1. I’ll be voting Yes2AV. http://d-notice.blogspot.com/2011/04/alternative-vote-referendum.html

2. Depends on how much people believe a campaign based on nothing but lies…

I voted yes to annoy Alan!
If it passes the moaning old bastard will be absolutely crestfallen.

You know your city is going downhill when there are more English Democrats running for seats than Greens.

People in Portsmouth don’t like the Lib Dems much and the cities Tories are a mess. So I predict big gains for Labour here, who are contesting every seat, which is weird because they have no party base or branch here.

I voted Yes to Av and TUSC.

I’ll be voting “yes”, tho’ without much enthusiasm.

I won’t be voting LD at the local elections..or Tory…or Labour… errrmmm… so that leaves…….

Yes & Labour.

Prediction: the AV vote will be won ever so slightly by the No camp, probably around 53/47. Labour will take around 800 council seats. The LDs will face a wipe-out.

1. I voted in favour of AV and for my favourite paper candidate in Gorton South

2. It is likely that the Lib Dems will receive a non-violent ‘beating’ in Manchester.

It may surprise no-one to know I’ll probably vote Conservative (sitting councillor has done a good job, whilst the Labour party campaign (such as it was) was entirely about sending Mr Cameron a message, which suggests that the idiots behind it were not inclined to understand what council elections are for).

And I’ll definetly vote no.

One thing I would question about Sunny’s comments about the top – the suggestion (Sunny being too smart to say this is certain) that yes voters will be more highly motivated – remember that most Conservative voters, a lot of traditional Labour voters, many UKIP voters, probably most BNP voters and a smattering of others will vote no, along with the undecided, and they are all likely to vote.

Furthermore, I think there are as probably as many committed anti-AV types as there are for it, although this is based on personal experience so may be unrepresentative.

One thing I would question about Sunny’s comments about the top – the suggestion (Sunny being too smart to say this is certain) that yes voters will be more highly motivated – remember that most Conservative voters, a lot of traditional Labour voters, many UKIP voters, probably most BNP voters and a smattering of others will vote no, along with the undecided, and they are all likely to vote.

Older people more likely to be anti-AV, also more likely to vote. Group most in favour of AV are 18-24 year olds, also least likely to vote. It’s not going to be close…

I voted on the way to drop my daughter at nursery, and the polling station bods asked her whether she was voting yes or no (she’s 2…). She would actually have been about as useful a guide on this as either campaign was.

Voted Yes. Although, I have more or less completely stopped caring about electoral reform.

At my council elections (as I’m still registered in the shires not london) it was a choice between two tories or two lib dems.

I thought I hated the lib dems, it turns out I don’t hate them as much as the Tories, so I sucked it up and crossed both their boxes. To be fair, our local libs dems (in West Berks) are pretty good.

Turn out I expect will be low, which will be used by whoever loses the AV vote in entirely cynical and predictable ways.

I’m hoping for a massacre of the Lib Dems and the resulting, hopefully on-camera, exploding of Nick Clegg’s head.

I am not eligible to vote

Yes & Lib Dem

(someone has to)

I will be voting Yes to AV. I think they will lose by a fairly significant margin.

“Turn out I expect will be low, which will be used by whoever loses the AV vote in entirely cynical and predictable ways.”

Agreed. And ignored by the victors who will gloat about what a strong message the people of Britain have sent etc. etc.

I live in Watford where we currently have a big Lib Dem majority in the council, and it will be interesting to see how much of that is eaten away. I predict quite a lot of it will go, but because of the extent of their dominance I suspect they have a fair bit of support from more conservative people, and I reckon that will hold. They’ll make big losses in the more left-leaning areas I reckon. Countrywise I have no idea but I reckon the standard Labour gains, Lib Dem losses narrative seems sensible

I will probably vote Lib Dem (waits for abuse) as in my ward it’s normally a straight fight between them and the Tories. Primarily this is for tactical reasons, but the local LDs are pretty good. I think the Tories will win the ward unfortunately. I am tempted to vote Green and may end up doing that.

Yes to AV. Labour/Green in welsh assembly (only labour in constituency as I personally know the candidate, still feel dirty though).

BTW – comments in Adam’s thread below aren’t working.

I was unable to cast a vote in the local poll, as it’s been deferred following the recent death of an incumbent Councillor.

The polling station was very, very quiet: I had the place to myself. I did wonder if the absence of a local poll in (most of) London, together with Assembly or Devolved Government elections in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland might have an influence:

http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2011/05/vote-and-turnout.html

And yes, I voted yes. Any campaign fronted by a refugee from the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance is worth opposing.

I voted yes, obviously, and, strangely, voted for the Lib Dem candidate on the council, what with it being me and all, still getting used to that.

I think turnout will be low, in areas where council elections are ongoing that’ll help No, but in other areas, especially London, that’ll help yes, most of those opposed just don’t care, those in favour mostly do.

Completely impossible to predict, persuaded one long time LD supporter who was definitely voting for me to vote Yes, he was going to vote No, if your own base core support doesn’t know the facts that’s scary.

I’ll be voting Yes to AV and Labour, therefore doing my bit to give the Lib Dems the drubbing in Manchester predicted by Ryan @7.

I voted yes, and did a bit of leafleting. Marginally more people said they had/would vote yes, but plenty – particularly older voters – were voting no.

Constituency vote: Plaid
Regional vote: Plaid

Slight ‘nosepeg’ moment in a sense, because they’re nowhere near as radical as I think they ought to be; nonethless, when I saw the alternatives (including the Tory candidate being my county councillor and widely regarded as a young man on the make) it was a ‘no-brainer’.

I deliberately spoiled my ballot paper on the referendum with the words, “Give me a real choice! P.R. Now!”. AV will be no better at not disenfranchising a majority of the voters than First At The Trough. Rejecting AV – with the continuing and increasing disillusionment with the electoral process – gives us a better chance of a referendum on real reform, even if we have to wait another five years for it. Getting AV now will put the issue on the back burner for a generation or more.

Oh and despite being tempted to vote Green, I voted Lib Dem because despite not supporting everything there doing I think the sheer extent of their vote collapse is undeserved and want to show not everyone hates them.

I’m an “older voter” and I voted Yes to AV.

Anything opposed by both Cameron and Blunkett can’t be bad.

No council seats were up for election in the borough where I live.

Yes and Lib Dem (good local councillor and Labour have no chance).

Is it true that the Lib Dems are a bit more democratic in the sense that it is not impossible for Clegg to be deposed in the autumn? Because if AV is lost by 2:1 as the polls suggest, and the Lib Dems lose enormous numbers of seats, then isn’t he going to come under a lot of pressure?

Are Huhne’s ventilations a manoeuvre for the upcoming leadership election?

And if an new leader is elected on a more left-leaning manifesto, whither the coalition?

With AV defeated today Cameron will be shackled to a corpse that refuses to release its death grip to mix a few metaphores. He will have to decide whether to call a snap general election and look stupid or limp on with an unwilling partner obstructing his every plan in order to try to differentiate itself and recover electorally in time for the next scheduled election. The people, being a bit cleverer than liberal and lefty politicians and recognizing there was no real principle involved in this vote just a load of meaningless hot air have it seems declined to give this Coalition any kind of mandate or legitimacy and in so doing signalled its desire to see it gone despite the attempted sabotage by Ed Milliband and the rest of the New Labour no marks who refused to give a lead but are happy to believe they can waltz back into power in four years time the cuts already made for them. What they don’t tell you is that in four years time if the ruling class has its way there will be no labour movement capable of getting a Labour government elected or which by then even cares whether it comes first or fifty first.

Cuts are still coming but from a potentially fatally wounded Coalition so prepare for action and prepare for a general election and prepare to prevent New Labour from trying to do everything possible to lose that election.

George, the LDs are more democratic, and can call the leader to account, there’re procedures, but it requires a motion of no confidence signed by a large number of reps filed in advance–democratic, but not easy.

I’ve not, as both a membership secretary and a voting rep, been approached to sign or endorse such a motion, and wouldn’t do so anyway, Conference voted overwhelmingly for the coalition, and, frankly, it needs to be shown it can be done.

Coalition falls apart, fresh general election, does anyone really think Milliband actually wants that to happen or to actually win? Really?

I still think it’ll last the course, we’re getting STV for the Lords anyway.

Voted no. Turnout in my part of Peckham was risible.

Voted Yes to AV, without much optimism though.

Quote of the referendum campaign from Tim Gowers: “I find it very dispiriting to live in a country where it can benefit a politician to use a provably incorrect argument”

voted yes, there was a fairly steady stream in my local SE london polling station.

@25 David Ellis

“The people, being a bit cleverer than liberal and lefty politicians and recognizing there was no real principle involved in this vote just a load of meaningless hot air have it seems declined to give this Coalition any kind of mandate or legitimacy and in so doing signalled its desire to see it gone despite the attempted sabotage by Ed Milliband and the rest of the New Labour no marks who refused to give a lead but are happy to believe they can waltz back into power in four years time the cuts already made for them.”

Would these clever “people” be the same geniuses that voted New Labour and Thatcher in then…..? Uh huh. And if these razor sharp folks vote “no” to AV, and the LD’s implode (as seems pretty likely to any but the most partisan LD), won’t they be the ones voting “Newer” Labour in at the next GE?

If people can’t be bothered to vote for a fairer electoral system, and find the LD’s distasteful after the past 12 months….. maybe the only hope (grits teeth and tries to swallow back rising bile) is to ensure Labour actually changes between now and the next GE.

If there had been a “none of the above” box, I’d have used it.

If I could’ve voted, I’d have ticked yes as my first choice. My second choice would be no. I’m undecided about what’d get my third, fourth and fifth vote…

Galen10,

Why would a party committed to voting reform through referenda (not just imposed) implode over a referendum on voting reform not going the way they want. I think the second part of the party name might suggest their reaction will be to say ‘damn, that’s democracy for you’.

Chris Huhne’s behaviour appears to be an outlier here, or deliberate political posturing (which seems likely – the common comparisons to Michael Heseltine seem quite apt). Show me any local Liberal Democrat parties which are expressing discontent with the fact that the people do not agree with them.

Lol- I see enthusiasm for AV is as deafening on here as it is in real life. I am not sure that antipathy is entirely down to everyone outside the liberal ‘politically active’ left being stupid. Am surprised the idea that it is, has continued for so long really.

@13 James – Don’t worry you aren’t alone…

Nope & Tory – ho hum; hardly enthusiastic but…

I voted YES to AV. sadly got a year to wait (here in London), before I can tell the ConDems to sod off!
I’m hoping (against hope), that AV wins on the narrowest margin due entirely to Scottish voters -how the smug b****** Torrys will implode!!

Lisa @33: “Am surprised the idea that it is, has continued for so long really.”

I have reservations about voting “Yes” for fear this referendum will push into the long, long grass a better electoral reform. Blair set up the Jenkins’ Commission which recommended AV+ when it reported in 1998:

The commission reported in September 1998 and suggested the alternative vote top-up or AV+ system, which would directly elect some MPs by the alternative vote, with a number of additional members elected from top up lists similarly to mixed member proportional representation. A Single Transferable Vote system was considered by the commission, but rejected on the grounds that it would require massive constituencies of around 350,000 electors resulting in an oppressive degree of choice, (i.e. too many candidates to choose from.) Also, the counting of votes in STV is “incontestably opaque” and different counting systems can produce different results. Finally, Jenkins rejected STV because it was a different system from those used in European and devolved parliaments, as well as the London Assembly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_Commission_(UK)

Nothing came of that because too many Labour MPs are committed to preserving FPTP.

Voted Yes & Labour.

I expect AV to be decisively defeated. The interesting question now is how much damage that will do to Clegg and the Coalition…

I voted yes to AV because you should always do what the tory scum least want you to do. (note to the hideous Margret Becket and the traitor John Reid who shared a platform with the tory leader. Of course if Labour are out of power for another 20 years you 2 can rely on your state salaries and pensions to see you through. Same for all those other idiot Labour die-hards)

The no vote is classic scummy tory. Pretend on the one hand that it is not that important, yet throw mountains of money at getting the result they want. If it was unimportant why have the tories relied in their huge unidentified financial backers to run their attack adds? Of course it was important , but they never wanted the people to know that. Please no more whinging from scummy tory trolls about union money after the secretive tory backing of a few rich people.

As for the Lie Dems, you idiots have been played like a Steinway piano, and you must now put a leash on your leader. His word is not to be trusted, and his refusal to see what the tory scum are really like is quite alarming. If after this episode he still can’t see how vial the tory party is then he must be removed as leader before he gives the scum any more giveaways..

The Labour party and the Lie Dems still do not understand power like the tories do. Labour’s refusal to get rid of Brown a year out from the election was bad enough, but Labour politicians cavorting with tory scum during a campaign is sick making. And these fools wonder why people have no time for politicians? BA humbug!

Fiona Hislop (SNP) constituency vote.
Green Party (additional member).
Yes to AV.

I took my mother down to vote, we share a polling station(!) She voted for Mary Mulligan, (Labour), the Pensioner Party and no to AV.

Christ if I had made us both a cup of tea and ripped up the polling cards, we would not have made a difference as we cancelled each other out.

I voted yes. My polling station was empty. I life in Stratford-on-Avon, a Tory safe seat though so I imagine most of my neighbours have voted no.

No & Labour

I only know of one person (out of a dozen or so) who is voting yes.

I found the way the question was written was far more confusing than any of the debates about AV though. Quite disgraceful in fact. At first look, it appeared to suggest you should vote yes to keeping the current system.

Yes, and Green/Green/Labour for councillors seats.

I’m not optimistic about the referendum. Has anyone been doing exit polls? It’s still possible (long shot :p) that the weighting everyone is doing has been wildly inaccurate, I guess…

I was told by my local councilor he felt that to many people are cheating the benefit system, not bad for a bloke who spent twelve years on the dole and then JSA before he got a job on the council.

He felt disabled people tend to put it on a lot.

So I voted Plaid Cymru , thats the first time I’ve not voted Labour in 47 years.

And I voted Yes for AV and I only did that because they had a bloke out side the polling both saying vote no…..

I used my first ever vote (except the Labour leadership election) and voted yes to AV today. Sadly there’s no local elections in Cornwall but was still good to get out there and exercise my rights!

I voted Yes and Labour, and turn out was pathetic. Only person in the building, and they had had about 5 people come in since the morning (I went in at 3pm) Ridiculous.

Londoner so no election today.

Got to a stage where I didn’t really want to vote for either option in the referendum. Both campaigns were utterly vapid and no case of any substance was made either way.

In the end decided that if we have to have a crap system for electing MPs, I should vote for the one that might bring down the coalition and save the NHS from the dispicable reform bill. (it isn’t even in the coalition deal so what’s the Lib Dem excuse for it?)

As such I voted no.

Rumours are that the Lib Dems have lost both Liverpool and Sheffield.

Liverpool was already lost, Bradley’s outbursts combined with what his son said was the nail in the coffin there. Sheffield is different, and it’ll be a shame given how well they’ve run the place.

Bradley needs to disappear into the annals of history very very quickly.

Interesting if the Lib Dems take a big hit in Manchester and Liverpool. These are two Labour councils that have had huge central government funding cuts – and have translated these into huge public service cuts at local level. Both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have accused these two Labour councils of failing to protect frontline services, and even deliberately cutting as much as possible to make the government seem worse. If the Lib Dems are taking a big hit in Manchester and Liverpool, clearly this argument they and the Tories have been advancing has had no impact at all.

Interesting that it sounds as though the Lib Dem vote has held up a little in the south but collapsed in the north.

Would signal a very strong shift towards them becoming the liberal party again. With no social democratic base in the north, and their strength remaining only in the right-leaning south – clegg can probably drop all that oiky social democrat stuff now.

Of course about half his MPs will see that differently. They will be looking at losing their jobs in four years if they don’t change direction.

Chaminda

That argument is always a weak one. We have the same thing in East London. We have many of the poorest councils in England – all of them are Labour – and no one but a few SWP bods are blaming anyone but the tories (blue or yellow) for what’s happening.

To be fair, that’s partly because labour councils have made so much effort to work with unions to minimise the hit – while everyone knows Labour Councils have had far more money taken from them than leafy Tory areas.

I voted yes to AV. And voted Labour for the first time ever. This is one former left wing Lib Dem supporter. I would have considered voting Green but no candidate was standing.

Just thinking about England, leaving the disastrous Labour performance in the Holyrood election out of this for the moment:

The logic of a referendum vote to retain the FPTP system, alongside the collapse in support for the LibDems, is towards the return of pure two party politics in England, but in a more geographically polarised form than was ever seen in the 50s/60s.

After tonight we are heading towards many Northern England councils with pretty much 100% of the seats to Labour, 0% to LibDems and Tories. Meanwhile, across much of the South, 100% of the seats to Tory, 0% to Labour & LibDem.

That’s what you get when you vote to keep FPTP.

Meanwhile, with FPTP in the bag, Cameron will now embark on removing 50 seats from the Commons by redrawing the boundaries, mostly by reducing the number of seats in Scotland, Wales, Northern England and Inner London.

Translated into the next Westminster election in England we are looking at a economically hammered, rock solid Labour North squaring up against a solidly blue South of England, with fewer seats in the North and more in the South than before.

The LibDems are totally and utterly finished as a political force, outside Cornwall and Shetland.

The next General Election election battleground will be a small number of marginals in the Midlands and Outer London.

Labour has two options: fight the corner for the suffering North, risking turning off the voters in the South/Midlands marginals, or bank its support in the North (on the nowhere else to go basis) and make its entire pitch to the Middle England swing voter. The logic of this will be to purge the Labour left and turn to people like Mandelson and James Purnell for your strategic advice on how to market Labour. I’m sure Mandelson’s advice would be to ensure that Labour utterly eliminates the LibDems before turning its attention to eliminating the Labour left and focusing everything on the marginal voter.

For me, a depressing prospect. But this is what you get when you completely fuck up your one shot at any kind of electoral reform.

@54

I quite agree. The Labourites and left wingers who voted against AV are the biggest idiots on the planet. I sincerely hope they’re thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Here’s a reality check folks. Rejecting AV won’t make PR more likely. We’ll be stuck with FPTP for decades now.

Fools!!

I voted Labour and Yes, I changed my mind just a couple of days ago. ‘Yes’ had been my original instinct – but I was quite swayed by some of the ‘No’ arguments – and then an exchange on a blog tipped me back to ‘Yes’. I also did a spell as a ‘Teller’ which was quite fun – and so can report that in my Cambridge ward the polling station was pretty busy between 5 and 7.

I’m pleased that Labour has picked up seats and councils, but frankly the electorate have absolutely disgraced themselves – the way that the Tory vote has held up so well is just appalling.

@32 Watchman

“Why would a party committed to voting reform through referenda (not just imposed) implode over a referendum on voting reform not going the way they want.”

Because it’s flagship policy, and the one (perhaps the only?) major benefit of entering the Coalition, i.e. Electoral Reform has been scuppered by the toxic effect of the crash in LD support, and the fact that the electorate are pretty sickened by the “love-in” aspect of the relationship.

There are already calls from within the LD’s for Clegg to resign (which is hardly likely)… but Huhne and Farron are already sharpening their knives as we speak.

You come across as rather naive if you think the only reaction of local LD parties to yesterdays blood bath is “it’s a fair cop, that’s democracy for you”! Sounds like many LD’s have already resigned themselves for dimishing into a classical Liberal fringe party…. which is exactly what the electorate are turning you into. Good!

Sadly it looks like those who are junior coalition partners are getting whacked. In my area Plaid has lost the seat because the person in the seat decided to come out with, I’m not saying we would not go into coalition with the Tories, this in an area in which the Tories have destroyed the Town under Thatcher, that alone lost her seat, these people I’m sure do not sit and think.

But the SNP has been good for Scotland I do not think Scottish Labour are strong enough, they are to close to New Labour, while Labour in Wales have called them selves Welsh Labour not new just Labour. Seems it’s worked.

Shocking dearth of coverage on here of the Scottish and Welsh elections, Sunny (a thread entitled local elections and referendum slights the devolved legislatures,surely).
Hugely significant, especially in Scotland: Lab’s poor,poor showing doesn’t bode at all well for the party’s hopes in Westminster, and shows how complacent cronyism in Scottish Labour, and an inability to connect (being still too neo-liberal,insufficiently left-of-centre, still too craven towards London) may well cost Miliband in Westminster terms, as many have predicted on here.
The LibDem meltdown is as expected, but at least some solace can be taken that the Tories haven’t really flourished.
@ strategist (54)

The logic of this will be to purge the Labour left and turn to people like Mandelson and James Purnell for your strategic advice on how to market Labour. I’m sure Mandelson’s advice would be to ensure that Labour utterly eliminates the LibDems before turning its attention to eliminating the Labour left and focusing everything on the marginal voter.

Please, that is the stuff of nightmares. I fear your analysis is otherwise correct though. England will become a duopoly between the Tories in the South and with an inbuilt majority, and a weak, Tory-lite, Purnellian/Mandelsonian Labour party surviving only because of a lack of alternatives (unlike in Scotland), and continuing to estrange ‘traditional/core’ Labour voters as they chase floaters.

Why do I feel ill every time somebody mentions Purnell?

@60

Agreed. I actually found myself agreeing with William Hague (oh the shame of it!!) in as much as he pointed out that the Tories did much better in local elections under his leadership in opposition at a similar stage, and still went on to lose heavily.

The Labour result in Scotland is a nightmare for them locally, but also raises significant questions about the Union itself medium to long term, and also for the Labour party more generally. People aren’t convinced that Labour have changed, and they are consigning the LD’s to the fringes; the only person with a smile on his face is Cameron.

These are deeply, deeply depressing results.

The SNP results suggest more appetite for traditional Labour values. The Scots are lucky to have an alternative to Labour. I hope Miliband is taking note and listing whom to purge to finally rid the party of New Labour and its stinking legacy.

@55

Yours is sadly the sort of attitude that has pervaded the whole referendum, and that pervades too much of British politics nowadays.

People vote because their preferences, analysis and priorities differ.

Lack of respect for plurality of opinion is a lack of respect for democracy.

Cherub

I think the Scottish result vindicates Ed Miliband’s long term aim of making Labour more liberal in outlook.

In Scotland the leadership there basically ignored that agenda entirely and the SNP attracted most of the defecting Lib Dem support. Labour’s vote held up – it wasn’t a collapse – they just didn’t attract a lot of new voters and the SNP did.

In England the party make up is different – but efforts to win round Lib Dems have paid dividends (Labour’s vote is up on the last election by around the same as the lib dem vote is down)

The stunning election results in Scotland show that the time has at last arrived for the launch of the London Independence Party (LIP).

For a map showing how taxpayers resident in London and the south-east were subsidising public spending in the rest of Britain:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416323-details/The+REAL+north-south+divide:+South-East+is+'bankrolling'+Britain/article.do

Meanwhile, Cameron is best advised to bring the troops quickly back home, especially the special forces, in case they are needed oop north.

For those who inadvertently missed that hilarious Ealing comedy: Passport to Pimlico (1049) the first time round, try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQYLDde0-Yg

Yes – it really was like that in 1949.

well its quite depressing that everything is going back to normal. Tory rule with brief intermissions of Labour rule. Thought we were on to something then. Oh well, back to the drawing board. 2015, Tory Victory, with Labour increasing their share of the vote at the expense of the LibDems, who will bugger off back to the lower reaches of the teens.

@63 cherub

“The SNP results suggest more appetite for traditional Labour values.”

I think it is more nuamced than that; much of the increase in SNP support came from disaffected LD’s, who were hardly likely to be representative of those with an appetite for traditional Labour values. They also took support from Labour directly however, which must be deeply worrying for Scottish Labour, but also Milliband et al.

We should expect to see a re-branding of Labour in Scotland to distance themselves from the UK party. Interestingly, the Scottish results also show that a minority administration can be relatively successful (I wonder if some in the Tories are now waking up to the fact…?), and can be used as a springboard for future success, whilst the SNP have overcome the “hurdle” of a proportional system designed to make one party rule difficult, to gain an outright majority in Scotland, whereas the FPTP system in the UK as a whole has produced a Coalition.

We live in interesting times, as the old Chinese curse says.

I’m pleased that Labour has picked up seats and councils, but frankly the electorate have absolutely disgraced themselves – the way that the Tory vote has held up so well is just appalling.

This is exactly right. How dare the electorate have different opinions from us?

@66 Bob B

You need to wean yourself off the (frankly boring) habit of regurgitating gobbets of half-digested crap from the google mines Bob. You appear to be totally incapabable of formulating any original comment or analysis of your own.

Do you seriously expect anyone to take something from that august journal as proof of how hard done by London is? It is to laugh.

It is just as arguable that the SE benefits disproprtionately from the centralisation of government, all the departments, and the spending that goes with them, as well as subsidising the millions of commuters. As someone points out in the comments to the link you have posted, Scotland also generated the second highest taxes paid figure after the SE, and spends around the same amount. It’s the ENGLISH regions that are much more heavily subsidised.

The SNP are well on the road to gaining more economic powers, unemployment there is falling, and they seem to be able to balance their budget. What are you all going to complain about if they have fiscal (even if not political) independence?

Gues what, the UK has rich regions and poor regions, just like anywhere else… get over it.

I voted yes to AV because you should always do what the tory scum least want you to do.

Ah sally, it was a double-bluff! Now whaddyagonnado?

Hmm… I think it may have just dawned on me what argument the Yes campaign *should* have been making.

It looks like the SNP are about to win a majority at Holyrood. If they go on to hold and win a referendum on Scottish independence, doesn’t FPTP mean we’re virtually guaranteed to have a perpetual Tory government at Westminster?

Oops.

@72 G.O.

An intersting point. The SNP result may have greater significance than the short term satisfaction of seeing the nauseating Scottish Labour dinosaurs getting the overdue kicking they so richly deserved.

Perhaps now UK Labour might see the advantages of “proper” electoral reform? I won’t be holding my breath however.

What IS more likely however is that the SNP will use their majority, the personal popularity of Alex Salmond, and their ability to play the “it was all the fault of those bastards in Westminster” card, to gradually build up support for outright independence. That may still be some way off…but in the meantime, more powers for Holyrood, fiscal independence, and the train wreck nature of our national political scene… will all work to the SNP’s advantage.

Look at the electoral map in Scotland now.. it’s turning SNP yellow, even in areas previously beyond SNP reach like Edinburgh and Glasgow.

The worst thing the “English” establishment can do is start attacking the SNP, or trotting out the fallacious “subsidy junkie” mantra. The Scots have voted for a national party, and if it does represent the next step towards independence, how does the left in England cope without the prospect of all those previously safe Scottish Labour seats?

Waking up this morning and looking at the results has proved quite interesting. For the first time in my life I have finally managed to elect a candidate to power. The SNP have won my constituency.

Again from reading the chicken bones it appears that the Lib Dem support have had a look and decided, on masse, that they don’t like what they are seeing and emigrated to the SNP. The LD’s really paid the electoral price for getting into bed with the Tories, they must surely have known that when they wrote the coalition agreement, they were consigning a lot of their MSPS to the dustbin. Significantly, the Tory vote held up pretty well so no honour among thieves, eh? The AV bowl of potash looks rather sickly this morning, eh?

To be fair to the SNP, I do not detect a significant move towards Scottish Nationalism, I genuinely think that Salmond’s quiet efficiency where he has delivered a broadly Centre Left agenda, even given the constraints of working in a minority Government has impressed a lot of people. Few voters turned up to the polling booth in complete ‘Braveheart’ mode, no-one is suggesting that an independence referendum would be a shoe in now or even long term, I think people voted on a good record in Government, rather than an excuse to don the face paint.

The Labour Party’s campaign was a total shambles over the last three or four weeks. Again, they did not have a clue regarding strategy here. The scare tactics of yesteryear impressed no-one and they really need to get a coherent message together.

This result really exposes the huge dilemma for the Party Nationally. It appears that they can only win seats down South by appealing to the ‘I am alright Jack’ tendency, yet that plays badly here. New Labour’s message has been reject on the doorstep here as traditionally ‘Labour values’ have been placed on the top of the political agenda.

Nationally, I think we all saw much of what we expected. The Tories, more or less held their ground, with the Lib Dems taking a battering. I think that was to be expected. After all is said and done, the Tory Party are scum, as anyone who watched Question time last night would have to admit. They voted for CUTS, CUTS, CUTS, right reason or none and they are getting what it says on the tin. Your ‘average’ Lib Dem supporter expects more and I believe they saw through the ideological nature of the cuts.

Again, stealing wheelchairs and kicking walking sticks away may appeal to the greed element, but among decent people, I think that strategy is wearing thin. Unlike Scotland, the Lib Dems Left wing has no natural Social Democratic bolthole. I wonder how many people stuck with them out of sheer bloody mindedness?

Hmm… I think it may have just dawned on me what argument the Yes campaign *should* have been making.

It looks like the SNP are about to win a majority at Holyrood. If they go on to hold and win a referendum on Scottish independence, doesn’t FPTP mean we’re virtually guaranteed to have a perpetual Tory government at Westminster?

Yes, the problem with the Yes campaign was that it didn’t focus enough on the intererests of the centre-left. It should have been far more metropolitan, Islingtonite political elite based.

Galen10,

Expect Mr Cameron to offer Mr Salmond the possibility of calling an independence referendum soom time soon perhaps? It would be the most sensible way for Westminster to deal with the issue (I also would expect it to fail, but considering my predictions on northern Liberal Democrat vote shares holding up better than expected, probably not a judgement worth listening to – its a good job I don’t put money behind my predictions at times).

It is worth noting that if there was a breakup of the union, the Conservative majority would only last as long as there was no alternative that appealed to enough people to overturn it; in effect English Labour would have to adapt and change.

Tim J,

Yes, the problem with the Yes campaign was that it didn’t focus enough on the intererests of the centre-left. It should have been far more metropolitan, Islingtonite political elite based.

I think the problem was surely that the No campaign disagreed with them and presented alternative versions of the facts (‘lies’) – an honest campaign would surely have agreed with everything Yes said…

Mind you, the Yes campaign was so bad at making its case that even if No had accepted everything was as Yes said, then I’d still expect the population to vote no. If you want change you have to explain why, not assume people (who are naturally conservative) are just going to jump on it.

@76 Watchman

I’m not altogether sure, but I don’t know if it is in Mr Cameron’s gift to graciously allow it… I think it’s something a majority party in Holyrood can do themselves. Even were that not “technically” correct, I think it would be all kinds of wrong for an “English” PM to tell the Scots they can or can’t have a referendum, no?

Polls consistently show support for independence between 25-33% in Scotland, so Alex will be in no hurry. The fact that many Scots who don’t support independence voted SNP (many for the first time it seems) must be worrying for those who want to preserve the Union. If his party carry on doing a decent job, and delivering on enough of their promises, that figure may rise; it would not after all take a huge % to switch support for independence to seem like a viable option.

Like you, I’m not convinced there would be a permanent Tory majority in a UK without Scottish MP’s… but it might be a tad uncomfortable for the left for a while until things re-aligned.

. Although I have a fairly jaundiced view of politics, I was pleased to see Kenny Macaskill being re-elected. Nice to that the Scottish electorate have enough faith in our legal system, even if the rest of Poodles at Westminster don’t. When you consider all the back biting and ‘Yabooery’ that goes on, at least we in Scotland still vote for people with integrity.

@70: “You need to wean yourself off the (frankly boring) habit of regurgitating gobbets of half-digested crap from the google mines Bob. You appear to be totally incapabable of formulating any original comment or analysis of your own.”

*snigger*…*snort*…*snigger*….tee-hee…bwahahahaha! (Sorry, Bob; but Galen gotcha. Now see below…)

Subsidising less well-off regions is the price that London, the SE and the East pay for being in a currency union with the rest of the UK. Dismantling that currency union would almost certainly be to London’s disadvantage. (Off topic: compare and contrast the Euro-zone, out of which Brown (for all his faults and errors) kept the UK.)

That said, Scotland is in a very different position to the English regions. To put it crudely, the SNP has bribed the electorate with fiscal transfers from England. Scotland’s economy is over-reliant on the public sector – with the public sector reaching an amazing 74% of GDP in (for example) Ayrshire. And with the now almost inevitable revision of the Barnett Formula, and the subsequent granting of limited tax-raising powers to the Scottish Parliament, Scottish taxpayers (who are a minority of the Scottish population and are mainly public-sector workers) will have to find another £4-5bn. Things will get interesting north of the border…

Galen10 @ 78

Perhaps we bold seeing a nascent resurgence in Scot’s Nationalism, though? To be fair, Scottish Nationalism didn’t really feature in the campaign, or, if it did then I did not see it, but if we are seeing further polarisation of ‘Left/Right’ politics in England, I wonder if that would facilitate a move toward independence on purely pragmatic grounds? I think it is fair to say that Labour needs Scotland far, far more than Scotland needs Labour and if the British Labour Party and the ‘Left’ in England are about to both implode and fragment, then perhaps full impendence is really the only way to go.

The Labour Party and the likes of George Galloway (from both inside and outside the movement) have been pushing this ‘Scotland as subsidy junkies’ line for cynical reasons. I wonderif that has backfired?

Paul Ilc @ 80

Unfortunately, that is complete bollocks. You people have had this explained to you repeatedly, but you appear unwilling to accept some pretty basic facts, why is that? From where I am sitting, it looks like dumb arrogance and an over inflated sense of self worth.

Tesco, to use one example, is fairly ubiquitous throughout the Nation. They are making huge profits throughout the British Isles and pay tax on those profits. However, that tax is paid in the South East of England. Why is tax on profits made in Inverness counted as being made inside the M25? Can you think of a logical reason why anyone would count all those profits as being made in the South East of England?

Why do you people constantly make this glaring mistake? Can you explain why that is?

Why is tax on profits made in Inverness counted as being made inside the M25? Can you think of a logical reason why anyone would count all those profits as being made in the South East of England?

Because Tesco’s head office is located in the South East of England. Can you think of a logical reason why that might be?

This cuts both ways of course: even though the majority of RBS’s business is carried out in London, its profits are all registered as being made inside Edinburgh. Well, they were that is, back when it was profitable.

Galen,

I’m not altogether sure, but I don’t know if it is in Mr Cameron’s gift to graciously allow it… I think it’s something a majority party in Holyrood can do themselves. Even were that not “technically” correct, I think it would be all kinds of wrong for an “English” PM to tell the Scots they can or can’t have a referendum, no?

There is an obvious case for self-determination by unilaterally declared referendum, indeed, but that would be a quite risky move for Mr Salmond, in that it increases the stakes. I think that it is likely that a possible decoupling of the union would probably be best done through the existing system though – it fits with the reasonable image Mr Salmond tries to portray.

And there is no English PM – the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland happens to be English, but is not prime minister of England alone…

@70 Galen10: “Gues what, the UK has rich regions and poor regions, just like anywhere else… get over it.”

Naturally, I’m ever so sad that you don’t approve of my googling when I find it a really invaluable research tool for dispelling myths and illusions. Perhaps that’s why some so dislike those who use it.

Try this from a few years back about Nick Clegg’s (affluent) constituency in Sheffield

The group found people in the south of England still enjoyed higher salaries than those in the north of England and Wales. But when living costs were factored in to reach an assessment of standards of living, then the North-South divide closed markedly. In total 24 of the 50 areas with the highest living standards were north of the line between the Severn and the Wash. The highest placed northern area was Tatton in Cheshire, which came third. Other parts of the North to make it into the top ten included Sheffield Hallam, Altringham and Sale. [December 2005]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4509604.stm

But try this from Oxford Economic Forecasting just before the financial crisis broke with that run on Northern Rock in the autumn of 2007:

“As in previous years, the analysis shows that it is only the wider South East (Greater London, the South East and the Eastern Region) that made a positive net contribution to the UK public finances in 2006-07, with the Northern regions, the Midlands and the South West joining Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as a net drain on the Exchequer.”
http://www.oef.com/Free/pdfs/ukmpubfinfeat(jul).pdf

Two years ago, we had headlines like this: London hardest hit in recession [January 2009]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7828405.stm

But now, house prices are in decline in all regions apart from London:
http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2011/05/05/house-prices-level-but-downward-pressures-loom/

The obvious question is why are London house prices more buoyant than in other parts of Britain?

Tim J @ 83

Yes, I accept that its head office is in North London, however, that does not answer the question. The ‘head office’ is in London and the tax is collected from everywhere in the Nation, but Paul and now you is suggesting that because the profit (and taxed) is collected in London it can be somehow counted as being ‘earned’ in London, when clearly it is not the case. This money is earned from every Tesco and associated business in the Country. To use that revenue and the revenue collected from thousands of other business to suggest that ‘London’ (or anywhere else for that matter) subsidises the rest of the Country is palpable nonsense.

This cuts both ways of course

Of course it does, that makes the point. For anyone to suggest that one part of the Country automatically subsidies another is plain shite. I, for example, pay income tax in an English tax centre because the company I work for is located in England. That is no biggie either way because I am not an ‘English’ tax payer, I am a British tax payer. However, when we attempt to roust up this debate, I would in theory be described as an ‘English’ taxpayer. Clearly that is rubbish because I live and work in Scotland, despite a quirk of where a head office happens to be located. My ego does not need massaged into convincing myself that I am subsidising any other region directly, I am paying my fair share of tax. The only people I am subsidising are those people who use loopholes to avoid paying their tax.

When we do a ‘tax paid per head of population’, my tax contribution will clearly be assessed at where my head office is and not where I work or where the profits are made, merely where they are registered. The idea that money spent in Inverness is actually being earned in North London is clearly idiotic and hardly worth a serious debate, yet for some reason the Tories constantly drag this up.

Why? What is it you are getting from that? Is it merely a desire to feed an inate sense of superiority?

Jim @ 82: “Unfortunately, that is complete bollocks”.

I’m afraid not. The effect of company HQs in the SE could be more than outweighed by entrepreneurial activity in Scotland, if it existed — as in East Anglia, for example. Unfortunately, it doesn’t; and that is the problem.

Many Scots have sunk into benefit-dependency and subsidy-addiction. The ‘dinosaur’ (to quote Galen) left inScotland has managed to displace entrepreneurial activity with state jobs (which in excess suck up and displace talent and initiative).

I’m all for taking due care of the weak and unfortunate — a minimalist state is not what I seek — but Scotland has gone far too far in the wrong direction. I’m also not against regional transfers within an established currency union like the sterling area. But an independent Scotland would either have to change asap or soon sink into third world living standards.

Paul Ilc @ 88

I’m afraid not. The effect of company HQs in the SE could be more than outweighed by entrepreneurial activity in Scotland, if it existed

Fucking hell, try and grasp this simple point. You cannot simply ‘wish away’ the results of company HQ from your equation. Taking a number of unrelated data sets, size of population and nominal tax raised within that boundary and then make a feeble attempt to extrapolate some sort guide to entrepreneurial spirit is just plain stupid.

There are plenty of businesses in Scotland, large and small, thriving, getting along and struggling. Sole traders, multi nationals and every other kind of business model you can think off and probably more than you cannot conceive, either.

Again try and grasp a simple concept: just because you cannot possibly conceive that business can exist outside London does not mean they don’t.

Just because you are too thick to understand that creating an average from two unrelated figures points to precisely nothing does not mean the rest of us are equally so blinded.

Just because you cannot imagine that money spent by the ‘British taxpayer’ in London, yet is counted as ‘British spending’ does not mean the rest of cannot either.

Go and do som REAL, actual research instead of just looking for what you want to see. Look at where the Government ACTUALLY spends in London for example, nit just the money ascribed to London, for example. Either that, or just stick to your pathetic Tory lies,

Let’s face it, the impelling motivation for the Act of Union in 1707 between England, Wales and Scotland was because Scotland was totally broke as the result of the ill-fated Darien venture intended to establish Scotland as a major colonial power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

Even then, there was the Caledonian Canal venture in the early 19th century, a huge infrastructure project for the time which was useless because by the time it was finally completed commercial ships had mostly become too large to make use of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal

That experience prompted Nathanial Rothschilds to memorably say: “There are three ways to ruin: gambling, women, and engineers. The first two are more agreeable — but the last is most certain.”
http://www.hbs.edu/bhr/archives/bookreviews/81/pspagnoli.pdf

Recall what happened to those Scottish banks: RBS and HBOS, which had to be bailed out by British taxpayers. So much for all that funny stuff about turning Edinburgh into a major financial centre. Btw whatever happened to Silicon Glenn, for which hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money was handed out in grants to attract inward investment – to IBM, NEC, Motorola etc.

I, for example, pay income tax in an English tax centre because the company I work for is located in England.

Only if you also live and work in England, in which case it seems reasonable that you are taxed there. If you work in Scotland, for an English owned company your tax contributions will be calculated based on where you work, not where company head office is. It’s only corporation tax that would then be calculated based on head office location. Not income tax, not NI contributions etc etc.

When we do a ‘tax paid per head of population’, my tax contribution will clearly be assessed at where my head office is and not where I work or where the profits are made, merely where they are registered.

Nope, for the reasons given above. I think you’re getting confused…

The idea that money spent in Inverness is actually being earned in North London is clearly idiotic and hardly worth a serious debate.</blockquote.

Well, quite.

@87 paul ilc

Pretty weak stuff as Jim points out; in the end, if the Scots vote for independence it will be for a whole range of reasons. Economics will play an important part of course, but the idea that Scotland as a nation couldn’t make a go if it, or would somehow be less successful than other small nations in the EU is just plain daft.

Yesterday’s results may be start of something significant, in as much as Scots of various political hues realise that the best way out of the mess we are all currently in might be more powers for the devolved Scottish parliament, and ultimately full independence. More and more Scots are voting SNP not because they are tub thumping nationalists, or because they have a Braveheart complex; they see the SNP as more fully representing their particular national interests better than any of the other “British” parties, as having delivered on more of their promises in government, and made a pretty good job of their minority administration.

Of course, the fact that the opposition from Labour was dire has helped, but bear in mind the LD collapse, the failure of the Tories to make any impact, and the fact that even the Greens failed to make the expected gains.

I’ve long been of the view that it would actually be a good thing for England and Wales too of course… it’s about time you started to face up to your own problems, and stopped blaming the feckless subsidy junkies up North for the broader systemic issues afflicting the nation as a whole.

@ 89 Bob

Seriously..the best you can do is wikiquotes about the Darien adventure 300 years ago?

I wonder where Scotland would be now if all the oil revenues from the Scottish secto hadn’t been frittered away in the 70′s and 80′s…..probably about all that kept the country afloat.

Jim @ 88:

You are generating more heat than light.

I’m not “wishing away” the results of company HQ at all. Rather, if you read what I wrote, I’m comparing GDP per capita figures for East Anglia with GDP per capita figures for Scotland. East Anglia, which probably as a whole has fewer company HQs than Edinburgh alone, has a higher GDP per capita than Scotland…

Why? Well, here are my speculations, in no particular order:

1. Proximity to London? Apart from Cambridge, the region is quite remote from London; but this could be part of the story, even if it takes longer to get to London from parts of Suffolk and Norfolk than it does from Glasgow or Edinburgh.

2. Subsidies, EU/UK? No, East Anglia generally does not qualify; but Scotland…?

3. Governance? East Anglia is enterprise-friendly (with Lib/Lab/Con councils all promoting wealth-creation). In Scotland….?

4. Proximity to the continent? Possibly; but if the price + transport is right, location does not matter to the buyer (cf Japan).

@92: “I wonder where Scotland would be now if all the oil revenues from the Scottish secto hadn’t been frittered away in the 70?s and 80?s…..probably about all that kept the country afloat.”

It’s highly arguable how much of North Sea oil and gas are/were in Scottish territory.

For a dispassionate, non-partisan assessment of the performance of Britain’s economy during the 1980s, try: Charles Bean and Nicholas Crafts: British economic growth since 1945 – relative economic decline . . and renaissance?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wiTtnUn5qGsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA131&dq=britain+economic+decline&ots=s96LdNmYi5&sig=pHRSwIZyfWvyArYLi3G-pmdn89w#v=onepage&q=britain%20economic%20decline&f=false

Charles Bean is now deputy governor of the BoE and Nick Crafts is widely regarded as Britain’s foremost economic historian. The chapter linked is in Crafts and Toniolo (eds) Economic Growth in Europe Since 1945 (Cambridge UP). Table 6.1 shows that Britain’s economic performance 1979-89 improved relative to other European countries.

“During Margaret Thatcher’s premiership public spending grew in real terms by an average of 1.1% a year, while during John Major’s premiership it grew by an average of 2.4% a year.”
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/05ebn2.pdf

As Kinnock remarked in the 1992 election campaign, government expenditure as a percentage of Britain’s GDP was then about the same as it had been in May 1979 when Mrs Thatcher was elected as PM.

@ 94 Bob

“It’s highly arguable how much of North Sea oil and gas are/were in Scottish territory.”

No, it really isn’t. Having worked in the industry it is an area I know something about. The large majority of the reserves are in what would become the Scottish sector; some of the more southerly oil fields and gas fields would be in the “English” sector. A lot of these reserves are pretty well expoited now – it is likely that the biggest remaining reserves are in the Northern North Sea and west of Shetland in deep water… again, all in the putative Scottish sector.

Galen10 @91:

I have no particular problem with the SNP (except, as someone with two Scottish great-grandfathers, I do not – apparently – qualify as Scots in the SNP’s book, which strikes me as a little ‘racist’; but let that pass…SNP or BNP, nationalist parties are frankly creepy in my book.).

If Scotland votes for independence, I will wish you all ‘bon voyage’. England and Scotland will still share many cultural inheritances; and the countries will always be very close, given the numerous family and cultural bonds. But, at this distance, I doubt the Scots will vote for independence – and for many reasons too numerous to discuss here.

Given the UK’s current economic structure, most of the regions depend on fiscal transfers from the south-east. Scotland is one of those. As such, Scotland benefits from the redistributed tax-take from the SE. In the short-medium term, that is not going to change. An independent Scotland would have to raise taxes hugely to satisfy its population’s appetite for hand-outs (such as free prescriptions, no-fees university education, etc) previously financed by the UK as a whole. However, less than 2.5m people in Scotland pay any tax — and most of those are public sector workers!

So where is Scotland’s wealth going to appear from? (Btw, oil – now largely exhausted – is a curse — see the Gulf states.) Only by new businesses and entrepreneurship. And culturally, institutionally and economically, Scotland seems to discourage — do provide counter-evidence of incentives to wealth-creation?? — all these.

Jim’s arguments are the “weak stuff” — not mine.

Tim J @ 90

I think you do not understand. If I have a query about my tax (the tax code, for example) I am given the number of a tax office that deals with our head office. That tax office is in England. As my wages are paid from my company’s bank account, the PAYE is dealt with in Sheffield (if I remember correctly). Had we a regional office in Scotland and the payroll deducted here, then we would have a Scottish tax office.

So, when we count the net contributions, region by region, my tax is counted as revenue from Yorkshire, becuse that is the office that the payroll taxes are removed from.

@95:

That doesn’t make any logical response to the case made @89 and @94 regardless of the territory argument.

You really are clueless. No wonder you hate the use of google to retrieve research.

As Orwell memorably put that slogan of the party in Oceania in 1984: Ignorance is strength.

The financial collapse of the two major banks in Scotland – RBS and HBOS in 2008 – was during the New Labour government and had absolutely nothing to do with the Thatcher governments of the 1980s. Nor can Thatcher be blamed for the failure of the Darien project, which led to the Act of Union 1707 because Scotland was totally broke, or the ridiculous Caledonian Canal project in the early 1800s.

Hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money were handed out in grants to attract the inward investment for Silicon Glenn – and look what has happened to all that.

On the hard evidence from history, the Scots have repeatedly demonstrated a total incapacity to make sensible business decisions – which is probably what drove the likes of Andrew Carnegie and Thomas Watson to emigrate.

Jim @ 97:

Your point is pathetic…When I ring my banks, the call centres are in Glasgow (and interpreters are unavailable! *joke*). The banks that hold my savings have registered offices in Edinburgh….FFS, don’t be so parochial.

The point is that the contribution of company HQs and public sector bodies to regional GDP can be outweighed very, very easily by private sector activity. Look at East Anglia (and see above)….

Too much public sector investment crowds out private sector initiative – by absorbing the talent, by raising local taxes… The knack is to get the balance right. Once the public sector contribution to GDP, nationally or regionally, remains on average above 40% over a budget cycle, then, as a rule of thumb, problems and distortions will soon occur. Scotland is well over that limit, I believe; and the UK, as a whole, is still above that average.

*********************

Perhaps you believe in ‘socialism’. If you do, then either:

(a) you believe in a fantasy economic system that does not exist, has never existed, and has failed catastrophically wherever it has been tried;

or :

(b) like me, you believe in managing capitalism.

If (b), then either:

(i) you accept capitalism as a system, and you seek to maximise the minimum

or:

(ii) you cling emotionally to (a) — while perhaps half-believing in (i)

@ 96 paul ilc

There’s nothing creepy about it; much as it suits some people to play the “nationalism = racism” card, it doesn’t really hold water in this case. You wouldn’t qualify for a vote because you don’t live in Scotland, and you weren’t born there. Any current UK citizen living in Scotland would have a vote in a future independence referendum. If independence happened, they would presumably have the option not to take up Scottish citizenship in the same way as say a French citizen here today.

I wouldn’t have a vote, as I live in England… but I would be eligible for a Scottish passport, as would my daughter who was born in Scotland.

Seems the opposite of racist if you ask me…… but don’t let the facts over-ride a good sound bite eh?

@98

My response @ 95 remains unanswered, because you are in the wrong; at least have the good grace to admit it?

As I’ve frequently told you in the past, google mining =/= research, and quoting one or a few cut and paste sources does not represent some knowck out blow that your half baked arguments are correct.

The problem with your generally vapid google vomitus is that it is generally only tangentially related to the issue at hand. Darien was 300 years ago FFS!

Paul @ 99

Er, what the fuck are you talking about? Are you able to follow the point being made to Tim J? The tax office I deal with just happens to be in England, because that is where the payroll is done, that’s all. Nothing wrong in that, no-one demanding they move to Scotland or anything to get on your high horse about. The point being that when we come to tax take of Yorkshire, it will mean that me and the rest of the staff where I work will have been judged to contributed to Yorkshire, not Scotland, which makes any comparisons between regions a waste of time.

Of course, this is time you are wasting rather than doing any actual meaningful research on the number of Scottish firms that contribute to the British economy and tax revenues. But that is going to happen because that would require you to give up your sad little fantasises and actually learn the truth, eh?

“Scotland is one of those.”

Hmmm. I didn;t think it was. I know Wales and much of the north of england are subsidised by the south east, but I thought it was about even for scotland. Where did you get the figures from?

@ 98 Bob B

I think you’ll find the figure is around 90%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Scotland's_oil

“It could be argued that there is no definitive ‘Scottish’ sector of the North Sea in the same way there is a Norwegian sector or a Danish sector, or indeed a UK sector. However due to the existence of two separate legal systems in Great Britain — that of Scots law pertaining to Scotland and English law pertaining to England and Wales, constitutional law in the United Kingdom has provided for the division of the UK sector of the North Sea into specific Scottish and English components. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law meaning that 90% of the UK’s oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland.This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits.

Jim @ 102:

“The point being that when we come to tax take of Yorkshire, it will mean that me and the rest of the staff where I work will have been judged to contributed to Yorkshire, not Scotland, which makes any comparisons between regions a waste of time.”

Yes; presumably it will. But, as it is balanced out by other public sector bodies in Scotland, and what remains of the private sector in Scotland, your point is not valid. Yes, as almost every economist will advise you, comparisons between regions are not a waste of time, providing the they are appropriately qualified.

@104:

But the territorial argument about North Sea Oil and Gas is only one aspect of the argument. It doesn’t deal with the continuing historic business ineptitude of the Scots over centuries through to the present, with the financial collapse of the big Scottish banks in 2008 – RBS and HBOS – which had to be bailed out by British taxpayers. That can’t all be blamed on Thatcher. You really are clueless.

The fact is that relative to its peers in western Europe, the performance of the British economy improved during the 1980s, whereas it had lagged in previous decades – as that chp.@94 by Bean and Crafts shows. The whole point of the book in which that chapter appears was to assess the post-war growth performance of W European economies.

A collection of papers like that by highly rated academics has to withstand much robust criticism. No wonder you don’t approve of high-powered research like that being retrieved and cited with links. Ignorance is strength.

And none of that relates to the debacle over Silicon Glenn – which cost taxpayers hundreds of millions in grants to attract inward investment that has evaporated.

planeshift @ 103:

certainly, not once you strip out the declining reserves of oil and gas – which up the GDP of some eastern areas of Scotland. Oil/gas is a curse, preventing development (cf the Gulf states). Most of the rest of Scotland is grossly subsidy-dependent.

I doubt an independent Scotland could afford free prescriptions, for example. Living standards would soon plummet following independence… but, hey, why should I care that much? Here in England, taxes could be lowered; or services could be improved. And, following the (deluded) hope of that great economic guru, Alec Salmond, Scotland could join that arc of prosperity from Ireland to Iceland! (Shurely shome mishtake? Ed..)

@ 106 Bob B.

Bob, you’ve been owned. You claimed (totally erroneously) that there was debate about whether the oil reserves were in what would be a putative Scottish sector. there IS no debate, except in your head, as is evidenced from the sources in the link I provided (not that even these were actually necessary to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of geography, or eyes to look at a map).

That was the issue at question, which you have (yet again) failed to acknowledge you got wrong. Given the hard time you seem to have with facts, it is hard to take much of what you say seriously.

The rest of your post is so much huffing and puffing about how feckless the scots are: yeah, yeah… very convincing, because you can cite one source in your defence…! If your apologia wasn’t so weak it would be comic.

@108: “The rest of your post is so much huffing and puffing about how feckless the scots are: yeah, yeah… very convincing, because you can cite one source in your defence…! ”

Just how many sources do you need on the failed Darien venture, which brought the Act of Union in 1707 because Scotland was broke and had to be rescued, the ridiculous Calledonian Canal project or the financial collapse of RBS and HBOS? And whatever happened with Silicon Glenn?

Ignorance is strength.

@ 107 paul ilc

It’s an old debate, and your narrative only gives one side (surprise, surprise!) that the Scots (and indeed the English North and SW and N. Ireland) are all feckless subsidy junkies. It ain’t necessarily so, just because you read it once or twice.

For every study you can read or cite about how Scotland could never survive alone, there will be another that proves the opposite. there is ample evidence that it is the SE of England that is subsidised… strange that people like you never acknowledge it?

Scotland is at least as able to cope on it’s own as many other states: probably a good deal better set up than some others. There is plenty of oil and gas still to come…but that isn’t what anyone is depending on.

Go and do a google trawl (Bob. B can probably help… that’s all he ever seems to do after all!!) and you’ll find plenty of pieces refuting your views both of Scotland’s prospects and how much oil is left.

@ Bob 109

You freak! I don’t NEED a history lesson from you, least of all about Scottish history. Are you so demented that you think the Darien disaster, and a canal project hundreds of years ago somehow give you a “slam dunk” answer about Scotland being a basket case.

Please get a life…

The argument over North Sea oil is an irellevance to the future of Scotland. The dabate is 30 years too late.

Why?..

Because what no-one has acnowledged is that production of North Sea oil peaked in 1999 and has been in rapid decline ever since. If Scotland became independent now it would merely inherit the fag end of the oil boom. Hardly a secure basis for the future.

http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/learning-to-live-without-north-sea-oil

The Lib Dems sold out the cause of electoral reform by accepting a referendum on AV. Now idiots and charlatans across the land will claim that this rejection of a system virtually identical to FPTP means there’s no appetite for electoral reform.

93. paul ilc

Jim @ 88:

You are generating more heat than light.

” I’m not “wishing away” the results of company HQ at all. Rather, if you read what I wrote, I’m comparing GDP per capita figures for East Anglia with GDP per capita figures for Scotland. East Anglia, which probably as a whole has fewer company HQs than Edinburgh alone, has a higher GDP per capita than Scotland…”

I think you will find East Anglia is behind Scotland in terms of GDP per capita. Outside of London and the South East the Scottish GDP per capita is the highest in the UK. As is the employment level.

There is one FTSE 100 company based in that entrepreneurial hotspot of East Anglia. Seven in Scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_GDP_per_capita

” However, less than 2.5m people in Scotland pay any tax — and most of those are public sector workers! ”

Since when did one quarter count as most?

Time for some more made up facts and talking points.

For official figures, released in December 2010, on Gross Value Added per capita in UK regions, try this:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/gva1210.pdf

London is way ahead of anywhere else.

Oh no not this old chestnut again. The south east is the most subsidised area of the UK. But a lot of it is hidden subsidy that does not appear on the per capita lists. For example, where is the home of the British army? South east of England. Where is the home of the Royal navy? South east of England. Where are the big RAF bases? South east of England. All those little private business in Aldershot and Portsmouth who take the serviceman’s shilling are all indirectly subsidised by the state. And that does not take into account the London based ministries , The ministry of defence with all those Air Vice Marshals ,and admirals. They all have to be paid, and they all have to live in the south east so their wives can shop at Harrods and be close for Wimbledon and Ascot.

And the South West is not much beeter. Agriculture and defence are some of the biggest employers, and just think of all those subsidies in farming and arms. In fact the tory voter lives of the state.

@109 Bob B: “And whatever happened with Silicon Glenn?”

Like Wayne County and the Electric Chairs, public attention diminished after the boob job. Political and public concern for transgender rights (just living your own life) fell away. My best wishes to Jayne (formerly Wayne).

With regard to Silicon Glen, remember that it was an economic experiment. Give grants to companies to establish business and they will transform the local economy. Is that a joke?

Three companies stand out in my memory: IBM chip manufacture, IBM PC assembly and Rodime hard disk (manufacture and design). Shortly after the economic benefits were removed, IBM shifted everything out of Scotland. Rodime went bust for many reasons.

Telecom invention in the UK often occurs around Newmarket and Cambridge. There are lots of companies and thinkers there. They fail or succeed dependent on making useful products.

@116: “Oh no not this old chestnut again. The south east is the most subsidised area of the UK. ”

That’s rubbish. Oxford Economic Forecasting take account of identifiable public spending in the regions and compare tax revenues generated in the regions.
http://www.oef.com/Free/pdfs/ukmpubfinfeat(jul).pdf

Of the civil service:

“civil servants work in an enormous variety of roles. We employ 479,000 civil servants, almost three-quarters of whom work outside London and the south-east.”
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/index.aspx

If you want to make an issue, go on about the concentration of high-rolling bankers and financial services professionals in the City.

Try this, just published (really) in Krugman, Obstfeld, Melitz: International Economics (Pearson 2011): “In April 1989, the average total value of global foreign exchange trading was close to $600 billions per day. A total of $184 billion was traded daily in London, $115 billion in New York, and $111 billion in Tokyo. Twenty-one years later, in April 2010, the daily global value of foreign exchange trading had jumped to around $4 trillion. A total of $1.85 trillion was traded daily in Britain, $904 billion in the United States, and $312 billion in Japan.” [p.355]

As the financial crisis broke in 2007, London was challenging New York as the leading global financial centre. It’s not subsidies that create London’s affluence but raw capitalism. That is what generates all those tax revenues which finance public spending in other regions – and what explains why New Labour were so loathe to regulate banking and financial services, to hike the taxes paid by the high rollers or to curb the tax breaks for wealthy ex-pats living here – which mostly means living in London because of its amenities. The estimated population of metropolitian London is 12 to 14 millions, by far the largest in the EU.

Bob B @ 118

That’s rubbish. Oxford Economic Forecasting take account of identifiable public spending in the regions and compare tax revenues generated in the regions.

Come on though, Bob, you know that is not strictly true. You know full well that ‘identifiable’ spending is a basic catchall. There is a lot of public spending that goes on in London that is actually attributed to the ‘entire Nation’. You simply cannot ignore that.

@119:

London is the capital city but the salaries of public servants in London are verging on the trivial compared with financial and business services professionals who are picking up annual bonuses of several millions. That is what generates those buoyant tax revenues – not the salaries of public servants. Verging on three-quarters of the civil service work outside London and the south east. Only some 18% work in London and that is down to about 12% working in central London. It’s a complete myth about all those civil servants working in London.

The tax revenue generating capacity of financial services is why the Scots were so enthusiastic about creating a financial services centre in Edinburgh and its scale by European standards was significant. And then RBS and HBOS went and shot themselves in the proverbial. It will be hugely difficult to re-establish the credibility of Edinburgh as a financial services centre when there were no comparable failings in City institutions. The trouble is that the bad reputation gained by the Scottish banks rubs off on others – in 2008 I told my bank manager that acquiring HBOS was not a good idea but he didn’t listen !

118. Bob B

“civil servants work in an enormous variety of roles. We employ 479,000 civil servants, almost three-quarters of whom work outside London and the south-east. ”

The posts that are devolved away from London tend to be moderately paying back office staff. Almost the entire high-earning senior civil servant posts are centralised in London. Why can’t the MOD be based in Liverpool and the Foreign Office in Newcastle, rather than in London? Organisations like M15 and M16 are based in London for no good reason. They are not counted as London public spending but they should be identified to London. The BBC are trying to devolve themselves more but they still have a London and SE spending bias that is not counted as a public subsidy. However, it is a public spending subsidy to London and the SE. Same thing with all the national museums and art galleries that are situated in London. Every penny of public spending that is spent on them is spent in London. Although, it is identified as for the whole nation.

@121: “The posts that are devolved away from London tend to be moderately paying back office staff”

C’mon. I’ve had two close colleagues who went on promotion to posts in the regions – whereas I came from the regions to work in London.

The ONS was shifted out to Newport – the BoE expressed concerns about maintaining the reliability of official statistics because so many senior statisticians in the ONS chose to resign from the civil service rather than make the move and went to work in the City at better salaries instead.

“Almost the entire high-earning senior civil servant posts are centralised in London. ”

That’s not so and civil service salaries are small change compared with salaries and bonuses in financial services institutions in the City. There are many officials in local government earning more than civil servants.

“the Foreign Office in Newcastle, rather than in London? Organisations like M15 and M16 are based in London for no good reason. ”

Foreign embassies are located in London and London has long been a regular haunt for all sorts of spies, political dissidents and asylum seekers – Lenin came here about six times before WW1. MI5 and MI6 couldn’t keep track of all that movement from some regional outposts.

Large chunks of some departments have been moved out of London – like the Department of Health to Leeds and Sheffield, the Health and Safety Exec in Sheffield, the Audit Commission (which is to be abolished) in Bristol etc. There are tax offices, with tax inspectors, around the country. The BoE has regional offices.

Besides all that, the fact is that there are many seminars and research and academic resources of special interest to civil servants which are not out there in the regions. Seminars are a hugely effective way of keeping up to date and meeting people with shared interests.

No one is disputing that civil service jobs have been relocated. However, nearly all the higher Mandarin class are based in London. The whole point is that there is huge public spending that the Treasury labels miscellaneous expenditure and is not identified to a specific region that just so happens to benefit London and the South East. Where incidentally are the Treasury and the BoE and their civil servants based? London weighting allowance is a public subsidy. What about the huge transport subsidies where London and the South East benefit? The huge sums of public money that went into developing London docklands that was not counted. If the Foreign Office must be in London count their entire budget as public spending on London and the South East.

All the MOD civil servants who are based in London and the South East should be counted as public spending in London. One could go on forever with numerous examples. A public school that has charitable status and is not taxed as a business is receiving a subsidy and so are those who pay for its service. Those areas with more public schools by definition are receiving more subsidy. An area where more people are claiming a tax allowance for private medicine is receiving a subsidy that is not counted.

Been busy today, and exhausted, so slightly confused.

How did a thread about local election results and the referendum turn into something about where the Govt spends the most money and where the civil service employs the most people?

This may or may not be important (I can’t see why it even came up, but that’s sleep deprivation for you) but it’s in no way relevent to the very mixed results.

Last year, my candidate got 1000+ votes and was in a hair’s breadth of the Tories. This year, I got 200 votes, and Labour came from nowhere to nearly take the ward. Much higher turnout than normal, and I know our votes mostly went to the Independent not Labour.

Turnout is the key, always. Differential turnout seems to matter a lot more than traditional psephology takes into account, definitely needs more research.

@123:

But all that evades the essential point that civil service salaries are small change compared with City salaries and bonuses and it’s those with the taxable profits of financial services institutions in the City which generate the hugely buoyant tax revenues of the London region. Also, 100 of Europe’s largest 500 companies have head offices in London.

Median earnings in the civil service are actually lower than national median earnings. There are remarkably few mandarins in the civil service – the total of the first division of the civil service is only 18,000, and that figure includes everybody regardless of where they work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_(trade_union)

As with moving parts of the BBC to Salford, the effect of moving chunks of the civil service out of London is that a percentage simply resign and find another job, often at better pay, so experience and tacit knowledge are lost.

The fixation with moving the civil service around – which I’ve often encountered – just dodges the more important challenge of improving productivity and competitiveness of manufacturing and services outside London and the south east.