Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Things you'd never hear in a US political campaign: Please stop sending us money   (theguardian.com) divider line 27
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

1043 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Aug 2014 at 6:38 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-13 05:51:40 PM  
I'm still not clear on why they're turning down donations.
 
2014-08-13 06:43:36 PM  
Wasn't a good portion of Obama's election campaign fund from tiny small donations?
 
2014-08-13 06:54:43 PM  
Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom!

www.handmadescotcheggs.co.uk
 
2014-08-13 07:03:51 PM  

fusillade762: I'm still not clear on why they're turning down donations.


They have apparently been receiving small donations.  Political parties in the UK have (or can have) what is called a "Freepost" address, to which mail can be sent free of charge by the sender.  The tab gets picked up by the receiving party.  It is likely that the size of the donations, once factoring processing costs (someone has to open the envelopes) and postage, is minuscule or even negative.  They probably don't want to have to deal with short-term hiring that may not last just to secure a few thousand pounds in donations.  My understanding is that the "Better Together" campaign is rather well funded, as many business interests in Scotland have a large number of English clients, and are lobbying hard to prevent an exit from the UK.  This is definitely true of asset management firms such as Aberdeen, Alliance, and SWIP, which are based in Scotland, but do the vast majority of their domestic business in England, London particularly.  I'm not sure about other industries, as I've only really been following asset management.  Some Scottish firms have quietly opened branches in London as a precaution, but stood on the sidelines publicly, since taking either side promises nearly 50% backlash.  CEOs and other executives, however, have privately funded the campaign.
 
2014-08-13 07:04:54 PM  

fusillade762: I'm still not clear on why they're turning down donations.


Britain tends to have short campaigns and pretty strict laws with regard to campaigning compared to the US.  For such a focused issue, I could see an organization having already pulled in more money than they could conceivably use, and not wanting to deal with overages.
 
2014-08-13 07:06:53 PM  
I am an atheist!
 
2014-08-13 07:08:02 PM  

fusillade762: I'm still not clear on why they're turning down donations.


The politicians involved can't spend it on themselves and just about everyhting the campaigns need is already paid for. It probably creates an accounting headache as unspent money would have to be returned.

baronbloodbath: Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom!

[www.handmadescotcheggs.co.uk image 500x500]


Indeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeependanceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eeeee.......without responsibility.
 
2014-08-13 07:09:08 PM  
Nemosomen:Political parties in the UK have (or can have) what is called a "Freepost" address, to which mail can be sent free of charge by the sender.  The tab gets picked up by the receiving party.

My apologies for not including an example.   https://twitter.com/MsLGrant/status/460172394674810880/photo/1

pbs.twimg.com
 
2014-08-13 07:14:56 PM  

Nemosomen: Nemosomen:Political parties in the UK have (or can have) what is called a "Freepost" address, to which mail can be sent free of charge by the sender.  The tab gets picked up by the receiving party.

My apologies for not including an example.   https://twitter.com/MsLGrant/status/460172394674810880/photo/1

[pbs.twimg.com image 599x448]


Tqir Gut: is that in Cornwall?
 
2014-08-13 07:20:31 PM  

phalamir: Tqir Gut: is that in Cornwall?


I believe that's TQ12 6UT, just a postal code of some sort, I believe, based on how postal addresses tend to work in the Western world.  American here, I only follow global politics in cases where it is amusing.
 
2014-08-13 07:22:02 PM  
How likely is it that Scotland will become independent? I wasn't aware that it was even possible for a country to leave the UK.
 
2014-08-13 07:29:50 PM  

Cyclometh: How likely is it that Scotland will become independent? I wasn't aware that it was even possible for a country to leave the UK.

Not likley the no vote has been consistently ahead in the polls an on you gov polls (usually one of the more reliable ones) has the no vote consistently above 50% as well. Main problem for the yes side is the economy and the fact they really haven't got any plans except they will keep the pound and expect rest of the UK will bail them out

as lender of last resort and by setting financial policy beneficial to Scotland even if it isn't beneficial to the rest of the UK. Obviously that is all complete bollocks and most have seen through it..
 
2014-08-13 07:35:52 PM  

Nemosomen: Nemosomen:Political parties in the UK have (or can have) what is called a "Freepost" address, to which mail can be sent free of charge by the sender.  The tab gets picked up by the receiving party.

My apologies for not including an example.   https://twitter.com/MsLGrant/status/460172394674810880/photo/1

[pbs.twimg.com image 599x448]


That is genius. I'm donating that old CRT in my garage to UKIP tomorrow.
 
2014-08-13 07:53:39 PM  
"Wow, so, uh, we told you we'd make bohener pee his pants on live TV and you sent 3.1 million dollars; we're going to get right on that. We're good now, thanks for the assist y'all"

it would be endearing.
 
2014-08-13 08:25:07 PM  

Nemosomen: phalamir: Tqir Gut: is that in Cornwall?

I believe that's TQ12 6UT, just a postal code of some sort, I believe, based on how postal addresses tend to work in the Western world.  American here, I only follow global politics in cases where it is amusing.


Dude, I was just snarking n Cornwall.
 
2014-08-13 08:34:38 PM  

fusillade762: I'm still not clear on why they're turning down donations.


There is a maximum they are allowed to spend during the campaign. £1.5m.

As this is a one-off, there would be no continuing political organisation or future campaigns to receive or spend the money later.

Also of course - it is a fark-you-this-is-going-to-be-a-walkover to the Yes campaign.

I am something of a reluctant expert on the topic and am happy to take questions from former colonies. I will be voting No.
 
2014-08-13 08:35:09 PM  

Cyclometh: How likely is it that Scotland will become independent? I wasn't aware that it was even possible for a country to leave the UK.


Well, considering most of the Empire has left, and even most of Ireland has left, it would be hard to deny leaving is impossible.  Plus, technically Scotland entered into the agreement freely.  The reality is more that it freely entered into the agreement while England put a gun to its head, but on paper it was an equitable convergence of happiness and rainbow-masturbating unicorns.    So England would have a hard time claiming it had a right to force Scotland to remain.

Now, practically, if Scotland would like to not become the Greece of Northwest Europe it stays put.  It just relies upon England/UK too much for its economic well-being (which, as-is, is rather shaky even with southern help).  Historically, the English are well known as obsessive, vindictive coonts, so the idea that England wouldn't stand by and gleefully watch Scotland burn -  and then wander in and burn the ashes with nuclear fire for the giggles - is so naive as to constitute prima facie mental illness.
 
2014-08-13 08:40:40 PM  

Cyclometh: How likely is it that Scotland will become independent? I wasn't aware that it was even possible for a country to leave the UK.


Not at all likely. See  http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-indepen d ent-country-1#line  for longitudinal polling data - filterable by company and by excluding Don't Knows. That site is run by an academic colleague of mine.

Poll of polls from last week, excluding undecideds:

No: 57
Yes: 43

Four weeks to go until polling day, and I for one will be glad when this miserable, over-extended, dreary process is over.

It has given me a terrible insight into what it must be like to be subject to the tyranny of a US Presidential campaign. You poor bastiches.

Odds on outcome:  http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-indepen d ence/referendum-outcome

1:10 on for a No.

Apologies for bad formatting - I can't add links or pics on Fark for some reason. Adblocking software on Chrome perhaps?
 
2014-08-13 08:42:39 PM  

phalamir: Cyclometh: How likely is it that Scotland will become independent? I wasn't aware that it was even possible for a country to leave the UK.

Well, considering most of the Empire has left, and even most of Ireland has left, it would be hard to deny leaving is impossible.  Plus, technically Scotland entered into the agreement freely.  The reality is more that it freely entered into the agreement while England put a gun to its head, but on paper it was an equitable convergence of happiness and rainbow-masturbating unicorns.    So England would have a hard time claiming it had a right to force Scotland to remain.

Now, practically, if Scotland would like to not become the Greece of Northwest Europe it stays put.  It just relies upon England/UK too much for its economic well-being (which, as-is, is rather shaky even with southern help).  Historically, the English are well known as obsessive, vindictive coonts, so the idea that England wouldn't stand by and gleefully watch Scotland burn -  and then wander in and burn the ashes with nuclear fire for the giggles - is so naive as to constitute prima facie mental illness.


King James of Scotland became King of England post the death of Elizabeth I. 1603, Union of Crowns.
Act of Union 1707 - after an economic collapse in Scotland thanks to the failure of a colony.
 
2014-08-13 08:46:33 PM  
I should point out that a referendum on independence was the flagship policy of the SNP for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. They have a democratic mandate for it.

Permission to hold the referendum was required from the Westminster Parliament - which is sovereign - and Westminster also got to define the question. That was the moment 90% of the chances for Yes disappeared as it was a single question, Yes/No format.

The majority of opinion is very likely for further devolution of powers, however the UK Govt has effectively said - 'put up or shut up' on all or nothing and it is going to be 'shut up' by quite a distance.
 
2014-08-13 10:29:28 PM  

Cyclometh: How likely is it that Scotland will become independent? I wasn't aware that it was even possible for a country to leave the UK.


Ahem.

www.returntoorder.org
 
2014-08-13 11:45:10 PM  

phalamir: Well, considering most of the Empire has left, and even most of Ireland has left, it would be hard to deny leaving is impossible


Well, obviously there's options like armed revolt. I just meant in the legal sense; usually such mergers don't really have a "I changed my mind" clause. Does the Treaty of Union provide for either party to dissolve the agreement? My quick research doesn't seem to indicate so.
 
2014-08-14 01:52:19 AM  

Cyclometh: phalamir: Well, considering most of the Empire has left, and even most of Ireland has left, it would be hard to deny leaving is impossible

Well, obviously there's options like armed revolt. I just meant in the legal sense; usually such mergers don't really have a "I changed my mind" clause. Does the Treaty of Union provide for either party to dissolve the agreement? My quick research doesn't seem to indicate so.


Actually most of the Empire were let go reasonably peacefully.  I say reasonably because there was violence in several colonies, but most of it was instigated by the British, and the stuff that wasn't was quashed.  I'm hard-pressed to think of a colony outside of the US that successfully kicked the British out through military means (I'm sure there is one, but I can't think of any of the biggies going that way).

There may not be an "out clause", but the only way England could enforce that would be by forcibly occupying Scotland - and let me tell you how well that would go over!  Scotland is ostensibly an equal kingdom in the UK.  It ostensibly joined Great Britain of its own free will.  There is no way England could justify forcing Scottish compliance except through asserting that Scotland is an inferior member of the Union (read: colony).  Such an act would also pretty much declare Wales and Northern Ireland to also not be equal kingdoms, but colonies themselves.  Even when England was burning, murdering, and raping its way around Scotland willy-nilly in the medieval period, it still maintained that Scotland was a separate kingdom. As England itself has long asserted the distinctness of Scotland on Britain, forcing Scotland to stay part of the UK would pretty much turn the established English position on Scotland's distinctiveness on its head.  For England to declare the sheep-shagger kingdoms to be explicitly subservient to England would be a massive head-ache for it.  Everyone knows the English have the most pull in the UK (you would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not see that), but there is this polite legal fiction that the other three kingdoms are each equal to it and the others.  Turning that into a "bow before your English masters, Celtic scum!" would be pretty much dynamiting every internal diplomatic action of the last 300+ years.  I don't think it would affect the mechanical running of the UK in any appreciable way, but the social fallout might be, shall we say "bumnpy".  There may not be an explicit "opt out" clause in the Act of Union, but England would be fifty sorts of bumptious stupid to make Scotland stay if the Scots said "fark off!"  Now, the Scots would be twenty sorts of bumptious stupid to actually say that, but England knows it would cause more trouble to force the issue than to just let Scotland burn on its own.

Think of it this way: you browbeat three of your buddies to be your roommates.  You then get them to swear an oath in blood that they will live with you forever (it's college, and you're a failed fratboy; whatevs - just roll with it).  Now, you pay most of the rent, utilities, and groceries.  You even lend them spending money every month.  You make all the actual decisions on how things in the house are run, but you are polite enough to talk with them about decisions - and even incorporate some of their suggestions from time to time.  You even maintain that everyone is an equal partner in the situation to everyone - roommates and neighbors alike.  And your roommates go along with it because the gig is pretty sweet for them financially - and they remember how the "browbeating" involved a rubber hose and taser.  But since then, you have mellowed out and don't mention the taser more than once or twice a year.  Well, come your fifties, one of the roommates decides to leave and get a new place.  You can think it is stupid as hell, but let him go. Or, you can enforce the blood oath, kneecap him, chain him to his bed, and threaten the other two with the same if they get any bright ideas.  So, which of those sounds like the smart choice?


/You could legitimately bring up the USA and CSA as a rebuttal
//I would point out that more and more non-Southerners are wondering about how revered Abraham Lincoln should be for not letting them go.
 
2014-08-14 02:47:10 AM  

phalamir: Cyclometh: How likely is it that Scotland will become independent? I wasn't aware that it was even possible for a country to leave the UK.

Well, considering most of the Empire has left, and even most of Ireland has left, it would be hard to deny leaving is impossible.  Plus, technically Scotland entered into the agreement freely.  The reality is more that it freely entered into the agreement while England put a gun to its head, but on paper it was an equitable convergence of happiness and rainbow-masturbating unicorns.    So England would have a hard time claiming it had a right to force Scotland to remain.

Now, practically, if Scotland would like to not become the Greece of Northwest Europe it stays put.  It just relies upon England/UK too much for its economic well-being (which, as-is, is rather shaky even with southern help).  Historically, the English are well known as obsessive, vindictive coonts, so the idea that England wouldn't stand by and gleefully watch Scotland burn -  and then wander in and burn the ashes with nuclear fire for the giggles - is so naive as to constitute prima facie mental illness.


So it would kinda be like what would happen if Texas seceded from the United States?
 
2014-08-14 08:49:24 AM  
I watched one of the earlier panel debates, and whatever the merits of the independence movement, Alex Salmond is clearly a sleazebag.
 
2014-08-14 09:39:52 AM  

phalamir: ...the sheep-shagger kingdoms...


*snrk*
 
2014-08-14 09:53:09 AM  

fusillade762: I'm still not clear on why they're turning down donations.


My guess - the small amount in donations they're actually getting is of less value to them than the publicity they'll get from articles like this asking people not to donate, particularly as the 'yes' campaign has been trying to portray them as only representing the interests of big business donors. This way, people are left thinking that they're really popular with individuals as well because they're getting more small donations than they can handle.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report