1. Clegg has literally nothing to lose in a debate as even his own party president thinks they could win no seats at all. So a move of desperation rather than smartness. Expect Farage to wipe the floor with him - Clegg's pro-European but anti-referendum platform is sophistry at best if Clegg claims to be a democrat. 2. Of course Brenda will be Queen of an independent Scotland. She is Queen of most Commonwealth countries (of which Scotland would be a member) and besides the Scottish Crown is rather integral to the British crown 3. The apparent "backfire" of the "you can't have the pound" intervention. I imagine that most Tory strategists would be delighted as they are under the delusional view that without Scotland they can rule England forever. Are we sure its a "backfire" and not "the plan". The question is why Labour chose to join in, and the answer there is fear that they might lose this referendum.
Mr. Random, not really my period, but even given that, the Tsar is nowhere near the equal of Alexander. Nobody is. He was immensely capable *and* lucky as hell (until the end, obviously). It's hard for more recent chaps to compete, because they tend not to lead their armies literally from the front.
Alexander also left virtually no legacy. His empire fell utterly within a few decades. He was nothing more than an ancient-world Napoleon (except that Napoleon left France useful and enduring civil reforms).
Farage had no option but to say yes (eventually) but will find he has kebabbed himself re leader debates. He has positioned himself at DPM level. So Cam can say, if asked: you've had your debate - how many debates with the PM's office do you want?
Edit: that said it is great exposure for Farage.
The PM's office and the DPM's office are separate I believe. Also, him being positioned at the DPM level puts him in a better position for the debates. If Clegg is included, he should be. Finally, this debate will be on Europe, and, if he does well, everyone will think he deserves to have his say on other political issues.
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
That was Wellington's excuse for claiming he was English when actually every knew he was Irish (though I think he said "Horse" rather than "Donkey"). The Bowes-Lyon clan may have had a Scottish title and a residence in Scotland to supplement their London home, is that enough to make them Scottish?
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
So Britons of Jamaican or Pakistani descent aren't Britons? That seems rather racist.
Mr. Random, not really my period, but even given that, the Tsar is nowhere near the equal of Alexander. Nobody is. He was immensely capable *and* lucky as hell (until the end, obviously). It's hard for more recent chaps to compete, because they tend not to lead their armies literally from the front.
Mr Dancer, one underrated disadvantage of being widely acclaimed as the greatest captain of your age is that you lack the opportunity to prove how good you are by beating the man widely acclaimed as the greatest captain of the age (see also Scipio Africanus, the Duke of Wellington and Montgomery). Or, to put it another way, Alexander of Macedon never had to face half a million men led by Napoleon...
Mr. Herdson, most unfair. Alexander died at a very young age, with a brother who was (to be polite) simple, and an unborn son who spent his whole life a prisoner before being murdered.
Mr. Random, not really my period, but even given that, the Tsar is nowhere near the equal of Alexander. Nobody is. He was immensely capable *and* lucky as hell (until the end, obviously). It's hard for more recent chaps to compete, because they tend not to lead their armies literally from the front.
Mr Dancer, one underrated disadvantage of being widely acclaimed as the greatest captain of your age is that you lack the opportunity to prove how good you are by beating the man widely acclaimed as the greatest captain of the age (see also Scipio Africanus, the Duke of Wellington and Montgomery). Or, to put it another way, Alexander of Macedon never had to face half a million men led by Napoleon...
Mr. Random, not really my period, but even given that, the Tsar is nowhere near the equal of Alexander. Nobody is. He was immensely capable *and* lucky as hell (until the end, obviously). It's hard for more recent chaps to compete, because they tend not to lead their armies literally from the front.
Mr Dancer, one underrated disadvantage of being widely acclaimed as the greatest captain of your age is that you lack the opportunity to prove how good you are by beating the man widely acclaimed as the greatest captain of the age (see also Scipio Africanus, the Duke of Wellington and Montgomery). Or, to put it another way, Alexander of Macedon never had to face half a million men led by Napoleon...
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
So Britons of Jamaican or Pakistani descent aren't Britons? That seems rather racist.
Nationality is not a construct of ethnicity.
To take a topical example: Lewis Holtby's nationality is definitely German.
1. Clegg has literally nothing to lose in a debate as even his own party president thinks they could win no seats at all. So a move of desperation rather than smartness. Expect Farage to wipe the floor with him - Clegg's pro-European but anti-referendum platform is sophistry at best if Clegg claims to be a democrat. 2. Of course Brenda will be Queen of an independent Scotland. She is Queen of most Commonwealth countries (of which Scotland would be a member) and besides the Scottish Crown is rather integral to the British crown 3. The apparent "backfire" of the "you can't have the pound" intervention. I imagine that most Tory strategists would be delighted as they are under the delusional view that without Scotland they can rule England forever. Are we sure its a "backfire" and not "the plan". The question is why Labour chose to join in, and the answer there is fear that they might lose this referendum.
Labour actually "won" in England in 1997 and 2001, albeit with Tony as leader - but just to illustrate that the Tories probably won't rule England for ever!
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
So Britons of Jamaican or Pakistani descent aren't Britons? That seems rather racist.
Nationality is not a construct of ethnicity.
To take a topical example: Lewis Holtby's nationality is definitely German.
My nationality is definitely British - I need a Visa to go to India
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
So Britons of Jamaican or Pakistani descent aren't Britons? That seems rather racist.
Nationality is not a construct of ethnicity.
To take a topical example: Lewis Holtby's nationality is definitely German.
I think that was Mr. Socrates' point. Place of birth cannot be divorced from Nationality. A person born in England is English regardless of ethnicity or the nationality of their parents.
It is difficult to see how a person born in England of parents who were both born in England can be accurately described as Scottish.
F1: again, from the BBC livefeed: "They [Renault engines] are not being able to run the full mapping and are about 100-150bhp down on the Mercedes and Ferrari. "
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
So Britons of Jamaican or Pakistani descent aren't Britons? That seems rather racist.
Nationality is not a construct of ethnicity.
To take a topical example: Lewis Holtby's nationality is definitely German.
I think that was Mr. Socrates' point. Place of birth cannot be divorced from Nationality. A person born in England is English regardless of ethnicity or the nationality of their parents.
It is difficult to see how a person born in England of parents who were both born in England can be accurately described as Scottish.
I was about to make a tasteless (& anti Scottish) crack there, but have desisted. I hope someone applauds my strength of will.
Surely they have a better claim to be the Monarch of an Independent Scotland.
Yes, he was the Last King of Scotland. Must have loads of bairns up for the role.
Blimey.
I think a new country needs a new bloodline anyway, so how about Nicholas van Hoogstraten? Regal name, and He likes building expensive palaces, and large country estates.
Yes, but wouldn't his "English" name be "Nicky Highsteets" - which doesn't sound as regal.
"I was about to make a tasteless (& anti Scottish) crack there, but have desisted. I hope someone applauds my strength of will."
Take your applause, Mr. Divvie, your strength of will is widely noted and admired. Now go ahead and make your tasteless comment. Go on, you know you want to.
Mr. Herdson, most unfair. Alexander died at a very young age, with a brother who was (to be polite) simple, and an unborn son who spent his whole life a prisoner before being murdered.
Not that amazingly young for a front-line warrior and I think there is kind of a feeling that he could have done more to breed heirs and appoint successors. But then my knowledge comes from Mary Renault with a touch of Lane Fox thrown in.
A person born in England is English regardless of ethnicity or the nationality of their parents.
This is certainly not true from a legal point of view. Being born in the UK does not necessarily make you British (at least one of your parents must be a UK permanent residen or citizen)
Mr. X, he had a pretty small number of children... hmm. I can't recall if he had any daughters. You could make a case that he should have tried to have more, but even if he'd gotten a wife and gotten her pregnant immediately upon becoming king that child would still have been only 12-13 when he died.
This could well be an effort by them to promote that - in which case they will fight hard to host the debate.
So LBC not available on standard national radio. It's not a national station.
Must be recent change of direction as they removed the DAB service from Scotland about 6 months ago. My wife liked it and was most unhappy when they removed it.
Clearly preparing for independence already....
Still not available so perhaps you are right and they will have grand opening on 19th September
EU presidential debates: ECR group (Tories and sundry allies) plan to nominate nobody as their presidential candidate, and demand that their non-candidate gets admitted to the debates.
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
That was Wellington's excuse for claiming he was English when actually every knew he was Irish (though I think he said "Horse" rather than "Donkey"). The Bowes-Lyon clan may have had a Scottish title and a residence in Scotland to supplement their London home, is that enough to make them Scottish?
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
That was Wellington's excuse for claiming he was English when actually every knew he was Irish (though I think he said "Horse" rather than "Donkey"). The Bowes-Lyon clan may have had a Scottish title and a residence in Scotland to supplement their London home, is that enough to make them Scottish?
Actually it was coined by Daniel o'Connell, as a way of mocking claims that the Duke of Wellington would be sympathetic to Ireland because he was born there himself. There's no evidence that Wellington himself ever actually said it. As for the Bowes-Lyons, did they identify themselves as Scottish? I rather thought they did.
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
So Britons of Jamaican or Pakistani descent aren't Britons? That seems rather racist.
Nationality is not a construct of ethnicity.
To take a topical example: Lewis Holtby's nationality is definitely German.
I think that was Mr. Socrates' point. Place of birth cannot be divorced from Nationality. A person born in England is English regardless of ethnicity or the nationality of their parents.
It is difficult to see how a person born in England of parents who were both born in England can be accurately described as Scottish.
Well I was born in England, but I don't regard myself as "English". My father was Welsh, my mother English. I was brought to respect Welsh culture (particularly rugby) and I regard myself as British. My children though, born of an English mother, regard themselves as English, but of Welsh origin.
I have grandchildren who were born in Thailand, of one British and one Thai parent. They hold passports from both countries. What "nationality" are they?
Mr. X, he had a pretty small number of children... hmm. I can't recall if he had any daughters. You could make a case that he should have tried to have more, but even if he'd gotten a wife and gotten her pregnant immediately upon becoming king that child would still have been only 12-13 when he died.
He did his best, considering he had three different consummated marriages. I think a lot of the anti-Alexander stuff is rather unfair when a lot of decisions were based on the knowledge of the day. For instance, he didn't keep conquering in the East because he just wanted to conquer: he was taught by his tutor that the encircling sea was just beyond Persia, and his men could easily sail back home. They just needed to reach it.
A person born in England is English regardless of ethnicity or the nationality of their parents.
This is certainly not true from a legal point of view. Being born in the UK does not necessarily make you British (at least one of your parents must be a UK permanent residen or citizen)
Fair enough, that may well be the law now. I don't think it was the law in 1900 and is not actually relevant to the case were both parents were born in England. On top of which you are talking about British nationality where as the point was is HMtQ really half Scottish.
2. Of course Brenda will be Queen of an independent Scotland. She is Queen of most Commonwealth countries (of which Scotland would be a member) and besides the Scottish Crown is rather integral to the British crown.
This raises an interesting question: are we sure an independent Scotland will be part of the Commonwealth? It's not a member at the moment (yes it competes in the Commonwealth games, but that's not the same thing: you have to be a state to be a member of the Commonwealth) and there's no automaticity in joining (you have to apply), so it's the EU all over again: it's assumed it is a member (it isn't), it's assumed membership is automatic (it isn't), nobody's actually done the groundwork to assure entry, so...ooops.
2. Of course Brenda will be Queen of an independent Scotland. She is Queen of most Commonwealth countries (of which Scotland would be a member) and besides the Scottish Crown is rather integral to the British crown.
This raises an interesting question: are we sure an independent Scotland will be part of the Commonwealth? It's not a member at the moment (yes it competes in the Commonwealth games, but that's not the same thing: you have to be a state to be a member of the Commonwealth) and there's no automaticity in joining (you have to apply), so it's the EU all over again: it's assumed it is a member (it isn't), it's assumed membership is automatic (it isn't), nobody's actually done the groundwork to assure entry, so...ooops.
There are plenty of non-sovereign territories that are in the Commonwealth.
Ed Miliband would have to be mad to not join this debate. That would put David Cameron in a very, very difficult position, while Miliband has little to lose.
I think that is true, and if Ed does say Yes I'd expect Cameron to do the same.
Of course there is always a risk in any debate, but the number one rule is that the media ramp up expectations about one of the participants (in this case it will be Farage) and then have a ready-made story about his shock under-performance. In a four-way debate Cameron would potentially have a good position as the sensible middle option. (Well, it worked for Nick Clegg in 2010).
The potential danger for both Cameron and Miliband in such a debate is that their parties are less united than UKIP or the Lib Dems on European policy.
If Clegg and Farage can force them to clearly define their policy it is bound to annoy one or another group of their MPs, setting them up for the inevitable "revolt in the party ranks" newspaper stories.
The Tories are split between those who want to get out and those who want to try reform first. Labour seem to cover an even wider spectrum, possibly to the extent of representing every opinion in the nation - on this at least Miliband can claim to lead a One-Nation party...
Mr. X, he had a pretty small number of children... hmm. I can't recall if he had any daughters. You could make a case that he should have tried to have more, but even if he'd gotten a wife and gotten her pregnant immediately upon becoming king that child would still have been only 12-13 when he died.
He did his best, considering he had three different consummated marriages. I think a lot of the anti-Alexander stuff is rather unfair when a lot of decisions were based on the knowledge of the day. For instance, he didn't keep conquering in the East because he just wanted to conquer: he was taught by his tutor that the encircling sea was just beyond Persia, and his men could easily sail back home. They just needed to reach it.
One reason he turned back was that his troops were fed up!
Mr. X, he had a pretty small number of children... hmm. I can't recall if he had any daughters. You could make a case that he should have tried to have more, but even if he'd gotten a wife and gotten her pregnant immediately upon becoming king that child would still have been only 12-13 when he died.
He did his best, considering he had three different consummated marriages. I think a lot of the anti-Alexander stuff is rather unfair when a lot of decisions were based on the knowledge of the day. For instance, he didn't keep conquering in the East because he just wanted to conquer: he was taught by his tutor that the encircling sea was just beyond Persia, and his men could easily sail back home. They just needed to reach it.
One reason he turned back was that his troops were fed up!
Same difference, surely. Can understand people getting cheesed off looking for the "encircling sea" in Afghanistan!
2. Of course Brenda will be Queen of an independent Scotland. She is Queen of most Commonwealth countries (of which Scotland would be a member) and besides the Scottish Crown is rather integral to the British crown.
This raises an interesting question: are we sure an independent Scotland will be part of the Commonwealth? It's not a member at the moment (yes it competes in the Commonwealth games, but that's not the same thing: you have to be a state to be a member of the Commonwealth) and there's no automaticity in joining (you have to apply), so it's the EU all over again: it's assumed it is a member (it isn't), it's assumed membership is automatic (it isn't), nobody's actually done the groundwork to assure entry, so...ooops.
I can't see it being in anybody's interests to stop Scotland joining the Commonwealth, if they want to join.
What is the mechanism for joining? ISTR countries have been suspended from the Commonwealth in a fairly timely manner, e.g. Pakistan after the coup in ?'98?
This EU presidential debate could be quite good. EPP person vs Schulz vs Bové vs Tsipras. Should be a more interesting discussion than the "I agree with Nick" thing the British had in 2010.
If nationality comes down to how one feels about oneself, then anything is possible and the whole thing becomes pointless because anyone can be anything.
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
So Britons of Jamaican or Pakistani descent aren't Britons? That seems rather racist.
Not at all. What matters is what nationality an individual *chooses* to identify with.
Mr. X, he had a pretty small number of children... hmm. I can't recall if he had any daughters. You could make a case that he should have tried to have more, but even if he'd gotten a wife and gotten her pregnant immediately upon becoming king that child would still have been only 12-13 when he died.
He did his best, considering he had three different consummated marriages. I think a lot of the anti-Alexander stuff is rather unfair when a lot of decisions were based on the knowledge of the day. For instance, he didn't keep conquering in the East because he just wanted to conquer: he was taught by his tutor that the encircling sea was just beyond Persia, and his men could easily sail back home. They just needed to reach it.
He did carry out a purge of the Macedonian royal family, when he ascended the Throne, so there was no one, apart from his feeble-minded brother, and unborn son, to rule after him. The Throne was then occupied by a series of pretenders.
2. Of course Brenda will be Queen of an independent Scotland. She is Queen of most Commonwealth countries (of which Scotland would be a member) and besides the Scottish Crown is rather integral to the British crown.
This raises an interesting question: are we sure an independent Scotland will be part of the Commonwealth? It's not a member at the moment (yes it competes in the Commonwealth games, but that's not the same thing: you have to be a state to be a member of the Commonwealth) and there's no automaticity in joining (you have to apply), so it's the EU all over again: it's assumed it is a member (it isn't), it's assumed membership is automatic (it isn't), nobody's actually done the groundwork to assure entry, so...ooops.
I can't see it being in anybody's interests to stop Scotland joining the Commonwealth, if they want to join.
What is the mechanism for joining? ISTR countries have been suspended from the Commonwealth in a fairly timely manner, e.g. Pakistan after the coup in ?'98?
Seems far more ad hoc criteria nowadays - Mozambique and Rwanda joined in the last 10 years, neither having been a formal British possession.
Clegg's main line of argument with Farage should be to ask how he thinks he's helping Britain by not bothering to turn up in Brussels. According to the FT he's turned up at 3 out of 43 meetings of the fisheries commitee. What good does he think he's doing not giving Britain a voice in an institution who's decisions we're bound by.
Ed Miliband would have to be mad to not join this debate. That would put David Cameron in a very, very difficult position, while Miliband has little to lose.
I think that is true, and if Ed does say Yes I'd expect Cameron to do the same.
Of course there is always a risk in any debate, but the number one rule is that the media ramp up expectations about one of the participants (in this case it will be Farage) and then have a ready-made story about his shock under-performance. In a four-way debate Cameron would potentially have a good position as the sensible middle option. (Well, it worked for Nick Clegg in 2010).
The potential danger for both Cameron and Miliband in such a debate is that their parties are less united than UKIP or the Lib Dems on European policy.
If Clegg and Farage can force them to clearly define their policy it is bound to annoy one or another group of their MPs, setting them up for the inevitable "revolt in the party ranks" newspaper stories.
The Tories are split between those who want to get out and those who want to try reform first. Labour seem to cover an even wider spectrum, possibly to the extent of representing every opinion in the nation - on this at least Miliband can claim to lead a One-Nation party...
Labour MPs seem pretty united on being pro-EU.
In 2011 19 Labour MPs voted for an in/out referendum.
2. Of course Brenda will be Queen of an independent Scotland. She is Queen of most Commonwealth countries (of which Scotland would be a member) and besides the Scottish Crown is rather integral to the British crown.
This raises an interesting question: are we sure an independent Scotland will be part of the Commonwealth? It's not a member at the moment (yes it competes in the Commonwealth games, but that's not the same thing: you have to be a state to be a member of the Commonwealth) and there's no automaticity in joining (you have to apply), so it's the EU all over again: it's assumed it is a member (it isn't), it's assumed membership is automatic (it isn't), nobody's actually done the groundwork to assure entry, so...ooops.
I can't see it being in anybody's interests to stop Scotland joining the Commonwealth, if they want to join.
What is the mechanism for joining? ISTR countries have been suspended from the Commonwealth in a fairly timely manner, e.g. Pakistan after the coup in ?'98?
Seems far more ad hoc criteria nowadays - Mozambique and Rwanda joined in the last 10 years, neither having been a formal British possession.
They both have fairly strong links with the Commonwealth, however. Mozambique is entirely surrounded by Commonwealth members and has extensive trade links with South Africa in particular. The current Rwandan government was also able to stop the French-sponsored genocide after being supported by the British-allied government in Uganda.
Clegg's main line of argument with Farage should be to ask how he thinks he's helping Britain by not bothering to turn up in Brussels. According to the FT he's turned up at 3 out of 43 meetings of the fisheries commitee. What good does he think he's doing not giving Britain a voice in an institution who's decisions we're bound by.
Because the British voice just gets ignored anyway, so it does far more good for Britain to have him in the UK trying to prevent that institution having decision-binding power over us.
Let's look at a counter-example, Tony Blair. Blair was regularly travelling to the continent, doing his best to make the British case and being a loyal European, even giving up the bulk of the British rebate to give us a stronger voice. What did that voice achieve for the country?
Clegg's main line of argument with Farage should be to ask how he thinks he's helping Britain by not bothering to turn up in Brussels. According to the FT he's turned up at 3 out of 43 meetings of the fisheries commitee. What good does he think he's doing not giving Britain a voice in an institution who's decisions we're bound by.
Mr Clegg is arguing that being a member of the EU is better for UK voters than not being a member of the EU. Mr Farage's performance as an MEP is not relevant.
Clegg's main line of argument with Farage should be to ask how he thinks he's helping Britain by not bothering to turn up in Brussels. According to the FT he's turned up at 3 out of 43 meetings of the fisheries commitee. What good does he think he's doing not giving Britain a voice in an institution who's decisions we're bound by.
Farage wasn't elected to make the parliament work better - he was elected to get us out of it. Going native would be betraying his voters, not representing them. That's how I'd answer in his position anyway.
Mr. X, he had a pretty small number of children... hmm. I can't recall if he had any daughters. You could make a case that he should have tried to have more, but even if he'd gotten a wife and gotten her pregnant immediately upon becoming king that child would still have been only 12-13 when he died.
He did his best, considering he had three different consummated marriages. I think a lot of the anti-Alexander stuff is rather unfair when a lot of decisions were based on the knowledge of the day. For instance, he didn't keep conquering in the East because he just wanted to conquer: he was taught by his tutor that the encircling sea was just beyond Persia, and his men could easily sail back home. They just needed to reach it.
He did carry out a purge of the Macedonian royal family, when he ascended the Throne, so there was no one, apart from his feeble-minded brother, and unborn son, to rule after him. The Throne was then occupied by a series of pretenders.
I don't know. He did bring to power a bunch of highly capable generals and governors around him. After the early wars, they did create fairly stable empires - certainly more stable than the Macedonian royal family pre-Alexander!
Clegg's main line of argument with Farage should be to ask how he thinks he's helping Britain by not bothering to turn up in Brussels. According to the FT he's turned up at 3 out of 43 meetings of the fisheries commitee. What good does he think he's doing not giving Britain a voice in an institution who's decisions we're bound by.
But surely the point of the up-coming debate should be whether we "need" to be bound by those decisions?
Clegg's main line of argument with Farage should be to ask how he thinks he's helping Britain by not bothering to turn up in Brussels. According to the FT he's turned up at 3 out of 43 meetings of the fisheries commitee. What good does he think he's doing not giving Britain a voice in an institution who's decisions we're bound by.
Because the British voice just gets ignored anyway, so it does far more good for Britain to have him in the UK trying to prevent that institution having decision-binding power over us.
Let's look at a counter-example, Tony Blair. Blair was regularly travelling to the continent, doing his best to make the British case and being a loyal European, even giving up the bulk of the British rebate to give us a stronger voice. What did that voice achieve for the country?
The Lib Dems should be highlighting the role played by people like Sam Bowles who chaired the Finance committee. And contrast that with Ukip's noshowshove2fingersupatthem. If it's a popularity contest between Clegg and Farage, I fear the man from down the pub will win it.
Actually I think they have more in common than they realise.
1)They both see their party as a vehicle for their egos 2)They both enjoy arguing/debating 3)They're both obsessed with the EU (dovetailing nicely with 2) 4)They both attended top London public schools
Both their careers could easily crash and burn in the next couple of years. I suspect eagle-eyed tv producers will have an eye on such a possibility. Could they have their own show together? Maybe a documentary following them on a road trip around every state of the EU?
They were jittery with devolution and will go nowhere , it is all bollocks. TSB is nothing new as the bank explicitly explained. Shock horror English bank has office in England must mean independence is crushed.
The Tories are split between those who want to get out and those who want to try reform first..
They are, but those who want to leave willy-nilly, or who would like reform but have concluded it's impossible to get it, have (mostly) accepted the not unreasonable compromise of giving renegotiation a chance first - after all, there's nothing to lose by trying, and a referendum isn't on offer in this parliament anyway, thanks to the parliamentary arithmetic. So Cameron would just be restating the agreed position of a referendum in 2017 after seeing what deal we can get.
Mr. Herdson, most unfair. Alexander died at a very young age, with a brother who was (to be polite) simple, and an unborn son who spent his whole life a prisoner before being murdered.
And why did he die? Another teenager did a lot better three centuries later. A far worse soldier but a much better politician.
Christopher McEleny @Cllr_McEleny 2 hrs Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to keep the £. #indyref
Silly man, has he no been 'telt' by Osballs & Alexander?
Christopher McEleny @Cllr_McEleny 2 hrs Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to keep the £. #indyref
Silly man, has he no been 'telt' by Osballs & Alexander?
Surely there's a difference between 'keeping the pound' and 'being in a currency union' ?
Clegg's main line of argument with Farage should be to ask how he thinks he's helping Britain by not bothering to turn up in Brussels. According to the FT he's turned up at 3 out of 43 meetings of the fisheries commitee. What good does he think he's doing not giving Britain a voice in an institution who's decisions we're bound by.
That's not a problem for withdrawalist voters. UKIP contests these elections in order to deny seats to Europhiles, propagandise, and cause trouble; not to make the system work.
They were jittery with devolution and will go nowhere , it is all bollocks. TSB is nothing new as the bank explicitly explained. Shock horror English bank has office in England must mean independence is crushed.
What defines them as an English bank? I've heard people say the same about RBS whilst playing around at Menie, yet its registered to St Andrew Square, Edinburgh.
This worries me, because if Osborne sells them at a profit post Independence, we won't see any of the loot from what you're saying.
Christopher McEleny @Cllr_McEleny 2 hrs Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to keep the £. #indyref
Silly man, has he no been 'telt' by Osballs & Alexander?
Surely there's a difference between 'keeping the pound' and 'being in a currency union' ?
Well if you want to be picky , even though a fool could understand it. Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to have a sterling currency union ( £ )
They were jittery with devolution and will go nowhere , it is all bollocks. TSB is nothing new as the bank explicitly explained. Shock horror English bank has office in England must mean independence is crushed.
You aren't concerned that some institutions that do most of their business in the rest of the UK might leave post-independence?
The Tories are split between those who want to get out and those who want to try reform first..
They are, but those who want to leave willy-nilly, or who would like reform but have concluded it's impossible to get it, have (mostly) accepted the not unreasonable compromise of giving renegotiation a chance first - after all, there's nothing to lose by trying, and a referendum isn't on offer in this parliament anyway, thanks to the parliamentary arithmetic. So Cameron would just be restating the agreed position of a referendum in 2017 after seeing what deal we can get.
Yes, but that only works if you think David Cameron is undergoing a genuine effort at renegotiation rather than a PR exercise to pull the wool over voters' eyes. A clear way to tell is whether he's willing to say what he wants to achieve before he goes or not.
A person born in England is English regardless of ethnicity or the nationality of their parents.
This is certainly not true from a legal point of view. Being born in the UK does not necessarily make you British (at least one of your parents must be a UK permanent residen or citizen)
But UK nationality is not the same as being British, more than a few Irish would point out. More generally, there seems no legal definition of being Scottish, or English, till independence day and the passports are applied for. So one has to go on birth (as in SNP White Paper), parental birth (ditto), or residence (ditto). Or perhaps special considerations such as being a Scottish peer or king by descent, or scions thereof, both of which show that HM the Q is Scots. Or one can ask them outright. One could have a similar debate about the odd habit Unionists have of claiming that Unionist politicians they don't like, such as Messrs Brown, Blair and Darling, are Scots first and foremost - the answer not being as obvious as one might think.
However, what our unionist friends all seem to forget is that Scotland is a different country with a different legal system, and a separate Scottish crown, vide the separate crown jewels in Edinburgh Castle next to the mediaeval cesspit lid foisted on Edward Longshanks as the Lia Fail (anglice, Stone of Destiny). And the Scottish crown is in the gift of the people not the other way round, as the price of the contract signed by the Bruce to cover up his admittedly dodgy claim to the crown (hence the term, K or Q of Scots). It's not for nothing that Buchanan's statement of this doctrine is carved with other great quotes from Scots literature and history in Makar's Court in Edinburgh (in Latin, but its beginning can be translated as 'Sovereignty rests with the people ...').
So if Mr Cameron proposed to deny her the (senior) crown of the two in the 1603 Union of the Crowns, the Scots could metaphorically bare their backsides at him by electing HM Queen Elizabeth 1 of Scots. Rather like Mr Snowden being elected Rector of the University of Glasgow, but with more useful practical implications ...
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
So Britons of Jamaican or Pakistani descent aren't Britons? That seems rather racist.
Not at all. What matters is what nationality an individual *chooses* to identify with.
So fourth generation immigrants to Birmingham who have British passports but still cheer Bangladesh to beat England in the cricket are Bangladeshi and not British?
Christopher McEleny @Cllr_McEleny 2 hrs Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to keep the £. #indyref
Silly man, has he no been 'telt' by Osballs & Alexander?
Surely there's a difference between 'keeping the pound' and 'being in a currency union' ?
I don't know, you'd have to ask Jackson. Perhaps he's outlined a specific Plan B based on an independent Scotland. Otoh maybe he's spouted some vague guff to try and negate some of the backlash from Osborne's intervention.
The Tories are split between those who want to get out and those who want to try reform first..
They are, but those who want to leave willy-nilly, or who would like reform but have concluded it's impossible to get it, have (mostly) accepted the not unreasonable compromise of giving renegotiation a chance first - after all, there's nothing to lose by trying, and a referendum isn't on offer in this parliament anyway, thanks to the parliamentary arithmetic. So Cameron would just be restating the agreed position of a referendum in 2017 after seeing what deal we can get.
Yes, but that only works if you think David Cameron is undergoing a genuine effort at renegotiation rather than a PR exercise to pull the wool over voters' eyes. A clear way to tell is whether he's willing to say what he wants to achieve before he goes or not.
No it doesn't, it works whatever you think of the renegotiation. If it achieves nothing much, there will still be the In/Out referendum, which is what these guys want, isn't it? Of course, without a Conservative majority we won't get it and will be condemned to ever-closer union, but if the criticism is that Cameron isn't giving us an In/Out referendum, it is bizarre to the point of lunacy to complain that he's promising an In/Out referendum.
They were jittery with devolution and will go nowhere , it is all bollocks. TSB is nothing new as the bank explicitly explained. Shock horror English bank has office in England must mean independence is crushed.
What defines them as an English bank? I've heard people say the same about RBS whilst playing around at Menie, yet its registered to St Andrew Square, Edinburgh.
This worries me, because if Osborne sells them at a profit post Independence, we won't see any of the loot from what you're saying.
Below from Lloyd's and both RBS and Llloyd's have most employees in England. They have nameplates on doors in Scotland. Regardless we own a share of the nationalised parts of both and will be due that share when privatised, though it would not surprise me for this lot to sell at a loss and squander the cash just to avoid paying out.
Just usual scaremongering. Of the 610 branches , 78 are in Scotland.
A TSB Bank spokesman said: ‘Lloyds Banking Group intends to sell TSB Bank via an Initial Public Offering.
“As part of the process for preparing for the IPO, Lloyds Banking Group has established a new holding company for TSB called TSB Banking Group plc.
“The new company replaces an existing company which currently holds TSB Bank in the Lloyds Banking Group corporate structure and, like this existing company, will be registered at TSB’s main London office. Establishing new companies as part of a listing or IPO process is standard practice.
“The board of the new company will mirror that of TSB Bank. Completion of the restructure is subject to regulatory approval.”
They were jittery with devolution and will go nowhere , it is all bollocks. TSB is nothing new as the bank explicitly explained. Shock horror English bank has office in England must mean independence is crushed.
You aren't concerned that some institutions that do most of their business in the rest of the UK might leave post-independence?
Christopher McEleny @Cllr_McEleny 2 hrs Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to keep the £. #indyref
Silly man, has he no been 'telt' by Osballs & Alexander?
Surely there's a difference between 'keeping the pound' and 'being in a currency union' ?
Well if you want to be picky , even though a fool could understand it. Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to have a sterling currency union ( £ )
I'm not sure what point you think that makes. So he thinks that, if his side loses the referendum, then a currency union will bein the best interests of an independent Scotland. So what? I don't think anybody denies that. The reason why it isn't likely to be on the table is that it isn't in the best interests of rUK. Carlaw is a Scottish politician, he is going to fight for what he believes is in Scotland's best interests - a No vote in the referendum, and if that fails then the closest possible ties with rUK (such as a currency union ) afterwards.
I suspect this story isn't proving whatever point you think it is.
Ed Miliband would have to be mad to not join this debate. That would put David Cameron in a very, very difficult position, while Miliband has little to lose.
I think that is true, and if Ed does say Yes I'd expect Cameron to do the same.
Of course there is always a risk in any debate, but the number one rule is that the media ramp up expectations about one of the participants (in this case it will be Farage) and then have a ready-made story about his shock under-performance. In a four-way debate Cameron would potentially have a good position as the sensible middle option. (Well, it worked for Nick Clegg in 2010).
The potential danger for both Cameron and Miliband in such a debate is that their parties are less united than UKIP or the Lib Dems on European policy.
If Clegg and Farage can force them to clearly define their policy it is bound to annoy one or another group of their MPs, setting them up for the inevitable "revolt in the party ranks" newspaper stories.
The Tories are split between those who want to get out and those who want to try reform first. Labour seem to cover an even wider spectrum, possibly to the extent of representing every opinion in the nation - on this at least Miliband can claim to lead a One-Nation party...
Labour MPs seem pretty united on being pro-EU.
In 2011 19 Labour MPs voted for an in/out referendum.
I'm impressed that the discipline of the PLP was such that no Labour MPs voted for an in/out referendum in 2013, but that does not mean the divisions are not still there.
It was Labour who held the only referendum on British membership of the EEC, and it was Labour who were the only one of the two big parties to go in to a general election with a manifesto promise to leave (in 1983).
Most of the time a Labour opposition leader can pretend these divisions don't exist by concentrating on taunting the Tories for their divisions, but the risk for them is that following a debate these differences would be forced out in to the open.
They were jittery with devolution and will go nowhere , it is all bollocks. TSB is nothing new as the bank explicitly explained. Shock horror English bank has office in England must mean independence is crushed.
What defines them as an English bank? I've heard people say the same about RBS whilst playing around at Menie, yet its registered to St Andrew Square, Edinburgh.
This worries me, because if Osborne sells them at a profit post Independence, we won't see any of the loot from what you're saying.
Regardless we own a share of the nationalised parts of both and will be due that share when privatised, though it would not surprise me for this lot to sell at a loss and squander the cash just to avoid paying out.
You see that bothers me too - if we don't take our share of the debt, can the English keep all the things that should be ours as recompense?
Also, am I correct in thinking that if a Scottish business has more staff working in a different country, they're not really Scottish any more?
Mr. Herdson, it's a shade harsh to criticise a man for contracting a fatal illness.
I thought he died from getting mightily drunk once too often, after being worn out through years of voluntary warmaking? Whatever, he didn't make suitable provision for the succession, particularly given that he had no adequate natural heir.
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
So Britons of Jamaican or Pakistani descent aren't Britons? That seems rather racist.
Not at all. What matters is what nationality an individual *chooses* to identify with.
So fourth generation immigrants to Birmingham who have British passports but still cheer Bangladesh to beat England in the cricket are Bangladeshi and not British?
All other things being equal, which they won't be.
A person born in England is English regardless of ethnicity or the nationality of their parents.
This is certainly not true from a legal point of view. Being born in the UK does not necessarily make you British (at least one of your parents must be a UK permanent residen or citizen)
But UK nationality is not the same as being British, more than a few Irish would point out. More generally, there seems no legal definition of being Scottish, or English, till independence day and the passports are applied for.
This does raise an interesting question. If an independent Scotland decides to go for a different means of determining nationality than rUK (e.g. jus soli as in the US) then we could end up with a whole host of new immigration issues, assuming that the brder between Scotland and rUK is polcied in a similar way to Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
So Britons of Jamaican or Pakistani descent aren't Britons? That seems rather racist.
Not at all. What matters is what nationality an individual *chooses* to identify with.
So fourth generation immigrants to Birmingham who have British passports but still cheer Bangladesh to beat England in the cricket are Bangladeshi and not British?
All other things being equal, which they won't be.
So if I cheer for the Canadians (which I'm not doing, BTW!), that makes me Canadian?
They were jittery with devolution and will go nowhere , it is all bollocks. TSB is nothing new as the bank explicitly explained. Shock horror English bank has office in England must mean independence is crushed.
You aren't concerned that some institutions that do most of their business in the rest of the UK might leave post-independence?
In this case, the new TSB has no continuity to speak of with the original TSB other than the name and the fact that the one went into LLoyds and the other came out of it many years later. The Herald report this morning made it clear that the location of the office nameplate was purely for administrative convenience and nothing to do with indy. If there was indy then that would have to be reviewed in some way, presumably by setting up a Scottish subsidiary (but then the Scottish exchequer would be getting the taxes currently credited to London head offices, etc., so the figures might be quite interesting. And don't forget the implications of a Scotland in the EU and EWNI outside.).
The trouble is that we get so many No types on PB incessantly posting the latest 'maybe' scares from the DT but never posting the other side - I don't bother rebutting, out of sympathy with the rest of us on PB, but one could instance the recent news story about a North Sea etc oil executive saying it doesn't matter one way or another if Scotland is independent. Or the fact that RBS had to correct Mr Cable's claim that they'd disappear past Lamberton Toll.
Such stories have lost a lot of credibility on the crying wolf principle. One thinks notably of Ms Mone and her underwear firm and her repeated claim that both would disappear over the border the day after indy (though I suspect her popularity with the DT is more to do with the opportunity to show lots of photos of underdressed ladies). She did rather blow it by complaining about proposed (but still very nebulous) changes to laws concerning business management which might or might not happen in an independent Scotland ...
Spent yesterday at the Google and HP campuses in Silicon Valley. What larks!
Google is its own little country. You turn off the freeway and all of a sudden you see hundreds of very young people wandering around or cycling on Google bikes with laptops under their arms. They are a great mix of ethnicities, but somehow they all look exactly the same. They have become Googlers. Apparently it is harder to get a job at Google than it is to get into Harvard.
HP, on the other hand, is the epitome of Chino corporatedom. And they have these vast floors full of those office compartments that give you privacy when you sit down, but open you up to everyone else when you are standing. Spooky.
Christopher McEleny @Cllr_McEleny 2 hrs Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to keep the £. #indyref
Silly man, has he no been 'telt' by Osballs & Alexander?
Surely there's a difference between 'keeping the pound' and 'being in a currency union' ?
Well if you want to be picky , even though a fool could understand it. Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to have a sterling currency union ( £ )
It'd certainly be entertaining to see Jackson make the argument for a currency union after making all the ones against it.
Interesting comparison with Norway , given unionists love to scoff about how well off we are compared to Scandanavian countries and give out scary stories about taxes being high.
One of the recurring themes of the No campaign is to mock the desire of many of those on the Yes side for an independent Scotland to pursue a more Nordic vision of society than that of the neoliberal capitalism that’s now the orthodox across Europe. The oft-repeated soundbite is “You can’t have Scandinavian levels of public services on USA levels of taxation!” (although as far as we know nobody in the Yes camp has actually ever suggested an independent Scotland would be slashing taxes).
Independence supporters, of course, are equally eager to contrast Scotland with Norway, which is also a country of five million people bordering the North Sea and extracting great amounts of natural resources from it. So let’s see just how the two systems pan out for the average person.
(NB In all instances, where we say “Scotland” below, we mean “as part of the UK”.)
AVERAGE GROSS WAGE (in Sterling)
Scotland £24,647 Norway £50,651
Ah, but the Norwegians pay those sky-high taxes, right?
AVERAGE NET WAGE, ADJUSTED FOR RELATIVE COST OF LIVING
Scotland £19,292 Norway £27,528
So there you have it. Despite their pricey booze and their higher tax rates, the average Norwegian is still roughly 43% better off than the average UK resident – or in stark financial terms, by £158.38 a week.
But in reality it’s actually much more than that, because the UK is far more unequal than Norway, so the UK “average” wage is distorted by the earnings of the super-rich and unrealistically high compared to what most workers actually make.
(The minimum wage, which millions of people get paid, is barely over half the UK “average”, at £13,125 for a 40-hour week, or even less if you’re under 21.)
WORLD EQUALITY RANKINGS BY GINI COEFFICIENT
Scotland 77th Norway 6th
Norwegians get a much fairer share of national wealth than UK citizens do, and better public services to boot. As a result they unsurprisingly tend to be much happier and live longer. (Luckily, the MINIMUM state pension is £1,429 a month - equivalent to £1,109 in the UK when adjusted for the cost of living - so they can afford to.)
This does raise an interesting question. If an independent Scotland decides to go for a different means of determining nationality than rUK (e.g. jus soli as in the US) then we could end up with a whole host of new immigration issues, assuming that the brder between Scotland and rUK is polcied in a similar way to Ireland and Northern Ireland.
I'm obviously being dense - but can't see the problem? Surely it makes little difference, whatever happens, unless one emulates the Inner German Border and has Border Guards checking every passport.
Isn't HMQ a direct descendant of James I (or VI if you prefer!) in any case?
Yes. She's also half-Scottish.
Really? Her mother was born in London. Her maternal grandfather, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was also born in London. Her maternal Grandmother, the countess was, surprise, surprise, born in London.
Being born in a stable does not make one a donkey.
So Britons of Jamaican or Pakistani descent aren't Britons? That seems rather racist.
Not at all. What matters is what nationality an individual *chooses* to identify with.
So fourth generation immigrants to Birmingham who have British passports but still cheer Bangladesh to beat England in the cricket are Bangladeshi and not British?
All other things being equal, which they won't be.
So if I cheer for the Canadians (which I'm not doing, BTW!), that makes me Canadian?
Now you're just being awkward! National identity is an emotional and cultural thing that can be (and will be) displayed in any number of ways, some of which may be contradictory.
The previous answer was supposed to highlight that it's not possible to take one aspect in isolation.
Christopher McEleny @Cllr_McEleny 2 hrs Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to keep the £. #indyref
Silly man, has he no been 'telt' by Osballs & Alexander?
Surely there's a difference between 'keeping the pound' and 'being in a currency union' ?
Well if you want to be picky , even though a fool could understand it. Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to have a sterling currency union ( £ )
I'm not sure what point you think that makes. So he thinks that, if his side loses the referendum, then a currency union will bein the best interests of an independent Scotland. So what? I don't think anybody denies that. The reason why it isn't likely to be on the table is that it isn't in the best interests of rUK. Carlaw is a Scottish politician, he is going to fight for what he believes is in Scotland's best interests - a No vote in the referendum, and if that fails then the closest possible ties with rUK (such as a currency union ) afterwards.
I suspect this story isn't proving whatever point you think it is.
It proves Tories have more faces than the town clock.
Interesting comparison with Norway , given unionists love to scoff about how well off we are compared to Scandanavian countries and give out scary stories about taxes being high.
One of the recurring themes of the No campaign is to mock the desire of many of those on the Yes side for an independent Scotland to pursue a more Nordic vision of society than that of the neoliberal capitalism that’s now the orthodox across Europe. The oft-repeated soundbite is “You can’t have Scandinavian levels of public services on USA levels of taxation!” (although as far as we know nobody in the Yes camp has actually ever suggested an independent Scotland would be slashing taxes).
Independence supporters, of course, are equally eager to contrast Scotland with Norway, which is also a country of five million people bordering the North Sea and extracting great amounts of natural resources from it. So let’s see just how the two systems pan out for the average person.
(NB In all instances, where we say “Scotland” below, we mean “as part of the UK”.)
AVERAGE GROSS WAGE (in Sterling)
Scotland £24,647 Norway £50,651
Ah, but the Norwegians pay those sky-high taxes, right?
AVERAGE NET WAGE, ADJUSTED FOR RELATIVE COST OF LIVING
Scotland £19,292 Norway £27,528
So there you have it. Despite their pricey booze and their higher tax rates, the average Norwegian is still roughly 43% better off than the average UK resident – or in stark financial terms, by £158.38 a week.
But in reality it’s actually much more than that, because the UK is far more unequal than Norway, so the UK “average” wage is distorted by the earnings of the super-rich and unrealistically high compared to what most workers actually make.
(The minimum wage, which millions of people get paid, is barely over half the UK “average”, at £13,125 for a 40-hour week, or even less if you’re under 21.)
WORLD EQUALITY RANKINGS BY GINI COEFFICIENT
Scotland 77th Norway 6th
Norwegians get a much fairer share of national wealth than UK citizens do, and better public services to boot. As a result they unsurprisingly tend to be much happier and live longer. (Luckily, the MINIMUM state pension is £1,429 a month - equivalent to £1,109 in the UK when adjusted for the cost of living - so they can afford to.)
WORLD HAPPINESS RANKINGS BY COUNTRY
Scotland 22nd Norway 2nd
The UK has thrown away its oil wealth and we should all be furious about that - not just the Scots. However, we are where we are. An independent Scotland will need all its oil money to finance current expenditure. There is now no leeway to create any kind of sovereign fund or anything similar.
It seems pretty obvious that if RBS is majority owned by the UK, the UK government will have it headquartered in the UK.
But we don't need to worry about that, as Mr Osborne made it quite clear in his recent speech. Indeed, the resulting risk, or so he claimed, was the reason why he couldn't possibly let the Scots have their share of the assets such as BoE and sterling [okay, call it 'state apparatus'] which they own already. Indeed the figures he quoted were so, let's be polite, remarkable that it would need all of the RBS and more to be situated out at Gogar to meet them.
Interesting comparison with Norway , given unionists love to scoff about how well off we are compared to Scandanavian countries and give out scary stories about taxes being high.
One of the recurring themes of the No campaign is to mock the desire of many of those on the Yes side for an independent Scotland to pursue a more Nordic vision of society than that of the neoliberal capitalism that’s now the orthodox across Europe. The oft-repeated soundbite is “You can’t have Scandinavian levels of public services on USA levels of taxation!” (although as far as we know nobody in the Yes camp has actually ever suggested an independent Scotland would be slashing taxes).
Independence supporters, of course, are equally eager to contrast Scotland with Norway, which is also a country of five million people bordering the North Sea and extracting great amounts of natural resources from it. So let’s see just how the two systems pan out for the average person.
(NB In all instances, where we say “Scotland” below, we mean “as part of the UK”.)
AVERAGE GROSS WAGE (in Sterling)
Scotland £24,647 Norway £50,651
Ah, but the Norwegians pay those sky-high taxes, right?
AVERAGE NET WAGE, ADJUSTED FOR RELATIVE COST OF LIVING
Scotland £19,292 Norway £27,528
So there you have it. Despite their pricey booze and their higher tax rates, the average Norwegian is still roughly 43% better off than the average UK resident – or in stark financial terms, by £158.38 a week.
But in reality it’s actually much more than that, because the UK is far more unequal than Norway, so the UK “average” wage is distorted by the earnings of the super-rich and unrealistically high compared to what most workers actually make.
(The minimum wage, which millions of people get paid, is barely over half the UK “average”, at £13,125 for a 40-hour week, or even less if you’re under 21.)
WORLD EQUALITY RANKINGS BY GINI COEFFICIENT
Scotland 77th Norway 6th
Norwegians get a much fairer share of national wealth than UK citizens do, and better public services to boot. As a result they unsurprisingly tend to be much happier and live longer. (Luckily, the MINIMUM state pension is £1,429 a month - equivalent to £1,109 in the UK when adjusted for the cost of living - so they can afford to.)
WORLD HAPPINESS RANKINGS BY COUNTRY
Scotland 22nd Norway 2nd
If Scotland becomes independent it will be Aberdeen propping up Glasgow.
Comments
1. Clegg has literally nothing to lose in a debate as even his own party president thinks they could win no seats at all. So a move of desperation rather than smartness. Expect Farage to wipe the floor with him - Clegg's pro-European but anti-referendum platform is sophistry at best if Clegg claims to be a democrat.
2. Of course Brenda will be Queen of an independent Scotland. She is Queen of most Commonwealth countries (of which Scotland would be a member) and besides the Scottish Crown is rather integral to the British crown
3. The apparent "backfire" of the "you can't have the pound" intervention. I imagine that most Tory strategists would be delighted as they are under the delusional view that without Scotland they can rule England forever. Are we sure its a "backfire" and not "the plan". The question is why Labour chose to join in, and the answer there is fear that they might lose this referendum.
To take a topical example: Lewis Holtby's nationality is definitely German.
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/ge2001.html
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/ge1997.html
Labour also won more England seats in 2005 than the Tories, though it was actually the Tories that won the popular vote.
It is difficult to see how a person born in England of parents who were both born in England can be accurately described as Scottish.
"They [Renault engines] are not being able to run the full mapping and are about 100-150bhp down on the Mercedes and Ferrari. "
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/how-the-gop-sabotaged-marco-rubio.html
Take your applause, Mr. Divvie, your strength of will is widely noted and admired. Now go ahead and make your tasteless comment. Go on, you know you want to.
Current price 8.2 (~ 7-1) to lay at. Aus are in good nick but this is a huge ask.
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2014/february/ecr-nobody-for-president-/79786.aspx
I have grandchildren who were born in Thailand, of one British and one Thai parent. They hold passports from both countries. What "nationality" are they?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26277093
Mitchell gets another apology.
If Clegg and Farage can force them to clearly define their policy it is bound to annoy one or another group of their MPs, setting them up for the inevitable "revolt in the party ranks" newspaper stories.
The Tories are split between those who want to get out and those who want to try reform first. Labour seem to cover an even wider spectrum, possibly to the extent of representing every opinion in the nation - on this at least Miliband can claim to lead a One-Nation party...
Record View: TSB dash for the Border causes concern
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/record-view-tsb-dash-border-3168573
The shape of things to come?
What is the mechanism for joining? ISTR countries have been suspended from the Commonwealth in a fairly timely manner, e.g. Pakistan after the coup in ?'98?
If nationality comes down to how one feels about oneself, then anything is possible and the whole thing becomes pointless because anyone can be anything.
In 2011 19 Labour MPs voted for an in/out referendum.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8847123/EU-referendum-how-the-MPs-voted.html
In 2013 no Labour MPs voted for an in/out referendum.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2013-07-05&number=45
How would the Scottish dynasty be traced if Oborne is serious. Would we be in for a King Ralph moment?
Let's look at a counter-example, Tony Blair. Blair was regularly travelling to the continent, doing his best to make the British case and being a loyal European, even giving up the bulk of the British rebate to give us a stronger voice. What did that voice achieve for the country?
Actually I think they have more in common than they realise.
1)They both see their party as a vehicle for their egos
2)They both enjoy arguing/debating
3)They're both obsessed with the EU (dovetailing nicely with 2)
4)They both attended top London public schools
Both their careers could easily crash and burn in the next couple of years. I suspect eagle-eyed tv producers will have an eye on such a possibility. Could they have their own show together? Maybe a documentary following them on a road trip around every state of the EU?
Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to keep the £. #indyref
Silly man, has he no been 'telt' by Osballs & Alexander?
This worries me, because if Osborne sells them at a profit post Independence, we won't see any of the loot from what you're saying.
Jackson Carlaw, Deputy Tory Leader confirms that come a #Yes vote he will be "manning the barricades" for Scotland to have a sterling currency union ( £ )
However, what our unionist friends all seem to forget is that Scotland is a different country with a different legal system, and a separate Scottish crown, vide the separate crown jewels in Edinburgh Castle next to the mediaeval cesspit lid foisted on Edward Longshanks as the Lia Fail (anglice, Stone of Destiny). And the Scottish crown is in the gift of the people not the other way round, as the price of the contract signed by the Bruce to cover up his admittedly dodgy claim to the crown (hence the term, K or Q of Scots). It's not for nothing that Buchanan's statement of this doctrine is carved with other great quotes from Scots literature and history in Makar's Court in Edinburgh (in Latin, but its beginning can be translated as 'Sovereignty rests with the people ...').
So if Mr Cameron proposed to deny her the (senior) crown of the two in the 1603 Union of the Crowns, the Scots could metaphorically bare their backsides at him by electing HM Queen Elizabeth 1 of Scots. Rather like Mr Snowden being elected Rector of the University of Glasgow, but with more useful practical implications ...
Perhaps he's outlined a specific Plan B based on an independent Scotland. Otoh maybe he's spouted some vague guff to try and negate some of the backlash from Osborne's intervention.
Just usual scaremongering. Of the 610 branches , 78 are in Scotland.
A TSB Bank spokesman said: ‘Lloyds Banking Group intends to sell TSB Bank via an Initial Public Offering.
“As part of the process for preparing for the IPO, Lloyds Banking Group has established a new holding company for TSB called TSB Banking Group plc.
“The new company replaces an existing company which currently holds TSB Bank in the Lloyds Banking Group corporate structure and, like this existing company, will be registered at TSB’s main London office. Establishing new companies as part of a listing or IPO process is standard practice.
“The board of the new company will mirror that of TSB Bank. Completion of the restructure is subject to regulatory approval.”
I suspect this story isn't proving whatever point you think it is.
It was Labour who held the only referendum on British membership of the EEC, and it was Labour who were the only one of the two big parties to go in to a general election with a manifesto promise to leave (in 1983).
Most of the time a Labour opposition leader can pretend these divisions don't exist by concentrating on taunting the Tories for their divisions, but the risk for them is that following a debate these differences would be forced out in to the open.
Also, am I correct in thinking that if a Scottish business has more staff working in a different country, they're not really Scottish any more?
The trouble is that we get so many No types on PB incessantly posting the latest 'maybe' scares from the DT but never posting the other side - I don't bother rebutting, out of sympathy with the rest of us on PB, but one could instance the recent news story about a North Sea etc oil executive saying it doesn't matter one way or another if Scotland is independent. Or the fact that RBS had to correct Mr Cable's claim that they'd disappear past Lamberton Toll.
Such stories have lost a lot of credibility on the crying wolf principle. One thinks notably of Ms Mone and her underwear firm and her repeated claim that both would disappear over the border the day after indy (though I suspect her popularity with the DT is more to do with the opportunity to show lots of photos of underdressed ladies). She did rather blow it by complaining about proposed (but still very nebulous) changes to laws concerning business management which might or might not happen in an independent Scotland ...
Google is its own little country. You turn off the freeway and all of a sudden you see hundreds of very young people wandering around or cycling on Google bikes with laptops under their arms. They are a great mix of ethnicities, but somehow they all look exactly the same. They have become Googlers. Apparently it is harder to get a job at Google than it is to get into Harvard.
HP, on the other hand, is the epitome of Chino corporatedom. And they have these vast floors full of those office compartments that give you privacy when you sit down, but open you up to everyone else when you are standing. Spooky.
One of the recurring themes of the No campaign is to mock the desire of many of those on the Yes side for an independent Scotland to pursue a more Nordic vision of society than that of the neoliberal capitalism that’s now the orthodox across Europe. The oft-repeated soundbite is “You can’t have Scandinavian levels of public services on USA levels of taxation!” (although as far as we know nobody in the Yes camp has actually ever suggested an independent Scotland would be slashing taxes).
Independence supporters, of course, are equally eager to contrast Scotland with Norway, which is also a country of five million people bordering the North Sea and extracting great amounts of natural resources from it. So let’s see just how the two systems pan out for the average person.
(NB In all instances, where we say “Scotland” below, we mean “as part of the UK”.)
AVERAGE GROSS WAGE (in Sterling)
Scotland £24,647
Norway £50,651
Ah, but the Norwegians pay those sky-high taxes, right?
AVERAGE NET WAGE (AFTER TAX/NATIONAL INSURANCE)
Scotland £19,292 (effective rate 22%)
Norway £35,456 (effective rate 30%)
But it’s £10 for a pint of beer in Norway!
AVERAGE NET WAGE, ADJUSTED FOR RELATIVE COST OF LIVING
Scotland £19,292
Norway £27,528
So there you have it. Despite their pricey booze and their higher tax rates, the average Norwegian is still roughly 43% better off than the average UK resident – or in stark financial terms, by £158.38 a week.
But in reality it’s actually much more than that, because the UK is far more unequal than Norway, so the UK “average” wage is distorted by the earnings of the super-rich and unrealistically high compared to what most workers actually make.
(The minimum wage, which millions of people get paid, is barely over half the UK “average”, at £13,125 for a 40-hour week, or even less if you’re under 21.)
WORLD EQUALITY RANKINGS BY GINI COEFFICIENT
Scotland 77th
Norway 6th
Norwegians get a much fairer share of national wealth than UK citizens do, and better public services to boot. As a result they unsurprisingly tend to be much happier and live longer. (Luckily, the MINIMUM state pension is £1,429 a month - equivalent to £1,109 in the UK when adjusted for the cost of living - so they can afford to.)
WORLD HAPPINESS RANKINGS BY COUNTRY
Scotland 22nd
Norway 2nd
The previous answer was supposed to highlight that it's not possible to take one aspect in isolation.