Independence Referendum

[Teacake]

Also , the poll last night had No in front in Glasgow by something like 51-38 which is pretty much against what anyone would tell you is the reality.

[Ironside]

The entire region surrounding the conurbation covers about 2.3 million people, 41% of Scotland's population

thanks. If thats running at 50% plus Yes (which sort of makes sense ) there are some deeply sceptical areas in the North and South then

its a reason why I posted a week or so again what difference will it make to me if I am governed by London or Glasgow (despite the parliament being in Edinburgh) as any government would be looking to the voters in the Glasgow area as there is where they need to win to get into power

[OverTheBorder]

The entire region surrounding the conurbation covers about 2.3 million people, 41% of Scotland's population

thanks. If thats running at 50% plus Yes (which sort of makes sense ) there are some deeply sceptical areas in the North and South then

its a reason why I posted a week or so again what difference will it make to me if I am governed by London or Glasgow (despite the parliament being in Edinburgh) as any government would be looking to the voters in the Glasgow area as there is where they need to win to get into power

Also historically lowest turn out though. Parts of Glasgow below 50%, I think glasgow north East was lowest turnout in the country last 2 elections

[Kmac84]

Salmond Letter to Cameron. 

[Ironside]

Salmond Letter to Cameron. 

LMAO as if the SNP haven't been doing exactly the same

[Kmac84]

The entire region surrounding the conurbation covers about 2.3 million people, 41% of Scotland's population

thanks. If thats running at 50% plus Yes (which sort of makes sense ) there are some deeply sceptical areas in the North and South then

its a reason why I posted a week or so again what difference will it make to me if I am governed by London or Glasgow (despite the parliament being in Edinburgh) as any government would be looking to the voters in the Glasgow area as there is where they need to win to get into power

Also historically lowest turn out though. Parts of Glasgow below 50%, I think glasgow north East was lowest turnout in the country last 2 elections

What elections Holyrood or Westminister?

If Westminister this would be explained by this parasite having an almost free run at it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Martin,_Baron_Martin_of_Springburn I think only the SNP stood against him.  

Also engagement in Glasgow North East is literally zero with politicians, I have seen Willie Bain twice, once before his election and once with BT literature that he was chased out the street with.  

In addition to that in parts of the North East there are large contingents of immigrants/asylum seekers who are housed but would have no idea about the politics.  That has all changed this time round.  

[Kmac84]

Salmond Letter to Cameron. 

LMAO as if the SNP haven't been doing exactly the same

Evidence that they have been involved in leeking market sensitive information?

[Ironside]

Salmond Letter to Cameron. 

LMAO as if the SNP haven't been doing exactly the same

Evidence that they have been involved in leeking market sensitive information?

sorry where was the leak of anything other than confirmation that they were having talks?

all sides are having talks with all businesses I have friends who have one man and a dog businesses who are being asked to come out by both sides

all the rest is just salmonella's waffle 

[OverTheBorder]

The entire region surrounding the conurbation covers about 2.3 million people, 41% of Scotland's population

thanks. If thats running at 50% plus Yes (which sort of makes sense ) there are some deeply sceptical areas in the North and South then

its a reason why I posted a week or so again what difference will it make to me if I am governed by London or Glasgow (despite the parliament being in Edinburgh) as any government would be looking to the voters in the Glasgow area as there is where they need to win to get into power

Also historically lowest turn out though. Parts of Glasgow below 50%, I think glasgow north East was lowest turnout in the country last 2 elections

What elections Holyrood or Westminister?

If Westminister this would be explained by this parasite having an almost free run at it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Martin,_Baron_Martin_of_Springburn I think only the SNP stood against him.  

Also engagement in Glasgow North East is literally zero with politicians, I have seen Willie Bain twice, once before his election and once with BT literature that he was chased out the street with.  

In addition to that in parts of the North East there are large contingents of immigrants/asylum seekers who are housed but would have no idea about the politics.  That has all changed this time round.  

It is from 2005 and 2010 General Elections.  Seems a reasonable source.  The voting will increase country wide significantly but I would expect broadly proportionate increases, with some exceptions.  If you think you are going to get from 45% and 49% to meet the National average, you will be on a hiding to nothing.  I do not think that needs refuted or challenged.  Nor is it a slight on your campaign just general commentary as to why having support in Glasgow may not have as markable a national poll impact as one may expect.

[Doobs]

Salmond Letter to Cameron. 

LMAO as if the SNP haven't been doing exactly the same

Evidence that they have been involved in leeking market sensitive information?

Who are "they?  It seems a bit of a leap from a "treasury source" leaking some information about RBS to the BBC to all the things Salmond accuses David Cameron of doing.  But then again though that letter was written to David Cameron, he isn't the intended audience.

[Kmac84]

The entire region surrounding the conurbation covers about 2.3 million people, 41% of Scotland's population

thanks. If thats running at 50% plus Yes (which sort of makes sense ) there are some deeply sceptical areas in the North and South then

its a reason why I posted a week or so again what difference will it make to me if I am governed by London or Glasgow (despite the parliament being in Edinburgh) as any government would be looking to the voters in the Glasgow area as there is where they need to win to get into power

Also historically lowest turn out though. Parts of Glasgow below 50%, I think glasgow north East was lowest turnout in the country last 2 elections

What elections Holyrood or Westminister?

If Westminister this would be explained by this parasite having an almost free run at it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Martin,_Baron_Martin_of_Springburn I think only the SNP stood against him.  

Also engagement in Glasgow North East is literally zero with politicians, I have seen Willie Bain twice, once before his election and once with BT literature that he was chased out the street with.  

In addition to that in parts of the North East there are large contingents of immigrants/asylum seekers who are housed but would have no idea about the politics.  That has all changed this time round.  

It is from 2005 and 2010 General Elections.  Seems a reasonable source.  The voting will increase country wide significantly but I would expect broadly proportionate increases, with some exceptions.  If you think you are going to get from 45% and 49% to meet the National average, you will be on a hiding to nothing.  I do not think that needs refuted or challenged.  Nor is it a slight on your campaign just general commentary as to why having support in Glasgow may not have as markable a national poll impact as one may expect.

What you setting the line at?

We have done lots of work in the whole of Glasgow but particularly the North East/East and Southside.  I would expect the turn out in areas like Easterhouse, Parkhead, Shettleston, Royston, Springburn, Barmulloch, Govanhill, etc to be way up on any general election figure.  I think also it is very dangerous to use GE figures when weighing up the referendum.

[Eck]

"The Governor noted that £15bn would be at the 'upper end of the range' that Scotland might reasonably inherit as reserves. Scotland would need a multiple of that.

Can you please explain something to me (genuine question apologies if it is a daft question):

If Scotland are to expect £15bn as their fare share of the reserves of the BOE and for a country our size a lender of last resort would need c£150bn (sure I read that as a number somewhere) due to the size of our GDP. Does this mean that the BOE reserves are currently far too little going by the same criteria for the UK or are we not getting our fair share?

i hadn't seen the £150bn figure but it must be close because of the size of the Scottish banks balance sheets, generally reckoned to be 10-15x Scottish GDP

that's consistent with Carney quoting a £15bn figure for reserves pro-rata from GDP

So the BOE isn't undercapitalised, and Scotland wouldn't be short-changed, its just there is a huge mismatch between the size (liabilities) of the Scottish banks relative to their GDP

H Q the banks in England, with BOE as lender of last resort and Scotland's reserves can be lower

if Carney is saying beyond this that Scotland will need more than any post-yes deal will apportion them, then this has to come from higher taxes and/or lower spending, both of which you'd think would be anathema to a left leaning independent Scotland. l

so i would expect the post yes negotiatiing team to push for the highest reserve figure from ther BOE they can get

I think it is separate from that, because he also says it applies to other countries that shadow a currency other than Scotland.

I assume they are expected to hold more as they have no control over the currency they are shadowing they are expected to hold more reserves by the markets.  There is a non zero additional risk with Scottish debt that Scotland will meet problems because it's economy won't behave the same as rUK that isn't there with rUK sterling issues of debt.  

If they didn't hold these then I expect the interest rate the markets charge on any debt would be correspondingly higher.  

This is all guess work and I am not party to the reasoning.

Just back in, cheers. typed out another long question as wasn't getting it but re-read and makes sense now.

So we would only need the £150bn of reserves if the banks were to actually stay registered in Scotland (which obviously looks like they will be moving that risk to England).

But we would probably need more in relation to our GDP v rUK as a risk premium given the potential uncertainty and lack of control in any currency union/sterlingisation arrangement (therefore some form of mulitplier on the £15bn)?

That sound about right?

[OverTheBorder]

Who the fuck let George Galloway talk to our kids!!!  I have to despair.

[Doobs]

"The Governor noted that £15bn would be at the 'upper end of the range' that Scotland might reasonably inherit as reserves. Scotland would need a multiple of that.

Can you please explain something to me (genuine question apologies if it is a daft question):

If Scotland are to expect £15bn as their fare share of the reserves of the BOE and for a country our size a lender of last resort would need c£150bn (sure I read that as a number somewhere) due to the size of our GDP. Does this mean that the BOE reserves are currently far too little going by the same criteria for the UK or are we not getting our fair share?

i hadn't seen the £150bn figure but it must be close because of the size of the Scottish banks balance sheets, generally reckoned to be 10-15x Scottish GDP

that's consistent with Carney quoting a £15bn figure for reserves pro-rata from GDP

So the BOE isn't undercapitalised, and Scotland wouldn't be short-changed, its just there is a huge mismatch between the size (liabilities) of the Scottish banks relative to their GDP

H Q the banks in England, with BOE as lender of last resort and Scotland's reserves can be lower

if Carney is saying beyond this that Scotland will need more than any post-yes deal will apportion them, then this has to come from higher taxes and/or lower spending, both of which you'd think would be anathema to a left leaning independent Scotland. l

so i would expect the post yes negotiatiing team to push for the highest reserve figure from ther BOE they can get

I think it is separate from that, because he also says it applies to other countries that shadow a currency other than Scotland.

I assume they are expected to hold more as they have no control over the currency they are shadowing they are expected to hold more reserves by the markets.  There is a non zero additional risk with Scottish debt that Scotland will meet problems because it's economy won't behave the same as rUK that isn't there with rUK sterling issues of debt.  

If they didn't hold these then I expect the interest rate the markets charge on any debt would be correspondingly higher.  

This is all guess work and I am not party to the reasoning.

Just back in, cheers. typed out another long question as wasn't getting it but re-read and makes sense now.

So we would only need the £150bn of reserves if the banks were to actually stay registered in Scotland (which obviously looks like they will be moving that risk to England).

But we would probably need more in relation to our GDP v rUK as a risk premium given the potential uncertainty and lack of control in any currency union/sterlingisation arrangement (therefore some form of mulitplier on the £15bn)?

That sound about right?

That is how I read it.  £150 bn is clearly excessive.  I haven't got a real handle, but I am guessing something like £30bn on country comparisions.  A lot of this is going to depend on how Salmond is perceived by the markets and what his real plans are when the split happens.  

[Kmac84]

Who the fuck let George Galloway talk to our kids!!!  I have to despair.

The #RapeApologist is to Socialism what Hitler was to international relations.