pretty bad idea, overall.

As our European neighbours have shown, currency union gradually leads to political union, which is ironic really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

Welsh language nats are petrified of a YES vote for reasons that I outlined on here earlier.

Again....you are lying. There are many Welsh 'nat's as yo ucall them up in Scotland haelping with the 'Yes' campaign. And Plaid Cymru are officially supporting the 'Yes' camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415

I'm sure they are - but that's not the story, the Sunday Times (the commissioners) chose to tell and present. YouGov don't get any control over that.

The straight choice yes-no percentages have been used throughout the campaign. The Sunday Times haven't used any tricks to come up with a shock headline - the poll speaks for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
16
HOLA4417

Inccidently, several friends of mine in Swansea are Scottish born and they don't appear to care less about the referendum in Scotland - they feel betrayed by fellow Scots for not being allowed a vote.

I wonder what the feelings of Scots who live south of the border will be if if Scotland goes independent. They are basically getting shat on by their rich land-owning countrymen.

Edited by WageWar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
18
HOLA4419

I'm a Scot living in England and not entitled to a vote.

I find that offensive, and will simply become English if independence goes ahead.

The "Yes" vote appears based heavily on ignorance on how the harsh world works globally and outside local Scottish life. Its pitched for people who haven't traveled around the world and noticed how jobs and monetary systems work (i.e. stop house price crashes), or how oil companies negotiate oil contracts.

+ Belgium, Spain and a few other EU countries with separatist-seeking regions will not recognize Scotland when they seek EU membership.

+ Scotland will not fare better from the US either - they dont want the destiny of the island's nuclear deterrent to change in any way. Same for NATO countries.

+ From my time on here, I know that a currency union for the £ simply would not work - without a central bank a country has no destiny over its monetary policy and is a slave to the country with one.

+ The quality of many Scottish local politicians is woeful.

+ Big business will be really turned off by the border controls, closure of workplaces to relocate down south, brain drain - watch a decline in people visiting Scotland. The trains will stop at Carlisle/Newcastle. Driving holiday in Scotland? nah, cant be bothered getting little baby Johnny a passport.

+ England will bully Scotland so badly. That's an armyless, currency-less, international airport-less Scotland heavily reliant on suppliers and companies based around the UK for its raw materials, expertise and enterprise.

+ Lastly oil. Its actually owned by the companies with exploration and drilling rights, who have mostly paid the UK already for it (and continued payment though taxation on what comes out). The remaining fields are not so accessible. The continued payments are not so huge, and they will be contested.

..as another Scot living in England, I don't see why we as a 'United Kingdom' should be financing in Scotland free uni , free care for the elderly, free prescriptions without the rest of the UK having these benefits ...and then there is the West Lothian question re all the Scots Westminster Labour MPs voting for Uni fees here while they were free in Scotland ....the fact Scotland wishes to go it alone is a good thing ..and will restore democracy or something nearer to it across the land south of Hadrian's..... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

Why a divorce from Scotland could be the ruin of us all: Mortgages up. Pensions down. The pound in your pocket worth 90p - and you'll even pay more for water

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746514/Why-divorce-Scotland-ruin-Mortgages-Pensions-The-pound-pocket-worth-90p-ll-pay-water.html

Everyone may as well vote 'Yes' as I'm sure the DM will be wrong on all counts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

Hmm, the most fervent anti-English 'Welsh' nats I have met have been English people who have moved to Wales and learnt the language.

Only two weeks ago I had an enormous row at a dinner party with the lady sat next to me about how the Welsh are screwed by the English, how everyone should be forced to speak Welsh and some twisted national view of Welsh history that is sprouted by the nats - and she was born in London with no Welsh background whatsoever until she moved to Wales and decided to turn into one of the nats from hell.

Inccidently, several friends of mine in Swansea are Scottish born and they don't appear to care less about the referendum in Scotland - they feel betrayed by fellow Scots for not being allowed a vote.

It's the same when people convert to a religion! They become crazy nut jobs for their new way of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
22
HOLA4423

I know what the proposition is from the Tories but they rather foolishly failed to get it spelled out by having Devo Max as an option on the ballot paper so no one is voting on it.

This means Salmond and the SNP have lots of wriggle room in negotiation whichever way the referendum vote goes.

Moreover, since the Westminster government is now apparently is rushing to lay fresh proposals on the table because the way the polls are going they are not the ones dictating the terms. Whatever the politicians claims ,the implicit understanding about any future federal UK state is that the bigger entity England will be underwriting the spending of the smaller federal elements such as Scotland Northern, Ireland and Wales. This will particularly be the case if the Bank of England remains the lender of last resort and it will certainly be what the financial markets will expect. Even if England gets regional asemblies (something I am sceptical about since they were rejected the last time the concept was put to a popular vote) I don't expect that to change. Westminster will want to retain as much power and money at the centre as it can (ie preserving as much as possible of the status quo). Federalism is really only viable with a written constitution setting out the terms but since that will cramp the politicians style enormously and make fudging issues difficult I expect that to be resisted. Salmond clearly has his eyes on more power and a bigger slice of the current UK national pie. Labour for certain will give it to him just so they can keep winning UK elections. They want regional assemblies in England but not an English parliament (heaven forbid England and the English should be recognised as a nation) The Tories are a Conservative and Unionist not an English nationalist party so they will also probably be more than happy to dish out more cash from English taxpayers pockets to keep the Union intact. UKIP may have different ideas but their name gives away their problem when it comes to devolution of powers within the UK rather than from the EU. It is going to be a mess which the rest of us will have to pay to clear up, So no change there then.

I WOULD buy a used car off of Cameron.

Cos he'd fill the tank up and renew the tyres, the day before he put the ad in the paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

I simply cannot see what is in for the RUk is agreeing to a currency union. Salmond can't even come up anything beyond bluster about the "sovereign will of the Scottish people". Apparently the will of 5m people trumps that of 60m RUk, dunno how he worked that out.

On the one hand I hope they go for it, anything that sticks 2 fingers up at Brusselminister is good in my book but I think a lot of the SNP are delusional. They will have to really go their own way, or give up so much sovereignty that independence is a word only. I really hope the SNP has a decent plan B, am highly concerned they don't. Have they battle planned this out?

The biggest delusion that the Scottish nats have is their belief in a socialist utopia post independence. I have only been following the campaign tangentially, but that seems to be a theme of theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

Surely neither of these things are possible, since we now have fixed 5 year terms?

It seems to me that in the event of a Yes vote, the most likely outcome is a narrow Labour majority in 2015 which completely evaporates when the Scottish MPs leave in 2016, leaving a useless minority government in 'power' probably propped up by what remains of the lib dems (assuming they are not totally wiped out in 2015). Then, while Labour in England collapses, UKIP will be tearing chunks off the Tories - a massive dislocation in English politics in other words...

Bring it, the ******, on. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information