Temporarily working, especially from outside the UK, not permanent residents.

 

But again this all just shows what a messy subject splitting an entire country is, seeing as changing the demographics of those allowed to vote changes the result!

Edited September 10, 201410 yr by Rate Slayerrrrrr

I've not noticed it during the campaign but has there been any real discussion of who would be eligible for Scottish citizenship in the event of a Yes vote?

Apparently the poshest of the posh in Scotland are a bit worried...

 

http://www.tatler.com/news/articles/septem...ure-of-scotland

New ICM poll puts Yes on 51%, No on 49%.

 

But more interesting is when independence supporters are asked for their reasons for voting for it. The top one is "Westminster's style of politics" -- ahead of "feelings about Scotland" and well ahead of "(negative) feelings about the UK". Which confirms that for many people this is not about "jingoistic" Scottish nationalism at all, it's about just wanting to escape from our awful political system, like UKIP voters in the rest of the UK.

Edited September 12, 201410 yr by Danny

New ICM poll puts Yes on 51%, No on 49%.

Other way around!

New ICM poll puts Yes on 51%, No on 49%.

 

But more interesting is when independence supporters are asked for their reasons for voting for it. The top one is "Westminster's style of politics" -- ahead of "feelings about Scotland" and well ahead of "(negative) feelings about the UK". Which confirms that for many people this is not about "jingoistic" Scottish nationalism at all, it's about just wanting to escape from our awful political system, like UKIP voters in the rest of the UK.

Might not be about jingoism for people voting Yes, but probably comes up when people voting No are asked why.

Other way around!

 

Phew!

 

I hope it's a NO vote, I really do, as a Yes would affect EVERYONE in the country negatively except the Scottish politicans.

 

However, the MUCH closer (I always thought t was 58 v 42) turn around shows something isn't working, and there should be a review of how the UK functions. Whether it's max devolution for the big four regions and an overall UK Parliament, or something else, something should change.

 

But not the Union itself.

Devo max is an awful idea in terms of UK governance. It means the West Lothian question would be turned from something that's really just a piffling issue into a legitimate concern - English devolution would be inevitable, at which point goodbye to any hope of any Labour Party platform other than a centrist one governing England.

 

(Actually, now that I think about it...)

Devo max is an awful idea in terms of UK governance. It means the West Lothian question would be turned from something that's really just a piffling issue into a legitimate concern - English devolution would be inevitable, at which point goodbye to any hope of any Labour Party platform other than a centrist one governing England.

 

(Actually, now that I think about it...)

 

Lol. Have you even paid any attention to what's happened in Scotland? Diehard Labour supporters are desperate to get away from the entire country because of what you celebrate as "centrist" policies! But feel free to carry on hoping Labour does what's causing such a huge "existential" crisis for the country and drive even more regions to try and do anything to get away if that's what you want.

 

And by the way, Labour would have a majority on this week's YouGov polls even without Scotland. People always seem to forget when they talk about "removing Labour Scottish MPs" that the number you need for a majority also gets moved back significantly as well.

Edited September 12, 201410 yr by Danny

Lol. Have you even paid any attention to what's happened in Scotland? Diehard Labour supporters are desperate to get away from the entire country because of what you celebrate as "centrist" policies! But feel free to carry on hoping Labour does what's causing such a huge "existential" crisis for the country and drive even more regions to try and do anything to get away if that's what you want.

 

And by the way, Labour would have a majority on this week's YouGov polls even without Scotland. People always seem to forget when they talk about "removing Labour Scottish MPs" that the number you need for a majority also gets moved back significantly as well.

Yes, the point I was making is that those diehard Labour supporters desperate to get away from centrist policies wouldn't even be in the equation if English devolution came about. Labour would have a majority in this week's YouGov polls without Scotland. There's no way in hell we'd get a majority any time soon in polls without Scotland and Wales. The English electorate is a naturally more small-c conservative one - Michael Howard won on votes (but not seats) in 2005 in England, which pretty much says it all.

Yes, the point I was making is that those diehard Labour supporters desperate to get away from centrist policies wouldn't even be in the equation if English devolution came about. Labour would have a majority in this week's YouGov polls without Scotland. There's no way in hell we'd get a majority any time soon in polls without Scotland and Wales. The English electorate is a naturally more small-c conservative one - Michael Howard won on votes (but not seats) in 2005 in England, which pretty much says it all.

 

And my point is that it's a phenomenon not confined to Scotland, and Labour doing more of the same stuff that's pushed them away will simply have the same effect in other regions (not bothering whatsoever with the political system/voting, even if not outright independence...yet). The mainstream political system can't continue to just determinedly represent only the South East and such a tiny spread of public opinion, and expect people to just put up with it forever, as we're seeing now.

Edited September 12, 201410 yr by Danny

Now this is somewhat surprising - The Guardian are backing the "No" campaign in the referendum.

And another piece of interesting referendum bobbins - an analysis of how many House of Commons votes would have ended up differently without Scottish MPs. 21 votes would have been different, the most high profile include voting against bringing in "Top Up" fees instead of for, voting for intervention in Syria rather than against it, and voting in favour of an 80% elected House of Lords.

And my point is that it's a phenomenon not confined to Scotland, and Labour doing more of the same stuff that's pushed them away will simply have the same effect in other regions (not bothering whatsoever with the political system/voting, even if not outright independence...yet). The mainstream political system can't continue to just determinedly represent only the South East and such a tiny spread of public opinion, and expect people to just put up with it forever, as we're seeing now.

Are we really still going with the idea that an Owen Jones dream manifesto is the key to our next big majority?

 

Thought experiment.

 

Universe 1: Ed Miliband runs on an Owen Jones manifesto.

Universe 2: Andy Burnham runs on a New Labour manifesto which pledges to ringfence the NHS and education from cuts.

 

Which do you think would be more successful? More importantly, what do you think the reason for it being the more successful one is?

Apparently the poshest of the posh in Scotland are a bit worried...

 

http://www.tatler.com/news/articles/septem...ure-of-scotland

 

Ha. As if posh rich people are worried about anything peasants do, they'd just move if the profits dropped :lol: I don't think seizing the cash and assets of the super-wealthy is in the White Paper...sucking up to them is far more likely :lol:

And another piece of interesting referendum bobbins - an analysis of how many House of Commons votes would have ended up differently without Scottish MPs. 21 votes would have been different, the most high profile include voting against bringing in "Top Up" fees instead of for, voting for intervention in Syria rather than against it, and voting in favour of an 80% elected House of Lords.

 

fascinating. Not what one might have expected at all....

Are we really still going with the idea that an Owen Jones dream manifesto is the key to our next big majority?

 

Thought experiment.

 

Universe 1: Ed Miliband runs on an Owen Jones manifesto.

Universe 2: Andy Burnham runs on a New Labour manifesto which pledges to ringfence the NHS and education from cuts.

 

Which do you think would be more successful? More importantly, what do you think the reason for it being the more successful one is?

 

Universe 1 would be more successful, though even that would be no guarantee of success for obvious reasons. In Universe 2, even the most charismatic leader in the world would come across as a charisma-free zone when just spouting the management-speak that's inevitable when you run on a "New Labour" substance-free programme (notice how Rachel Reeves, despite sounding "normal" in terms of accent, always sends everyone to sleep because she's terrified of ever saying anything interesting politically).

 

Another thought experiment: why do you think so many lifelong Scottish Labour voters are voting for independence?

Edited September 12, 201410 yr by Danny

Tony Blair, John Reid and Alan Johnson were charisma-free zones? That's a new one.

 

I disagree in any case - I think it would be 2, regardless of the platform (though obviously I think a broadly more moderate manifesto would be more successful, mainly as it allays the primary fear most floating voters have of a Labour government - that it'll be all well and good for a few years, but that it all inevitably ends up in debt, taxes and tears). I think the biggest cause of disconnect, more than anything else, is how unrepresentative parliament is of the average voter, and that it is mainly in 'management speak' (which I don't accept as an inevitability at all). The three leaders all being socially liberal, Home Counties, Oxbridge-educated middle class middle aged white men (substitute Johnson for Burnham if need be) I think contributes most to that on a valence basis - hence Ukip, which is pretty much the polar opposite of most of that. Given it's only ever the people who've always been calling for a massive change in the system who insist 'all your policies are the same', rather than 'you all look/sound/are the same', I'm more inclined to take the latter seriously.

 

But on the average voter that hasn't made their mind up yet, so much of it comes down to the leaders. Ed Miliband's by far the most common complaint I hear from people who would be considering Labour otherwise - even moreso than 'you ruined the economy, yada yada ya', which I think says a lot. You're half right on the political class, but I don't think most people who aren't already Labour are thinking 'god if only they'd nationalise the railways, double corporation tax, spending on the NHS and education and abolish the monarchy I'd be there in a shot'.

 

On the other subject, I think a lot of Scottish Labour voters (and a lot of people in a more left-wing electorate) are voting for independence because they'd much rather not have to go through Tory governments and would rather all governments be a choice of one left-wing party or another. Which is fair enough, I just don't think that's likely to stay the case for long if independence did happen.

Tony Blair, John Reid and Alan Johnson were charisma-free zones? That's a new one.

 

I disagree in any case - I think it would be 2, regardless of the platform (though obviously I think a broadly more moderate manifesto would be more successful, mainly as it allays the primary fear most floating voters have of a Labour government - that it'll be all well and good for a few years, but that it all inevitably ends up in debt, taxes and tears). I think the biggest cause of disconnect, more than anything else, is how unrepresentative parliament is of the average voter, and that it is mainly in 'management speak' (which I don't accept as an inevitability at all). The three leaders all being socially liberal, Home Counties, Oxbridge-educated middle class middle aged white men (substitute Johnson for Burnham if need be) I think contributes most to that on a valence basis - hence Ukip, which is pretty much the polar opposite of most of that. Given it's only ever the people who've always been calling for a massive change in the system who insist 'all your policies are the same', rather than 'you all look/sound/are the same', I'm more inclined to take the latter seriously.

 

But on the average voter that hasn't made their mind up yet, so much of it comes down to the leaders. Ed Miliband's by far the most common complaint I hear from people who would be considering Labour otherwise - even moreso than 'you ruined the economy, yada yada ya', which I think says a lot. You're half right on the political class, but I don't think most people who aren't already Labour are thinking 'god if only they'd nationalise the railways, double corporation tax, spending on the NHS and education and abolish the monarchy I'd be there in a shot'.

 

On the other subject, I think a lot of Scottish Labour voters (and a lot of people in a more left-wing electorate) are voting for independence because they'd much rather not have to go through Tory governments and would rather all governments be a choice of one left-wing party or another. Which is fair enough, I just don't think that's likely to stay the case for long if independence did happen.

 

Yup, that's exactly what's going to solve an unprecedented political crisis with record levels of fury -- a double dose more of the same old politics that created the problem.

 

I really am quite stunned that you claim you never hear people say "all your policies are the same". I thought you agreed ages ago that people did always say it, but just that, in spite of the complaints, that being "radical" wouldn't work just because when it comes to the crunch people don't take risks -- which I obviously don't agree with either, but atleast it's a feasible argument. But irrespective of what people would do if something different was offered, it's still nevertheless THE number one complaint atm that both the main parties are offering the same thing, and that "No matter who I vote for, nothing will change".

Edited September 12, 201410 yr by Danny

I do hear "all your policies are the same" but generally only on certain policy issues. Immigration is a massive one - many people simply don't agree with the relatively socially liberal, pro-immigration (as they see it, anyway) stance of the three main party leaders. As a general rule it's probably true that any UKIP "pet" topic will be one where a lot of the public regards the Westminster parties as being "all the same" (which Farage exploits in order to perpetuate his populist, anti-establishment image). Anything UKIP never bang on about is more likely to be something where the public can distinguish between Labour and the Tories.