text:
Tag Archives: United Kingdom
Text of Theresa May's statement, Reactions
by Deborah Jones | Comments Off
Britain's Primer Minister Theresa May addresses the country after Britain's election at Downing Street in London, Britain June 9, 2017. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth
LONDON (Reuters) – Prime Minister Theresa May made the following statement in Downing Street on Friday after she lost her majority in a national election:
I have just been to see Her Majesty, the Queen and I will now form a government. A government that can provide certainty and lead Britain forward at this critical time for our country.
This government will guide the country through the crucial Brexit talks that begin in just 10 days and to deliver on the will of the British people by taking the United Kingdom out of the European Union.
It will work to keep our nation safe and secure by delivering the change that I set out following the appalling attacks in Manchester and London.
Cracking down on the ideology of Islamist extremism and all those who support it. And giving the police and the authorities the powers they need to keep our country safe.
The government I lead will put fairness and opportunity at the heart of everything we do. So that we will fulfil the promise of Brexit together and over the next five years build a country in which no one, and no community, is left behind.
A country in which prosperity and opportunity are shared right across this United Kingdom.
What the country needs more than ever is certainty. Having secured the largest number of votes and the greatest number of seats in the general election, it is clear that only the Conservative and Unionist party has the legitimacy and ability to provide that certainty by commanding a majority in the House of Commons.
As we do, we will continue to work with our friends and allies in the Democratic Unionist Party in particular. Our two parties have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years and this gives me the confidence to believe that we will be able to work together in the interests of the whole United Kingdom.
This will allow us to come together as a country and channel our energies towards a successful Brexit deal that works for everyone in this country, securing a new partnership with the EU which guarantees our long term prosperity.
That's what people voted for last June, that's what we will deliver, now let's get to work.
(Reporting by Kate Holton; Editing by Gareth Jones)
Comments from Conservative party members:
Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May arrives on Number 10 Downing Street on the morning after Britain's election in London, June 9, 2017. REUTERS/Hannah McKay
LONDON (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Theresa May lost her parliamentary majority on Friday after a surprisingly poor election performance, throwing her future into doubt.
Below are comments from members of May's Conservative Party on her position:
JACOB REES-MOGG, EUROSCEPTIC LAWMAKER
"I think Mrs May will have a good deal of support. She's only been the leader for under a year, she got it without any opposition, an uncontested election with support up and down the country. I don't think the Conservative Party is so fickle, or such a fair-weather friend as it would not continue to back the prime minister."
ANNA SOUBRY, PRO-EUROPEAN LAWMAKER
"She's in a very difficult place, she's a remarkable and a very talented woman and she doesn't shy from difficult decisions, but she now has to obviously consider her position."
"Theresa did put her mark on this campaign, she takes responsibility as she always does, and I know she will, for the running of the campaign. It was tightly knit group, and it was her group that ran this campaign."
"I'm afraid we ran a pretty dreadful campaign, that's probably me being generous."
"The change of heart on social care … it did not make her look the strong and stable prime minister and leader that she had said that she was. That was a very difficult and very serious blow in terms of her own credibility."
IAIN DUNCAN SMITH, FORMER CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADER
"I just want some stability. She is prime minister, she remains prime minister and the country has to come first."
ED VAIZEY, FORMER CULTURE MINISTER
"I think she can hold on … going into a hung parliament, to lose our prime minister would be disastrous."
"If she wants to stay on as leader I would support her."
JOHN REDWOOD, EUROSCEPTIC LAWMAKER
"A very very strong mandate for our prime minister, and of course it should be the leader with the most seats in the House of Commons who can win the necessary votes, and Theresa May is in that position today."
NICKY MORGAN, FORMER EDUCATION MINISTER
"Theresa May is obviously a competent, more than capable prime minister… but clearly there has been a misjudgement."
"There are two things: having a government prepared to negotiate Brexit, which I think is what most people in this country now agree needs to happen, and what's going to happen to the Conservative party, which is for us to deal with."
(Reporting by William James, Georgina Prodhan and Paul Sandle, editing by Elizabeth Piper)
Trade experts on the election result, Brexit:
By Tom Miles
GENEVA (Reuters) – Britain's new government would be well advised to ask for more time to negotiate Brexit, trade experts said on Friday, as Prime Minister Theresa May's bid to strengthen her bargaining position through a quick election victory fell flat.
Top trade lawyers at a conference in Geneva struggled to digest the election chaos, but said the vast amount of negotiating and the practical job of implementing a trade deal could not be done by the March, 2019 deadline.
"Listening to all of this, the one thing that I am speculating on as I hear it all is the desperate need, I feel, to buy time," said Jennifer Hillman, formerly an appeals judge at the World Trade Organization and legal counsel to the U.S. Trade Representative.
May's parliamentary majority was wiped out in a snap election she had called to strengthen her hand in Brexit talks, throwing Britain into political turmoil.
"It strikes me there's no way, no way at all, that this can be done in the two-year time frame, even leaving aside the outcome of the elections," Hillman said, citing Britain's lack of experienced negotiators and regulators as part of the problem.
Veteran trade litigator Gary Horlick said every question about Brexit generated 10 more, and the need to replace thousands of existing agreements threw up vast practical and logistical issues, some of them relatively trivial.
"Transition is quite possible but someone has to check every single thing," he told the conference, held by the Geneva Graduate Institute and Georgetown University Law Center.
"It's really made for the KPMGs and PriceWaterHouses of the world.
"To illustrate the complexity… there is a British-French-Irish agreement on the free transit of race horses. If you have a race horse this is no small item. The race horse cannot be stuck in customs, believe me, these are very valuable animals."
Holger Hestermeyer, an international dispute resolution expert at King's College London who has advised a committee of Britain's House of Lords on Brexit, said May had been wrong to think she needed a big majority in parliament to negotiate with the EU, and now faced a "very, very tough" situation.
"More time is needed," he said.
"The two years is the transition period. If we would now have a transition period industry could rely on that. But they already have to plan for the worst-case scenario. That time frame is just not enough. I thing prolonging it is possible.
"I just see anyone in the UK having a hard time asking because there seems to be some hesitancy to be regarded as critical of Brexit."
Isabelle Van Damme, a trade lawyer at Van Bael & Bellis who previously worked in chambers at the European Court of Justice, agreed.
"I think an extension is absolutely needed but it needs to be asked now and I don't think there is political capital to do that right now in the United Kingdom," she said.
(Editing by Ed Osmond)
British Election Brings Mayhem, by Jonathan Manthorpe Analysis
British voters have shown Prime Minister Theresa May the door. The implications of this drubbing for the Conservative government are profound, for May as Prime Minister, but with much deeper implications for Britain.
UK Election a Debacle, Brexit Looms, by David Milliken and Kate Holton Report
British Prime Minister Theresa May said she would lead a minority government backed by a small Northern Irish party after she lost an election gamble days before the start of talks on Britain's departure from the European Union.
Facts and Opinions is a boutique journal of reporting and analysis in words and images, without borders. Independent, non-partisan and employee-owned, F&O is funded by our readers. It is ad-free and spam-free, and does not solicit donations from partisan organizations. To continue we require a minimum payment of .27 for one story, or a sustaining donation. Details here; donate below. Thanks for your interest and support.
F&O's CONTENTS page is updated each Saturday. Sign up for emailed announcements of new work on our free FRONTLINES blog; find evidence-based reporting in Reports; commentary, analysis and creative non-fiction in OPINION-FEATURES; and image galleries in PHOTO-ESSAYS. If you value journalism please support F&O, and tell others about us.
Posted in Also tagged Brexit, GEelxn17, Theresa May, UKelxn17 |
UK Election a Debacle, Brexit Looms
By David Milliken and Kate Holton
LONDON (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Theresa May said she would lead a minority government backed by a small Northern Irish party after she lost an election gamble days before the start of talks on Britain's departure from the European Union.
May called the snap election confident her Conservative Party would increase its majority and strengthen her hand in the Brexit talks. Instead, Thursday's vote damaged her authority and made her negotiating position more vulnerable to criticism.
"I'm sorry for all those candidates and hard working party workers who weren't successful," May said on Friday after a surprise resurgence by the main opposition Labour Party under its leftwing leader Jeremy Corbyn.
"As I reflect on the results I will reflect on what we need to do in the future to take the party forward."
With 649 of 650 seats declared, the Conservatives had won 318 seats, the Labour Party had 261 seats, followed by the pro-independence Scottish National Party on 34.
May now risks more opposition to her Brexit plans from inside and outside her party, though a party source said the leading the Conservatives was seen as too much of a poisoned chalice for her to face an immediate challenge.
"She's staying, for now," the source told Reuters.
Just after noon, May was driven the short distance from her official Downing Street residence to Buckingham Palace to ask Queen Elizabeth for permission to form a government – a formality under the British system.
Her office said later that the key finance, foreign, Brexit, interior and defence ministers would remain unchanged. Further announcements were expected on Saturday.
The socially conservative, pro-Brexit Democratic Unionist Party's 10 seats are enough to give the right-wing Conservatives a fragile but workable majority, which May said would allow her to negotiate a successful exit from the EU.
"Our two parties have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years and this gives me the confidence to believe that we will be able to work together in the interests of the whole United Kingdom," May said.
The pound hit an eight-week low against the dollar and its lowest levels in seven months versus the euro before recovering slightly after May said she would form a government backed by her "friends" in the DUP. <GBP=D3> <EURGBP=D3>
BREXIT TIMELINE
However, DUP leader Arlene Foster's initial comments were non-committal: "The prime minister has spoken with me this morning and we will enter discussions with the Conservatives to explore how it may be possible to bring stability to our nation at this time of great challenge."
It was not immediately clear what the DUP's demands might be and one DUP lawmaker suggested support might come vote by vote.
British business, already struggling with the uncertainties of the two-year Brexit negotiating process, urged party leaders to work together.
"The last thing business leaders need is a parliament in paralysis, and the consequences for British businesses and for the UK as an investment destination would be severe," said Stephen Martin, director general of the Institute of Directors business lobby.
May said Brexit talks would begin on June 19 as scheduled, though the election result meant it was unclear whether her plan to take Britain out of the bloc's single market and customs union could still be pursued.
EU leaders expressed fears that May's shock loss of her majority would raise the risk of negotiations failing.
"Do your best to avoid a 'no deal' as result of 'no negotiations'," Donald Tusk, leader of the EU's ruling council, wrote in a tweet.
NEGOTIATION RISKS
"We need a government that can act," EU Budget Commissioner Guenther Oettinger told German broadcaster Deutschlandfunk. "With a weak negotiating partner, there's a danger that the (Brexit) negotiations will turn out badly for both sides."
There was little sympathy for May from some Europeans.
"Yet another own goal, after Cameron now May, will make already complex negotiations even more complicated," tweeted Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian premier who is the European Parliament's point man for the Brexit process.
May's predecessor David Cameron sought to silence eurosceptic fellow Conservatives by calling the referendum on EU membership, expecting Britons to vote to remain. The result ended his career and shocked Europe.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Boerge Brende said the election outcome could mean a less radical split between Britain and the EU.
Ruth Davidson, leader of Conservatives in Scotland, where the party did well, said the results showed that the Conservatives should prioritise good trade relations with the European Union.
"We must in my view seek to deliver an open Brexit, not a closed one, which puts our country's economic growth first," Davidson said. Other Conservatives have emphasised the importance of migration controls, something the EU says is incompatible with open trade.
RESURGENT LABOUR
Labour's Corbyn, revelling in a storming campaign trail performance after pundits had pronounced his Labour Party all but dead, said May should step down and that he wanted to form a minority government.
"The mandate she's got is lost Conservative seats, lost votes, lost support and lost confidence," he said. "I would have thought that's enough to go, actually, and make way for a government that will be truly representative of all of the people of this country."
May unexpectedly called the snap election seven weeks ago, three years early, polls predicting she would massively increase the slim majority she had inherited from Cameron.
Her campaign unravelled after a policy U-turn on care for the elderly, while Corbyn's old-school socialist platform and more impassioned campaigning style won wider support than anyone had foreseen, notably from young voters, say analysts.
Late in the campaign, Britain was hit by two Islamist militant attacks that killed 30 people in Manchester and London, temporarily shifting the focus onto security issues.
That did not help May, who had overseen cuts in police numbers during six years in her previous job as interior minister.
Copyright Reuters 2017
(Additional reporting by Guy Faulconbridge, Elizabeth Piper, William Schomberg, Andy Bruce, Kylie MacLellan, Costas Pitas, William James and Michael Urquhart in London, Elisabeth O'Leary in Edinburgh, Padraic Halpin in Dublin; Writing by Angus MacSwan and Philippa Fletcher; Editing by Jon Boyle)
Text of Theresa May's statement, Reactions Fact Box
Prime Minister Theresa May made the following statement in Downing Street on Friday after she lost her majority in a national election…
Posted in Also tagged Brexit, GEelxn17, UKelxn17 |
British Election Brings Mayhem
British voters have shown Prime Minister Theresa May the door.
Her gamble to call an early election in the expectation of strengthening her Conservative majority in parliament – and thus her clout in upcoming negotiations on the United Kingdom leaving the European Union – failed dramatically.
When the final votes were tallied in the dawn hours of Friday morning the Tories were reduced to a minority of 319 seats in the 650-seat house. May said on Friday she will seek to continue in government, probably with the support of the 10 elected members of the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, traditional allies of the Tories.
The implications of this drubbing for the Conservative government are profound. For May herself, the writing is on the wall. If she does not choose to quit the party leadership and premiership herself, it is a matter of months at the most before the Tory caucus settles on a slate of candidates to supplant her.
For Britain, the results have much deeper implications. The Westminster government is due to start talks in 10 days time with Brussels on the terms of departure from the EU. Key issues are how much Britain is forced to repay the EU in exit fees, what transitional arrangements will be put in place during the two to three years of the exit process, and what, if any, agreements can be reached on future free-trade arrangements.
The election result has weakened dramatically the bargaining position of the British negotiators. Whether the process can keep to the envisaged two-to-three year exit time table and how painful the extraction is now heavily dependant on the generosity, if any is on offer, of the remaining 27 EU members.
Theresa May called the election saying she needed a "strong and stable" majority in parliament with which to confront Brussels. The reality was that she and her advisers saw the Tories had about a 20 point lead in the polls over the main opposition Labour Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn. He, with his unreconstructed left-wing views and apparent lack of anything approaching charisma, was widely dismissed as "unelectable."
May, much to the chagrin of many Tories, called an unnecessary snap election, and she has paid the price.
Corbyn proved to be an effective campaigner, especially among young voters. Labour produced a manifesto that spoke to widespread disenchantment among voters at the grinding austerity measures pursued by successive Conservative governments.
There was also a common determination among people who voted in last year's referendum against leaving the EU. In that vote, 52 per cent voted to leave and 48 per cent remain. Among those remainers is widespread belief and anger that they have been forgotten as the exit process starts. They are upset that Theresa May has opted for a so-called "hard Brexit." This appears to mean no attempts would be made to forge agreements with Brussels on such things as migration, easy movement of labour and free trade before Britain leaves. In tandem with that is anger that the May government has been secretive about its plans and details of the current talks with Brussels.
If the Conservatives hang on to government, the whole atmosphere around the dealings with Brussels will change. The Labour Party is going to have much more influence on the process, simply because of its added authority in the House of Commons. This is likely to result in much more open debate about the negotiations and negotiating positions as they go along.
The election was clearly a referendum on Theresa May's leadership, but it was also a reaction to last year's "Brexit" referendum.
Both the Conservatives and Labour picked up notably larger numbers of votes than they did in the last general election in 2015. But Labour picked up many more than the Tories, and this translated into 26 more seats. A major factor in both parties' growth in support was the virtual disappearance of the United Kingdom Independence Party, whose highly effective campaigning against the EU spooked former Tory prime minister David Cameron to call the referendum last year.
It had been expected that the Tories would gain most from the disappearance of Ukip. However, in Britain's rust belt, the ravaged old industrial areas of the Midlands and northern England, many traditional Labour voters opted for Brexit in the referendum, believing that free immigration under the EU had robbed them of their jobs. With Ukip gone, these people returned to the traditional Labour Party loyalty.
Also, many young people who neglected to vote in the referendum and who felt cheated out of their future by the decision to leave the EU, came out to vote this time. They seem to have gone mainly for Labour.
A notable sidebar to the election was the near collapse of the Scottish National Party. It lost 21 seats, with the Conservatives picking up 12, Labour six and the Liberal Democrats three. In the referendum Scotland voted heavily to remain in the EU, and the victory for Brexit led SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon to demand another vote on Scottish independence. With this result, the prospects of another independence referendum for Scotland have disappeared, for the moment.
The Conservatives now have a major problem picking likely candidates to succeed Theresa May. Several high-profile ministers lost their seats in Thursday's election and there are thus four names on the slate at the moment.
There's the Home Secretary Amber Rudd, who performed well in the campaign, particularly in TV debates. David Davis, the minister responsible for negotiating Brexit, is another. Then there's the Defence Minister Michael Fallon, who is a smooth performer, but perhaps a bit too smooth. Finally, there is Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who campaigned for Brexit, and who could probably have won the leadership in the wake of Cameron's resignation last year had he stood.
Far from bringing stability and certainty to the British political scene and the Brexit process, this election has produced massive uncertainty. Not least of those questions is who will be Prime Minister in a few weeks or months time.
Copyright Jonathan Manthorpe 2017
Contact Jonathan Manthorpe, including for queries about syndication/republishing: jonathan.manthorpe@gmail.com
Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain's opposition Labour Party, and Labour Party candidate Emily Thornberry gesture at a counting centre for Britain's general election in London, June 9, 2017. REUTERS/Darren Staples
Jonathan Manthorpe is the author of "Forbidden Nation: A History of Taiwan." Return to his column page.
Jonathan Manthorpe is a founding columnist with Facts and Opinions and is the author of the journal's International Affairs column. He is the author of "Forbidden Nation: A History of Taiwan," and has been a foreign correspondent and international affairs columnist for nearly 40 years. Manthorpe's nomadic career began in the late 1970s as European Bureau Chief for The Toronto Star, the job that took Ernest Hemingway to Europe in the 1920s. In the mid-1980s Manthorpe became European Correspondent for Southam News. In the following years Manthorpe was sent by Southam News, the internal news agency for Canada's largest group of metropolitan daily newspapers, to be the correspondent in Africa and then Asia. Between postings Manthorpe spent a few years based in Ottawa focusing on intelligence and military affairs, and the United Nations. Since 1998 Manthorpe has been based in Vancouver, but has travelled frequently on assignment to Asia, Europe and Latin America.
Posted in Also tagged Brexit, democracy, UKelxn17 GEelxn17 |
Which Brexit forecast is trustworthy?
By Nauro Campos, Brunel University London
It seems that not a day goes by without another Brexit economic forecast – whether it is one from the Treasury, the OECD or Economists for Brexit. Some say it will cost Britain to leave; others say it will be beneficial to the UK economy.
If a report favours remain, the leave side is quick to criticise it as fear mongering and politically motivated. If it favours Brexit, the remain side is fast to tarnish it as unscientific and politically motivated. So who should we trust? Can we trust any of them at all?
Most of the forecasts estimate what UK income levels would be in 2020 and in 2030. For the sake of comparison, there are three main types of forecasts and we can refer to them by their average headline effects: plus 4%, zero effect and minus 7%.
At one extreme, Economists for Brexit predict that the main economic consequence of Brexit is that UK incomes in 2030 will be about 4% higher.
In the middle, there are various studies that suggest that UK incomes by 2030 will be will be unaffected. In this light, Brexit and/or the UK membership in the EU is pretty much immaterial.
At the other end, various studies (including the Treasury, the LSE, the OECD, and the National Institute for Economic and Social Research reports) indicate substantial losses to the UK economy, of about 7% by 2030.
To be more precise, the Treasury, LSE, OECD and National Institute predict short-term income losses of about 3.6%, 2.6%, 3.3% and 2.3%, respectively, and long-term losses of about 6.2%, 7.5%, 5.1% and 7.8% respectively. The Bank of England and the IMF have spoken about the potential costs of Brexit but have not presented forecasts.
Mind that such apparently small figures can be misleading: as Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman notes in this context "2% is a lot". Plus, these latter group of estimates are also in line with the net benefits the UK historically enjoyed from its membership in the EU which are estimated to be around 8.6% in its first ten years.
Transparency and grounding
So what is the essential difference between all these forecasts? Clearly, there is only one that predicts a positive effect. In the middle ground there are a number of slightly older studies mostly authored by think tanks. Supporting the view that Brexit would entail substantial economic losses, there are quite a few studies.
These forecasts differ in two fundamental ways. They differ in the transparency of their method and the grounding of their key assumptions.
To trust a forecast, it is necessary to know how it is made. If estimates cannot be replicated and if you do not know how to arrive at a certain figure, you have far less reason to trust it. It can be an imaginary or subjective number that an "expert" or a politician likes to think is a good approximation to the future.
It is abundantly clear that studies in the "minus 7%" group are superior to the others in this regard. They provide extensive details of how their figures are arrived at so that, everything else being the same, one can trust them more.
Reasonable assumptions
The second factor that helps make a forecast more trustworthy is the quality of the assumptions it uses. Are these realistic? Are the numbers being used as inputs into the modelling confirmed by previous research? Do they fall within what most people believe is a reasonable range of values?
The three groups of forecasts vary significantly in this regard and a most illustrative example is how the costs of regulation and EU membership are treated. The "minus 7%" group often assumes these to be very small. The "zero effect" studies tend to set the costs of regulation at about the same size of the benefits from EU integration, such that they cancel each other out. This yields a small range of values and may look balanced and serious, but when you consider that these figures do not often come with methodological details, you better be suspicious.
The "plus 4%" study uses costs of regulation that are absurdly large, of the order of 6% of the UK's GDP. The problem is, in the real world, these figures are much smaller – less than a sixth of this is a self-professed "conservative" estimate of Economists for Brexit. Clearly, the larger the costs assigned to EU regulation, the better the Brexit option looks. But this is not grounded in the bulk of research and how they arrive at these large costs is unclear. So this lack of transparency impedes proper judgement of the quality of this assumption.
Argument won
Predicting the future of human actions (and interactions and expectations) is not easy. The leave campaign likes to single out the forecasts made at the time the UK was considering joining the euro. What is seldom mentioned is that nobody at the time of the eurozone's formation expected those within the monetary union to allow large chunks of their currency trade to take place outside of the eurozone. Thanks to a ruling by the European Court of Justice, the UK's membership of the EU is a key reason why euro clearing houses remain in the UK.
The verdict from forecasts that use reasonable assumptions and are transparent about their methodologies is clear: Brexit will make the UK permanently poorer. They draw on lessons from history – including the benefits brought in 1973 when the UK joined the EU – and use the available information to conclude that the expected economic losses from Brexit will be indeed substantial.
But, though the economic argument has been won, this does not mean it will be heeded. The debate is clearly moving on to issues of sovereignty and migration, and, if the past is any guide, is likely to become rather more unpleasant.
Nauro Campos is a Professor of Economics and Finance, Brunel University London. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Posted in Also tagged Brexit, European Union |
Scotland Decided: what the experts say
In its independence referendum, Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom by 55 versus 45 per cent. An expert panel looks at what happened, and where it leaves the UK and Scotland.
Scottish thistle. © Deborah Jones 2014
Neil Blain, Professor of Communications, University of Stirling
The main problem was the currency. The doubt over the currency led to doubt about quite a few other things that were connected with it. One of the things it's done is persuaded a lot of people that we are inextricably entangled with the union and can't do without it.
But I do think it's remarkable that Yes polled 45%, given the onslaught, particularly from a media that was almost entirely hostile and given the offer of more powers at the last minute.
If further powers for Edinburgh now become entangled with the question of devolution for England, the debate could go on until 2050. It's important that Scottish politicians try to preserve the separate argument here, though if I'm hearing David Cameron correctly that's going to be difficult. Whatever the make-up of the next Westminster parliament, I don't see how it can be bound by any pledges which are made just now.
One of the signals I would be looking for in the next day or two is where the press stands. The Scottish media may get behind the pledges in a similar way to what happened in the 1990s. But at my more pessimistic, I still think we could be heading for the long grass. I would love to believe that nothing will be the same again, but another part of me says, "in your dreams". There are a lot of people in the Labour and Conservative parties who for different reasons don't want a federal England. If the Scottish question is closely associated with that, it would get in the way.
Nicola McEwen, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Edinburgh
Although the referendum produced a clear victory for the No campaign, the UK government and the UK parties may want to reflect on what is an historically significant level of support for independence. As much as 45% of the population did not give their consent to the union. That should make politicians sit up and take notice, and should ensure that the issue of Scotland's constitutional future continues to be the subject of debate.
It's perfectly possible for the UK government to fulfill the campaign promise to give Scotland more powers. But if that was to happen in the timescale set out in the campaign, it would likely mean a set of proposals that looked more like the Labour party devolution commission's more modest proposals than the more ambitious Conservative or Lib Dem proposals – it's easier to settle on the lowest common denominator. It would be extraordinarily difficult for Labour's internal party politics to go much further.
Of course now that the SNP government seems set to be involved in these discussions too, we can expect them to push for a more extensive set of devolved powers. The SNP will not abandon its commitment to independence, but we will see the party revert back to a more gradualist strategy, in keeping with its recent political history, trying to push the UK parties further down the road of Scottish self-government.
The debate over Scotland's place within the UK won't go away. It's perfectly feasible that there will be another constitutional referendum in my lifetime, but I think it would emerge in a different way: not as a result of a top-down initiative – a political opportunity created by an election victory – but more because there is popular demand for a referendum from the bottom-up. The first minister, Alex Salmond, talked about this referendum being a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I don't expect the SNP to put another referendum in their manifesto in 2016.
It's interesting to see how quickly the debate has moved on to thinking about the English question. We know from the "Future of England" survey that there is growing discontent in England with the way it is governed, and in particular of the fact that Scottish MPs can continue to vote on areas like health and education, despite these responsibilities being devolved to Scotland. Indeed, there appears to be a greater sense of grievance about the way that England is governed than there was in Scotland before the referendum.
Paul Cairney, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, University of Stirling
The referendum didn't go wrong. It was as good if not better than expected. It was 60-40 in favour of No for such a long time, so 45% Yes seems OK to me.
I think 45% is a good number because it's not so close that people are bitter about how indecisive it was, but it's also powerful enough to make progress, especially since the three major UK parties got together and said they would hand over extra powers to Scotland and keep the Barnett formula.
That has to be part of the explanation for the gap between Yes and No. There is some sort of onus on the UK parties to deliver what they were talking about now.
Saying that, I don't think the extra powers to Scotland will be that extensive. It will be more income tax, more powers over welfare, and they will emphasise that we're getting more responsibility.
Barnett will be tricky. The thing about it is that the UK government kept it over the years because no one talked about it, but it becomes harder now that it's the focus of attention. They have to satisfy two audiences, one in England and one in Scotland. The problem for the English audience is that Barnett is supposed to help economic disparities to converge, but there has been no difference in the gap in per-capita spend since the 1970s. That means there is a strong argument to get rid of it.
But Barnett means that the two governments don't have to negotiate spending every year, which keeps it out of the public spotlight. I think they'll do whatever they can to keep it, even if they have to rename it. It's the least worst option for holding everything together. Otherwise it becomes a broken promise to Scotland that stores up potential tensions, so it's going to be very difficult.
What does 45% mean for Scottish independence? You can't have another referendum for at least ten years. Five years would be long enough to find out if the maximum devolution that Scotland gets is adequate in people's eyes. That then gives you the opportunity to put it back on your manifesto again.
But remember that the only reason the referendum happened is because the SNP has a majority in the parliament. So you'll need to have a majority of pro-independence parties if it's to happen again. That's the main obstacle.
Arthur Midwinter, Visiting Professor of Politics, University of Edinburgh
My view all along was that it would come down to whether people felt they would be better off or not. Even though there was that wobble in the middle, it came back to that in the end.
The Yes campaign never made a coherent economic case. There were too many big guns against them. I know the campaign wasn't just the SNP, but really it was Salmond and Sturgeon against the world. The bankers and business and the bulk of academics didn't believe their figures.
I never understood why the vote narrowed a few weeks ago. I always thought there would be many people that would vote No that would not tell pollsters if they were asked. One side was very noisy and one side was very quiet. It's what you call the silent majority. I didn't have a single neighbour in Falkirk who said they were going to vote Yes.
Brown was just magnificent these past few days. Is he going to run the show now over extending powers? He certainly made the difference. I don't know if he saved the union, but the poll figures certainly suggested that either side could have won. Brown made the case for more devolution in a much more coherent way than anybody had until that point.
I would love to see Brown standing for the Scottish parliament. Whether he will or not, I don't know. His whole life has been politics. Brown against Salmond would be exciting, that's for sure.
But there is the issue that it doesn't make sense to devolve a lot more powers. If your working assumption is that it's an integrated economy, devo max is just not possible. Labour originally wanted to devolve all income tax control, but all the advice in the Calman consultation was that it wasn't possible.
So I don't know how negotiations will go, but I'm fairly confident that the agreement will end up being the Labour position from earlier this year with a few changes. That will make it difficult to navigate in Scotland, but it can be done if the country is governed differently. If the Conservatives had remained a one-nation party, they would still be doing much better in Scotland.
Karly Kehoe, Senior Lecturer in History, Glasgow Caledonian University
Westminster will have to look at this result and address the fact that 45% of people are unhappy. The three main UK-wide parties are now going to have to deliver on the promises they have made.
I was so impressed with the voter turnout. Approximately 84% is extraordinary. If I was the No campaign I would be grateful for the result, but not elated because it's not an enormous victory. About 45% of people voted for independence – that's a clear indication that something is seriously wrong.
Alex Salmond's speech was very good, saying it's important for the nation to come together, to recognise that this is what the people who live here want, and to focus on moving forward so that we can have the best society. You can feel very sad or you can think, right, now what do we do ensure we get the kind of society we want?
David McCausland, Head of Economics, University of Aberdeen
The United Kingdom has had a lucky escape. The economic effects of independence would have been damaging and irreversible. In the short term the increased uncertainty would have pushed up the cost of the borrowing, undermined trade, and reduced investment.
One of the biggest headaches avoided is the currency question. All of the possible configurations would have had a serious disruptive impact at least in the short term. The mismatch between spending ambitions and variable revenue streams may have led to permanent austerity.
So with the cloud of independence now lifted, what for the future? Increased powers over taxation and spending, and the retention of the Barnett formula, through which Westminster sets Scottish spending, have all been promised: devo max by proxy.
Scotland could therefore have come out quite well. But calls for political reform and a hardening of attitudes south of the border may eventually erode the influence of Scottish MPs in Westminster. And the political fallout may have a substantial impact, not just on the governing elite in Westminster, for whom polls in the last few weeks were a bit too close for comfort. But closer to home, also on Scottish Labour, and where they position themselves. In short, this was a close shave (though not as close as predicted), and a welcome outcome for Scotland's economic future.
John McKendrick, Senior Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian University
The turnout was phenomenal. That makes me optimistic. It got close for a nanosecond when Dundee came in followed by West Dunbartonshire, but then it slumped back to that familiar pattern. It was just a matter of time after that. You can look at it wryly and say it's almost another one of those glorious Scottish defeats like the ones we get in football, where we pride ourselves on never quite getting there but celebrating coming close.
It was always going to be the case that the work starts now. The vote was only a constitutional matter at the end of the day. The issues that were there for the people of Scotland are still there. There is a cynical view that some of the offers might begin to unravel because after all, it was politics and not a firm policy commitment. There is certainty a degree of uncertainty there.
But I don't think that Westminster or the Scottish government will be able to shirk the fact that they have to do more now. We can talk about devo max, but we're also going to have to learn to do more with the tools that we have.
Gavin Phillipson, Professor of Constitutional Law at Durham University
After the night's events and David Cameron's statement this morning, the proposal that Scottish (and perhaps Welsh and Northern Irish) MPs should in some way be debarred from voting on legislation affecting only England has rapidly shot up the political agenda.
The "English votes for English laws" solution is attractive because of its simplicity: a single procedural change would effectively bring into being a new, but intermittently existing English parliament within the Westminster parliament; the latter would morph into the former whenever an "English bill" was being considered.
The problem with Scottish MPs's presence in Westminster is that legislation that fails to command a majority among English MPs can sometimes still be passed with Scottish votes. This is precisely what happened with to two notoriously controversial pieces of legislation introduced by the Blair government: foundation hospitals and top-up university fees. Because of large Labour backbench rebellions, the then government needed the votes of Scottish MPs to get these policies through – even though neither would apply in Scotland.
Since much of the important work of Westminster consists of dealing with bills mainly or exclusively affecting England, this, it is said, would fatally undermine any government that depended on Scottish votes for its overall majority.
However, this problem has been overstated. The scenario would only really arise with the election of a Labour government (or Labour-led coalition) with a very small majority. More importantly, however, the objection is wrong in principle. If a government cannot muster a majority of English MPs for legislation that only concerns England, why should it be able to pass it?
In reality, all this objection amounts to is the observation that a Labour government with no majority among English MPs (which has only rarely happened) would no longer be able to impose legislation upon England without the support of a majority of its representatives. This sounds like an advantage rather than an objection.
There are obviously many practical problems to consider, but at least as a temporary and easily implemented measure, "English votes for English laws" could be a simple and economical solution to the West Lothian question.
Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government at Durham University
The referendum vote is a great result for Scotland and for the United Kingdom. It is easy to see the appeal of independence at first glance. Dissatisfaction with politics is high, and there are widespread calls for more consideration for local concerns.
One major problem for the independence campaign from the start was making a clear and compelling case for Scotland to go it alone in an increasingly interconnected world.
So while it may be popular to challenge immigration policy as the SNP have done, such matters can still often be impacted by other sovereign states: one country alone cannot dictate whether there are controls on either side of every border, for instance.
Or take defence and security: it may be popular to argue against retaining Trident in order to find savings to fund other programmes, but this raises issues about whether Scotland would be more secure as an independent country than it would as part of a united country sharing security services.
The Yes campaign failed for many reasons, but among them, it found out to its cost that launching a new independent country is far more difficult than its leaders might have thought (or wanted to think) in our globalised world.
Meryl Kenny, Lecturer in Government and Politics at University of Leicester
Thursday's No vote – while closer than many commentators had initially anticipated at the start of the referendum campaign —was decisive. But it does not represent an end to the matter, nor does it represent a return to the constitutional status quo.
Record numbers of Scots turned out to vote in the referendum; the majority of them favour enhanced powers for the Scottish parliament, and almost half of them voted for full independence on the day. The outcome of the referendum, then, is still a vote for change, albeit change within the structure of the Union.
Indeed, this is what the No campaign promised in the end stages of the campaign – with the three main parties (pushed by Gordon Brown) committing to a fast-track timetable towards new powers for the Scottish Parliament in the event of a No vote.
David Cameron pledged to honour these commitments immediately after the referendum, promising draft legislation by the end of January 2015. Questions remain, however, as to whether he will deliver. There are significant differences between the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrat proposals for new powers – and it is difficult to see how they could be resolved in the short space of time offered.
Cameron will also probably face significant backbench opposition to further devolution. Worryingly, and in sharp contrast to the more inclusive processes that existed in the run-up to devolution in the 1990s, this expedited legislative timetable also leaves little to no scope for public consultation. That has prompted calls for a citizen-led UK-wide Constitutional Convention.
Questions also remain for Labour, and for the future of left politics more broadly. Much of the coverage of the independence referendum has reported on the debate through the lens of political nationalism, but this fails to acknowledge the numerical reality: there simply were not enough nationalist supporters to win a Yes vote on their own.
The relative closeness of the outcome, along with Yes victories in traditional Labour strongholds such as Glasgow, suggests that a significant proportion of Labour voters also voted for independence.
Meanwhile, as part of his proposals for a "new and fair" constitutional settlement, David Cameron has pledged that English matters will only be voted on by English MPs, a proposal that could effectively undermine a future Labour majority in the House of Commons.
Uncertainties remain, then, as to what lies next for Scotland and the UK – but all sides are agreed that the status quo is no longer an option.
The experts are: Paul Cairney, University of Stirling; Arthur Midwinter, University of Edinburgh; Gavin Phillipson, Durham University; John H McKendrick, Glasgow Caledonian University; Karly Kehoe, Glasgow Caledonian University; Meryl Kenny, University of Leicester; Neil Blain, University of Stirling; Nicola McEwen, University of Edinburgh; Thom Brooks, Durham University, and W David McCausland, University of Aberdeen
As an adviser to Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont, Arthur was appointed chair of the party's Welfare Commission, which is putting together a series of proposals for the future of Scotland.
Gavin Phillipson, John H McKendrick, Karly Kehoe, Meryl Kenny, Neil Blain, Nicola McEwen, Paul Cairney, Thom Brooks, and W David McCausland do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.
Facts and Opinions is a boutique for slow journalism, without borders. Independent, non-partisan and employee-owned, F&O is sustained entirely by readers: we do not carry advertising or solicit donations from foundations or causes. Why? We appreciate, and rely on, your interest and support: for $2.95 (the price of a cheap brew) you can subscribe to F&O for a month. If that breaks your budget, a one-day pass is $1. A subscription is required for most F&O original work. Subscribe for free to Frontlines by entering your address in the form on the right of this page (we won't share your address), or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.
Posted in Also tagged referendum, Scotland |
Britain's New World
Alex Salmond Photo from Scottish Parliament
Britain will never be the same. The day after Scots voted 55-45 to support the United Kingdom, on promises by unionists for a new range of Scottish powers, Prime Minister David Cameron set in motion a process to empower not just Scotland, but also Wales and Northern Island — and potentially to remake the British political system.
Meantime, First Minister Alex Salmond, who devoted his life to Scottish independence, shocked Scots by resigning, which he had earlier said he would not do if his Yes campaign for independence failed.
"For me as leader, my time is nearly over," he told reporters in Edinburgh. "But for Scotland the campaign continues and the dream shall never die."
United Kingdom prime minister David Cameron said he was "delighted" at the referendum result, and in a speech Friday rejected Salmond's assertion that the campaign continues. "There can be no disputes, no re-runs – we have heard the settled will of the Scottish people."
Cameron appointed Lord Smith of Kelvin to oversee devolution in Scotland, and William Hague to oversee plans for a system allowing more powers for citizens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, developed at the same pace as Scottish devolution.
"Now it is time for our United Kingdom to come together, and to move forward," said Cameron. "A vital part of that will be a balanced settlement – fair to people in Scotland and importantly to everyone in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well."
Salmond called on Britain's leaders to honour that settlement, and the 11th-hour promises made in the last weeks of the campaign, promptly.
Wrote Salmond: "The unionist parties made vows late in the campaign to devolve more powers to Scotland. Scotland will expect these to be honoured in rapid course. Just as a reminder, we have been promised a second reading of a Scotland Bill by the 27th of March next year and not just the 1.6 million Scots who voted for independence will demand that that timetable is followed but all Scots who participated in this referendum will demand that that timetable is followed. "
– Deborah Jones
Continued ….
Kilchurn Castle, north of Glasgow, Scotland, in Loch Awe. Photo by Moyan Brenn, Creative Commons via Flickr
Excerpts of Salmond's blog post on the Scottish referendum site:
It's important to say that our referendum was an agreed and consented process and Scotland has by majority decided not at this stage to become an independent country. I accept that verdict of the people and I call on all of Scotland to follow suit in accepting the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland.
But I think all of us in this campaign say that that 45 per cent, that 1.6 million votes, is a substantial vote for Scottish independence and the future of this country. Let us say something which I hope that unites all campaigns and all Scots. I think the process by which we have made our decision as a nation reflects enormous credit upon Scotland. A turnout of 86 per cent is one of the highest in the democratic world for any election or any referendum in history. This has been a triumph for the democratic process and for participation in politics.
For example, the initiative by which 16 and 17 year olds were able to vote has proved to be a resounding success. I suspect that no one will ever again dispute their right and ability to participate fully and responsibly in democratic elections.
So we now face the consequences of Scotland's democratic decision. Firstly, Clause 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement is now in operation. On behalf of the Scottish Government I accept the results and I pledge to work constructively in the interest of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the unionist parties made vows late in the campaign to devolve more powers to Scotland. Scotland will expect these to be honoured in rapid course. Just as a reminder, we have been promised a second reading of a Scotland Bill by the 27th of March next year and not just the 1.6 million Scots who voted for independence will demand that that timetable is followed but all Scots who participated in this referendum will demand that that timetable is followed.
I'll be speaking to the Prime Minister shortly after this statement but can I return thirdly to the empowerment of so many Scots entering the political process for the very first time. It is something that is so valuable it has to be cherished, preserved and built upon…
Whatever else we can say about this referendum campaign, we have touched sections of the community who've never before been touched by politics. These sections of the community have touched us and touched the political process. I don't think that will ever be allowed to go back to business as usual in politics again.
Excerpts of Cameron's speech, posted on the UK government site:
So now it is time for our United Kingdom to come together, and to move forward. A vital part of that will be a balanced settlement – fair to people in Scotland and importantly to everyone in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well.
Let us first remember why we had this debate – and why it was right to do so.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) was elected in Scotland in 2011 and promised a referendum on independence. We could have blocked that; we could have put it off, but just as with other big issues, it was right to take – not duck – the big decision.
I am a passionate believer in our United Kingdom – I wanted more than anything for our United Kingdom to stay together.
But I am also a democrat. And it was right that we respected the SNP's majority in Holyrood and gave the Scottish people their right to have their say…
Scotland voted for a stronger Scottish Parliament backed by the strength and security of the United Kingdom and I want to congratulate the No campaign for that – for showing people that our nations really are better together.
I also want to pay tribute to Yes Scotland for a well-fought campaign and to say to all those who did vote for independence: "we hear you"…
To those in Scotland sceptical of the constitutional promises made, let me say this we have delivered on devolution under this government, and we will do so again in the next Parliament.
The 3 pro-union parties have made commitments, clear commitments, on further powers for the Scottish Parliament. We will ensure that they are honoured in full.
And I can announce today that Lord Smith of Kelvin – who so successfully led Glasgow's Commonwealth Games – has agreed to oversee the process to take forward the devolution commitments, with powers over tax, spending and welfare all agreed by November and draft legislation published by January.
Just as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs. The rights of these voters need to be respected, preserved and enhanced as well.
It is absolutely right that a new and fair settlement for Scotland should be accompanied by a new and fair settlement that applies to all parts of our United Kingdom. In Wales, there are proposals to give the Welsh government and Assembly more powers. And I want Wales to be at the heart of the debate on how to make our United Kingdom work for all our nations. In Northern Ireland, we must work to ensure that the devolved institutions function effectively.
I have long believed that a crucial part missing from this national discussion is England. We have heard the voice of Scotland – and now the millions of voices of England must also be heard. The question of English votes for English laws – the so-called West Lothian question – requires a decisive answer.
So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland.
I hope that is going to take place on a cross-party basis. I have asked William Hague to draw up these plans. We will set up a Cabinet Committee right away and proposals will also be ready to the same timetable. I hope the Labour Party and other parties will contribute.
It is also important we have wider civic engagement about to improve governance in our United Kingdom, including how to empower our great cities. And we will say more about this in the coming days.
This referendum has been hard fought. It has stirred strong passions. It has electrified politics in Scotland, and caught the imagination of people across the whole of our United Kingdom.
It will be remembered as a powerful demonstration of the strength and vitality of our ancient democracy. Record numbers registered to vote and record numbers cast their vote. We can all be proud of that. It has reminded us how fortunate we are that we are able to settle these vital issues at the ballot box, peacefully and calmly.
"Now we must look forward, and turn this into the moment when everyone – whichever way they voted – comes together to build that better, brighter future for our entire United Kingdom.
Further reading on Facts and Opinions:
Scotland Votes, Frontlines blog post
An expert panel looks at what happened, and where it leaves the UK and Scotland.
ALEX SALMOND: The Independent Scot. By Murray Leith
If there's one figure that anyone anywhere would associate with the Scottish referendum campaign it's Alex Salmond, first minister of Scotland, leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), and the man who could be responsible for the break-up of the United Kingdom. But who is he, where did this political whirlwind begin and where will it take the man and his party?
Scottish leader downplays difficulties of independence. By Jonathan Manthorpe, April 2014 (Subscription)
Scots will vote in a referendum on September 18 on separation from the United Kingdom. But the division of assets and liabilities in the break-up of a country is complex and vexatious – and in the case of Scotland, these matters are particularly difficult. The latest polls in Scotland, with the undecided vote discounted, shows 52 percent of respondents support staying with the United Kingdom while 48 per cent want independence.
Further reading elsewhere:
Salmond to resign after Scotland rejects independence, Agence France-Presse
Scotland's pro-independence leader Alex Salmond said Friday he would resign after losing a referendum that left the United Kingdom intact but opened a Pandora's box of demands for more autonomy across Britain.
Scotland is staying. London's headaches are just starting, Christian Science Monitor
British leaders are relieved by the Scots' vote against independence. But devolving new powers to Scotland – and perhaps to England – may be a bigger challenge for Westminster than the referendum was.
Queen Accepts Scotland's Apology (Satire), Borowitz Report, The New Yorker
In the aftermath of Scotland's "no" vote in the referendum on becoming an independent country, Queen Elizabeth II, of Great Britain, took to the airwaves on Friday morning to inform the people of Scotland that she "graciously and wholeheartedly" accepted their apology. "Although the matter of independence has been settled, one question remains very much open," she said in an address televised across Scotland. "And my answer to that question is this: yes, I forgive you."
Posted in Current Affairs, Gyroscope Also tagged Alex Salmond, Britain, David Cameron, devolution, Scottish Referendum |


While this site has quite a number of items of varying values - including some of the most sought-after pieces of Mewtwo memorabilia in existence, it doesn't have everything. That might just be where you come in! I'm looking for a few things to round out the collection and a couple to possibly be new centerpieces of it. If you have any of these items and are looking to either get paid or make a trade, I'd love to hear from you!
These are what I'm looking for most of all. Money will most likely not be an issue with any of them.
These guys are probably the most expensive set of Mewtwo cards in existence. There are 3 of them, appropriately numbered, for the people who finished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in the 1999 Secret Super Battle tournament in Japan. The last time I saw the full set change hands, it was for $4,000, $3,000, and $2,000 respectively. I hope to make these the pinnacle of my collection someday - that is, if I'm not able to somehow come into ownership of the six-figure valued MechaMew2 from the Pokemon Live! stage show. So if anyone out there happens to own oen or more of these and for one reason or another is moving out of TCG collecting, please let me know - I'd love to work out a deal with you.
The since-retired Pokemon Battrio game was played in Japanese arcades. The pucks interacted with the game, allowing players to control the depicted Pokemon in a battle. Later versions of the arcade game would allow you to capture new Pokemon and it would dispense the pucks as prizes. There are a total of 8 Mewtwo Battrio pucks, to my knowledge. I have 5 of them, listed in with the coins section. The other 3 are noted here.
Mewtwo has gained access to Aura Sphere with this Battrio.
Mewtwo's one and only promotionial Battrio item.
The one other high-priority item that isn't a Battrio - it uses the same artwork as one of the pencilboards in my Stationery section.
Mewtwohavoka happened to come across one of these, and it's a little-known legal and licensed card. Shame it's one of the poor versions unlike promo #3 or Mewtwo EX.
This keychain has received a re-release, so it's just a matter of time before I find a cheap one.
I'm still interested in buying things that aren't on this list - if you have something I don't have on the site, I'd still be opening to buying or trading for it. Hit up the "Contact me" link and let's make a deal!


text:
The Smith's Journal - May 2005
2012 : January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
2004 : March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
Subject Index : Music | Drumming | Studio | Arts | Places | Eco | Pro | Politics | Computers | Misc
Home / Words / Journal / May 2005
Eddie Prevost and Roberto Filoseta at UH Mayfest
Went to see a performance of free improvisation by world-renowned percussionist Eddie Prevost, famous for his thirty year career with revolutionary group AMM, and my friend Roberto Filoseta on piano and electronics, held at my old haunt, the University of Hertfordshire, as part of their Mayfest week of events.
Roberto was playing an amplified Bechstein grand piano, processed using a Yamaha 01V digital mixer and relayed to the audience over a Genelec 5.1 surround system. Eddie had some less hi-tech, but equally inventive, gear - hardly your average drumkit. It consisted of a 26" tam-tam given to him by his sponsors Paiste, which he played with all manner of bows and beaters as well as a curious electric motor which moved a small stick to strike the edge at high speed. He also had a snare drum which was never struck conventionally, but instead used as a soundboard to amplify the sound of some handheld cymbals and a small Tibetan singing bowl, which were also bowed. But his mightiest instrument was a huge wine barrel which he said he'd got from a restaurant and converted into a radical instrument by mounting a drumskin across the top, thus resembling a massive obese conga. This had then evolved further by the addition of a set of harp and bass strings stretched tightly over the rim of this drum head, and using an ingenious solution for a bridge: a tiny metal darabuka drum lying on the large drum head, over which the strings were tightened to give a round bridge which would not pierce the large drum skin. The result was amazingly deep double bass-like sounds when the strings were plucked, tunable by lugs on the 3' x 2' barrel body. Similarly resourceful, Roberto used a myriad of devices directly on the piano strings, including an egg-whisk, soft beaters and fingers.
After an extended improvisation, Eddie talked a bit about what Free Improvisation entails and answered some questions. I asked what an improvisor should do if the other musicians start playing something (s)he really dislikes; should they try and interrupt or sway them onto a new idea, stop playing or what? He answered that you should go with it and see where it leads, but I wasn't particularly reassured by this answer. For me aesthetics is of vital importance, and if I am involved in something I find that I disagree with creatively, I will go and do something better instead - there is just not enough time to waste. This is why I would prefer not to play music for money: I'm not willing to compromise my ideals for those of the highest bidder or loudest shouter.
I have taken part in many improvisations - lots have failed miserably, some have just been run-of-the-mill or predictable, but some rare events have sparked serious magic. Some recordings we've made sound like they have been composed by the gods themselves, and witnessing this happening in real time before your very eyes is an incredible experience. These alchemical occurrences radically affect you, and inspire you on the Path to seek more, but are often limited to certain combinations of people and environments, when everyone happens to be feeling at their very best and the atmosphere is electrified. Alas, in practice, this is hard to reproduce and at best unpredictable. This is the major problem with Free Improvisation - there are good bits, but the signal-to-noise ratio is usually very low, and you have to wade through hours of mediocrity to get to the good stuff, except in exceptional circumstances such as when the players have known each other's music for years/decades and can anticipate their next move. So asking an audience to sit through that mediocrity with you makes quite a demand on them, hence audiences tend to be small and dedicated.
For me a better approach is to record improvisation in the studio (or anywhere with a suitably exciting atmosphere) first, and then edit the gems out of the bare rock afterwards, possibly reworking ideas into new compositions that can be rehearsed and performed later, perhaps with further improvisation during performance. This is something I plan to work on when my studio is operational, mining my archives of early recordings, and crafting new compositions from future improvisations. Other plans would include some Free Improvisation live on stage amidst a set of pre-composed material, albeit guided by pre-arranged rules and extra-musical ways for the musicians to communicate.
After the gig I helped Eddie pack up his instruments, and chatted over the buffet - it turned out he too was a former student here at Hatfield some years before, and we even shared a common Philosophy lecturer. He related an amusing anecdote that when it was first established and they were thinking about the name for the institution, because of the links to the nearby British Aerospace works, the original name was going to be "South Hatfield Institute of Technology". Luckily someone dissauded them before they made any signs and headed note paper, and it became Hatfield Polytechnic, thence the University of Hertfordshire.
Dun Duns from Africa land
Excited by the deep basslines at both Winterdrum and Vitae Drum Circle, and eager to have some of own ready for our Secret Bass performance at the 2005 Festival of Song, Drum and Dance, we have ordered a set of doun douns from a friend in Guinea. They will be hand made in traditional style and shipped over for us: two kenkeni (the smallest size), one sangban (medium size) and one dununba (large). Roll on July... ;-)
The Old Man of Storr on The Isle of Skye
Bought a few records and cleaned some of my old rare vinyl at C.R.A.V.E. Later on, following on from my discovering my old song lyrics for "Skye Song", I looked up the Isle Of Skye on the internet, and discovered with some amazement this image of a huge rock formation called The Old Man of Storr. Wow!!! This is the place of Old Dreams! Now I know that I really must go over the sea to Skye.
Captive at UH Mayfest
Went to see the very impressive first performance of Roberto's music theatre piece called Captive at UH Mayfest with Helen, Jess, Joe, Jane, Tina, Tessa, Tim, Gay, Adrian and David Raynor.
The piece is a large-scale work for two dancers (Fabrizia and Ashley) and two percussionists (Trevor Taylor, artist, author and owner of FMR Records, along with Roberto himself), and features a vast array of instruments from grand piano and conventional tuned percussion to amazing sound sculptures (or Structures Sonores) designed by The Baschet Brothers and the performers. These included an amazing instrument called the Cristal, a 1950s avant-garde sound sculpture designed by The Baschet Brothers and Jacques Lasry (father of Magma-keyboardist Teddy) in which a large steel sheet amplifies sounds made from rubbing wet fingers along glass rods, creating an ethereal sound rather like a trombone. Other objects included steel wires to be scraped and bowed, also with strangely shaped resonating chambers like aliens. Some sounds were amplified and processed by a sound engineer at the rear of the auditorium. Microphones were situated at the front of the stage to pick up sounds created, and more were hung from the ceiling to pick up a tower of gongs and special metals suspended on scaffolding in the centre of the stage.
Ashley began the performance seated motionless on the stage for many minutes as the audience filed in, before startling us with sudden shouts and groans. He then moved around the stage draped in chains, until he met up with Fabrizia. She had emerged stealthily from the back of the stage covered in cloth, and climbed onto the scaffold of percussion, draping herself around it and crashing against the metal gongs and sculptures in violent outbursts. Ashley then seemed to free Fabrizia from her bondage, only to replace it with his own chains. Later, Roberto entered into the action himself, wandering in to charm Fabrizia with a Middle Eastern wind instrument, beautifully treated with echoes via a radio mic, creating a mesmerising tapestry of sounds. He danced around her like an invisible spirit from another dimension showing her a higher reality. The piece ended sublimely with Fabrizia opening her eyes as the lights faded to black...
This work explores the condition of being enslaved, confined, trapped, physically or mentally... or both.
It may be real or imaginary, given or self-inflicted, accepted with resignation or fought against.
What is freedom if not the luxury of choosing your master?
It is scheduled for its next performance on 2005-08-07 at The Priory in Southend, Essex. Afterwards I couldn't resist going backstage to thank the performers and catch a closer look at these fabulous instruments. Offering to help pack away for the second time this week, I once again had the opportunity of carrying a large tam-tam out to the car, though sadly not my own. I could really use one of these for one of Ruth's songs - any sponsors/donors out there? :-)
Zomba Zulu at UH Mayfest
Went with Bizia, Roberto, Helen, Tina and David Raynor to see African Drum and Dance group Zomba Zulu at the final event of UH Mayfest 2005. Three dancers but only two drummers - I felt they were outnumbered, and needed help; I'd brought my secret stealth claves in my pocket, in case I was called... At the end of their performance, they invited people from the audience up onto the stage to dance, so we leapt up to get down and I did my best to hold down a very swift clave.
UREI 565
Bought a UREI 565 filter set at full moon!
This will become part of the Ululating Feedback Occultifier.
BBC strike
A strike by BBC workers meant some quality repeats today :-)
A welcome slice of I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue to begin the day with a smile
An informative programme about the Hydrogen Economy
The awesome Radio 3 interview with writer and storyteller John Berger that I'd caught before, my attention once more being hooked by switching on to the lines:
"The dead don't stay where they are buried."
"...the presence of the dead among the living..."
(*shiver*) He spoke of his new book "Here Is Where We Meet" about encountering his dead mother in Lisboa, and also mentioned his articles and interview on www.opendemocracy.org, with Stravinsky's "Orpheus" painting a vivid background. Incredibly moving.
Tried to reinstall Fabrizia's computer at Michael's Folly, but dialup failed again, so instead we watched my latest BBC Training film for a giggle.
A new habitat
My landlord phoned me to arrange a viewing of my house with an estate agent; apparently he is now considering selling it, but will give me the longest notice possible. This is probably for the best, as I am running out of space (as personified directly by last night's purchase of a (perhaps superfluous, but lovely) UREI 565 filter set), and the noisy neighbours are a right pain: I need musical freedom! :-)
I shall not make an issue out of this (yet!), but I am considering moving a bit further north up the A1, above Letchworth maybe at Stotfold where I can still be close enough to my friends and life, but a bit cheaper. Luton is also cheap but not my favourite place. I'm quite happy to slum it a bit though in the quest for quiet and space. My time travel backwards from 20th Century to Edwardian cottage loft to Medieval cottage has probably come to an end, or at least a temporary glitch until I find/build my Gothick/Neolithic Abbey ;-)
[UPDATE: The landlord seems to have given up on the selling idea, so I'm staying put for now.]
Home | Music | Words | People | Places | Computers | Art | What's new? | About | Site map
© copyleft Malcolm Smith 2005-05-09 - last updated 2011-05-14 - links verified 2005-06-05

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Popular Science and News
General Science Forums
Huygens lands on Titan
By Tormod,
January 15, 2005 in Popular Science and News
Tormod
LocationOslo, Norway
lefthttp://www.hypography.com/gallery/files/5/huygens005_thumb.jpg[/img]Today, after its seven-year journey through the Solar System on board the Cassini spacecraft, ESA's Huygens probe has successfully descended through the atmosphere of Titan, Saturn's largest moon, and safely landed on its surface.
The first scientific data arrived at the European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) in Darmstadt, Germany, this afternoon at 17:19 CET. Huygens is mankind's first successful attempt to land a probe on another world in the outer Solar System. "This is a great achievement for Europe and its US partners in this ambitious international endeavour to explore the Saturnian system," said Jean-Jacques Dordain, ESA's Director General. Following its release from the Cassini mothership on 25 December, Huygens reached Titan's outer atmosphere after 20 days and a 4 million km cruise. The probe started its descent through Titan's hazy cloud layers from an altitude of about 1270 km at 11:13 CET. During the following three minutes Huygens had to decelerate from 18 000 to 1400 km per hour.
A sequence of parachutes then slowed it down to less than 300 km per hour. At a height of about 160 km the probe's scientific instruments were exposed to Titan's atmosphere. At about 120 km, the main parachute was replaced by a smaller one to complete the descent, with an expected touchdown at 13:34 CET. Preliminary data indicate that the probe landed safely, likely on a solid surface.
The probe began transmitting data to Cassini four minutes into its descent and continued to transmit data after landing at least as long as Cassini was above Titan's horizon. The certainty that Huygens was alive came already at 11:25 CET today, when the Green Bank radio telescope in West Virginia, USA, picked up a faint but unmistakable radio signal from the probe. Radio telescopes on Earth continued to receive this signal well past the expected lifetime of Huygens.
Huygens data, relayed by Cassini, were picked up by NASA's Deep Space Network and delivered immediately to ESA's European Space Operation Centre in Darmstadt, Germany, where the scientific analysis is currently taking place.
"Titan was always the target in the Saturn system where the need for 'ground truth' from a probe was critical. It is a fascinating world and we are now eagerly awaiting the scientific results," says Professor David Southwood, Director of ESA's scientific programmme.
"The Huygens scientists are all delighted. This was worth the long wait," says Dr Jean-Pierre Lebreton, ESA Huygens Mission Manager. Huygens is expected to provide the first direct and detailed sampling of Titan's atmospheric chemistry and the first photographs of its hidden surface, and will supply a detailed 'weather report'.
One of the main reasons for sending Huygens to Titan is that its nitrogen atmosphere, rich in methane, and its surface may contain many chemicals of the kind that existed on the young Earth. Combined with the Cassini observations, Huygens will afford an unprecedented view of Saturn's mysterious moon.
"Descending through Titan was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and today's achievement proves that our partnership with ESA was an excellent one," says Alphonso Diaz, NASA Associate Administrator of Science.
The Cassini-Huygens mission is a cooperation between NASA, the European Space Agency and ASI, the Italian space agency. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, is managing the mission for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington. JPL designed, developed and assembled the Cassini orbiter.
"The teamwork in Europe and the USA, between scientists, industry and agencies has been extraordinary and has set the foundation for today's enormous success," concludes Jean-Jacques Dordain.
Source: ESA
Aquagem
Hooray for Huygens and the many team members who made this possible! This is mind expansion on a cosmic scale!
Yes. It is an incredible achievment and there are an astounding number of people who should be very, very proud of what they have accomplished.
lindagarrette
I had to visit some anti-progressive relatives in Oklahoma this weekend so couldn't find out until just now how things went. They watch FOX news network and when one of the commentators mentioned the story about Huygens, he was scoffed at and told that no one was interested, that some recent murder conviction was much more important. My relatives had never even heard of the space mission. The story was buried on the back page of the classified section of the Tulsa Tribune. Most of my friends are awed and excited by scientific events. Times like this it is stunning to realize we may be among the few.
It's rare to find people who knows about this stuff, and I sometimes "wake up" and realise that maybe it's very unusual that people know this. It's too bad really. At least it got good coverage in the mainstream news online as well as some mention on TV. I think that ESA and NASA should try to reach out more and make people aware on what they actually do. Maybe the public would become more interested and more likely to support future missions. As it is now it's not likely to find someone who even is aware of the existence of ESA...
Huygens successful landing on Titan was the headline title for the Winnipeg Free Press yesterday. They continue the article with a full page including interviews from most organizations that were involved (no ESA...). Afterwards they go on to explain what had happened and even include a few illustrations with the process of landing, the atmosphere and what it is composed of (source: ESA), and the already released images you saw first on the internet. Good to know that we are not amongst the few/many who try to censor space exploration and achievment.
Congrats to you Tormod, and many thanks to all involved for a mission well done with little to no error.
Drakon1323
It's rare to find people who knows about this stuff, and I sometimes "wake up" and realise that maybe it's very unusual that people know this....
My one friend and i are highly excited about the mission. He told everyone at work and the general concensus was "so...". I had a friend over at the time of the science channel coverage and he saw it as rediculous. Its a shame society in america is more worried about reality tv and celebrity spending. I really wish more people were conserned with the betterment of the race and planet.
My one friend and i are highly excited about the mission. He told everyone at work and the general concensus was "so...".
My guess is that people don't know anything to begin with and so lose interest in anything science.
I had a friend over at the time of the science channel coverage and he saw it as rediculous. Its a shame society in america is more worried about reality tv and celebrity spending. I really wish more people were conserned with the betterment of the race and planet.
Ridiculous? How is it even possible to think that such extraordinary and aweinspiring missions in space are ridiculous? Are people really that antiscience? I mean I knew that people basically know nothing about science, but...
As for reality TV... holy crap. Don't get me started. When it began a few years ago I thought that there was no way something so stupid could ever catch on. Given humankind's historic records regarding stupid actions I should've known better. Now such "reality" shows are the only things we see. TV has deteriorated rapidly, and it seems to me that people only make the decay go faster and faster - for whatever reason. It is a fantastic medium that doesn't live up to its potential. Keep the people ignorant and entertained.


text:
Vladimir Ashkenazy and the Sydney Symphony's Tchaikovsky Mini Festival Opens with Manfred and Rachmaninoff's Fourth Piano Concerto, Scott Davie, Piano
November 23, 2012Andrew Miller
Filed UnderMusic New York Arts in Australia
Sergei Rachmaninoff.
Concert Hall, Sydney Opera House: 21 November 2012
The SSO plays this program again on Saturday 24 November 8pm
Rachmaninoff – Piano Concerto No. 4 in G minor, opus 40
Scott Davie – piano
Tchaikovsky – Manfred Symphony, opus 58
The Sydney Symphony Orchestra
Vladimir Ashkenazy – conductor
Rachmaninoff's 4th Piano Concerto didn't deserve to be cut. It seems to have received, in any version, the homeric epithet "Rachmaninoff's least popular" since it wasn't popular at the première (1927) and wasn't much more loved after the revisions (1928 and 1941), but this is perhaps as much due to the immense and perennial popularity of the 2nd and 3rd as any intrinsic quality of the 4th, and the unpopular label seems now to be beginning to give the original version a little bit of underdog cred. The original longer version was only published in 2000, and this performance, according to the Sydney Symphony, is the first of this version in Australia. It is a fascinating case of audience expectations based on a composer's perceived style and the composer worrying too much about pleasing them. Luckily the original was not lost. Even so it is not very long, though it does have a leisurely, operatic quality to its pacing, almost a Mahlerian pace, but with its drama turned in, more psychological and untidy than the other concerti, and so it is not as exciting as the other concerti. It does not have too solid a form holding it together, it doesn't tell a 'story' with beginning middle and end as the others do more obviously. It is not linear, or at least it is taller than it is long with all those enormous, thick, rich chords which defy a simple analysis and the long runs of impossibly fast notes which are not exactly melodic — maybe more harmonic as they ring in that resonant Steinway piano — but the melodies in the piece with the exception of the opening one are more like fragments of leitmotif without staging to help explain them. The opening theme returns here and there but it seems odd in its return, almost an interruption of the of the pensive, contemplative revery of the music, almost like the sudden landing of an eagle, or an angel, or a strange golden shaft of light. But the 20th century romantic music doesn't need a strict form since Rachmaninoff's concept is not architectural or plastic. The wonderful thing about music is that you don't have to worry whether it will stand up.
Rachmaninoff in his piano concerti seems to have wanted to marry the expressive and pianistic freedom and spontaneity of the prélude (and the other romantic solo piano genres) with the wide, monumental scale of the late romantic orchestra. I think he came closest with the Fourth. It is not a dialogue between orchestra and soloist in the traditional form, there are articulate exchanges, particularly involving the solo oboe (here beautifully expressed by Shefali Pryor) and violin (again beautifully played by Dean Olding) but these exchanges are 'nonverbal' rather than conversational. The orchestra is neither a pretty cushion to set off the virtuoso soloist — the cushiony sounds here were more caressing — nor background, though the orchestra is certainly not foreground either, it is more like a mirror in a dark room which shows as much imaginary as reflected imagery. The piano seems very isolated from the space around it in this piece, and the orchestra contributes to this rather than helping to place it. The piano at times does blend into the total orchestral sound, contributing texturally, but the piece is very different from the 20th century piano-as-symphonic-instrument as Stravinsky and others liked to use it in their orchestral colors; Rachmaninoff seems to blend the piano into the orchestral texture marvelously in a way Stravinsky never could or would, which is quite remarkable, since the piano can sound arbitrary at times in Stravinsky's orchestra. Also, of course, this is definitely a concerto and not a symphony, there is some sense of thread to the solo part, even if Rachmaninoff's melodies are not high-maintenance in that they don't demand all one's attention.
Scott Davie played beautifully, never in the least egoistically as he touched off the impossible solo parts, and it was partly this quality which points to this fascinating, mysterious and ineffable relationship between orchestra and soloist in the music. Vladimir Ashkenazy shared in this approach, with the orchestra in very fine form playing as a single beast with great precision, lucid and nimble in expression as a group, all giving the much soul. They had something of Davie's understated quality, not trying to do too much to the music, rather letting it speak and in so doing played it all the more expressively. While letting the notes ring in a very subtle way with carefully hidden pedaling, Davie gave each of the notes in the long fast runs distinction enough through his very sensitive touch, not quite liquid, but flowing, more like an amorphous solid shaped to the music. Those enormous chords for whom 'progression' doesn't seem quite the right term he played with understanding, a carrying volume on the fortissimos with a keen ear to the acoustic of the hall, rarely plodding them out and never a hint of clichéd Rachmaninovian melancholia. Rachmaninoff in this mature work seems to have picked up the odd bluesy chord from Gershwin and successfully married them into his Russian style without any eclectic seams, in fact here these harmonies to leaven the emotional color of the concerto. In Davie's and Ashkenazy's approach to this performance these more American aspects of the music became veiled without disappearing entirely. It was a very warm performance, showing Davie's and Ashkenazy's love of the music.
The orchestra, enlarged with harps, bass clarinet, etc., sounded in as fine form in Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony. Ashkenazy, as is his wont with program music, abstracted or rather extracted the music, allowed it to speak for itself and let the Byronic program submerge, never going out of his way to reminded one of it, to the point one could listen to the still, if not more evocative, music without imposed imagery. This is always satisfying to hear in itself. The great crescendos were not painfully loud (except maybe a couple of notes where the trumpets got a little carried away) and were as sensitive to color and texture as dynamics. The subdued, quiet stretches were very sensitive and very well balanced. As interpretation, the performance didn't have all the satisfying relish for the complexity of the music which the Rachmaninoff had, perhaps a case of overfamiliarity with the music, but still it would have been nice if Ashkenazy took advantage of the nimble group-expressiveness of his orchestra more to approach the music as if fresh. The performers seemed more striving for sonic perfection, which they came close to, with the fine balance and control, and maybe it is the fault of the music, but perhaps a little less control and more fresh naivety would have helped.
Tagged WithRachmaninoffScott DavieSydney Symphony OrchestraTchaikovskyVladimir Ashkenazy
Andrew Miller lives in Sydney and writes mostly about music and theatre, especially ballet and opera.
He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Sydney, and once studied the piano and trombone.
A Crop of Recordings XXVIII: Elgar, Holst, Tchaikovsky, Debussy…and Karl Weigl
A Crop of Recordings XXXV: Bernstein, Barber, Crawford, Schuman, Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, Scriabin
Inextinguishable Fire – An Evening of Nielsen and Tchaikovsky at the New York Philharmonic, Alan Gilbert, conductor, Robert Langevin, Flute, Nikolaj Znaider Violin
An English-Glaswegian Nutcracker in Australia


text:
Below is a copy of the intimation that was read before worship on the 20 and 27 December. It relates to the procedure for compiling the Electoral Register of those who will be eligible to participate in the election of a Nominating Committee, and the subsequent election of a new minister.
Vacancy Electoral Register (PDF, 125KB)
Virtual Worship	Sunday 27 December
Electoral Register	Sunday 27 December
Christmas Services	Sunday 13 December
Vacancy Intimation	Sunday 13 December
12 Bellevue Crescent
EH3 6NE
Copyright © 2021 | Edinburgh: Broughton St Mary's Parish Church (Church of Scotland) | Charity SC012642


text:
Harry and Meghan are renovating Frogmore Cottage to make it 'perfect for Archie'
Jadie Troy-Pryde May 31, 2019 11:11 am
Credit: Rex Features
Earlier this year, it was revealed that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were giving Frogmore Cottage a bit of a makeover. The couple moved into their new home in April, just in time for the arrival of their first child, Archie, following months of renovations.
Their garden is 'very LA' apparently, and they have created an organic garden on the grounds filled with fruits, vegetable and herbs, so the family can pick their own food fresh from the garden. They have also reportedly installed a yoga studio with a special floor, grand fireplaces and 'an elaborate Gone With The Wind-style double staircase.'
While they have already given the cottage a refurb this year, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are reportedly looking to make some more changes to their house, which was built in 1801.
A source told The Mirror: 'The duchess is very involved in the project and wanted the final design to be perfect for them and Archie.'
Kate Middleton's 'regret' before her engagement to Prince William
There are extremely strict rules on how royal women are allowed to go down stairs
Prince William just revealed which of the Cambridge children is the cheekiest
They have applied for planning permission to renovate the Grade II listed building which will include improvements to the exterior such as alterations to doors, windows and walls. According to the plans, which were revealed in documents published by Windsor and Maidenhead council, they're also seeking permission to install lighting in the garden and carry out landscaping on the grounds.
Harry also 'loves his gadgets', so the house is expected to be very high tech with everything controlled by smartphones. It all sounds very cool.
Can we get an invite to dinner, maybe?
Make-up expiry dates: How to tell if your cosmetics are past it
How to contour like a professional make-up artist
How to double your days off work this year
This is how much you're spending on make-up every year
The British teenager kept as a sex slave in London for four years
Everything you need to know about the art of tantric sex


text:
January 10, 2023 Inflation and Upward-Trending Interest Rates Suppress Resale in 2022
The last month of 2022 wrapped up a year of increasingly suppressed market activity. 2022 began by building on the steam of a strong 2021 market, with consumer confidence resurging post-pandemic, fuelled by historically low borrowing rates. However, early in 2022, sales began reverting to historically typical levels, further suppressed by increased policy interest rates starting in March 2022. While we have reached near the peak of interest rate hikes, a look at December's market performance shows that the lagging effect of those hikes is still being felt and is likely to continue into the early months of this new year.
The last month of 2022 experienced an almost 52% drop compared to December 2021, with 1,295 resales this year versus 2,688 last year. This decrease was not limited to December; 28,903 resale transactions occurred in Greater Vancouver in 2022, a 34.3% decrease from 2021's sales and 6.6% below the 30,944 homes sold in 2020. Compared to the ten-year average for the Greater Vancouver area, the sales results for the year represented a 13.4% decrease. As with much of Canada, this can be attributed to steady increases in lending rates and continued stubborn inflation rates. December 2022's sales-to-listing ratio in Greater Vancouver landed at 17.5% across all property types, with townhomes at 12.3%, condos at 19.5%, and detached at 21.7%. Benchmark pricing experienced a 1% to 4% decrease over the past month in most submarkets in Greater Vancouver. Over 2022, New Westminster experienced the most substantial annualized growth in HPI, with a price increase of 1.4%. Maple Ridge experienced the sharpest price decline of 9.8%, slightly pulling back much of the steady growth over the past three years. Although Maple Ridge experienced the most robust price appreciation in 2021 alongside Squamish and the Sunshine Coast, the latter two municipalities were some of the most resilient to price clawbacks in 2022, ending the year with a price change of -0.8% and +0.5%, respectively. The standout markets of 2022 were Burnaby and New Westminster, which posted price appreciations of 4.2% and 6.5% between 2021 and 2022.
In line with Greater Vancouver, the Fraser Valley recorded 716 resale transactions in December, meaning a 14.7% decrease from the previous month and a 60.4% decrease from the previous year. This figure represents the lowest December transactions recorded in the last ten years, as the market experienced seasonal and economic impacts on overall transaction volume. Throughout 2022, the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board saw 15,273 transactions occur, just over half of the volume experienced in 2021 (27,692 sales). While a significant decline, it is essential to note that 2021 represented the record-breaking highest transaction volume recorded in the board's history. Meanwhile, the 2022 sales volume represents the ninth-lowest total of the past decade. Benchmark pricing in the Fraser Valley continued to soften in December, recording month-over-month declines of 2.0%, 1.5%, and 2.6% for single detached, townhomes, and apartments, respectively. On a year-over-year basis, condominium products remained the most resilient to market forces, declining 0.4% relative to the 2.0% seen in single detached products. December's overall sales-to-listing ratio in the Fraser Valley was 18.3%, broken down by product type into 23.4% for townhomes, 24.9% for condos, and 16.9% for detached homes.
Greater Victoria
Sales were down in Greater Victoria by 26.9% year-over-year this past December and a 16.7% decrease from November 2022, resulting in 320 resales in the last month of 2022. Sales of condominiums were down 38.2 percent from December 2021, with 94 units sold, while detached homes decreased 24.6 percent year-over-year, with 156 sold. The entire year, Victoria experienced 6,804 properties sold throughout 2022, down 32.3% from 2021 due to the established conditions and a slowing market. 2022's sales could be comparable to 2014 when 6,698 property sales occurred. When 2022 wrapped, there were 1,688 active listings on Victoria Real Estate Board at the end of December, up 159% from the year-end of 2021. Greater Victoria's benchmark pricing saw slight and promising increases from the year prior. A single-family home in the Victoria Core increased in benchmark value by 1.7% from December 2021 to December 2022. However, this number represents a dip from November 2022's benchmark pricing. Similarly, the HPI benchmark value for a condominium in the Victoria Core area increased 5.6% from December 2021 to December 2022 but dropped slightly from the second-last month of 2022.
While it's likely that interest hike repercussions will continue for a few months, British Columbia's largest markets enter 2023 with tentative optimism for steadied (or even reduced) interest rates and a more balanced market.