It might get closer as the vote nears but my thinking has been that it was doomed from the start. There's just too many unknowns and the answers that Salmond has given almost seemed DESIGNED to create uncertainty. If they'd have said they'd like a currency union but if the rest of the UK didn't agree with it, that's fine, they'd have their own currency and would reassure the markets by accepting their share of the UK past debts, (proving they're responsible), and that, if the EU wouldn't let them in straight away, they wouldn't change any laws, accepting EU immigration and not putting up tariffs so as to make their acceptance into the EU as speedy and problem-free as possible. But to almost go out of your WAY to say the EU HAD to do THIS and the rest of the UK HAD to do THAT and everything would be hunky-dory, when that CLEARLY couldn't be predicted, was absolute insanity.
Scotland rejecting independence should mean IMO giving up devolution, and banning Scotland from having their own independent sports teams (soccer, rugby) etc. it should be a unitary state unified within team GB. I think it should be all or nothing. The scots can't have their cake and eat it too. If the Tories win the 2015 general election they will put up a referendum pulling the UK out of the EU. Nobody in Scotland wants that, but they will be dragged out by the sheer weight of the English vote which is anti-Eu.
Well, not sure about the sports thing, tbh... Regarding the EU I'm not sure what would happen in any EU vote. It might surprise a few people once the issue starts to be discussed in detail.
Why? They will vote Yes or No, and No is a vote for the status quo. Saying you'll punish them for voting in a particular way is simply laughable and an insult to people's democratic rights. That's a very big "If" at the moment. Latest polling is 43% to leave and 37% to stay with 16% don't know. In the event of a refereendum I would expect the "stay" vote to climb once actual facts are presented rather than the current scare stories. Any vote would be very close - it is not cut and dried.
If there is one thing I am sure it is the sports thing. 4 teams for 1 country that is some historical bullshit!
That is the whole question. Is the UK one country? Besides 4 is the same number of federations that the US has (Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, America Samoa).
By 'historical bullshit' I assume you mean 'perfectly justifiable historic situation that requires no further discussion
Well this vote would not be necessary if it was not. Is Canada 1 country, is Spain one country? Than again, Is Puerto Rico a real country? They would have to vote for independence to become one? So you are kind of right I guess.
Well, if the question of Scotland being an independent country can be seriously discussed and voted on it does imply there's an issue to be decided I suppose. Also, as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments, again, it implies they're not simply part of one country.
UKIP and con vote combined will be to leave. Even labour is pandering saying a referendum is necessary. Why should Scotland be dragged out because England loves to go it alone. But with a no vote they have made their bed.
Currently, a third of Tory voters would vote to stay (as would, oddly enough, 3% of UKIP voters). They're not all anti-EU. Conversely a third of Labour voters would vote to leave. A third of Scots would also vote to leave. Try checking opinion polls rather than just assuming there is blanket support within a party or country for the issue. They've said they would call for a referendum on any further powers moving to the EU. That's not saying a referendum is required. Quite the opposite in fact. Again, the polls point to a very close vote in the event of a referendum. There is no guarantee of either a referendum or a vote to leave the EU. There is no guarantee an independent Scotland will be able to join the EU. It's likely, but certainly not been made explicitly clear that this would be the case.
UKIP will... some of the tories will abstain and a proportion of them would probably vote to stay in. In any case, no offence dude but, frankly, WE don't know how it would go so what makes you think you can predict it? http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/uk-britain-politics-europe-idUKBREA2A0TQ20140311
There have always been pro-Euro people amongst the cons that is well known big business but the party generally has always been eurosceptic. Labour or old labour gas been eurosceptic as well but mostly labour is pro-EU. The vote would be 55-45 for pullout IMO. The scots numbers of leaving is higher than I thought. The yes vote is doomed as of now unless something dramatic happens.
Maybe with the 700th anniversary of bannockurn coming up the nationalist yes vote will pick up steam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pport-party-not-just-driven-Eurosceptism.html What do you guys think of the rapid rise of the UKIP over the last four years. Do you think they could really capture 30 percent of the electorate I doubt that tbh....
No! They're an old fashioned populist, demagogue party which will appeal to low-information voters until even the most witless of them realise that the idiotic populism of one policy, which they like, is flatly contradicted by the idiotic populism of another policy, which they DON'T like. They'll do well in meaningless elections which make little to no difference such as the EU vote later this year in which they'll take a bite out of the tory right. What they probably WILL do, however, is bugger up any chance of the tories winning the next election, so... more power to them I say
Good take I think their just riding the anti-EU anti-immigration thing to popularity as well as a protest vote against the big 3 parties. It seems like their is a real right wing populist segment if the British populace who feel they are losing their country and that the mainstream parties don't get them. Hence the rise of UKIP and the creation of thug groups like the EDL
UKIP are a mix of xenophobia and populism. Farage is someone who thinks Cameron is a Social Democrat, which basically means he is too right wing for the mainstream political parties. They deleted their last manifesto as it was completely bonkers - lower taxes and higher spending. They attract two types - ex Tories who bizarelly view the current leadership as left wing and working class people swayed by Farage's highly proficient rhetoric (and disproportionate exposure in the media). The former form the leadership of the party and will likely remain until someone like Borisconi takes over the Tories. The latter will dissipate somewhat once it's clear that they have little to offer other than slagging off Johnny Foreigner. Farage is basically the right's version of George Galloway with far better PR.
To get a true idea of UKIP, you just have to look at who their current Deputy Chairman is. A man who was voted out of parliament from one of the safest Tory seats in the country for accepting back handers. A man who's only saving grace is that he's not as unpleasant as his wife.
Yeah, a financial one... And he's talking about this guy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Hamilton_(politician)#Cash-for-questions On 20 October 1994, The Guardian published an article which claimed that Hamilton and another minister, Tim Smith, had received money, in the form of cash in brown envelopes. It claimed the money was paid to the men by Mohamed Al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods. In return, the men were to ask questions on behalf of Al-Fayed in the House of Commons. Smith admitted his guilt and resigned immediately. Hamilton claimed innocence but was forced to resign five days later, on 25 October 1994. His wife is this woman... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Hamilton Interestingly I see she was also parliamentary secretary for Gerald Nabarro who also accepted money for asking questions in the house of commons but, to be fair, I shouldn't say too much about it as my old man was the one paying him*, so.. Small world, eh! * Allegedly