Support NeoGAF

[killer_clank]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13030467

There's a strong conention to be made that people voted SNP because of their centre-left campaign promises, not the referendum, as shown in that link, where independence was the *drumroll* 22ND MOST IMPORTANT SNP POLICY!!!!

It's pretty obvious if you vote SNP they'll hold a referendum. It's not a secret. You are right on people not screaming from the hilltops for independence, but the election was mostly about electing a government.

Most people want a referendum to be held, a significant amount of people would vote yes currently, most would still vote no but it's definitely not impossible to gain a yes victory at that point, especially if the coalition becomes any more popular than it is currently.

 

[Omikaru]

for me it seems pretty clear that Scottish people don't paticularly care as long as they get free bus passes for the elderly and a council tax freeze.

Well if that's the case (which it's not), then why the fear over letting them vote for it? If they like the status quo, they'll almost certainly vote no and nothing will change. The SNP will likely give up independence for a generation, and focus on "fighting for Scotland", or some such thing, and will probably maintain support from the public for the policies that they do like.

I think it speaks volumes that Labour does well out of Scotland for Westminster elections, yet loses MSPs all over the place. One is a "keep the bastard Tories out" vote, the other is reflecting true feelings (i.e. we are centre-left, and we want to make this decision once and for all), much like how in Wales Labour does well in both Westminster and Cardiff Bay because the vast majority of people over here are centre-left, and want to stay in the UK.

 

[Meadows]

Well if that's the case (which it's not), then why the fear over letting them vote for it?

I don't fear letting them vote for it, it's just people are framing the SNP as having a mandate for this, and while I'd agree that they generally do, i.e. they have the right to enact their policies, the policies that people voted in the SNP on were mainly about healthcare, policing and transport.

SNP voters aren't all pro-referendum, a great deal are mearly tolerant of the idea. In fact I'd bargain that a lot of voters probably didn't want an referemdum. I voted Plaid Cymru in the AM elections here last year but I don't want Welsh independence, I merely agreed with their infrastructure policies.

 

[killer_clank]

SNP voters aren't all pro-referendum, a great deal are mearly tolerant of the idea. In fact I'd bargain that a lot of voters probably didn't want an referemdum..

I literally know no one who doesn't want a referendum, and polls show a vast majority of people agree. The constitutional question has crippled Scottish politics for decades and it needs to be dealt with, whatever outcome.

 

[Speedymanic]

HS2 Approved by Coalition:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16478954

Yay! Feel happier than I thought I'd be!

Time savings between London and Birmingham seem to be moderate, but the real savings will come when the line spreads out to Manchester/Leeds. Can't help but feel it's going to take too long to build, but at least we're doing something in regards to infrastructure outside of London.

Didn't someone say this wasn't happening? I vaguely remember a few pages of discussion that it wasn't going ahead as the Osbourne didn't want to spend the money. There was also talk of an airport, but I freely admit it might have been a dream.

 

[killer_clank]

Didn't someone say this wasn't happening? I vaguely remember a few pages of discussion that it wasn't going ahead as the Osbourne didn't want to spend the money. There was also talk of an airport, but I freely admit it might have been a dream.

zomg did. did he move to china then? haven't seen him in weeks.

 

[StealthGoblin]

I seriously hope they spend a lot more on Northern infrastructure in the coming years than a rail service which will take decades to complete. If you build the infrastructure, the businesses will grow. The North has a lot of great Universities that can attract investment but the infrastructure just kills it.

 

[Meadows]

zomg did. did he move to china then? haven't seen him in weeks.

oh yeah, wonder what happened

 

[Omikaru]

oh yeah, wonder what happened

The great firewall got him. D:

Spoiler

Either that, or he's just settling in. Moving country is quite an upheaval, after all.

 

[phisheep]

Looking at Scotland Act 1998, under Schedule 5 Part 1 Section 1 , the Union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a reserved matter. That is, it is not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

But there's nothing that I can find that prevents them from having a referendum on the matter. The outcome would be at least informative and perhaps persuasive, and arguably anything over, say, 40% in favour of seccession would be enough to change the tenor of the relationship - doesn't need to be a majority.

Indeed, if the referendum is known not to be binding, then many might be persuaded to vote for seccession who otherwise wouldn't for fear of the consequences. Just to keep the options open.

It's easily the best bet for Salmond to deny these overtures from Westminster.

It also looks to me like there might be something going on behind the scenes here, that the offer of an early mandatory referendum is actually a smokescreen, intended to give extra push to the SNP. Because without Scottish votes, Labour will be nowhere in the rest of the UK (well, except Wales), and without a commitment to separation they'll be nowhere in Scotland either. Conservative/SNP stitch-up to preserve power for both of them - or is that just too cynical?

 

[Meadows]

But there's nothing that I can find that prevents them from having a referendum on the matter.

I suppose that's because when a referendum isn't legally binding it's effectively an opinion poll, and devolved parliaments are allowed to keep their own statistics.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

David Cameron is to take a high stakes gamble with the union this week by telling the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, that he can have a binding referendum on Scottish independence – but only in the next 18 months, after which any referendum can be no more than advisory.

Can i have my EU referendum?

And quite frankly, from that perspective, any interference by the English government in a predominantly Welsh affair would annoy me. I can't be the only one who thinks that, right?.

It'd have far reaching consequences right across the UK, westminster lends legitimacy.

 

[Omikaru]

Conservative/SNP stitch-up to preserve power for both of them - or is that just too cynical?

I think that's probably a tad too cynical. There are far-reaching consequences to Scotland leaving the Union, as I'm sure you'd know too well. I imagine Cameron and Osborne have weighed up the pros and cons of Scotland breaking away, and decimating Labour's parliamentary standing probably isn't worth the shitstorm that would ensue. The Tories would crucify Cameron for presiding over a breakup of the UK. The public might, too, especially once the economic impact is felt.

And besides, I don't think it'd matter whether they win or lose the referendum. Even if Scotland votes No, the SNP will still be a political force in Scotland, constantly eating away at the Labour stronghold. Does Cameron really need to wipe them out, when it's going to get to a point where any future Labour leader would have to make a deal with the SNP for a parliamentary majority anyhow? It probably suits the Tories just as well that Labour would have to stitch together a coalition with the nationalists just to form a government, and they don't have to go through the humiliation of breaking up the country either.

It'd have far reaching consequences right across the UK, westminster lends legitimacy.

I can't really disagree there, but any English interference at such a stage is going to be used by the nationalists against them. You can't have the old power dictating any referendum terms, especially if it looks like they're trying to stitch the result up (which is what the Coalition's current demand of an 18 month referendum looks like). The best they can do is not play dirty tricks, campaign hard and hope it swings their way.

 

[Meadows]

Boundary changes!

Wales has had its boundary draft put through.

It'd mean I'd be in one of the new constituencies: "North Wales Coast", which basically cuts out a load of the countryside off and merges together two urban areas, Conwy/Llandudno and Abergele.

I'm not sure what effect this will have, Clwyd West and Aberconwy, the north of which will make up the new constituency are both Conservative constituencies, so this might make the constituency solid blue, but it would also merge together quite a lot of Labour voters, so it may yet be competitive.

What is for sure is that Plaid Cymru will be all but dead in the area, most of their support comes from rural areas.

Oh, and the new Gwynedd area is fucking massive and is made up almost entirely of various farming communities. Expect this area to go so green it'd make a tree blush.

The new "Menai ac Ynys Mon" constituency merges the Plaid area of Bethesda/Bangor, with the Labour area of Angelsey. Expect this to be a really close race between Plaid and Labour.

 

[SmokyDave]

5% of the UK lives in Wales. Let's just call it 'West England' and have done with it.

You'll be grateful you were on our side when we invade and occupy the Scots.

 

[Meadows]

5% of the UK lives in Wales. Let's just call it 'West England' and have done with it.

You'll be grateful you were on our side when we invade and occupy the Scots.

I agree (I'm English)

Spoiler

I'm spying on them, we need more sheep in England

 

[Salazar]

Pipe down, Dave.

Btw, was staggered to read in the Daily Mail of a two day 45 person orgy in Chepstow.

 

[killer_clank]

Boundary changes!

Wales has had its boundary draft put through.

It'd mean I'd be in one of the new constituencies: "North Wales Coast", which basically cuts out a load of the countryside off and merges together two urban areas, Conwy/Llandudno and Abergele.

I'm not sure what effect this will have, Clwyd West and Aberconwy, the north of which will make up the new constituency are both Conservative constituencies, so this might make the constituency solid blue, but it would also merge together quite a lot of Labour voters, so it may yet be competitive.

What is for sure is that Plaid Cymru will be all but dead in the area, most of their support comes from rural areas.

Oh, and the new Gwynedd area is fucking massive and is made up almost entirely of various farming communities. Expect this area to go so green it'd make a tree blush.

The new "Menai ac Ynys Mon" constituency merges the Plaid area of Bethesda/Bangor, with the Labour area of Angelsey. Expect this to be a really close race between Plaid and Labour.

The boundary changes are pretty dire in almost every way, it has to be said. The constituency I live in, Stirling, just follows the council area exactly, which makes sense. It's already a pretty big constituency, and now it's getting merged with a little bit of Perthshire, becoming "Stirling and Crieff" which includes some more countryside and a town. The addition of this bit is unbelievably crap, since now the constituency spans 2 council areas, and the people in the Perthshire bit are ages away from the main settlement in the constituency, which obviously dominates the work of the MP. This seems to be quite a common theme amongst the changes.

Any big hitters under risk in Wales? There seems to be quite a few elsewhere, Danny Alexanders' and Charles Kennedy's are essentially getting merged.

 

[Meadows]

The boundary changes are pretty dire in almost every way, it has to be said. The constituency I live in, Stirling, just follows the council area exactly, which makes sense. It's already a pretty big constituency, and now it's getting merged with a little bit of Perthshire, becoming "Stirling and Crieff" which includes some more countryside and a town. The addition of this bit is unbelievably crap, since now the constituency spans 2 council areas, and the people in the Perthshire bit are ages away from the main settlement in the constituency, which obviously dominates the work of the MP. This seems to be quite a common theme amongst the changes.

Any big hitters under risk in Wales? There seems to be quite a few elsewhere, Danny Alexanders' and Charles Kennedy's are essentially getting merged.

Hmm, well these changes are only drafted and will be subject to a reasonable amount of change.

We won't see any big hitters go, if the worst comes to the worst some old farts in safe seats will be kicked out of their jobs (i.e. retire) and big-hitters will be moved there.

One thing to watch out for in Wales will be people on Angelsey getting pissy about being merged in with the mainland, although the population of the island doesn't permit it to be its own constituency with the recent increase (absolute minimum population for a constituency is around 73,000 and Angelsey is 68,000)

 

[killer_clank]

Hmm, well these changes are only drafted and will be subject to a reasonable amount of change.

We won't see any big hitters go, if the worst comes to the worst some old farts in safe seats will be kicked out of their jobs (i.e. retire) and big-hitters will be moved there.

Wouldn't bother me nearly as much if AV had won.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

zomg did. did he move to china then? haven't seen him in weeks.

Still in the UK. Well only just. I was in Sri Lanka on holiday for a couple of weeks so the lack of internet was a bit of a killer!

Still haven't decided on China, but I have until the end of March to decide whether I want to go or not since the job starts in late October.

On HS2. I still have it on very good authority that it won't happen. Take a look at the timescales involved...

 

[Meadows]

I still have it on very good authority that it won't happen. Take a look at the timescales involved...

I dunno, surely they'd get slaughtered for approving it and then not doing it. You know, wastage and all that.

And its good to see you back.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I just read the notionals for the complete boundary changes for the UK. Tories on 299 with their 2010 vote share, and they only need a 0.1% swing for a majority.

		New Boundaries		2010 Boundaries
LAB MAJORITY	LAB LEAD 4.3%		LAB LEAD 3%
LAB MOST SEATS	CON LEAD below 2.2%	CON LEAD below 4%
CON MOST SEATS	CON LEAD above 2.2%	CON LEAD 4%
CON MAJORITY	CON LEAD above 7.4%	CON LEAD 11%

That's an important table and shows how big the gulf was in terms of having a majority government and how Labour had gamed and gerrymandered the system in their 13 years. In 2010 it was possible for Labour to have a majority government on a lead of 3% of the vote while the Tories needed a full 11% lead to get a look in. Now it is 4.3% for Labour and 7.4% for the Tories, still not equal, but the gulf has been closed and it looks more reasonable.

On the new boundaries I would say Tory majority in 2015, if Ed M is still in charge of Labour then I expect a large one, if it is someone else (Darling) then a small one.

 

[phisheep]

What does it look like without Scotland?

 

[Walshicus]

What does it look like without Scotland?

An even bigger indictment of electoral reform.

 

[killer_clank]

ooooooft.

The whole "Scotland stops England having perpetual Tory rule" thing is total crap right now, but on those boundaries...

 

[Chinner]

i can already tell you that the tories will get in 2015. labour desperately need a leader people can identify with, and ed is no that..

fucking panda eyed twat.

 

[SmokyDave]

fucking panda eyed twat.

Someone pissed in your pond this morning?

I like it when your feathers are ruffled.

 

[mrklaw]

This Scotland thing is going to get so messy.

Sounds like the SNP want it in 2014 to stir up nationalistic sentiment due to the anniversary. Then they want to allow 16 year olds to vote as they're more likely to vote for independance. Then they want a 'oops we fucked up' get out clause for super devolution in case they don't get the response they want for full independence.

And if the westminster government has to wait until Salmond announces a referendum, then takes it to court, it'll just generate anti-westminster sentiment that'll help Salmond get a 'yes' vote.

I can't see it being pretty.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

What does it look like without Scotland?

Don't know, probably not very pretty for Labour as the Tories only have one seat on the new notionals.

An even bigger indictment of electoral reform.

And Labour being able have a majority on 3% but Tories only getting one on 11% was a good thing? I suppose it would be for you, but in reality it was terrible for democracy.

ooooooft.

The whole "Scotland stops England having perpetual Tory rule" thing is total crap right now, but on those boundaries...

Without Scotland Labour will be out of power for a generation or more, but the UK will also be weaker for it. England is a nice country, but England, Scotland, Wales and NI together are much stronger than separate entities, that's for sure. If Scotland votes for independence the biggest losers will be Scotland and Labour. I don't see it happening. I think what we will get is devomax whereby Scotland have just a single representative in Westminster who is appointed by the government of the day and has a permanent Cabinet position and will be involved in all decisions regarding the union but sit out England and Wales only policy discussions. No MPs though and no subsidies, but they will have full tax raising powers, and possible debt raising powers, though I don't know if that is good or bad.

i can already tell you that the tories will get in 2015. labour desperately need a leader people can identify with, and ed is no that..

fucking panda eyed twat.

Darling is the only one I can think of, but he could be too Scottish...

 

[Walshicus]

And Labour being able have a majority on 3% but Tories only getting one on 11% was a good thing? I suppose it would be for you, but in reality it was terrible for democracy.

No, any party having a majority in parliament without a majority of the vote *IS* terrible for democracy. We have a bad electoral system.

Without Scotland Labour will be out of power for a generation or more,

Under the existing electoral system perhaps. But I doubt a generation. Three terms perhaps.

England is a nice country, but England, Scotland, Wales and NI together are much stronger than separate entities, that's for sure.

Hardly. By what metrics? Size means jack shit here. We are weaker for being tied together. Scotland needs policies that represent the Scottish electorate. Trident, English military adventures, healthcare and education, the list of policy areas where the Scottish public institutionally differs from the English is huge.

Big monolithic multinational states like the UK are out of date for the needs of 21st century Europeans.

I think what we will get is devomax whereby Scotland have just a single representative in Westminster who is appointed by the government of the day and has a permanent Cabinet position and will be involved in all decisions regarding the union but sit out England and Wales only policy discussions. No MPs though and no subsidies, but they will have full tax raising powers, and possible debt raising powers, though I don't know if that is good or bad.

I see "devomax" as a likely temporary stepping stone towards either full divergence or the relegation of the "UK" to a ceremonial entity like the Commonwealth. The completely obvious solution to this whole issue is to create an English parliament and demote Westminster responsibility for those few remaining multinational policy areas like defence.

 

[radioheadrule83]

This Scotland thing is going to get so messy.

Sounds like the SNP want it in 2014 to stir up nationalistic sentiment due to the anniversary. Then they want to allow 16 year olds to vote as they're more likely to vote for independance. Then they want a 'oops we fucked up' get out clause for super devolution in case they don't get the response they want for full independence.

And if the westminster government has to wait until Salmond announces a referendum, then takes it to court, it'll just generate anti-westminster sentiment that'll help Salmond get a 'yes' vote.

I can't see it being pretty.

I agree. Dave is handling this one badly though...

What are his arguments for wanting it within 6 months? The only acceptable reason for proposing a timetable on a Scottish referendum is if we're saying to the Scots, look, we'll let you have it but we need the timings right for economic reasons, we need to plan what we're going to do with the Astute class nuclear subs, work out arrangements on military basing, territorial waters, your share of taxpayer owned assets etc. A lot of budgets, such as defence budgets, run on a 10+ year calendar. You need to know what the variables are going to be in order to plan for the future. Obviously 2014 is a year before a general election in the UK too, and could throw that into turmoil too... 5 million+ voters suddenly disappearing off the map, possibly unbalancing the new boundary system that we're talking about now...

If these are his reasons, he needs to lay them out. At the moment, he's just playing into their hands so Salmond can run around doing his dreary "I wonnae be dictated to by a tory priminister down in London" routine...

I'd just work with them on it. Draw up contingencies now, you've got 2 years to work out what you do in each eventuality... let them do it.

I personally think a silent majority in the UK, even in Scotland, can see the value in the Union.

If Scotland had independence sooner, they'd probably have struggled on the scale of Iceland... it was only together that we've been able to weather this storm as well as we have.

I see "devomax" as a likely temporary stepping stone towards either full divergence or the relegation of the "UK" to a ceremonial entity like the Commonwealth. The completely obvious solution to this whole issue is to create an English parliament and demote Westminster responsibility for those few remaining multinational policy areas like defence.

I have no issue with devomax as long as it doesn't ammount to Scots getting more for nothing. If they want more power, they should take more responsibility, and taxation should work differently. You highlight areas like education and health as where you think Scots differ -- if they do, let them do it their way, but let them pay for it themselves. If you're going your own way, the rest of us don't want to pay.

 

[Empty]

bring out the tissues for these poor souls.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...5m-debt-said-upper-crust-recession-proof.html

what if they had to associate with common riff-raff at shudder a state school.

also i wish i had the statistical skills to actually calculate the effect of this so it wouldn't just be lazy speculation, but i can't help but suspect that the tories winning with 11% of the popular vote vs 3% labour is largely a natural product in a first past the post system where labour has seats in poor areas which tend to have low turnouts because poor people hate politicians more than anyone else, whereas wealthier tory and lib dem areas have people more engaged with politics and are this more likely to vote.

for evidence see the 2010 election results here, sort by turnout percentages and look in the last column who wins the seat

 

[Walshicus]

I personally think a silent majority in the UK, even in Scotland, can see the value in the Union.

I disagree. I think people are conditioned to be inclined to the status quo, but ultimately I've yet to see anyone successfully articulate a popular argument in favour of the union other than "change is hard".

 

[killer_clank]

I disagree. I think people are conditioned to be inclined to the status quo, but ultimately I've yet to see anyone successfully articulate a popular argument in favour of the union other than "change is hard".

You're right there, and that's something the no campaign will HAVE to deal with if they want to win, which they probably will if they come up with a more positive campaign that doesn't descend into those old negative arguments about Scotland being too wee and too poor to go it alone. Unsurprisingly, people don't like being constantly put down.

I honestly don't think the current support in the opinion polls for the union is much based on any historical or emotional arguments for the union in general, more a view that the independence argument needs to be fleshed out more and would be a massive undertaking, and the fact some still believe that Scotland is totally unique amongst first world countries and totally incapable of managing itself. I totally despise those arguments more than anything. It wouldn't be easy certainly, but I think it's definitely possible to win a yes vote if the arguments are good enough.

 

[Jezbollah]

France has lost its AAA credit rating..

 

[Jezbollah]

And so has Austria, with Italy close behind..

 

[Walshicus]

Rumours that S&P would deem the debts of up to 11 governments to be more risky sent London's FTSE 100 down 0.5% and Frankfurt's Dax 0.6%, while the Dow Jones in New York fell 0.8%."

Anyone else get annoyed when the media report in ways like the above? 0.5% down or up isn't unusual. 1% changes aren't new. The markets shift like that in the natural course of things.

A 3% or greater drop is something to be very concerned about, and a downward trend over many days or weeks is something to be concerned about...

 

[StealthGoblin]

I really need to look up how the markets/rating companies work. I literally have no idea how the markets work.

What is actually happening when a companies shares drop? Lack of investor confidence and more people selling at a lower rate than people previously paid to buy?

 

[Walshicus]

I really need to look up how the markets/rating companies work. I literally have no idea how the markets work.

What is actually happening when a companies shares drop? Lack of investor confidence and more people selling at a lower rate than people previously paid to buy?

Generally people selling expect the return on their invesment to drop, people buying expect it to rise. But it's a complex system; partially built on rational analysis, partially on gut instinct, insider knowledge and sometimes foolishness.

 

[Jezbollah]

Austria, Cyprus, France, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain are downgraded by S&P

 

[TCRS]

Whats wrong with these american rating nazis? One day after successful auctions in Spain and Italy they're creating panic again. Coincidence? It's like they alsmost don't want people to buy european bonds.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Whats wrong with these american rating nazis? One day after successful auctions in Spain and Italy they're creating panic again. Coincidence? It's like they alsmost don't want people to buy european bonds.

Italy and Spain got away some short term bonds helped by the ECB's LTRO which lends to banks at 1% for three years who then go out and lend to countries at 2-4% for a period of up to three years.

Post LTRO short term debt isn't going to be a problem, it is rolling over long term debt. Even in the recent short term auctions the bid to cover was only 1.2 which is dismal and smacks of Italian banks being ordered to bid up prices by the ECB and Italian government.

Anyway, the ratings agencies are just the messenger and shooting the messenger never helped anyone. The markets have been pricing French debt at premiums that indicate a AA rating and the situation has worsened. There is also some doubt over the statistics coming from the government as they differ from the Eurostat statistics and there could be a case where Sarko is pressuring their statistics body, INSEE, to massage them to help his presidential campaign. I know a few traders and bankers who don't trust INSEE statistics and don't believe that the French economy is anywhere near as decent as they have made out.

 

[Ashes]

stuff

I just came in to say, you called it. I think you mentioned a couple of weeks ago, that France was going to be downgraded. So your sources turned out good

 

[phisheep]

I just came in to say, you called it. I think you mentioned a couple of weeks ago, that France was going to be downgraded. So your sources turned out good

He's clearly an influential guy our zomgbbqftw, since S&P had to wait for him to come back off holiday before announcing it.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Do the opinions of ratings agencies play a major role in how ratings are given out? What's stopping bias from being attached to ratings based on the firm's opinion of that nations economic policy is, as opposed to the hard numbers and facts?

I don't know much about Economics, but I know it certainly isn't an exact science.

 

[Walshicus]

I just came in to say, you called it. I think you mentioned a couple of weeks ago, that France was going to be downgraded. So your sources turned out good

It was pretty heavily rumoured beforehand.

 

[defel]

Do the opinions of ratings agencies play a major role in how ratings are given out? What's stopping bias from being attached to ratings based on the firm's opinion of that nations economic policy is, as opposed to the hard numbers and facts?

I don't know much about Economics, but I know it certainly isn't an exact science.

I dont think the ratings agencies have any influence whatsoever over the economic policy of governments. Ratings agencies may play a part in forming the opinion of some investors but they are just one opinion in a sea of many. Ultimately its investors (owners and purchasers of government debt) who dictate the terms on which it lends to governments.

If the ratings agencies are being biased in their ratings then so be it. The market will either listen to them or not. In the case of the USA the market responded to S&P downgrading USA debt by simply purchasing more and pushing down yields further.

 

[Walshicus]

Of course rating changes make "good" news.

 

[Namejj]

Do the opinions of ratings agencies play a major role in how ratings are given out? What's stopping bias from being attached to ratings based on the firm's opinion of that nations economic policy is, as opposed to the hard numbers and facts?

I don't know much about Economics, but I know it certainly isn't an exact science.

It's worth looking at the reasons S&P themselves give in their press release:

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?articleType=HTML&assetID=1245327294763

A bunch of factors are listed, like the political indecision, tightening credit conditions etc. Its also interesting that they say they don't think a platform of fiscal austerity alone will work, and will only be self-defeating. So they obviously have to decide what the outcome of policies are and have views about economics, otherwise they wouldn't be able to reach these conclusions.

It's also worth noting that they frequently say stuff to the effect of 'in our view' or 'in our opinion', so they aren't exactly claiming objective truth.