Mr. Observer, I fail to see why we'd want a currency union.
Because there is significant two way traffic between Scotland and the rUK in terms of goods, services, finance and people. Why impose costs on this when you do not have to? If we can get a union on the rUK's terms, I really don't see why we wouldn't - petty vengeance aside.
Dollarization a better option for rUK - all the benefits, none of the costs or risks or giving up control.
The rUK can negotiate a currency union, it cant impose the use of sterling without one.
It won't "impose" - it can say dollarised pound - take it or leave it.
The tone of the nationalist posters on this site makes me think I'd far rather wear a GBP160bn one off bill than have to sit down and negotiate with the likes of them in perpetuity.
Mr. Observer, I fail to see why we'd want a currency union.
Because there is significant two way traffic between Scotland and the rUK in terms of goods, services, finance and people. Why impose costs on this when you do not have to? If we can get a union on the rUK's terms, I really don't see why we wouldn't - petty vengeance aside.
Dollarization a better option for rUK - all the benefits, none of the costs or risks or giving up control.
The rUK can negotiate a currency union, it cant impose the use of sterling without one.
It won't "impose" - it can say dollarised pound - take it or leave it.
And Scotland can say "leave it" with all the negative consequences that would have for rUK.
Mr. Observer, I fail to see why we'd want a currency union.
Because there is significant two way traffic between Scotland and the rUK in terms of goods, services, finance and people. Why impose costs on this when you do not have to? If we can get a union on the rUK's terms, I really don't see why we wouldn't - petty vengeance aside.
Dollarization a better option for rUK - all the benefits, none of the costs or risks or giving up control.
The rUK can negotiate a currency union, it cant impose the use of sterling without one.
It won't "impose" - it can say dollarised pound - take it or leave it.
Scotland does not need England's consent to use a dollarised Pound. Or a dollarised Rouble, for that matter.
The tone of the nationalist posters on this site makes me think I'd far rather wear a GBP160bn one off bill than have to sit down and negotiate with the likes of them in perpetuity.
I agree, that would be the end of the matter, and the BoE's recent statement about obligations for existing debt makes a lot of sense now.
Worst case we'd have a pile of more debt, but that's better than the half-baked ideas that the SNP has been proposing.
The tone of the nationalist posters on this site makes me think I'd far rather wear a GBP160bn one off bill than have to sit down and negotiate with the likes of them in perpetuity.
Nope. That much money can support improved public services, or a tax cut, for rUK. We can tell them to go forth and multiply only after the last bill is paid.
Or, looking at it another way, you (and I mean you) get the benefits of their debt payments without having to sit across from the table from them yourself. No-brainer.
Mr. Observer, I fail to see why we'd want a currency union.
Yes, I'm scratching my head trying to think of what if would offer us that we'd want.
Lower transaction costs in all manner of ways. But if we don't get the terms we want, we don't do it. It's not brain surgery. It's not really an rUK problem; the Scots will have all the thinking to do.
"... it cant impose the use of sterling without one..."
Why should England wish to impose anything on the Scots? Edward I, Malleus Scotorum, died 700 years ago, time we stopped trying to follow his policies. If the newly independent Scots want to use our currency then fine, no problem, but we should not try and make them or accept any obligations on their behalf.
The tone of the nationalist posters on this site makes me think I'd far rather wear a GBP160bn one off bill than have to sit down and negotiate with the likes of them in perpetuity.
Actually, rUK would be in a profoundly strong position. The Treasury don't have to give up anything - it is the Scots who have to deliver an independent country. What are they going to do, turn round to the Scottish people and say "those beastly English wouldn't give us what we wanted, so we are staying together"? *chortle*
Reminds me of negotiating with the Azeri state oil company. I would make my entirely reasonable and compellingly-argued point on the contract. Their guy - a former Greco-Roman wrestling champion - would politely listen, then say "No. Next?"
Lower transaction costs in all manner of ways. But if we don't get the terms we want, we don't do it. It's not brain surgery. It's not really an rUK problem; the Scots will have all the thinking to do.
I agree with your last sentence, the Yes lot need to sell it to the rest of the UK, so far they are putting me right off the idea (independent from the independence question itself).
The people of Somerset have been badly served by their 4 Tory and 2 L/D MPs,who should have taken a grip on this issue years ago.Part of the answer to their and others' problems could lie in beavers.Now,this looks like a good idea but I cannot see the Tories going for it as they cannot see the use of a furry animal that can't be hunted or shot.Beavers to the rescue. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/29/beavers-dam-flooding-owen-paterson?CMP=twt_gu&commentpage=1
The people of Somerset have been badly served by their 4 Tory and 2 L/D MPs,who should have taken a grip on this issue years ago.Part of the answer to their and others' problems could lie in beavers.Now,this looks like a good idea but I cannot see the Tories going for it as they cannot see the use of a furry animal that can't be hunted or shot.Beavers to the rescue. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/29/beavers-dam-flooding-owen-paterson?CMP=twt_gu&commentpage=1
Interesting, and proof again that a beaver is only useful when it's wet.
The people of Somerset have been badly served by their 4 Tory and 2 L/D MPs,who should have taken a grip on this issue years ago.Part of the answer to their and others' problems could lie in beavers.Now,this looks like a good idea but I cannot see the Tories going for it as they cannot see the use of a furry animal that can't be hunted or shot.Beavers to the rescue. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/29/beavers-dam-flooding-owen-paterson?CMP=twt_gu&commentpage=1
Interesting, and proof again that a beaver is only useful when it's wet.
The article Mr. Pete refers to is, of course, short on fact, science and, as regards the problems in the Somerset Levels, geography - about standard for the Guardian.
Anyway, the premise of this thread is that a significant section of the electorate who were daft enough to vote for Gordon Brown might be daft enough to vote for independence.
I have to agree it is a risk. The idea that that section of the electorate is going to be influenced by any sophisticated economic analysis is quite far fetched.
Thankfully some of those who voted SNP to thwart said dafties are waking up and smelling the coffee. I still expect no to win although I have always said it will be quite close.
Argh, I thought coffee house blogs wasn't behind the Spectator's paywall.
As per the Telegraph & Economist soft firewalls, all you need to do is delete the relevant cookies. In Firefox, go to Tools - Options - Privacy then click "remove individual cookies", enter "spectator" then "Remove All Cookies". Hey presto.
Anyway, the premise of this thread is that a significant section of the electorate who were daft enough to vote for Gordon Brown might be daft enough to vote for independence.
I have to agree it is a risk. The idea that that section of the electorate is going to be influenced by any sophisticated economic analysis is quite far fetched.
Thankfully some of those who voted SNP to thwart said dafties are waking up and smelling the coffee. I still expect no to win although I have always said it will be quite close.
It's about 2011 Labour voters, not 2010 ones; so you are actually talking about a much lower number.
The people of Somerset have been badly served by their 4 Tory and 2 L/D MPs,who should have taken a grip on this issue years ago.Part of the answer to their and others' problems could lie in beavers.Now,this looks like a good idea but I cannot see the Tories going for it as they cannot see the use of a furry animal that can't be hunted or shot.Beavers to the rescue. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/29/beavers-dam-flooding-owen-paterson?CMP=twt_gu&commentpage=1
Interesting, but I fail to see how a few Beaver lodges could help with the amount of rainfall we've just had, on an area like the Somerset Levels. The problem is that there's only a few rivers leading out of the area (the Parrett,Axe & Brue), and any water leaving the area has to go through those. I think it's made worse by the fact the Parrett is tidal fas far inland as Bridgwater.
Always beware interest groups using an issue for publicity. And gullible fools believing them ...
On a similar note, when the Fens were drained, a large area was devoted for floodwater storage; this is situated between two dykes half a mile apart and twenty miles long called the Hundred Foot Washes. It floods most winters.
Perhaps we should do similar in the Somerset Levels. Or alternatively flood-protect the villages and roads and use the entire area outside as one big floodplain. Then again, these were exceptional rains.
Argh, I thought coffee house blogs wasn't behind the Spectator's paywall.
As per the Telegraph & Economist soft firewalls, all you need to do is delete the relevant cookies. In Firefox, go to Tools - Options - Privacy then click "remove individual cookies", enter "spectator" then "Remove All Cookies". Hey presto.
or in my case just click on the link on a speccie tweet....
Just been reading some of the comment about the Carney speech, and I was interested by one of the comments on wingsoverscotland (which strongly recommended also David Torrance's piece, and Torrance is no friend of the SNP) .
It is in essence that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - and it is not just the Scots who would have to operate fiscal prudence. How far is this an opportunity for Mr Carney to increase control? And the SNP is already doing pretty well, insofar within the limited scope allowed to it by London (doesn't borrow much if at all, not that it was allowed to, and won't use off the loan balance sheet fiddles like PFI and PPP):
to quote Torrance:
“It will be in the interests of other countries in the union to bail out a country in crisis,” argued Carney, “and that reduces the incentives for countries to run their finances prudently in the first place.” At a minimum, he added, this “moral hazard” suggested the “need for tight fiscal rules, to enforce the prudent behaviour for all in the union”, therefore whatever was agreed between Westminster and Holyrood, “the degree of fiscal risk sharing will likely have to be significant”.
Argh, I thought coffee house blogs wasn't behind the Spectator's paywall.
As per the Telegraph & Economist soft firewalls, all you need to do is delete the relevant cookies. In Firefox, go to Tools - Options - Privacy then click "remove individual cookies", enter "spectator" then "Remove All Cookies". Hey presto.
Judging by the number of surveys from the Guardian which, in a roundabout way (Q1. Do you believe in World Peace? Q2. Do you agree that those who believe in World Peace should pay for quality journalism.....) ask about appetite for paywalls I wonder if, should they start off with a soft firewall, many of their readership will do as you describe....
Mr. Observer, given Salmond's impressive mission to become more punchable than Ed Balls I suspect the break-up will not involve Scotland and England becoming 'best pals' as he suggests.
There will still be a lot of bilateral trade, but that's not in itself a reason for a currency union. Will we be the lender of the last resort to the Scots? That would be about as popular as joining the euro.
WIll they have influence over monetary policy? Again, the English will probably respond to that in the manner they did to the French prior to Agincourt.
Will fiscal transfers take place?
And why have all this hassle and bother to try and placate a country who precipitated the tangled mess by deciding they'd rather separate?
If the Scots separate (and I hope they don't) then I wish them success. But independence must do what it says on the tin. The English (and, I suspect, Welsh and Northern Irish) will be in no mood to allow Scotland to take a pick and mix approach. Independence or union is up to the Scots, but sharing a currency isn't something for them alone to decide. I strongly believe the English will take the view that Scotland can print its own money, run its own monetary policy and enjoy the responsibilities of independence.
Mr. Observer, given Salmond's impressive mission to become more punchable than Ed Balls I suspect the break-up will not involve Scotland and England becoming 'best pals' as he suggests.
There will still be a lot of bilateral trade, but that's not in itself a reason for a currency union. Will we be the lender of the last resort to the Scots? That would be about as popular as joining the euro.
WIll they have influence over monetary policy? Again, the English will probably respond to that in the manner they did to the French prior to Agincourt.
Will fiscal transfers take place?
And why have all this hassle and bother to try and placate a country who precipitated the tangled mess by deciding they'd rather separate?
If the Scots separate (and I hope they don't) then I wish them success. But independence must do what it says on the tin. The English (and, I suspect, Welsh and Northern Irish) will be in no mood to allow Scotland to take a pick and mix approach. Independence or union is up to the Scots, but sharing a currency isn't something for them alone to decide. I strongly believe the English will take the view that Scotland can print its own money, run its own monetary policy and enjoy the responsibilities of independence.
You misunderstand me - the rUK will say to Scotland. "We will enter into a currency union with you on these terms ... ." The Scots will then have to decide whether they will accept them or not.
Obviously, the rUK will not do anything that has the potential to damage its own standing. As I keep on saying, Salmond is currently performing for a domestic audience with one thing in mind. He is not bound by what he says now in any way - this is not a GE campaign in which he can be kicked out if he turns out to have told a load of fibs. This is a one-off, entirely irrevocable vote. Once he has secured a Yes he has achieved 100% of his aims. At that stage he will become far more pragmatic.
Should it vote Yes, Scotland, a country of 6 million or so people, will be negotiating (if that is the right term) with the rUK, a G8 economy of 60 million that is Scotland's single biggest trading partner by far. There will be an ever-so-slight imbalance; but it is in the rUK's interests to be on the best terms possible with Scotland, as long as it does not adversely affect us. Ideally that means a currency union - even if in practice the Scots will not compromise enough for one to actually happen (though I would be hugely surprised if they didn't).
Mr. Observer, let us assume you're right economically (I am unconvinced): that still leaves the enormous likelihood, I think, that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish electorate will be unwilling to share a currency union with Scotland.
If that's so, politically it would be very difficult for parties entering a General Election to say blatantly defy the will of the people.
Absolutely. We need more politicians that are lobby fodder who will never vote for what they actually think is the right thing to do. Much better to just troop in and go along with whatever rubbish is put in front of them.
Labour showed us how it was done when in government.
Mr. Observer, let us assume you're right economically (I am unconvinced): that still leaves the enormous likelihood, I think, that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish electorate will be unwilling to share a currency union with Scotland.
If that's so, politically it would be very difficult for parties entering a General Election to say blatantly defy the will of the people.
But why would the electorate be opposed to a deal that the rUK dictates and walks away from if it does not get the terms it wants? The implication is that voters would be after some kind of "revenge" to punish Scotland for walking away. I concede that is possible, but I sure hope it does not come to pass. Maybe it would be up to our politicians to show a bit of leadership.
Mr. Observer, let us assume you're right economically (I am unconvinced): that still leaves the enormous likelihood, I think, that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish electorate will be unwilling to share a currency union with Scotland.
If that's so, politically it would be very difficult for parties entering a General Election to say blatantly defy the will of the people.
I don't think you need worry, as more than two-thirds in EWNI (71%) were in favour of currency union in a recent poll - see @Theuniondivvie 's post earlier in this thread. To change that would require either a concerted political wrecking campaign in the media and/or diasastrous negotiations, or an agreement that was genuinely deleterious to EWNI - and that latter could not be expected to happen anyway, we are all agreed, though something else would presumably have to be horse-traded as Scotland would have just as much right to sterling as the other successor state of the UK. It's not as if the Scots are trying to avoid paying their share of the National debt, after all.
I note that nobody else has challenged the point that the Scots have something to offer to sterling too - such as a strong balance of payments position, and a fair amount of energy flowing over the border, cross-border trade, and so on - why pay euros for energy if you can pay sterling?
Anyway, many thanks for the discussion to Messrs Dancer, Observer et al - some very interesting insights into different positions and approaches, and food for thought.
Mr. Divvie, it's comments like that which make Salmond's claims England will be Scotland's 'best pal' so unconvincing.
Mr. Observer, if the terms were obviously and absolutely advantageous to England, Wales and Northern Ireland that might fly. But I find it hard to believe politicians will be trusted with that, even if they made such a good deal. The recent history of constitutional change and currency unions is very bad.
Absolutely. We need more politicians that are lobby fodder who will never vote for what they actually think is the right thing to do. Much better to just troop in and go along with whatever rubbish is put in front of them.
Labour showed us how it was done when in government.
If you've read the article then you'll know really that's not what they are saying at all - unless you are Mrs. Bone?
Some on here seem to think it is right and proper for senior Scottish Politicians to tell outright lies on such a monumental thing as the break up of the Union...nice one..tell porkies now to win the vote and then we can backtrack later.. I dont think the average Scot will buy that one
Absolutely. We need more politicians that are lobby fodder who will never vote for what they actually think is the right thing to do. Much better to just troop in and go along with whatever rubbish is put in front of them.
Labour showed us how it was done when in government.
Better still, let's establish 58m political parties to ensure that everyone's precise view is reflected and people are able to choose between them.
As an, ahem, true blue Tory, it irritates the fuck out of me when those self-centred tossers decide that there is a bit of the party they disagree with to the extent that they put the party's success in jeopardy.
Not only is it moronic, it is moronic. Did I say it is moronic?
No party's every policy can appeal to all people, even supporters of that party, but most people, apart from those self-important, self-centred moronic tossers, get that. And most people get the fact that it is best to be in power and contribute to internal debate and structure.
The Cons are fighting UKIP as it is, the last thing they want is a mini-me UKIP comprising MPs of their own party.
The BBC sport feed could be dumped if they keep this up... first entry for the night.
"Tottenham's horror movie
It was the footballing equivalent of a horror movie. It was so gruesome, in fact, that grown men have been banned from ever watching it again. Basically, eleven blokes from north London were ambushed by a remorseless, ravenous bunch from Manchester who were led from the front by a man they call The Beast.
Only 14 seconds had passed before the first shot was fired and, over the course of 90 minutes, it only got worse. It was an absolute mauling. One fella - AVB - never recovered from it, the rest still wake up in hot sweats just dreaming about it."
Mr. Observer, given Salmond's impressive mission to become more punchable than Ed Balls I suspect the break-up will not involve Scotland and England becoming 'best pals' as he suggests.
There will still be a lot of bilateral trade, but that's not in itself a reason for a currency union. Will we be the lender of the last resort to the Scots? That would be about as popular as joining the euro.
WIll they have influence over monetary policy? Again, the English will probably respond to that in the manner they did to the French prior to Agincourt.
Will fiscal transfers take place?
And why have all this hassle and bother to try and placate a country who precipitated the tangled mess by deciding they'd rather separate?
If the Scots separate (and I hope they don't) then I wish them success. But independence must do what it says on the tin. The English (and, I suspect, Welsh and Northern Irish) will be in no mood to allow Scotland to take a pick and mix approach. Independence or union is up to the Scots, but sharing a currency isn't something for them alone to decide. I strongly believe the English will take the view that Scotland can print its own money, run its own monetary policy and enjoy the responsibilities of independence.
You misunderstand me - the rUK will say to Scotland. "We will enter into a currency union with you on these terms ... ." The Scots will then have to decide whether they will accept them or not.
Obviously, the rUK will not do anything that has the potential to damage its own standing. As I keep on saying, Salmond is currently performing for a domestic audience with one thing in mind. He is not bound by what he says now in any way - this is not a GE campaign in which he can be kicked out if he turns out to have told a load of fibs. This is a one-off, entirely irrevocable vote. Once he has secured a Yes he has achieved 100% of his aims. At that stage he will become far more pragmatic.
Should it vote Yes, Scotland, a country of 6 million or so people, will be negotiating (if that is the right term) with the rUK, a G8 economy of 60 million that is Scotland's single biggest trading partner by far. There will be an ever-so-slight imbalance; but it is in the rUK's interests to be on the best terms possible with Scotland, as long as it does not adversely affect us. Ideally that means a currency union - even if in practice the Scots will not compromise enough for one to actually happen (though I would be hugely surprised if they didn't).
Point of order: You've double counted Scots in those population figures I think!
Mr. Divvie, it's comments like that which make Salmond's claims England will be Scotland's 'best pal' so unconvincing.
Mr. Observer, if the terms were obviously and absolutely advantageous to England, Wales and Northern Ireland that might fly. But I find it hard to believe politicians will be trusted with that, even if they made such a good deal. The recent history of constitutional change and currency unions is very bad.
Anyway, let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Funny (not ha ha) that those who find deep fried mars bars & Buckfast hilarious suddenly lose their vestigial senses of humour at 'comments like that'.
24 November 2012. Manchester City 6 (Six) Tottenham 0. A dark day in the history of one of England's biggest football clubs. For Tottenham, there must surely be the temptation to re-run it all and try and right the many wrongs? Not a chance, says Tim Sherwood.
"You might scare them, when you want to motivate them," said the new Spurs boss, ahead of another dust-up with Manuel Pellegrini's men. Sometimes, it's better to keep the horror movie in its box."
Absolutely. We need more politicians that are lobby fodder who will never vote for what they actually think is the right thing to do. Much better to just troop in and go along with whatever rubbish is put in front of them.
Labour showed us how it was done when in government.
Better still, let's establish 58m political parties to ensure that everyone's precise view is reflected and people are able to choose between them.
As an, ahem, true blue Tory, it irritates the fuck out of me when those self-centred tossers decide that there is a bit of the party they disagree with to the extent that they put the party's success in jeopardy.
Not only is it moronic, it is moronic. Did I say it is moronic?
No party's every policy can appeal to all people, even supporters of that party, but most people, apart from those self-important, self-centred moronic tossers, get that. And they get the fact that it is best to be in power and contribute to internal debate and structure.
The Cons are fighting UKIP as it is, the last thing they want is a mini-me UKIP comprising MPs of their own party.
I think I have made my views clear.
The job of the MP is to represent their constituents as best as they can. Not toady up to the party hierarchy. If they disagree with a measure then they should definitely vote against it.
Otherwise what is the point of having so many MPs at all? May as well just one for each party.
Some on here seem to think it is right and proper for senior Scottish Politicians to tell outright lies on such a monumental thing as the break up of the Union...nice one..tell porkies now to win the vote and then we can backtrack later.. I dont think the average Scot will buy that one
Absolutely. We need more politicians that are lobby fodder who will never vote for what they actually think is the right thing to do. Much better to just troop in and go along with whatever rubbish is put in front of them.
Labour showed us how it was done when in government.
If you've read the article then you'll know really that's not what they are saying at all - unless you are Mrs. Bone?
Nope you got me. Not read one word. I also have no idea who Mrs Bone is (surely a made up name?). Is her first name Nora?
Still it doesn't alter the fact that MPs that wave through all legislation put in front of them without protest are completely and utterly useless.
Some on here seem to think it is right and proper for senior Scottish Politicians to tell outright lies on such a monumental thing as the break up of the Union...nice one..tell porkies now to win the vote and then we can backtrack later.. I dont think the average Scot will buy that one
As someone who constantly exaggerated the number of people employed by Faslane (20k was your 'estimate' wasn't it?), if I were you I'd desist from chucking your very wee stones.
Absolutely. We need more politicians that are lobby fodder who will never vote for what they actually think is the right thing to do. Much better to just troop in and go along with whatever rubbish is put in front of them.
Labour showed us how it was done when in government.
Better still, let's establish 58m political parties to ensure that everyone's precise view is reflected and people are able to choose between them.
As an, ahem, true blue Tory, it irritates the fuck out of me when those self-centred tossers decide that there is a bit of the party they disagree with to the extent that they put the party's success in jeopardy.
Not only is it moronic, it is moronic. Did I say it is moronic?
No party's every policy can appeal to all people, even supporters of that party, but most people, apart from those self-important, self-centred moronic tossers, get that. And they get the fact that it is best to be in power and contribute to internal debate and structure.
The Cons are fighting UKIP as it is, the last thing they want is a mini-me UKIP comprising MPs of their own party.
I think I have made my views clear.
The job of the MP is to represent their constituents as best as they can. Not toady up to the party hierarchy. If they disagree with a measure then they should definitely vote against it.
Otherwise what is the point of having so many MPs at all? May as well just one for each party.
It is certainly their job to do this but it is also their job to "sell" their party to their constituents. After all they came to power on the party manifesto (I appreciate this changed in this most recent coalition example).
We have seen the absurdity of competing views with hospital closures. MPs marching against locally and supporting in the Commons. It is illogical and if the constituents disagree with that policy they should choose a party that most closely resembles their views. As stated above, no party will represent exactly each constituents' views and they must accept, and be persuaded that it is the broad majority of a party's policies that should determine support.
Absolutely. We need more politicians that are lobby fodder who will never vote for what they actually think is the right thing to do. Much better to just troop in and go along with whatever rubbish is put in front of them.
Labour showed us how it was done when in government.
If you've read the article then you'll know really that's not what they are saying at all - unless you are Mrs. Bone?
Nope you got me. Not read one word. I also have no idea who Mrs Bone is (surely a made up name?). Is her first name Nora?
Still it doesn't alter the fact that MPs that wave through all legislation put in front of them without protest are completely and utterly useless.
Absolutely. We need more politicians that are lobby fodder who will never vote for what they actually think is the right thing to do. Much better to just troop in and go along with whatever rubbish is put in front of them.
Labour showed us how it was done when in government.
If you've read the article then you'll know really that's not what they are saying at all - unless you are Mrs. Bone?
Nope you got me. Not read one word. I also have no idea who Mrs Bone is (surely a made up name?). Is her first name Nora?
Still it doesn't alter the fact that MPs that wave through all legislation put in front of them without protest are completely and utterly useless.
Ok I've read the initial article now. Apparently these "nutters" have managed to prevent disasterous UK involvement in Syria, blocked crazy Lords reform and are looking to get more power from the massively unpopular and undemocratic EU.
An unfortunate name; but he sets out the rUK's position precisely. There would be no deviation from this and it would be up to an independent Scotland to take it or leave it. I just cannot see why the rUK would not want to give the Scots the chance to agree.
TUD if you are going to quote someone then please get the numbers right..Why not go into the official figures employed there..shoould be easy to check the payroll numbers You obviously think telling lies is ok in order to win the ref..Says it all really ... hurry up and go.
TUD if you are going to quiote someone then please get the numbers right..Why not go into the official figures employed there..shoould be easy to check the payroll numbers You obviously think telling lies is ok in order to wuin the ref..Says it all really ... hurry up and go.
Would the MoD be a good enough source? Admittedly the assumption is that both of you were talking about Trident- specific jobs. So forgive me if that is not so.
But for the purposes of the indy debate it is in one sense fair enough as Faslane would remain a naval base post indy. And in that case, the MoD answer is 520 (five hundred and a bit).
"Now, they are only one google away from a webpage that will explain – and, crucially, normalise – those desires. There's usually an FAQ page, with "Am I crazy?" near the top. The answer, by the way, is always "No", and it's always society that's in the wrong, whether the website is about underpants perverts or Ukip membership."
I do feel this blogpost would have been enhanced by a Venn diagram.
Completely O/T: do any of the teachers on here (or others) have any views on Easter GCSE revision courses? Any good or just a licence to gouge money out of stressed parents?
Youngest got a good report saying that well able to achieve highest/good grades but under-achieved in mocks. Probably a good thing so that does not get complacent and puts in the extra effort needed and school v.good at telling him what he needs to do.
Saw Labour's PPB - Why did it focus almost universally on Ed Miliband when nobody like's him?
It was like a horror move.
Scared the cat.
You can always rely on the PB Hodges for some independent analysis. Avery LP if the Tory PPB showed you David Cameron dry streaming your granny you would still say it was glorious.
Saw Labour's PPB - Why did it focus almost universally on Ed Miliband when nobody like's him?
It was like a horror move.
Scared the cat.
You can always rely on the PB Hodges for some independent analysis. Avery LP if the Tory PPB showed you David Cameron dry streaming your granny you would still say it was glorious.
I was waiting for the micro-brewer to drive a sharpened goalpost into Ed's heart, compouter.
Why was it so dark and full of transylvanian shadow? Ed was just eerie, a sort of Peter Cushing meets Bela Lugosi.
If it were a Cameron PPB it would have been shot outdoors against a backdrop of sunlit uplands with gamboling lambs and faithful smiling shepherds.
Miliband is very unpopular (for a LOTO) with his ratings consistently showing he is a drag on his party.
To me it seems a very odd choice that you would focus the PPB on a leader that's more unpopular than his party, but perhaps they are hoping even this late in the day they can change the public's perception?
Seems a forlorn hope as the public view about party leaders is usually pretty much fixed by this point in a parliament.
Miliband is very unpopular (for a LOTO) with his ratings consistently showing he is a drag on his party.
To me it seems a very odd choice that you would focus the PPB on a leader that's more unpopular than his party, but perhaps they are hoping even this late in the day they can change the public's perception?
Seems a forlorn hope as the public view about party leaders is usually pretty much fixed by this point in a parliament.
It was a PPB bashing Bankers. For many reasons it was good but here is a few:
1. Most people don't like bankers and blame them for the crash and think the system needs changing
2. Most people think the bankers got off Scot free, so like them publically bashed
3. It will plays well with the Lib Dem/Labour crossover
4. Many people connect the Tory Party to the bankers
Terrible isn't it? It's now a talking point when Miliband doesn't get a hiding. Curse of the Hodges I'm afraid:
'A comfortable win for Miliband is now a fairly routine event. If David Cameron were to get the better of him it would be a surprise, and a big morale booster for the Prime Minister. Which shows just how far he’s come. Ed Miliband now owns Prime Minister’s Questions.'
The time for recrimination, if there ever there was one, is gone. Fact is there's a half decent recovery now, and people want to know when they are gonna get some love.
Labour are fighting today's war with yesterday's weapons.
Miliband is very unpopular (for a LOTO) with his ratings consistently showing he is a drag on his party.
To me it seems a very odd choice that you would focus the PPB on a leader that's more unpopular than his party, but perhaps they are hoping even this late in the day they can change the public's perception?
Seems a forlorn hope as the public view about party leaders is usually pretty much fixed by this point in a parliament.
It was a PPB bashing Bankers. For many reasons it was good but here is a few:
1. Most people don't like bankers and blame them for the crash and think the system needs changing
2. Most people think the bankers got off Scot free, so like them publically bashed
3. It will plays well with the Lib Dem/Labour crossover
4. Many people connect the Tory Party to the bankers
You can "bash bankers" without showing ever two seconds a leader that drag's his party's ratings downwards surely?
Comments
Worst case we'd have a pile of more debt, but that's better than the half-baked ideas that the SNP has been proposing.
Or, looking at it another way, you (and I mean you) get the benefits of their debt payments without having to sit across from the table from them yourself. No-brainer.
Why should England wish to impose anything on the Scots? Edward I, Malleus Scotorum, died 700 years ago, time we stopped trying to follow his policies. If the newly independent Scots want to use our currency then fine, no problem, but we should not try and make them or accept any obligations on their behalf.
Reminds me of negotiating with the Azeri state oil company. I would make my entirely reasonable and compellingly-argued point on the contract. Their guy - a former Greco-Roman wrestling champion - would politely listen, then say "No. Next?"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/29/beavers-dam-flooding-owen-paterson?CMP=twt_gu&commentpage=1
UKIP 26.5
Con 12.5
LD 9.5
5/6 under over anyone?
Why yes, that is my coat. How kind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhyCL-ELRxg
The article Mr. Pete refers to is, of course, short on fact, science and, as regards the problems in the Somerset Levels, geography - about standard for the Guardian.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/the-tory-rebels-have-two-choices-shut-up-or-lose-the-election/
I have to agree it is a risk. The idea that that section of the electorate is going to be influenced by any sophisticated economic analysis is quite far fetched.
Thankfully some of those who voted SNP to thwart said dafties are waking up and smelling the coffee. I still expect no to win although I have always said it will be quite close.
They are solipsistic tossers and the headline is bang on.
Always beware interest groups using an issue for publicity. And gullible fools believing them ...
On a similar note, when the Fens were drained, a large area was devoted for floodwater storage; this is situated between two dykes half a mile apart and twenty miles long called the Hundred Foot Washes. It floods most winters.
Perhaps we should do similar in the Somerset Levels. Or alternatively flood-protect the villages and roads and use the entire area outside as one big floodplain. Then again, these were exceptional rains.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/quoted-for-sense/#more-48793
http://fivemillionquestions.org/blog/2014/01/29/mark-carney/
It is in essence that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - and it is not just the Scots who would have to operate fiscal prudence. How far is this an opportunity for Mr Carney to increase control? And the SNP is already doing pretty well, insofar within the limited scope allowed to it by London (doesn't borrow much if at all, not that it was allowed to, and won't use off the loan balance sheet fiddles like PFI and PPP):
to quote Torrance:
“It will be in the interests of other countries in the union to bail out a country in crisis,” argued Carney, “and that reduces the incentives for countries to run their finances prudently in the first place.” At a minimum, he added, this “moral hazard” suggested the “need for tight fiscal rules, to enforce the prudent behaviour for all in the union”, therefore whatever was agreed between Westminster and Holyrood, “the degree of fiscal risk sharing will likely have to be significant”.
There will still be a lot of bilateral trade, but that's not in itself a reason for a currency union. Will we be the lender of the last resort to the Scots? That would be about as popular as joining the euro.
WIll they have influence over monetary policy? Again, the English will probably respond to that in the manner they did to the French prior to Agincourt.
Will fiscal transfers take place?
And why have all this hassle and bother to try and placate a country who precipitated the tangled mess by deciding they'd rather separate?
If the Scots separate (and I hope they don't) then I wish them success. But independence must do what it says on the tin. The English (and, I suspect, Welsh and Northern Irish) will be in no mood to allow Scotland to take a pick and mix approach. Independence or union is up to the Scots, but sharing a currency isn't something for them alone to decide. I strongly believe the English will take the view that Scotland can print its own money, run its own monetary policy and enjoy the responsibilities of independence.
Obviously, the rUK will not do anything that has the potential to damage its own standing. As I keep on saying, Salmond is currently performing for a domestic audience with one thing in mind. He is not bound by what he says now in any way - this is not a GE campaign in which he can be kicked out if he turns out to have told a load of fibs. This is a one-off, entirely irrevocable vote. Once he has secured a Yes he has achieved 100% of his aims. At that stage he will become far more pragmatic.
Should it vote Yes, Scotland, a country of 6 million or so people, will be negotiating (if that is the right term) with the rUK, a G8 economy of 60 million that is Scotland's single biggest trading partner by far. There will be an ever-so-slight imbalance; but it is in the rUK's interests to be on the best terms possible with Scotland, as long as it does not adversely affect us. Ideally that means a currency union - even if in practice the Scots will not compromise enough for one to actually happen (though I would be hugely surprised if they didn't).
If that's so, politically it would be very difficult for parties entering a General Election to say blatantly defy the will of the people.
Labour showed us how it was done when in government.
Especially if the Scots start inviting some of their overseas socialist pals for a visit, which I would not put past them.
I can just see how negotiating currency union would go down as Christina Kirchner rails about the Falklands from the heights of Edinburgh castle.
I note that nobody else has challenged the point that the Scots have something to offer to sterling too - such as a strong balance of payments position, and a fair amount of energy flowing over the border, cross-border trade, and so on - why pay euros for energy if you can pay sterling?
Anyway, many thanks for the discussion to Messrs Dancer, Observer et al - some very interesting insights into different positions and approaches, and food for thought.
Mr. Observer, if the terms were obviously and absolutely advantageous to England, Wales and Northern Ireland that might fly. But I find it hard to believe politicians will be trusted with that, even if they made such a good deal. The recent history of constitutional change and currency unions is very bad.
Anyway, let's hope it doesn't come to that.
As an, ahem, true blue Tory, it irritates the fuck out of me when those self-centred tossers decide that there is a bit of the party they disagree with to the extent that they put the party's success in jeopardy.
Not only is it moronic, it is moronic. Did I say it is moronic?
No party's every policy can appeal to all people, even supporters of that party, but most people, apart from those self-important, self-centred moronic tossers, get that. And most people get the fact that it is best to be in power and contribute to internal debate and structure.
The Cons are fighting UKIP as it is, the last thing they want is a mini-me UKIP comprising MPs of their own party.
I think I have made my views clear.
"Tottenham's horror movie
It was the footballing equivalent of a horror movie. It was so gruesome, in fact, that grown men have been banned from ever watching it again.
Basically, eleven blokes from north London were ambushed by a remorseless, ravenous bunch from Manchester who were led from the front by a man they call The Beast.
Only 14 seconds had passed before the first shot was fired and, over the course of 90 minutes, it only got worse. It was an absolute mauling. One fella - AVB - never recovered from it, the rest still wake up in hot sweats just dreaming about it."
Funny (not ha ha) that those who find deep fried mars bars & Buckfast hilarious suddenly lose their vestigial senses of humour at 'comments like that'.
24 November 2012. Manchester City 6 (Six) Tottenham 0.
A dark day in the history of one of England's biggest football clubs. For Tottenham, there must surely be the temptation to re-run it all and try and right the many wrongs? Not a chance, says Tim Sherwood.
"You might scare them, when you want to motivate them," said the new Spurs boss, ahead of another dust-up with Manuel Pellegrini's men. Sometimes, it's better to keep the horror movie in its box."
Otherwise what is the point of having so many MPs at all? May as well just one for each party.
In January Spurs have played just 4 games, Man City have played 8.
We should finish the stronger ..... ..
Still it doesn't alter the fact that MPs that wave through all legislation put in front of them without protest are completely and utterly useless.
Ronald Macdonald is Adam Smith Professor of Political Economy at Glasgow University
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ronald-macdonald/scottish-independence_b_4688617.html?1391017586&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
We have seen the absurdity of competing views with hospital closures. MPs marching against locally and supporting in the Commons. It is illogical and if the constituents disagree with that policy they should choose a party that most closely resembles their views. As stated above, no party will represent exactly each constituents' views and they must accept, and be persuaded that it is the broad majority of a party's policies that should determine support.
Did the beavers move the goalposts?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/douglas-carswell-i-was-wrong-to-rebel/
Yeah terrible.
challenger banks...SMEs...innovation...even high pay...
not bad (inner London metropolitan microbrewery elite aside).
The boring principle remains, however, that any challenger banks will have to price debt in pretty much the same way as anyone else.
Not that I'm sure anyone will be in the mood or have the attention span to listen to such minor details as good or bad credits.
**Innocent Face**
But for the purposes of the indy debate it is in one sense fair enough as Faslane would remain a naval base post indy. And in that case, the MoD answer is 520 (five hundred and a bit).
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/labour-and-tories-under-fire-for-inflating-trident-job-losses.19262922
This was the one they discussed:
fivepointsbrewing.co.uk/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oamGnLC6FYY
The star of Labour’s new Party Political Broadcast said his business was “under attack” from Labour’s high taxes
http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2014/01/the-star-of-labours-new-party-political-broadcast-said-his-business-was-under-attack-from-labours-high-taxes.html
**Guilty Face**
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100012213/how-ebay-created-a-paradise-for-foot-fetishists/
"Now, they are only one google away from a webpage that will explain – and, crucially, normalise – those desires. There's usually an FAQ page, with "Am I crazy?" near the top. The answer, by the way, is always "No", and it's always society that's in the wrong, whether the website is about underpants perverts or Ukip membership."
I do feel this blogpost would have been enhanced by a Venn diagram.
Youngest got a good report saying that well able to achieve highest/good grades but under-achieved in mocks. Probably a good thing so that does not get complacent and puts in the extra effort needed and school v.good at telling him what he needs to do.
But you know what parents are like......
Scared the cat.
Why was it so dark and full of transylvanian shadow? Ed was just eerie, a sort of Peter Cushing meets Bela Lugosi.
If it were a Cameron PPB it would have been shot outdoors against a backdrop of sunlit uplands with gamboling lambs and faithful smiling shepherds.
Have Labour something to hide?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/matthewholehouse/100257347/axis-of-equal-shock-and-awe-at-milibands-slick-new-film/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/the-spectator/2014/01/the-tory-rebels-have-two-choices-shut-up-or-lose-the-election/
His previous work includes House of Saddam, the “chilling and riveting” Bafta-nominated mini-series
P.S. I see the director also has credits for the TV Films "Flesh and Blood" and "Strike Back".
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/lloyd-evans/2014/01/pmqs-sketch-cameron-kick-starts-a-miliband-recovery/
Video of what was the world's only MagLev system which was in operation at Birmingham Airport between 1984 and 1995:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=asVQzbOftqE&
To me it seems a very odd choice that you would focus the PPB on a leader that's more unpopular than his party, but perhaps they are hoping even this late in the day they can change the public's perception?
Seems a forlorn hope as the public view about party leaders is usually pretty much fixed by this point in a parliament.
1. Most people don't like bankers and blame them for the crash and think the system needs changing
2. Most people think the bankers got off Scot free, so like them publically bashed
3. It will plays well with the Lib Dem/Labour crossover
4. Many people connect the Tory Party to the bankers
Tim
SeanT
Sunil
Plato
"It's all Man City with shots being fired in at all angles"
"Spurs are doing great keeping it at 1-0"
:fecking-grow-a-pair-scots:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oamGnLC6FYY
'A comfortable win for Miliband is now a fairly routine event. If David Cameron were to get the better of him it would be a surprise, and a big morale booster for the Prime Minister.
Which shows just how far he’s come. Ed Miliband now owns Prime Minister’s Questions.'
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100186405/ed-miliband-now-rules-the-house-of-commons-whod-have-thought-it-a-year-ago/
The time for recrimination, if there ever there was one, is gone. Fact is there's a half decent recovery now, and people want to know when they are gonna get some love.
Labour are fighting today's war with yesterday's weapons.