A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
Ill say it again, this "money no object" line is unwise.
Could easily look like its no object when it comes to rural farmers, but is an object when it comes to spare room subsidies, and any other thing that the government has cut
Would a better Plan A not be simply to have a new Scottish currency? There' so much political, economic and cultural baggage associated with either Sterling or the Euro - plus the fact that either of those two means no real independence at all.
I don't really get why the Thistle or the Groat or the Sporran or whatever it is to be called is not the automatic preference for a self respecting independent country. Seems weird.
If they issued a crypto-currency with low transaction fees, pseudonymity and no censorship, then pegged their currency to the pound, dollar or euro, they could pay for public spending purely by printing money, and they wouldn't need taxes.
They'd be safer using bitcoin.
Bitcoin would be horrible as a national currency, because it's deflationary and insanely volatile. But if you made a currency that was almost identical to bitcoin, except that the Scottish government printed money when people needed more to keep it stable, and put some of that money aside to buy it back if people wanted less and the value looked like dropping, the world would use that as the default currency of the internet. Scotland wouldn't be able to control or censor payments - all they'd do would be issue new coins, keep a bit back in case they needed to spend it to hold the peg, then spend the rest on schools and hospitals or whatever.
Ill say it again, this "money no object" line is unwise.
Could easily look like its no object when it comes to rural farmers, but is an object when it comes to spare room subsidies, and any other thing that the government has cut
Disagree.
It actually works well for him. He will have that soundbite hanging there in a response to a natural disaster but actually he is cutting 500 people from the EA (if EdM is to be believed).
EU not that supportive of Eck charging English students differents fees post Indy.
Any attempt to treat Scottish and non-Scottish students differently could be regarded as “a covert form of discrimination on grounds of nationality”, European commissioner for education Androulla Vassiliou said.
No precedent, could, maybe - all leaving it open. And it would rather depend on the small matter of whether EWNI stayed in the EU.
The underlying problem is not anti-English discrimination by the SNP. The current system is based on residency, what it always was all over the UK before the other administrations moved the goalposts and them complained. The issue is that at least some Scottish uni places must be saved for Scottish children because of the Scottish school highers/4 year uni degree system, lest they be swamped (it is not so easy to combine highers with a 3 year degree). That is a unique issue within the EU so of course there is no precedent. (I believe there is a bit of a problem with German students going for Austrian universities because of differential fees, but as far as I know it's not the same thing qualitatively or quantitatively.)
"Money no object" was always going to be open to inquisition. Once that's been said, it's open season now, for anyone facing a budget cut. Milliband is right to question, why, if money is no object, shouldn't the EA think again about staff cuts.
If they issued a crypto-currency with low transaction fees, pseudonymity and no censorship, then pegged their currency to the pound, dollar or euro, they could pay for public spending purely by printing money, and they wouldn't need taxes.
"Alfred the Great fought back - and he very nearly failed, which would have meant we now speak Danish."
Which is a bit of an odd comment because in 1016 England came to have a Danish King. Good old Canute who a couple of years later united the crowns of England and Denmark and created a North Sea empire, which expanded to include Norway and bits of Sweden. So in term sof protecting England from the Danes, Alfred really need not have bothered.
As an aside the shenanigans that went on between his sons after Canute's death would make a wonderful modern novel - you've got everything love (well sex), betrayal, murder, war, and false family trees (usually a sign of incest) all topped off by a lust for power and eventual tragedy (William the Bastard winning at Hastings).
As our late lamented SeanT once pointed out, you should think in terms of population not governance. Some invasions had a massive cultural impact on the aristocracy (eg Norman Conquest) but in absolute numbers terms were insignificant (a tiny tiny % of the overall population). The serfs hated them but carried on speaking English. Canute was a later example of this - they brought a Danish line to the throne but not real numbers to the populace, and the English language sailed on regardless. They even promised to rule according to the laws of Edward the Confessor. An English King in every meaningful sense, just of Danish origin. Look at George I - German and spoke no English but super rapidly the Hanoverian line became totally English and they left essentially no Germanic traces in the language or the national DNA. Likewise William of Orange and the Dutch after 1688.
Alfred and the vikings was a bit different. The anglo-saxon kings AND THEIR PEOPLE were displaced. Had they not fought back then we would have lost English, even among the people and not just the barons. Pretty much all the other examples were tiny tribal infighting amongst the nobles with close to no impact on the population at large. In fact much the most significant invasion we've ever had in terms of population impact was the Anglo-Saxons pushing the Celtic tribes out of England - as much as 45% of the total population of the British Isles, leaving England largely Celt-free after the dark-ages.
"Alfred the Great fought back - and he very nearly failed, which would have meant we now speak Danish."
Which is a bit of an odd comment because in 1016 England came to have a Danish King. Good old Canute who a couple of years later united the crowns of England and Denmark and created a North Sea empire, which expanded to include Norway and bits of Sweden. So in term sof protecting England from the Danes, Alfred really need not have bothered.
As an aside the shenanigans that went on between his sons after Canute's death would make a wonderful modern novel - you've got everything love (well sex), betrayal, murder, war, and false family trees (usually a sign of incest) all topped off by a lust for power and eventual tragedy (William the Bastard winning at Hastings).
I did my dissertation on Canute. He was a very clever man. He used patronage expertly. As the first King of England with an overseas empire he had to develop a power network that none of his predecessors had needed. The fact that he was able to spend years of his reign outside England and not be challenged shows how successful he was.
Indeed, Mr. Observer, I have always been a great admirer of Canute. Shame none of his sons had his political nous or even some common sense. Witness Harthacnut's death - he signs a treaty saying if he dies without a legitimate son the Crown will pass to his half-brother Edward (later known as the Confessor) and promptly drops dead at a family piss-up (bet that came a shock to his political enemies).
Anyway, I don't suppose there is any chance of getting a sight of your dissertation, is there? I should love to read it.
Mr. Observer, English kings faced very regular challenges in the succeeding centuries, which would seem to make Canute's overseas trips (without challenge) even more impressive.
Absolutely, he used the levers of powers brilliantly for himself. But it was a system that needed him at the top. Once he died, the power and ambition of earls such as Godwin and Leofric was too much for Anglo-Saxon England to endure.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
I agree, but that's not what Salmond or the SNP is currently offering as a policy, is it?
"Money no object" was always going to be open to inquisition. Once that's been said, it's open season now, for anyone facing a budget cut. Milliband is right to question, why, if money is no object, shouldn't the EA think again about staff cuts.
In my view the line:
"if money is no object to save householders from a natural disaster why can't I employ 20 more people in my quango on £100k each?"
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
Yeah, but what;s in it for the rest of us ? Scotland doesn't need several years to launch its own currency, Slovakia did it more or less over night. Scottish bank notes are already easily identifiable and if the goal is Match 2016 for Indy, that's ample time to put their own currency arrangements in place.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
I agree, but that's not what Salmond or the SNP is currently offering as a policy, is it?
They are offering a policy that is designed to win them a Yes vote. Once they have that, what happens next does not matter. They will have achieved all that they want. Scotland will become an independent country. The terms under which that practically happens are very much a secondary consideration.
Oh, and on Canute I disliked the ITV News at Ten piece comparing the chap in Somerset building a rampart to try and protect his house to Canute. Canute's point 'trying to turn back the tide' was precisely that he couldn't, and that a king was inferior to God.
Ill say it again, this "money no object" line is unwise.
Could easily look like its no object when it comes to rural farmers, but is an object when it comes to spare room subsidies, and any other thing that the government has cut
Disagree.
It actually works well for him.
Nothing works as well as the unmistakable signs of panic.
"Alfred the Great fought back - and he very nearly failed, which would have meant we now speak Danish."
Which is a bit of an odd comment because in 1016 England came to have a Danish King. Good old Canute who a couple of years later united the crowns of England and Denmark and created a North Sea empire, which expanded to include Norway and bits of Sweden. So in term sof protecting England from the Danes, Alfred really need not have bothered.
As an aside the shenanigans that went on between his sons after Canute's death would make a wonderful modern novel - you've got everything love (well sex), betrayal, murder, war, and false family trees (usually a sign of incest) all topped off by a lust for power and eventual tragedy (William the Bastard winning at Hastings).
I did my dissertation on Canute. He was a very clever man. He used patronage expertly. As the first King of England with an overseas empire he had to develop a power network that none of his predecessors had needed. The fact that he was able to spend years of his reign outside England and not be challenged shows how successful he was.
Indeed, Mr. Observer, I have always been a great admirer of Canute. Shame none of his sons had his political nous or even some common sense. Witness Harthacnut's death - he signs a treaty saying if he dies without a legitimate son the Crown will pass to his half-brother Edward (later known as the Confessor) and promptly drops dead at a family piss-up (bet that came a shock to his political enemies).
Anyway, I don't suppose there is any chance of getting a sight of your dissertation, is there? I should love to read it.
I did it in the mid-80s, way before you could save stuff on a memory stick. My Mum typed it up for me! I would love to see it myself as I have not read it for years. I am sure I must have it somewhere. If I can find it, I'd be very happy to send you a copy.
Pegging currencies is never a good idea. Ever. Scotland would have a George Soros moment sooner or later when the peg became unsustainable.
That's not true. Pegging a currency is often successful, and a lot of small countries have very long-term currency pegs. The pegs don't last forever, but currencies don't last forever either. That doesn't stop them being useful while they do last.
"Money no object" was always going to be open to inquisition. Once that's been said, it's open season now, for anyone facing a budget cut. Milliband is right to question, why, if money is no object, shouldn't the EA think again about staff cuts.
In my view the line:
"if money is no object to save householders from a natural disaster why can't I employ 20 more people in my quango on £100k each?"
doesn't resonate.
I'd agree with that, but if the staff being cut are the ones who know their way around a spade and the correct way to lay a sandbag wall, I'd like to suggest they're more important than the guys on 100 grand.
As has just rightly been pointed out, money is no object when it comes to damp houses in the Home Counties, but not, say, helping people who have to choose between heating and eating?
Clearly money IS an obstacle. Raise the flood defence budget to 100bn and we'd have very few flood problems.
V unwise.
The PB tories and right wingers are still banging away endlessly on a currency issue that only 2% of the scottish public said was most important to them in deciding how to vote in the referendum and was rated 8th in November among all other issues. They've also been doing it for years.
Wisdom is not what the PB tories are best known for.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
I agree, but that's not what Salmond or the SNP is currently offering as a policy, is it?
They are offering a policy that is designed to win them a Yes vote. Once they have that, what happens next does not matter. They will have achieved all that they want. Scotland will become an independent country. The terms under which that practically happens are very much a secondary consideration.
If the policy is designed to win a Yes vote then it is a disaster. It looks like the Nats haven't got a clue what to do, which is not ideal for a party trying to persuade voters to take a big risk. "Hey look, here's some MORE risk - we don't even know what currency you will use! Hah!"
And this, of course, is because they do NOT have a clue what to do - see my link downthread: even in 2009 Salmond was hoping to join the euro!
"Money no object" was always going to be open to inquisition. Once that's been said, it's open season now, for anyone facing a budget cut. Milliband is right to question, why, if money is no object, shouldn't the EA think again about staff cuts.
In my view the line:
"if money is no object to save householders from a natural disaster why can't I employ 20 more people in my quango on £100k each?"
doesn't resonate.
I'd agree with that, but if the staff being cut are the ones who know their way around a spade and the correct way to lay a sandbag wall, I'd like to suggest they're more important than the guys on 100 grand.
God knows the Cons have had so many u-turns and cave-ins, I understand that there is a disinclination to bend with the wind in this instance.
Floods are by no means black swan events and I'm sure this won't be the last one this decade but I think a measured long-term approach (as he described) is better than a knee-jerk reaction.
EU not that supportive of Eck charging English students differents fees post Indy.
Any attempt to treat Scottish and non-Scottish students differently could be regarded as “a covert form of discrimination on grounds of nationality”, European commissioner for education Androulla Vassiliou said.
No precedent, could, maybe - all leaving it open. And it would rather depend on the small matter of whether EWNI stayed in the EU.
The underlying problem is not anti-English discrimination by the SNP. The current system is based on residency, what it always was all over the UK before the other administrations moved the goalposts and them complained. The issue is that at least some Scottish uni places must be saved for Scottish children because of the Scottish school highers/4 year uni degree system, lest they be swamped (it is not so easy to combine highers with a 3 year degree). That is a unique issue within the EU so of course there is no precedent. (I believe there is a bit of a problem with German students going for Austrian universities because of differential fees, but as far as I know it's not the same thing qualitatively or quantitatively.)
I don't think that's quite right. Scottish universities were allowing differences in fees based on passport not residence a few years back. Whether this has now been fixed as was proposed I've yet to see confirmed.
The government's handling of the "money is no object" "no blank cheque" is depressingly shambolic. It's not a partisan point, because it's not a partisan issue. It just makes the country look like a chump.
EU not that supportive of Eck charging English students differents fees post Indy.
Any attempt to treat Scottish and non-Scottish students differently could be regarded as “a covert form of discrimination on grounds of nationality”, European commissioner for education Androulla Vassiliou said.
No precedent, could, maybe - all leaving it open. And it would rather depend on the small matter of whether EWNI stayed in the EU.
The underlying problem is not anti-English discrimination by the SNP. The current system is based on residency, what it always was all over the UK before the other administrations moved the goalposts and them complained. The issue is that at least some Scottish uni places must be saved for Scottish children because of the Scottish school highers/4 year uni degree system, lest they be swamped (it is not so easy to combine highers with a 3 year degree). That is a unique issue within the EU so of course there is no precedent. (I believe there is a bit of a problem with German students going for Austrian universities because of differential fees, but as far as I know it's not the same thing qualitatively or quantitatively.)
I don't think that's quite right. Scottish universities were allowing differences in fees based on passport not residence a few years back. Whether this has now been fixed as was proposed I've yet to see confirmed.
"Money no object" was always going to be open to inquisition. Once that's been said, it's open season now, for anyone facing a budget cut. Milliband is right to question, why, if money is no object, shouldn't the EA think again about staff cuts.
In my view the line:
"if money is no object to save householders from a natural disaster why can't I employ 20 more people in my quango on £100k each?"
doesn't resonate.
It requires a fairly politicised (not necessarily inaccurate) view of the world to hear the staff cuts question as that. "If money is no object, why are you making people redundant who are charged with stopping flooding?" is surely the way most normal people would hear it. Now, they might well have a dim view of those whose job it is to stop flooding, what with all the floods and all, but Cameron's strategy here is very risky.
The whip's office "clarification" is just embarrassing - worthy of The Thick Of It. It seems what is actually *meant* is "we will spend everything needed right now to clear up and fix what is broken. Of course there's no blank cheque for all future flood defence works - we are still a country facing massive financial challenges [due to the mess Labour left]. We are committed to doing the best we can with the resources we have, but that means focusing on value for money and employing the right people so we can spend as much as possible where it makes a difference, on the front line."
The question is, why is Cameron scared to make this message explicit in the case of Home Counties flooding, when he has no problem with austerity for everything else?
If they issued a crypto-currency with low transaction fees, pseudonymity and no censorship, then pegged their currency to the pound, dollar or euro, they could pay for public spending purely by printing money, and they wouldn't need taxes.
There's a little teeny logical flaw in that....
Which is?
Much the same as the flaw in ERM which netted George Soros $1.1bn in 1992.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
Yeah, but what;s in it for the rest of us ? Scotland doesn't need several years to launch its own currency, Slovakia did it more or less over night. Scottish bank notes are already easily identifiable and if the goal is Match 2016 for Indy, that's ample time to put their own currency arrangements in place.
What's in it for the rest of us is that at a very basic level we'd want an independent Scotland to be a success. It's not a zero-sum game.
Oh, and on Canute I disliked the ITV News at Ten piece comparing the chap in Somerset building a rampart to try and protect his house to Canute. Canute's point 'trying to turn back the tide' was precisely that he couldn't, and that a king was inferior to God.
Harold Godwinson, slain at Hastings, might have made an excellent English king. He only lost to the Normans because he had to fight (and defeat) the Vikings a few days earlier.
And Anglo-Saxon culture was flourishing at that time. It is one of history's great What Ifs. What If Harold had won in 1066, where would England be now?
William the Conqueror was an utter c*nt who murdered thousands and wiped out the native nobility, yet the Norman Conquest also made the English language the world's greatest and richest language, by lacing the sturdy Teutonic elements with crucial Latin qualities. And the Normans made the English better at war. In the end.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
I agree, but that's not what Salmond or the SNP is currently offering as a policy, is it?
They are offering a policy that is designed to win them a Yes vote. Once they have that, what happens next does not matter. They will have achieved all that they want. Scotland will become an independent country. The terms under which that practically happens are very much a secondary consideration.
If the policy is designed to win a Yes vote then it is a disaster. It looks like the Nats haven't got a clue what to do, which is not ideal for a party trying to persuade voters to take a big risk. "Hey look, here's some MORE risk - we don't even know what currency you will use! Hah!"
And this, of course, is because they do NOT have a clue what to do - see my link downthread: even in 2009 Salmond was hoping to join the euro!
As Mick Pork points out, though, no-one in Scotland cares about the currency. The Yes side just need something that gets them through to the day after the referendum.
It also brings back memories of the hilarious Veto flounce. Remember that? When the most unstable and gullible posters like SeanT were in raptures and appeared to think Cammie might even win off the back of the mighty flounce.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
I agree, but that's not what Salmond or the SNP is currently offering as a policy, is it?
They are offering a policy that is designed to win them a Yes vote. Once they have that, what happens next does not matter. They will have achieved all that they want. Scotland will become an independent country. The terms under which that practically happens are very much a secondary consideration.
If the policy is designed to win a Yes vote then it is a disaster. It looks like the Nats haven't got a clue what to do, which is not ideal for a party trying to persuade voters to take a big risk. "Hey look, here's some MORE risk - we don't even know what currency you will use! Hah!"
And this, of course, is because they do NOT have a clue what to do - see my link downthread: even in 2009 Salmond was hoping to join the euro!
As Mick Pork points out, though, no-one in Scotland cares about the currency. The Yes side just need something that gets them through to the day after the referendum.
A halfwitted remark. Do I even need to spell out why? Doubt wins referendums. Especially doubt about money and economics.
EU not that supportive of Eck charging English students differents fees post Indy.
Any attempt to treat Scottish and non-Scottish students differently could be regarded as “a covert form of discrimination on grounds of nationality”, European commissioner for education Androulla Vassiliou said.
No precedent, could, maybe - all leaving it open. And it would rather depend on the small matter of whether EWNI stayed in the EU.
The underlying problem is not anti-English discrimination by the SNP. The current system is based on residency, what it always was all over the UK before the other administrations moved the goalposts and them complained. The issue is that at least some Scottish uni places must be saved for Scottish children because of the Scottish school highers/4 year uni degree system, lest they be swamped (it is not so easy to combine highers with a 3 year degree). That is a unique issue within the EU so of course there is no precedent. (I believe there is a bit of a problem with German students going for Austrian universities because of differential fees, but as far as I know it's not the same thing qualitatively or quantitatively.)
I don't think that's quite right. Scottish universities were allowing differences in fees based on passport not residence a few years back. Whether this has now been fixed as was proposed I've yet to see confirmed.
However if Scotland moves to Indy then it will have to treat UK students the same as Scots, so no fees.
Only if Scotland is in the EU.
Which of course highlights the point that Salmond saying he will get into the EU but can ignore the rules he doesn't like is a bit lacking in credibility.
I'm calling PMQs as a win for Milliband, although "Money no object" was a fairly open goal.
Sorry got to come back at you on that one - but I think, no matter what Tory whips may fear, that a reasonable man can tell the difference between a natural disaster and ongoing economic management.
No matter what the understandable or imaginary grievances of parts of the population at the cuts, they are not carrying their belongings on a dinghy down the High Street surrounded by soldiers and firemen.
If they issued a crypto-currency with low transaction fees, pseudonymity and no censorship, then pegged their currency to the pound, dollar or euro, they could pay for public spending purely by printing money, and they wouldn't need taxes.
There's a little teeny logical flaw in that....
Which is?
Much the same as the flaw in ERM which netted George Soros $1.1bn in 1992.
Stash away half of what you print to drive the world's e-commerce systems in foreign currency and you'll have no problem holding the peg.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
Yeah, but what;s in it for the rest of us ? Scotland doesn't need several years to launch its own currency, Slovakia did it more or less over night. Scottish bank notes are already easily identifiable and if the goal is Match 2016 for Indy, that's ample time to put their own currency arrangements in place.
Putting aside the fact that the rUK exports a fair bit to Scotland and large numbers of people move between Scotland and the rUK, what's in it for us to make things harder for the Scots than they need to be? If they vote yes, they vote yes and that is the end of it. It's surely in everyone's interests to ensure that after that the divorce process is no more unpleasant than it has to be. That does not mean doing stuff that harms rUK's interests, but I can't see why it should mean ruling out stuff that does us no harm just because it might help the Scots.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
Yeah, but what;s in it for the rest of us ? Scotland doesn't need several years to launch its own currency, Slovakia did it more or less over night. Scottish bank notes are already easily identifiable and if the goal is Match 2016 for Indy, that's ample time to put their own currency arrangements in place.
What's in it for the rest of us is that at a very basic level we'd want an independent Scotland to be a success. It's not a zero-sum game.
If an independent Scotland is to be a success they have to do it for themselves, we can't do it for them, I rather thought that was the point of Independence.
"Money no object" was always going to be open to inquisition. Once that's been said, it's open season now, for anyone facing a budget cut. Milliband is right to question, why, if money is no object, shouldn't the EA think again about staff cuts.
In my view the line:
"if money is no object to save householders from a natural disaster why can't I employ 20 more people in my quango on £100k each?"
doesn't resonate.
I'd agree with that, but if the staff being cut are the ones who know their way around a spade and the correct way to lay a sandbag wall, I'd like to suggest they're more important than the guys on 100 grand.
Indeed, Mr Stopper, out of a workforce of about 12,000 I would be that 500 could be cut without anyone outside actually noticing they had gone and certainly without affecting the core business of the organisation.
Alas the same could be said of the rest of the public sector. How has the HQ of your own service grown since 1997? I would be very surprised if the number of clerical/administrative/managerial posts had not at least doubled or at least far outstripped any increase in the number of actual fire-fighters.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
I agree, but that's not what Salmond or the SNP is currently offering as a policy, is it?
They are offering a policy that is designed to win them a Yes vote. Once they have that, what happens next does not matter. They will have achieved all that they want. Scotland will become an independent country. The terms under which that practically happens are very much a secondary consideration.
If the policy is designed to win a Yes vote then it is a disaster. It looks like the Nats haven't got a clue what to do, which is not ideal for a party trying to persuade voters to take a big risk. "Hey look, here's some MORE risk - we don't even know what currency you will use! Hah!"
And this, of course, is because they do NOT have a clue what to do - see my link downthread: even in 2009 Salmond was hoping to join the euro!
As Mick Pork points out, though, no-one in Scotland cares about the currency. The Yes side just need something that gets them through to the day after the referendum.
A halfwitted remark. Do I even need to spell out why?
Only a halfwit can't understand very clear opinion polling that shows where the scottish public rate such matters rather than the 'exciteable' views of unstable PB right wingers.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
Yeah, but what;s in it for the rest of us ? Scotland doesn't need several years to launch its own currency, Slovakia did it more or less over night. Scottish bank notes are already easily identifiable and if the goal is Match 2016 for Indy, that's ample time to put their own currency arrangements in place.
What's in it for the rest of us is that at a very basic level we'd want an independent Scotland to be a success. It's not a zero-sum game.
If an independent Scotland is to be a success they have to do it for themselves, we can't do it for them, I rather thought that was the point of Independence.
There's something about wishing them well if they do vote Yes. Almost get the opinion Gidiot's going to spit his dummy in that event.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
Yeah, but what;s in it for the rest of us ? Scotland doesn't need several years to launch its own currency, Slovakia did it more or less over night. Scottish bank notes are already easily identifiable and if the goal is Match 2016 for Indy, that's ample time to put their own currency arrangements in place.
Putting aside the fact that the rUK exports a fair bit to Scotland and large numbers of people move between Scotland and the rUK, what's in it for us to make things harder for the Scots than they need to be? If they vote yes, they vote yes and that is the end of it. It's surely in everyone's interests to ensure that after that the divorce process is no more unpleasant than it has to be. That does not mean doing stuff that harms rUK's interests, but I can't see why it should mean ruling out stuff that does us no harm just because it might help the Scots.
Moreover, despite all the huffin and puffin of the "Cybernat surgers" - i.e. repetitive, OCD-afflicted cretins like Mick Pork - the Scot Nats are still way behind in the polls. They need gamechangers.
Everyday spent arguing on one of their weakest points - the currency (and even the most one-eyed observer will admit it is a weak point for Salmond and Co) - is one day less in which they can hope to persuade 10-20% of Scots to switch sides.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
I agree, but that's not what Salmond or the SNP is currently offering as a policy, is it?
They are offering a policy that is designed to win them a Yes vote. Once they have that, what happens next does not matter. They will have achieved all that they want. Scotland will become an independent country. The terms under which that practically happens are very much a secondary consideration.
If the policy is designed to win a Yes vote then it is a disaster. It looks like the Nats haven't got a clue what to do, which is not ideal for a party trying to persuade voters to take a big risk. "Hey look, here's some MORE risk - we don't even know what currency you will use! Hah!"
And this, of course, is because they do NOT have a clue what to do - see my link downthread: even in 2009 Salmond was hoping to join the euro!
As Mick Pork points out, though, no-one in Scotland cares about the currency. The Yes side just need something that gets them through to the day after the referendum.
A halfwitted remark. Do I even need to spell out why? Doubt wins referendums. Especially doubt about money and economics.
I am just trying to articulate the SNP strategy here. They know exactly what the issues will be once there is a Yes (or the party's leadership does - they are smart people and Salmond is an economist), but they believe their best chance of getting a Yes is to pretend the issues do not exist. The Yes is the be all and end all. Whether that works or not is, of course, another thing entirely.
EU not that supportive of Eck charging English students differents fees post Indy.
Any attempt to treat Scottish and non-Scottish students differently could be regarded as “a covert form of discrimination on grounds of nationality”, European commissioner for education Androulla Vassiliou said.
No precedent, could, maybe - all leaving it open. And it would rather depend on the small matter of whether EWNI stayed in the EU.
The underlying problem is not anti-English discrimination by the SNP. The current system is based on residency, what it always was all over the UK before the other administrations moved the goalposts and them complained. The issue is that at least some Scottish uni places must be saved for Scottish children because of the Scottish school highers/4 year uni degree system, lest they be swamped (it is not so easy to combine highers with a 3 year degree). That is a unique issue within the EU so of course there is no precedent. (I believe there is a bit of a problem with German students going for Austrian universities because of differential fees, but as far as I know it's not the same thing qualitatively or quantitatively.)
I don't think that's quite right. Scottish universities were allowing differences in fees based on passport not residence a few years back. Whether this has now been fixed as was proposed I've yet to see confirmed.
However if Scotland moves to Indy then it will have to treat UK students the same as Scots, so no fees.
I am reasonably sure - but could be wrong - that was only for NI people who had taken out Irish citizenship, which indeed led to ambiguity. The key point would seem to be that the students were UK citizens and bona fide residents in NI. The loophole was indeed fixed, it seems
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
Yeah, but what;s in it for the rest of us ? Scotland doesn't need several years to launch its own currency, Slovakia did it more or less over night. Scottish bank notes are already easily identifiable and if the goal is Match 2016 for Indy, that's ample time to put their own currency arrangements in place.
Putting aside the fact that the rUK exports a fair bit to Scotland and large numbers of people move between Scotland and the rUK, what's in it for us to make things harder for the Scots than they need to be? If they vote yes, they vote yes and that is the end of it. It's surely in everyone's interests to ensure that after that the divorce process is no more unpleasant than it has to be. That does not mean doing stuff that harms rUK's interests, but I can't see why it should mean ruling out stuff that does us no harm just because it might help the Scots.
Moreover, despite all the huffin and puffin of the "Cybernat surgers" - i.e. repetitive, OCD-afflicted cretins like Mick Pork
Sounds just like the bluster of a cowerin wee feartie. This is a DISCREET blog. Don't you remember?
It's PB Wednesday so an independent Scotland will be manacled by an oppressive EUSSR, saddled with the Euro, forced to give up all sovereignty and lose the advantages painfully won by noble Westminster. On PB Thursday an independent Scotland will be cast into outer non-EU darkness, its people stripped of their EU citizenship and reduced to Zimbabwean levels of corruption, inflation and one party rule. Alternate between these poles for the next 227 days and watch the froth build.
A currency union under terms agreed with the rUK (ie, the rUK's terms) would give the Scots the breathing space they needed to establish the credentials necessary to launch their own currency. So, in the event of a Yes, what we would have is a process which would see Scotland become an independent country in law, but still tied to the rUK fiscally and economically; and then a few years later a final separation when Scotland floated its own currency and became independent fiscally and economically. Essentially, the markets would decide how long the gap between step one and step two would be. Once they were assured that Scotland could manage its own currency successfully, then the button could be pressed.
Yeah, but what;s in it for the rest of us ? Scotland doesn't need several years to launch its own currency, Slovakia did it more or less over night. Scottish bank notes are already easily identifiable and if the goal is Match 2016 for Indy, that's ample time to put their own currency arrangements in place.
Putting aside the fact that the rUK exports a fair bit to Scotland and large numbers of people move between Scotland and the rUK, what's in it for us to make things harder for the Scots than they need to be? If they vote yes, they vote yes and that is the end of it. It's surely in everyone's interests to ensure that after that the divorce process is no more unpleasant than it has to be. That does not mean doing stuff that harms rUK's interests, but I can't see why it should mean ruling out stuff that does us no harm just because it might help the Scots.
I don't think this is making things harder than it needs to be, no currency union says all sides get a fresh start and take it from there. As in any divorce you split and go your separate ways since experience has shown that's for the best, you don't keep a joint bank account going. Where something is of mutual interest then sure do it the same as we would with any other country, but I've yet to see an argument that says currency union is in that camp . I'm firmly in the camp that says if Scotland goes Indy then the best thing is to have its own currency, since a currency is more than a means to exchange value. If the London house market overheats again because Osborne is an idiot then how's it in Scotland's interest to have interest rates at 5 or 10% when a stand alone might get comfortably by on 3%. Likewise if oil goes shooting up or down why should EWNI make interest rate changes which may not be suitable for their own non-petrocurrency conditions ?
Mr. Gildas, the Normans are quite interesting. There was a short series (think it was a series, anyway) about them a few years ago. Essentially, they were very successful but integrated so well into the cultures they conquered (us, Sicily etc) that they effectively faded away.
If anyone knows the scottish electorate it's PB tories and indeed who better to spell out the INs and OUTs of EU membership than all those gullible right-wingers who believe Cammie's endless Cast Iron Pledges and Promises.
It's PB Wednesday so an independent Scotland will be manacled by an oppressive EUSSR, saddled with the Euro, forced to give up all sovereignty and lose all the advantages painfully won by noble Westminster. On PB Thursday an independent Scotland will be cast into the outer non-EU darkness, its people stripped of their EU citizenship and reduced to Zimbabwean levels of corruption, inflation and one party rule. Alternate between these poles for the next 227 days and watch the froth build.
Unfortunately, it look like you need 227 YEARS to win the referendum, seeing as average support for YES has risen by 1 point in 13 months.
@Alanbrooke - "I don't think this is making things harder than it needs to be, no currency union says all sides get a fresh start and take it from there. As in any divorce you split and go your separate ways since experience has shown that's for the best, you don't keep a joint bank account going. Where something is of mutual interest then sure do it the same as we would with any other country, but I've yet to see an argument that says currency union is in that camp . I'm firmly in the camp that says if Scotland goes Indy then the best thing is to have its own currency, since a currency is more than a means to exchange value. If the London house market overheats again because Osborne is an idiot then how's it in Scotland's interest to have interest rates at 5 or 10% when a stand alone might get comfortably by on 3%. Likewise if oil goes shooting up or down why should EWNI make interest rate changes which may not be suitable for their own non-petrocurrency conditions ?"
Very fair points. But I'd say that's a decision for the Scots. If they want a currency union and are happy to accept the rUK's terms, then what is the problem with that? Obviously, if they are not happy with them then it's a completely different matter.
"Money no object" was always going to be open to inquisition. Once that's been said, it's open season now, for anyone facing a budget cut. Milliband is right to question, why, if money is no object, shouldn't the EA think again about staff cuts.
In my view the line:
"if money is no object to save householders from a natural disaster why can't I employ 20 more people in my quango on £100k each?"
doesn't resonate.
I'd agree with that, but if the staff being cut are the ones who know their way around a spade and the correct way to lay a sandbag wall, I'd like to suggest they're more important than the guys on 100 grand.
Indeed, Mr Stopper, out of a workforce of about 12,000 I would be that 500 could be cut without anyone outside actually noticing they had gone and certainly witwallu fecting the core business of the organisation.
Alas the same could be said of the rest of the public sector. How has the HQ of your own service grown since 1997? I would be very surprised if the number of clerical/administrative/managerial posts had not at least doubled or at least far outstripped any increase in the number of actual fire-fighters.
You'd be correct. We have around 240 support staff during daytimes, Monday to Friday, that includes vital support such as Control, mechanics, BA workshops who work shifts or are on call, but there's probably around 200 office wallahs, including the SMT milling around, during the week. Firefighter numbers have been cut over the past few years, by natural wastage. There has to be a minimum of 65 Wholetime firefighters on duty everyday ( although nowadays, we run on minimum everyday now), plus a hundred or so Retained on call through the county. There will be cuts to operational firefighters once our SMT run out of ideas to save money.
Labour must sometimes think the government wants to lose, so inept is its PR operation. Alistair Campbell must spend most of his days in tears of laughter. The money is no object cockup is so easily avoidable that its almost as if they no longer care. Quite extraordinary.
@Alanbrooke - "I don't think this is making things harder than it needs to be, no currency union says all sides get a fresh start and take it from there. As in any divorce you split and go your separate ways since experience has shown that's for the best, you don't keep a joint bank account going. Where something is of mutual interest then sure do it the same as we would with any other country, but I've yet to see an argument that says currency union is in that camp . I'm firmly in the camp that says if Scotland goes Indy then the best thing is to have its own currency, since a currency is more than a means to exchange value. If the London house market overheats again because Osborne is an idiot then how's it in Scotland's interest to have interest rates at 5 or 10% when a stand alone might get comfortably by on 3%. Likewise if oil goes shooting up or down why should EWNI make interest rate changes which may not be suitable for their own non-petrocurrency conditions ?"
Very fair points. But I'd say that's a decision for the Scots. If they want a currency union and are happy to accept the rUK's terms, then what is the problem with that? Obviously, if they are not happy with them then it's a completely different matter.
So what exactly do they want? Not fiscal and monetary independence? Then what? The trouble is that as soon as you delve deeper you realise (of course it has been transparently obvious since year dot) that ASalmond most certainly doesn't want independence. He wants some kind of DevoMax with him at the controls and, after the No Vote, he is likely to get that.
But for most other politicians such scheming machiavellian tendencies would be punished. Not here, it seems, with willing cheerleaders such as our own CNat contingent.
It's PB Wednesday so an independent Scotland will be manacled by an oppressive EUSSR, saddled with the Euro, forced to give up all sovereignty and lose the advantages painfully won by noble Westminster. On PB Thursday an independent Scotland will be cast into outer non-EU darkness, its people stripped of their EU citizenship and reduced to Zimbabwean levels of corruption, inflation and one party rule. Alternate between these poles for the next 227 days and watch the froth build.
Next thing you know dopey and inept right wingers will be taking the spin of ultra-Blairites like Rentoul seriously rather than looking at all the polls for both No and Yes.
EU not that supportive of Eck charging English students differents fees post Indy.
Any attempt to treat Scottish and non-Scottish students differently could be regarded as “a covert form of discrimination on grounds of nationality”, European commissioner for education Androulla Vassiliou said.
No precedent, could, maybe - all leaving it open. And it would rather depend on the small matter of whether EWNI stayed in the EU.
differential fees, but as far as I know it's not the same thing qualitatively or quantitatively.)
I don't think that's quite right. Scottish universities were allowing differences in fees based on passport not residence a few years back. Whether this has now been fixed as was proposed I've yet to see confirmed.
However if Scotland moves to Indy then it will have to treat UK students the same as Scots, so no fees.
I am reasonably sure - but could be wrong - that was only for NI people who had taken out Irish citizenship, which indeed led to ambiguity. The key point would seem to be that the students were UK citizens and bona fide residents in NI. The loophole was indeed fixed, it seems
I think the issue was more the Scottish govt left a bit of an open door which NI students were quick to catch on to. ( Though technically someone with say a Polish passport living in England could have done the same.) If as the GG article suggests this has now been closed then we move to residency and if we move to Indy then we're back to square on as EWNI will be foreign countries like any other part of the EU.
@Alanbrooke - "I don't think this is making things harder than it needs to be, no currency union says all sides get a fresh start and take it from there. As in any divorce you split and go your separate ways since experience has shown that's for the best, you don't keep a joint bank account going. Where something is of mutual interest then sure do it the same as we would with any other country, but I've yet to see an argument that says currency union is in that camp . I'm firmly in the camp that says if Scotland goes Indy then the best thing is to have its own currency, since a currency is more than a means to exchange value. If the London house market overheats again because Osborne is an idiot then how's it in Scotland's interest to have interest rates at 5 or 10% when a stand alone might get comfortably by on 3%. Likewise if oil goes shooting up or down why should EWNI make interest rate changes which may not be suitable for their own non-petrocurrency conditions ?"
Very fair points. But I'd say that's a decision for the Scots. If they want a currency union and are happy to accept the rUK's terms, then what is the problem with that? Obviously, if they are not happy with them then it's a completely different matter.
I agree with this. rUK wouldn't necessarily rule out a currency union absolutely - but it WOULD want pretty much absolute control, incl spending limits. I just think it is likely that the genuine needs of a rUK may not be politically aceptable to an independent Scotland. My guess is we'd see a temporary arrangement until the Groat came in (pegged or floating).
Mr. Gildas, the Normans are quite interesting. There was a short series (think it was a series, anyway) about them a few years ago. Essentially, they were very successful but integrated so well into the cultures they conquered (us, Sicily etc) that they effectively faded away.
I'm not sure they integrated into Anglo-saxon society at all. They continued speaking Norman French (and made it the legal and "parliamentary" language) even as the vast majority of peasants spoke English. For a century the Normans seldom intermarried, considering the English as inferior.
Their problem was not that they were eager to assimilate but that there were never enough of them. How many Normans moved to England? 10,000? Maximum? The population of England was about 2 million in 1066.
The Normans were simply and hugely outnumbered, so intermarriage became essential, and thus they were absorbed, and even their language disappeared (though it took a long time a-dying).
Mr. Gildas, the Normans are quite interesting. There was a short series (think it was a series, anyway) about them a few years ago. Essentially, they were very successful but integrated so well into the cultures they conquered (us, Sicily etc) that they effectively faded away.
Integrated well? The Normans? Well, I suppose if you count stealing nearly all the land, the destruction of the existing social order, massacre and despoilation of the North and the imposition of a foreign ruling class as integration you may have a point. Mind you by those standards, Nazi Germany integrated well with the locals after their conquest of France.
As for fading away, I might remind you that English as opposed to Norman-French was not used by a monarch until Edward III, nearly 300 years of William's conquest - that's a slow fade.
EU not that supportive of Eck charging English students differents fees post Indy.
Any attempt to treat Scottish and non-Scottish students differently could be regarded as “a covert form of discrimination on grounds of nationality”, European commissioner for education Androulla Vassiliou said.
No precedent, could, maybe - all leaving it open. And it would rather depend on the small matter of whether EWNI stayed in the EU.
differential fees, but as far as I know it's not the same thing qualitatively or quantitatively.)
I don't think that's quite right. Scottish universities were allowing differences in fees based on passport not residence a few years back. Whether this has now been fixed as was proposed I've yet to see confirmed.
However if Scotland moves to Indy then it will have to treat UK students the same as Scots, so no fees.
I am reasonably sure - but could be wrong - that was only for NI people who had taken out Irish citizenship, which indeed led to ambiguity. The key point would seem to be that the students were UK citizens and bona fide residents in NI. The loophole was indeed fixed, it seems
I think the issue was more the Scottish govt left a bit of an open door which NI students were quick to catch on to. ( Though technically someone with say a Polish passport living in England could have done the same.) If as the GG article suggests this has now been closed then we move to residency and if we move to Indy then we're back to square on as EWNI will be foreign countries like any other part of the EU.
It was, to be fair, the way in which the goalposts were moved by the other admins that left the gap in the door - but yes, I'd pretty much agree, so long as EWNI were to stay in the EU of course (and depending on any EU legal action, as well).
I'm calling PMQs as a win for Milliband, although "Money no object" was a fairly open goal.
So we take it that EA admin is yet another cut that Miliband wouldn't have made? If yes - then what WOULD you cut Mr Miliband? If no - then what is he actually telling us about a Miliband Govt (other than it would be headed by an opportunistic little shit)?
It's PB Wednesday so an independent Scotland will be manacled by an oppressive EUSSR, saddled with the Euro, forced to give up all sovereignty and lose all the advantages painfully won by noble Westminster. On PB Thursday an independent Scotland will be cast into the outer non-EU darkness, its people stripped of their EU citizenship and reduced to Zimbabwean levels of corruption, inflation and one party rule. Alternate between these poles for the next 227 days and watch the froth build.
Unfortunately, it look like you need 227 YEARS to win the referendum, seeing as average support for YES has risen by 1 point in 13 months.
Strange how one of your first posts was a declaration of indifference about Scotland and its independence, but in fact you barely post on any other subject.
Another sign of a particular type of PB Unionism is to take a snapshot of polls to assuage their (almost always uninformed) wish fulfillment. Let me guess, you'll also back up your absolute certainty that No will win the referendum with a bet at evens.
Integrated well? The Normans? Well, I suppose if you count stealing nearly all the land, the destruction of the existing social order, massacre and despoilation of the North
@Alanbrooke - "I don't think this is making things harder than it needs to be, no currency union says all sides get a fresh start and take it from there. As in any divorce you split and go your separate ways since experience has shown that's for the best, you don't keep a joint bank account going. Where something is of mutual interest then sure do it the same as we would with any other country, but I've yet to see an argument that says currency union is in that camp . I'm firmly in the camp that says if Scotland goes Indy then the best thing is to have its own currency, since a currency is more than a means to exchange value. If the London house market overheats again because Osborne is an idiot then how's it in Scotland's interest to have interest rates at 5 or 10% when a stand alone might get comfortably by on 3%. Likewise if oil goes shooting up or down why should EWNI make interest rate changes which may not be suitable for their own non-petrocurrency conditions ?"
Very fair points. But I'd say that's a decision for the Scots. If they want a currency union and are happy to accept the rUK's terms, then what is the problem with that? Obviously, if they are not happy with them then it's a completely different matter.
It's not a decision for the Scots, it's a decision for both sides. The first question for the UK is is a currency union with Scotland in our interest ? Based on what Carney has said and looking at the Euro mess I'd say the answer to that is pretty much No, not unless there are some forms of fiscal transfer which sort of defeats the point of Independence. To be clear my views are not that we should seek some kind of revenge on Scots for leaving but rather we should seek a clean start and let both countries get on with doing what's best for them, A currency union imo will be a hindrance to that objective.
I'm calling PMQs as a win for Milliband, although "Money no object" was a fairly open goal.
So we take it that EA admin is yet another cut that Miliband wouldn't have made? If yes - then what WOULD you cut Mr Miliband? If no - then what is he actually telling us about a Miliband Govt (other than it would be headed by an opportunistic little shit)?
I'm not defending him, just pointing out Cameron set up the shot for him.
It's PB Wednesday so an independent Scotland will be manacled by an oppressive EUSSR, saddled with the Euro, forced to give up all sovereignty and lose all the advantages painfully won by noble Westminster. On PB Thursday an independent Scotland will be cast into the outer non-EU darkness, its people stripped of their EU citizenship and reduced to Zimbabwean levels of corruption, inflation and one party rule. Alternate between these poles for the next 227 days and watch the froth build.
Unfortunately, it look like you need 227 YEARS to win the referendum, seeing as average support for YES has risen by 1 point in 13 months.
Strange how one of your first posts was a declaration of indifference about Scotland and its independence, but in fact you barely post on any other subject.
Leave the posh boy alone. He's obviously very angry about something but just can't bring himself to mention it.
Did Cameron really promise to make £150bn available for flood defences at PMQs?
£5k per house, about 30 million houses in the country...
If my house floods, it'll be like Water World. There wouldn't be any need for that compo then. I quite like the idea of being a Dennis Hopperesque pirate.
Whilst the floods rightly continue to dominate the airwaves, the news that the Bank of England has amended its interest rate policy and upped its growth forecast to 3.4% for this year will have positive political consequences for the Coalition in the medium term :
Whilst the floods rightly continue to dominate the airwaves, the news that the Bank of England has amended its interest rate policy and upped its growth forecast to 3.4% for this year will have positive political consequences for the Coalition in the medium term :
Cameron: Money no object. Sky News: Number 10 confirmed that Mr Cameron's comments did not mean extra money would be found. Textbook.
There's PR and then there's incompetent fop PR. Textbook indeed.
Tens of millions of Euros are available from the EU Solidarity Fund.[3] The UK government applied at the time of the last big flood in 2007[1]. But Cameron has refused to apply, for reasons ineffable[2]. Meanwhile children in Somerset are s******g in plastic bags.
Oh, incidentally, there's a time limit for applications[3]. So every day Cameron sits on his behind runs the risk of the application failing for time reasons.
Comments
@DPJHodges 7 mins
Lots of SNP supporters tweeting "We're nothing like Ukip!". You are. You're petty nationalists. Little Scotlanders. Scotland.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 1m
@Roy1Batty @MirrorJames ...and then you lose an independence referendum...
It's in the bag, fellow Nats!
The short answer is, you'd need to do the polling to find out.
Next.
Ed's trying to rile Cam and to make some kind of point about the cuts but he is moving onto Cam's ground.
Could easily look like its no object when it comes to rural farmers, but is an object when it comes to spare room subsidies, and any other thing that the government has cut
Tonight's "Midsomer Murders" travels to Denmark ....
Italy soon ?!?!
And Ed just sounding like he wants to spend spend spend.
It actually works well for him. He will have that soundbite hanging there in a response to a natural disaster but actually he is cutting 500 people from the EA (if EdM is to be believed).
The underlying problem is not anti-English discrimination by the SNP. The current system is based on residency, what it always was all over the UK before the other administrations moved the goalposts and them complained. The issue is that at least some Scottish uni places must be saved for Scottish children because of the Scottish school highers/4 year uni degree system, lest they be swamped (it is not so easy to combine highers with a 3 year degree). That is a unique issue within the EU so of course there is no precedent. (I believe there is a bit of a problem with German students going for Austrian universities because of differential fees, but as far as I know it's not the same thing qualitatively or quantitatively.)
Milliband is right to question, why, if money is no object, shouldn't the EA think again about staff cuts.
Alfred and the vikings was a bit different. The anglo-saxon kings AND THEIR PEOPLE were displaced. Had they not fought back then we would have lost English, even among the people and not just the barons. Pretty much all the other examples were tiny tribal infighting amongst the nobles with close to no impact on the population at large. In fact much the most significant invasion we've ever had in terms of population impact was the Anglo-Saxons pushing the Celtic tribes out of England - as much as 45% of the total population of the British Isles, leaving England largely Celt-free after the dark-ages.
Anyway, I don't suppose there is any chance of getting a sight of your dissertation, is there? I should love to read it.
The PM should have agreed to a review.
"if money is no object to save householders from a natural disaster why can't I employ 20 more people in my quango on £100k each?"
doesn't resonate.
Wisdom is not what the PB tories are best known for.
And this, of course, is because they do NOT have a clue what to do - see my link downthread: even in 2009 Salmond was hoping to join the euro!
Floods are by no means black swan events and I'm sure this won't be the last one this decade but I think a measured long-term approach (as he described) is better than a knee-jerk reaction.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/scottish-government-blocks-free-education-for-irish-passport-holders-from-northern-ireland-28864069.html
However if Scotland moves to Indy then it will have to treat UK students the same as Scots, so no fees.
The whip's office "clarification" is just embarrassing - worthy of The Thick Of It. It seems what is actually *meant* is "we will spend everything needed right now to clear up and fix what is broken. Of course there's no blank cheque for all future flood defence works - we are still a country facing massive financial challenges [due to the mess Labour left]. We are committed to doing the best we can with the resources we have, but that means focusing on value for money and employing the right people so we can spend as much as possible where it makes a difference, on the front line."
The question is, why is Cameron scared to make this message explicit in the case of Home Counties flooding, when he has no problem with austerity for everything else?
And Anglo-Saxon culture was flourishing at that time. It is one of history's great What Ifs. What If Harold had won in 1066, where would England be now?
William the Conqueror was an utter c*nt who murdered thousands and wiped out the native nobility, yet the Norman Conquest also made the English language the world's greatest and richest language, by lacing the sturdy Teutonic elements with crucial Latin qualities. And the Normans made the English better at war. In the end.
As you dropped the ban on posts between @Mick_Pork and @AveryLP, is it ok for me to respond to @Hugh
As long as he drops the baiting about my friends being electricians etc, there isn't really a problem is there?
It also brings back memories of the hilarious Veto flounce. Remember that? When the most unstable and gullible posters like SeanT were in raptures and appeared to think Cammie might even win off the back of the mighty flounce.
Happy days.
No matter what the understandable or imaginary grievances of parts of the population at the cuts, they are not carrying their belongings on a dinghy down the High Street surrounded by soldiers and firemen.
Cam and common sense won!!
Yesterday, I said I wanted a price for Michael Howard as our next man in Bruxelles
We'll he's priced him up at 25/1
I'm getting onto that.
The Screaming Eagles @TSEofPB 23m
@LadPolitics Could your add/price up Lord Howard in the next EU commissioner market please.
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 10s
@TSEofPB 25/1 available now
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/EU-Commissioner-Specials/Next-UK-EU-Commissioner/Politics-N-1z0uzssZ1z0v06lZ1z141ne/
Alas the same could be said of the rest of the public sector. How has the HQ of your own service grown since 1997? I would be very surprised if the number of clerical/administrative/managerial posts had not at least doubled or at least far outstripped any increase in the number of actual fire-fighters.
Everyday spent arguing on one of their weakest points - the currency (and even the most one-eyed observer will admit it is a weak point for Salmond and Co) - is one day less in which they can hope to persuade 10-20% of Scots to switch sides.
http://university.which.co.uk/advice/quick-guide-to-fees-and-finance-if-youre-studying-in-scotland
http://glasgowguardian.co.uk/2012/10/24/fee-loophole-closed-for-norther-irish-students/
LOL
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Yes2.png
Very fair points. But I'd say that's a decision for the Scots. If they want a currency union and are happy to accept the rUK's terms, then what is the problem with that? Obviously, if they are not happy with them then it's a completely different matter.
We have around 240 support staff during daytimes, Monday to Friday, that includes vital support such as Control, mechanics, BA workshops who work shifts or are on call, but there's probably around 200 office wallahs, including the SMT milling around, during the week.
Firefighter numbers have been cut over the past few years, by natural wastage. There has to be a minimum of 65 Wholetime firefighters on duty everyday ( although nowadays, we run on minimum everyday now), plus a hundred or so Retained on call through the county.
There will be cuts to operational firefighters once our SMT run out of ideas to save money.
7 days
So what exactly do they want? Not fiscal and monetary independence? Then what? The trouble is that as soon as you delve deeper you realise (of course it has been transparently obvious since year dot) that ASalmond most certainly doesn't want independence. He wants some kind of DevoMax with him at the controls and, after the No Vote, he is likely to get that.
But for most other politicians such scheming machiavellian tendencies would be punished. Not here, it seems, with willing cheerleaders such as our own CNat contingent.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/brucepolls.jpg
I agree with this. rUK wouldn't necessarily rule out a currency union absolutely - but it WOULD want pretty much absolute control, incl spending limits. I just think it is likely that the genuine needs of a rUK may not be politically aceptable to an independent Scotland. My guess is we'd see a temporary arrangement until the Groat came in (pegged or floating).
In all fairness, my eight-month-old niece could have won PMQs, and she can't even speak
Their problem was not that they were eager to assimilate but that there were never enough of them. How many Normans moved to England? 10,000? Maximum? The population of England was about 2 million in 1066.
The Normans were simply and hugely outnumbered, so intermarriage became essential, and thus they were absorbed, and even their language disappeared (though it took a long time a-dying).
As for fading away, I might remind you that English as opposed to Norman-French was not used by a monarch until Edward III, nearly 300 years of William's conquest - that's a slow fade.
That said, I'd point out the Normans are no more, whereas the French and English have been going for over a thousand years.
Another sign of a particular type of PB Unionism is to take a snapshot of polls to assuage their (almost always uninformed) wish fulfillment. Let me guess, you'll also back up your absolute certainty that No will win the referendum with a bet at evens.
It's not a decision for the Scots, it's a decision for both sides. The first question for the UK is is a currency union with Scotland in our interest ? Based on what Carney has said and looking at the Euro mess I'd say the answer to that is pretty much No, not unless there are some forms of fiscal transfer which sort of defeats the point of Independence. To be clear my views are not that we should seek some kind of revenge on Scots for leaving but rather we should seek a clean start and let both countries get on with doing what's best for them, A currency union imo will be a hindrance to that objective.
Reporting fail, he really said, "Money? No! Object!"
£5k per house, about 30 million houses in the country...
Ed Cameron App. 34/Disapp. 56 -22
Nick Miliband App. 26/Disapp. 67 -41
Dave Clegg App. 33/Disapp. 62 -29
Business as usual, in other words....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26153122
Tens of millions of Euros are available from the EU Solidarity Fund.[3] The UK government applied at the time of the last big flood in 2007[1]. But Cameron has refused to apply, for reasons ineffable[2]. Meanwhile children in Somerset are s******g in plastic bags.
Oh, incidentally, there's a time limit for applications[3]. So every day Cameron sits on his behind runs the risk of the application failing for time reasons.
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6926631.stm
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-25703786
[3] http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/regional_policy/provisions_and_instruments/g24217_en.htm
Business as usual, in other words...