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.
And you have estimated Queen Elizabeth II to be emotionally and culturally 50% Scottish?
If the search is on for a suitable Jacobite noble to step forth to fill the breach in the Scottish monarchy, surely, step forward King Jack W I and his magnificent consort!
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.
Any oil money that Scotland may receive after Independence will only come for a limited period. They face the choice of having to adjust taxation and expenditure to balance without it either at the beginning of that period - so that they can use the surplus to create a sovereign fund - or at the end of that period - as is the current policy of the UK.
It will, however, be exactly that. A choice. They don't have to continue on the present path if they're prepared to make the effort to do something different.
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.
Maybe because they didn't have Scots in charge of their public finances for 13 years.
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 ( £ )
Maybe he's among the10% of Scottish Conservatives who think Westminster is bluffing? Tho if he's planning to "man the barricades" perhaps he's among the 76% who do not......Funnily enough, it's only SNP voters who think Westminster is bluffing (net + 53) while Labour (-30) and Lib Dem (-25) also do not.....
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.
Any oil money that Scotland may receive after Independence will only come for a limited period. They face the choice of having to adjust taxation and expenditure to balance without it either at the beginning of that period - so that they can use the surplus to create a sovereign fund - or at the end of that period - as is the current policy of the UK.
It will, however, be exactly that. A choice. They don't have to continue on the present path if they're prepared to make the effort to do something different.
That can't be true. Mr Salmond has never talked about tax rises. I thought thy'd all be cut?
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.
Maybe because they didn't have Scots in charge of their public finances for 13 years.
Probably also related to the fact that the Norwegians have twice as much oil as the UK does. Not to mention a Scandinavian work ethic and rule-abiding mentality.
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.
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.
Any oil money that Scotland may receive after Independence will only come for a limited period. They face the choice of having to adjust taxation and expenditure to balance without it either at the beginning of that period - so that they can use the surplus to create a sovereign fund - or at the end of that period - as is the current policy of the UK.
It will, however, be exactly that. A choice. They don't have to continue on the present path if they're prepared to make the effort to do something different.
A point well made. Is this being discussed in Scotland currently?
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.
By "thrown away" you mean, "used a much smaller pot of oil to fund a transition away from a collapsed socialist economy of the 1970s to the flexible, capitalist and successful one of the 1990s"?
If the search is on for a suitable Jacobite noble to step forth to fill the breach in the Scottish monarchy, surely, step forward King Jack W I and his magnificent consort!
The coronation ceremony would bankrupt the newly independent nation. I mean the cost of the shoes (for Mrs Jack W) and wigs (I believe Jack W protests too much about OGH) alone would be prohibitive.
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.
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.
It menas that people who would not currently have th eright to live in the UK could gain the right to do so in rUK via Scotland.
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.
You've managed just fine in a common travel area with a country with very different nationality rules for nearly 100 years now. Adding another into the mix is unlikely to change things significantly.
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.
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.
It menas that people who would not currently have th eright to live in the UK could gain the right to do so in rUK via Scotland.
They do better to stay in Scotland after the referendum, and our freedom. It's a much nicer place, and we're more generous with our welcome.
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.
By "thrown away" you mean, "used a much smaller pot of oil to fund a transition away from a collapsed socialist economy of the 1970s to the flexible, capitalist and successful one of the 1990s"?
No, I don't mean that. I mean that we threw it away on avoiding hard choices in the 80s and 90s; one of the effects of this being that we do not have the successful, mixed, capitalist economy that we could have had.
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.
Any oil money that Scotland may receive after Independence will only come for a limited period. They face the choice of having to adjust taxation and expenditure to balance without it either at the beginning of that period - so that they can use the surplus to create a sovereign fund - or at the end of that period - as is the current policy of the UK.
It will, however, be exactly that. A choice. They don't have to continue on the present path if they're prepared to make the effort to do something different.
A point well made. Is this being discussed in Scotland currently?
Oh yes. The problem is that the unionists like to take the worst case scenarios (which is a bit illogical as they simultaneously say that we can't cope with the riches). Oil price will collapse, wells dry up, etc.. Therefore much of the stuff in public debate is unrealistic and tends to go round and round in circles, usually disappearing up its own fundament like the farfamed jubjub bird. A mildly more positive approach suggests that there is some truth in the SNP analysis which is that the Scottish economy is rather wider than oil for which it is something of a bonus. Or one can just say the obvious, which is that the UK is knackered (as the Unionists carefully fail to point out as a bonus of staying in the UK). As confirmed most recently by the FT the Scottish economy is at least as good as the UK average and in some ways better off e.g. in exports, so that we have some hope of doing rather better (and more flexibly) if we cut loose.
By "thrown away" you mean, "used a much smaller pot of oil to fund a transition away from a collapsed socialist economy of the 1970s to the flexible, capitalist and successful one of the 1990s"?
Whatever we did, it is as nothing to what the socialist Venezuelans are doing.
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.
Maybe because they didn't have Scots in charge of their public finances for 13 years.
Probably also related to the fact that the Norwegians have twice as much oil as the UK does. Not to mention a Scandinavian work ethic and rule-abiding mentality.
Indeed, but what I find extraordinary is the Scottish (or at least SNP) idea that somehow Scotland has been run by perfidious Englishmen, whereas the reality is that much of what they complain about relates to policies where Scottish politicians have had a major, in fact disproportionate, influence. Trident is another example.
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.
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.
It menas that people who would not currently have th eright to live in the UK could gain the right to do so in rUK via Scotland.
Surely the residence qualification for Scottish citizenship would apply only on independence day, and would inherently preclude residence for EWNI citizenship?
And after that being a Scottish citizen would have - presumably - no inherent right to EWNI citizenship?
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.
Maybe because they didn't have Scots in charge of their public finances for 13 years.
Probably also related to the fact that the Norwegians have twice as much oil as the UK does. Not to mention a Scandinavian work ethic and rule-abiding mentality.
Indeed, but what I find extraordinary is the Scottish (or at least SNP) idea that somehow Scotland has been run by perfidious Englishmen, whereas the reality is that much of what they complain about relates to policies where Scottish politicians have had a major, in fact disproportionate, influence. Trident is another example.
Trident is extremely unpopular with Scottish politicians, vide recent votes and surveys. At least till the referendum came along. Who can you be thinking of?
While the right wing shriekers are still obsessed with repeating little Ed and labour's negativity 'master strategy' from the 2011 scottish elections, there does appear to be some actual news on the thread topic via Farage.
2/ He's confirmed that not just Sky but other broadcasters are keenly sniffing around to get a piece of this. Nor was that unexpected as the curiosity factor for this will be high.
Now unless Clegg is even more stupid than usual then it's a safe bet that he want's maximum publicity out of this as does Farage. That means it's in both their interests to go for the option which gives them as much exposure as possible. Nor should that kind of exposure be dismissed when it's blatantly obvious that TV debates are publicity bonanza for the parties involved and to no cost to themselves. Other than the cost of them not looking good which is minimised in this case since both will Farage and Clegg will be playing to completely different audiences.
If Cammie and little Ed are sanguine about this then they should have another look at last years local election results.
"Nick Clegg hopes the party will attract as many of the estimated 35% of voters who consistently say they support Britain's membership of the European Union."
Trident is extremely unpopular with Scottish politicians, vide recent votes and surveys. At least till the referendum came along. Who can you be thinking of?
Have a look at the list of Secretaries of State for Defence since 1980.
Also a reminder that Clegg will be forced to walk a very careful line since he will be defending the coalition's actions and policies. Not all of which his own side are very happy with at all.
Trident is extremely unpopular with Scottish politicians, vide recent votes and surveys. At least till the referendum came along. Who can you be thinking of?
Have a look at the list of Secretaries of State for Defence since 1980.
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.
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.
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.
It menas that people who would not currently have th eright to live in the UK could gain the right to do so in rUK via Scotland.
Surely the residence qualification for Scottish citizenship would apply only on independence day, and would inherently preclude residence for EWNI citizenship?
And after that being a Scottish citizen would have - presumably - no inherent right to EWNI citizenship?
Since on Independence day, all Scots-born citizens will have been born in the UK, why would they not also have UK citizenship?
Similarly, their children will be born to UK citizens, resident abroad, and hence also entitled to UK citizenship.
Its only their children - for example, born in iScotland, to parents born in iScotland and who did not apply for rUK citizenship (a right via their parents, born in UK), who may lose the right to rUK citizenship......unless the law is changed, which may make things more complicated.....
Trident is extremely unpopular with Scottish politicians, vide recent votes and surveys. At least till the referendum came along. Who can you be thinking of?
Have a look at the list of Secretaries of State for Defence since 1980.
All British weren't they?
Indeed, but not all English, Welsh or Northern Irish.
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.
Any oil money that Scotland may receive after Independence will only come for a limited period. They face the choice of having to adjust taxation and expenditure to balance without it either at the beginning of that period - so that they can use the surplus to create a sovereign fund - or at the end of that period - as is the current policy of the UK.
It will, however, be exactly that. A choice. They don't have to continue on the present path if they're prepared to make the effort to do something different.
A point well made. Is this being discussed in Scotland currently?
Oh yes. The problem is that the unionists like to take the worst case scenarios (which is a bit illogical as they simultaneously say that we can't cope with the riches). Oil price will collapse, wells dry up, etc.. Therefore much of the stuff in public debate is unrealistic and tends to go round and round in circles, usually disappearing up its own fundament like the farfamed jubjub bird. A mildly more positive approach suggests that there is some truth in the SNP analysis which is that the Scottish economy is rather wider than oil for which it is something of a bonus. Or one can just say the obvious, which is that the UK is knackered (as the Unionists carefully fail to point out as a bonus of staying in the UK). As confirmed most recently by the FT the Scottish economy is at least as good as the UK average and in some ways better off e.g. in exports, so that we have some hope of doing rather better (and more flexibly) if we cut loose.
Didn't that FT article show that Scotland needs the oil money to sustain current levels of expenditure? If that is the case, surely there will have to be significant cuts in spending if the SNP do create the oil fund they are currently talking about. And if the currency union does happen as per SNP wishes, the Scottish government will be severely constrained in what it can do. Is the SNP really making this clear?
Trident is extremely unpopular with Scottish politicians, vide recent votes and surveys. At least till the referendum came along. Who can you be thinking of?
Have a look at the list of Secretaries of State for Defence since 1980.
All British weren't they?
Indeed, but not all English, Welsh or Northern Irish.
Ah, another PB ethnic nationalist. You're everywhere!
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.
Maybe because they didn't have Scots in charge of their public finances for 13 years.
Probably also related to the fact that the Norwegians have twice as much oil as the UK does. Not to mention a Scandinavian work ethic and rule-abiding mentality.
And no parasitic London sucking the life blood out of them and borrowing £120B a year to p**s up a wall..
If the search is on for a suitable Jacobite noble to step forth to fill the breach in the Scottish monarchy, surely, step forward King Jack W I and his magnificent consort!
Clearly one doesn't seek such eminence but should such a position fall vacant and upon the tumultuous call on ones subjects it is incumbent on one to set aside all purely personal considerations and place oneself at the service of the kingdom.
Faint musical accompaniment of "Zadock the Priest" in the background ....
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.
By "thrown away" you mean, "used a much smaller pot of oil to fund a transition away from a collapsed socialist economy of the 1970s to the flexible, capitalist and successful one of the 1990s"?
No, I don't mean that. I mean that we threw it away on avoiding hard choices in the 80s and 90s; one of the effects of this being that we do not have the successful, mixed, capitalist economy that we could have had.
Because Thatcher was renowned for making the easy choices and shying away from confrontation.
We currently DO have a mixed, capitalist economy. The main problems in our economy today are due to allowing debt (both government and private) to be run up due to the belief the boom and bust had been abolished and that we could spend freely without saving for a rainy day.
Even in the most generous estimation of Scotland's finances, it'd be a matter of Scotland propping up Northern Ireland, Wales and the north of England, but with London propping them all even more.
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?
While the right wing shriekers are still obsessed with repeating little Ed and labour's negativity 'master strategy' from the 2011 scottish elections, there does appear to be some actual news on the thread topic via Farage.
2/ He's confirmed that not just Sky but other broadcasters are keenly sniffing around to get a piece of this. Nor was that unexpected as the curiosity factor for this will be high.
Now unless Clegg is even more stupid than usual then it's a safe bet that he want's maximum publicity out of this as does Farage. That means it's in both their interests to go for the option which gives them as much exposure as possible. Nor should that kind of exposure be dismissed when it's blatantly obvious that TV debates are publicity bonanza for the parties involved and to no cost to themselves. Other than the cost of them not looking good which is minimised in this case since both will Farage and Clegg will be playing to completely different audiences.
If Cammie and little Ed are sanguine about this then they should have another look at last years local election results.
I think 'debates' was a slip, unless it's very, very popular there will only be one Clegg vs Farage debate.
I'm curious to see what happens during the campaign though. The trailing of an EU Referendum in 2017 seems to have geared up some in and out business campaigns, so non-political party groups involving themselves in an in/out debate during the EU Parliament election campaign could be interesting.
I'm also curious to see what UKIP have planned for their campaign, given a 'whatever it takes' budget by Mr Sykes.
Trident is extremely unpopular with Scottish politicians, vide recent votes and surveys. At least till the referendum came along. Who can you be thinking of?
Have a look at the list of Secretaries of State for Defence since 1980.
But they were picked not because they were Scottish but because they were good Labour/Tory Unionist types, etc. [if only because they would not have been picked otherwise.]
It's as logical as saying, ginger headed Foreign Ministers signed up to it so it's a surprise that a lot of ginger heidies don't like Trident.
Indeed, Trident is very unpopular in Scots politics. Even in Labour circles, though Ms Lamont doesn't like to talk about that.
Remember how we were confidently assured that 'Scots would vote Indy to stay in the EU because of the Cameron referendum'?
Turns out not to be the case. Barroso has shot that fox
In fact as many will vote 'No' for fear of being chucked out, as vote 'Yes' to get chucked out!
Fear of not being in the EU may be a factor in motivating some people to vote ‘No’ to an independent Scotland. 36% of ‘No’ voters said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso’s comments about the difficulty of an independent Scotland joining the EU would make them even more likely to vote ‘No’ to independence.
However, looking at the net figures for all Scottish people, just as many (21%) say that Barroso’s comments make them more likely to vote ‘Yes’ to independence as those who say his comments make them more likely to vote ‘No’.
It seems that, for the 35% of Scottish people who would vote to leave the EU, the notion that an independent Scotland might be barred from rejoining may be attractive rather than worrying.
If the search is on for a suitable Jacobite noble to step forth to fill the breach in the Scottish monarchy, surely, step forward King Jack W I and his magnificent consort!
The coronation ceremony would bankrupt the newly independent nation. I mean the cost of the shoes (for Mrs Jack W) and wigs (I believe Jack W protests too much about OGH) alone would be prohibitive.
I was thinking an elegant mix of the coronations of George IV (without the Missus banging on the door) and Edward VII together with PB's Andrea in charge of robes, TSE the shoes and JohnO the route of the State coaches.
Add a touch of Elton John and ABBA for the music and what could possibly go wrong ?!?
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.
Maybe because they didn't have Scots in charge of their public finances for 13 years.
Probably also related to the fact that the Norwegians have twice as much oil as the UK does. Not to mention a Scandinavian work ethic and rule-abiding mentality.
And no parasitic London sucking the life blood out of them and borrowing £120B a year to p**s up a wall..
But some of that money must be going to our home grown neds, ken.
Do you think all the nice people working for RBS in Scotland would have found new jobs if the bank had gone broke.
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.
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.
It menas that people who would not currently have th eright to live in the UK could gain the right to do so in rUK via Scotland.
Surely the residence qualification for Scottish citizenship would apply only on independence day, and would inherently preclude residence for EWNI citizenship?
And after that being a Scottish citizen would have - presumably - no inherent right to EWNI citizenship?
Since on Independence day, all Scots-born citizens will have been born in the UK, why would they not also have UK citizenship?
Similarly, their children will be born to UK citizens, resident abroad, and hence also entitled to UK citizenship.
Its only their children - for example, born in iScotland, to parents born in iScotland and who did not apply for rUK citizenship (a right via their parents, born in UK), who may lose the right to rUK citizenship......unless the law is changed, which may make things more complicated.....
Scottish fans told to take down Saltire flag in curling arena by Sochi official. Union flag allowed, Saltire not apparently under IOC rules.
It may seem petty to us - but I guess there are other people who might want to fly their flags too if the Saltire stays - not all of them associated with peaceful change.....
But they were picked not because they were Scottish but because they were good Labour/Unionist types, etc.
Ah yes, George Robertson, John Reid, Malcom Rifkind, George Younger, and Des Browne weren't/aren't really Scots. How silly of me not to appreciate this.
If the search is on for a suitable Jacobite noble to step forth to fill the breach in the Scottish monarchy, surely, step forward King Jack W I and his magnificent consort!
The coronation ceremony would bankrupt the newly independent nation. I mean the cost of the shoes (for Mrs Jack W) and wigs (I believe Jack W protests too much about OGH) alone would be prohibitive.
I was thinking an elegant mix of the coronations of George IV (without the Missus banging on the door) and Edward VII together with PB's Andrea in charge of robes, TSE the shoes and JohnO the route of the State coaches.
Add a touch of Elton John and ABBA for the music and what could possibly go wrong ?!?
JackW - that kind of lark might be ok for the coronation ceremony of a King of Australia but Scotland is a serious, dignified country.
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.
Any oil money that Scotland may receive after Independence will only come for a limited period. They face the choice of having to adjust taxation and expenditure to balance without it either at the beginning of that period - so that they can use the surplus to create a sovereign fund - or at the end of that period - as is the current policy of the UK.
It will, however, be exactly that. A choice. They don't have to continue on the present path if they're prepared to make the effort to do something different.
A point well made. Is this being discussed in Scotland currently?
Oh yes. The problem is that the unionists like to take the worst case scenarios (which is a bit illogical as they simultaneously say that we can't cope with the riches). Oil price will collapse, wells dry up, etc.. Therefore much of the stuff in public debate is unrealistic and tends to go round and round in circles, usually disappearing up its own fundament like the farfamed jubjub bird. A mildly more positive approach suggests that there is some truth in the SNP analysis which is that the Scottish economy is rather wider than oil for which it is something of a bonus. Or one can just say the obvious, which is that the UK is knackered (as the Unionists carefully fail to point out as a bonus of staying in the UK). As confirmed most recently by the FT the Scottish economy is at least as good as the UK average and in some ways better off e.g. in exports, so that we have some hope of doing rather better (and more flexibly) if we cut loose.
Didn't that FT article show that Scotland needs the oil money to sustain current levels of expenditure? If that is the case, surely there will have to be significant cuts in spending if the SNP do create the oil fund they are currently talking about. And if the currency union does happen as per SNP wishes, the Scottish government will be severely constrained in what it can do. Is the SNP really making this clear?
That may well be so, but the point is that 'current levels' assumes spending on the same things, pro rata, as the UK does now. That is inevitably going to change - both up and down obviously. Some things can be cut or reduced at once, others will need to be added.
I don't think that any government which refuses to use PPP or PFI has any great problem with fiscal restraint.
I think 'debates' was a slip, unless it's very, very popular there will only be one Clegg vs Farage debate.
I'm not so sure it was myself. I could see both of them giving a small courtesy debate to LBC after or before a TV one without any problems.
The simple fact of the matter is that TV debates are a success. 2010 proved that for the broadcasters. They get to tick off their 'public service' remit while actually getting pretty damn good viewing figures at the same time. If labour and the tories leave a massive gap in the market than that would be their problem. I could easily see there being two TV debates which would have one focused on the EU and membership itself with the other one on immigration. You add to that a TV canny Farage who should still know how to make things as 'colourful' as possible then the keen interest of the broadcasters is not hard to understand.
I'm curious to see what happens during the campaign though. The trailing of an EU Referendum in 2017 seems to have geared up some in and out business campaigns, so non-political party groups involving themselves in an in/out debate during the EU Parliament election campaign could be interesting.
I'm also curious to see what UKIP have planned for their campaign, given a 'whatever it takes' budget by Mr Sykes.
Both very ticklish problems for Cammie and the tories. If they are relying on Clegg to save them from their own angry Eurosceptic side again then I'm not entirely sure they have thought things through. This is not good for them by any stretch of the imagination.
But they were picked not because they were Scottish but because they were good Labour/Unionist types, etc.
Ah yes, George Robertson, John Reid, Malcom Rifkind, George Younger, and Des Browne weren't/aren't really Scots. How silly of me not to appreciate this.
You're certainly being silly, willfully or otherwise, using the phrase 'weren't/aren't really Scots'.
If the search is on for a suitable Jacobite noble to step forth to fill the breach in the Scottish monarchy, surely, step forward King Jack W I and his magnificent consort!
The coronation ceremony would bankrupt the newly independent nation. I mean the cost of the shoes (for Mrs Jack W) and wigs (I believe Jack W protests too much about OGH) alone would be prohibitive.
I was thinking an elegant mix of the coronations of George IV (without the Missus banging on the door) and Edward VII together with PB's Andrea in charge of robes, TSE the shoes and JohnO the route of the State coaches.
Add a touch of Elton John and ABBA for the music and what could possibly go wrong ?!?
JackW - that kind of lark might be ok for the coronation ceremony of a King of Australia but Scotland is a serious, dignified country.
But they were picked not because they were Scottish but because they were good Labour/Unionist types, etc.
Ah yes, George Robertson, John Reid, Malcom Rifkind, George Younger, and Des Browne weren't/aren't really Scots. How silly of me not to appreciate this.
I said 'picked for the job' and that was because they were Labour or Tory'. Whether they were Scots was irrelevant one way or another (except possibly in helping shut up their unhappy brothers and sisters who had to live rather nearer Faslane).
If the search is on for a suitable Jacobite noble to step forth to fill the breach in the Scottish monarchy, surely, step forward King Jack W I and his magnificent consort!
The coronation ceremony would bankrupt the newly independent nation. I mean the cost of the shoes (for Mrs Jack W) and wigs (I believe Jack W protests too much about OGH) alone would be prohibitive.
I was thinking an elegant mix of the coronations of George IV (without the Missus banging on the door) and Edward VII together with PB's Andrea in charge of robes, TSE the shoes and JohnO the route of the State coaches.
Add a touch of Elton John and ABBA for the music and what could possibly go wrong ?!?
JackW - that kind of lark might be ok for the coronation ceremony of a King of Australia but Scotland is a serious, dignified country.
You're certainly being silly, willfully or otherwise, using the phrase 'weren't/aren't really Scots'.
Just correcting the SNP rewrite of history, which absurdly tries to pretend that the UK defence policy of the last 50 years is somehow nothing to do with Scotland and was somehow formulated without Scottish influence or consent, when in actual fact Scots had a disproportionately large share of the policy-making.
George VI was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but not King of Ireland. The last person to hold that title was his namesake, George III.
But they were picked not because they were Scottish but because they were good Labour/Unionist types, etc.
Ah yes, George Robertson, John Reid, Malcom Rifkind, George Younger, and Des Browne weren't/aren't really Scots. How silly of me not to appreciate this.
You're certainly being silly, willfully or otherwise, using the phrase 'weren't/aren't really Scots'.
Must you stop the out of touch fruitcakes digging away furiously? Leave them to it. They are as toxic as Osborne was.
If a new Scottish nation doesn't accept its share of UK debt (liablities) then it will not be entitle to its share of Uk assets.
So an independent Scotland that does not accept its share of debt will have to buy the hospitals, schools, defence buildings, and any other public buildings from rUK.
Any reason why Scottish fans have been chastised by the IOC for supporting a Scottish team with a Scottish flag? No wonder Scots are seriously considering independence when absurdities like this exist in the solitary major sporting showcase that forces Scotland to play as GB - and enforces it with pathetic measures like this.
If the search is on for a suitable Jacobite noble to step forth to fill the breach in the Scottish monarchy, surely, step forward King Jack W I and his magnificent consort!
The coronation ceremony would bankrupt the newly independent nation. I mean the cost of the shoes (for Mrs Jack W) and wigs (I believe Jack W protests too much about OGH) alone would be prohibitive.
I was thinking an elegant mix of the coronations of George IV (without the Missus banging on the door) and Edward VII together with PB's Andrea in charge of robes, TSE the shoes and JohnO the route of the State coaches.
Add a touch of Elton John and ABBA for the music and what could possibly go wrong ?!?
JackW - that kind of lark might be ok for the coronation ceremony of a King of Australia but Scotland is a serious, dignified country.
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.
Any oil money that Scotland may receive after Independence will only come for a limited period. They face the choice of having to adjust taxation and expenditure to balance without it either at the beginning of that period - so that they can use the surplus to create a sovereign fund - or at the end of that period - as is the current policy of the UK.
It will, however, be exactly that. A choice. They don't have to continue on the present path if they're prepared to make the effort to do something different.
That can't be true. Mr Salmond has never talked about tax rises. I thought thy'd all be cut?
I don't know what Salmond may, or may not, have said. Even less well do I know how he would act.
It is, however, pretty clear what the policy of successive UK governments has been and if the voters of Scotland want to do something different they will have to vote for independence and then those politicians who will have taxes higher, and/or spending lower, in order to create a sovereign fund.
The question for any Scottish voter tempted by the Norwegian model is whether they think politicians in Scotland are more like those in Oslo or more like those in London. I know which I would prefer to be true if I were such a voter, but reality has an unfortunate habit of not corresponding to my preferences.
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 seems 'a fool' didn't include TUD. ;-)
As is often the case for your brethren (e.g. MickPOrk), you've fapped yourself off by retweeting a non-entity's dribblings, without actually thinking what it means.
You're certainly being silly, willfully or otherwise, using the phrase 'weren't/aren't really Scots'.
Just correcting the SNP rewrite of history, which absurdly tries to pretend that the UK defence policy of the last 50 years is somehow nothing to do with Scotland and was somehow formulated without Scottish influence or consent, when in actual fact Scots had a disproportionately large share of the policy-making.
But - for the nth time - they were not acting as Scots but as members of Uk-wide parties in which the Scots were, over time, a minority. There was certainly a particular historical accident of the overrepresentation of Scots in Labour cabinets in recent decades. But that is in turn an artefact, in fact, of the Tories' unbelievable incompetence in throwing away their strong position in Scotland, a socially conservative country where they had a majority in the 1950s. It must also derive more recently of other changes within the Labour Party more generally in the UK which I'm not too familiar with in detail, but which made Scotland a particular heartland (as did Mrs T's policies).
More generally, I don't think anyone is denying history - it is the present and the future we are concerned with.
For those still too incompetent to grasp the obvious, that's two days Farage and Clegg have already manage to milk huge publicity and exposure out of the debates and they haven't even started yet.
Clegg and Farage struggle to get coverage all the time. Now they have gifted the tabloids and the boadsheets very easy copy indeed. The sheer number of effortless clickbait articles that can be churned out from all this will make lazy columnists weep with joy.
Any reason why Scottish fans have been chastised by the IOC for supporting a Scottish team with a Scottish flag? No wonder Scots are seriously considering independence when absurdities like this exist in the solitary major sporting showcase that forces Scotland to play as GB - and enforces it with pathetic measures like this.
Think it through.....for a minute.....I'm sure you'll realise why there are rules like this and why they are enforced.....
Any reason why Scottish fans have been chastised by the IOC for supporting a Scottish team with a Scottish flag? No wonder Scots are seriously considering independence when absurdities like this exist in the solitary major sporting showcase that forces Scotland to play as GB - and enforces it with pathetic measures like this.
Think it through.....for a minute.....I'm sure you'll realise why there are rules like this and why they are enforced.....
Of course, somebody could have put someone's eye out with a flagpole. We have to be conscious of health and safety.
ACCA which is as impartial as you'll get disagrees:
Classic, ‘pure’ PFI for building and infrastructure projects should, in my opinion, undoubtedly be retired. It is based on a redundant Public Sector Comparator, and ineffective funding gateways and post-project audit. That model certainly has proved a gravy train for the private sector, and too often delivers poor returns for the levels of public investment.
But there are lots of great PFI/PPP ‘derivatives’ – the sons and daughters of PFI – like many European regeneration PPPs, French-style municipal services PPPs, Hong Kong and Danish land value capture and infrastructure projects, the Scottish PFI model, Northern Ireland Health Estates’ exemplar model, smart PFI.
These initiatives show value for money and innovative processes, built on repeated efficiency improvements and properly shared public/private project ownership.
Clegg's pitch as "the party of in" does not strike me as a particularly good idea. Sure, the rabid rightwingers totally overestimate how many people froth at the mouth in fury at the EU. If there were a referendum, I think the majority (including me) would vote somewhat unenthusiastically to stay in the EU. Even though people think the "Eurocrats" are generally idiots and don't necessarily believe it would be some world-ending catastrophe for us to leave, I don't think people would really see the point in upsetting the apple-cart when there aren't any obvious advantages to leaving anyway.
But even so, even though as I say I think the majority would be an unenthusiastic vote to stay in, very very few people are actually enthusiastically pro-EU, and those who are are certainly outnumbered by the angry anti-EU brigade. On top of that, if the Lib Dems are aiming to have themselves defined primarily as a party who is in favour of the EU, then even leaving aside whether people agree with them on that issue or not, just sending out the image that they're mainly concerned with such aloof technocratic things as that, rather than with the things that people think really matter, would not really be a good look.
Any reason why Scottish fans have been chastised by the IOC for supporting a Scottish team with a Scottish flag? No wonder Scots are seriously considering independence when absurdities like this exist in the solitary major sporting showcase that forces Scotland to play as GB - and enforces it with pathetic measures like this.
Think it through.....for a minute.....I'm sure you'll realise why there are rules like this and why they are enforced.....
That of course accepts the legitimacy of the British Conquest and subsequent rule, contrary to standard republican theory. There can be no doubt that that theory holds that the Crown of Ireland Act 1541 was and is illegitimate and of no force. Henry VIII as his successors are pretended Kings of Ireland and subsequently Northern Ireland, just as his predecessors had pretended to lordship of the island.
If that is accepted, the issue becomes more complicated. Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair was probably the last Irish monarch, although he did commit treason by coming to terms with Henry II during the 1170s. According to the Remonstrance of the Irish "princes" to John XXII of 1317, however, Donald O'Neill was by hereditary right king of all Ireland, there having been an unbroken line of 197 kings since the sons of Milesius of Cantabria first came to Ireland. On the other hand, the Remonstrance purported to raise Edward de Brus, Earl of Carrick to the status of king. It is, in fact, a vexed question.
Any reason why Scottish fans have been chastised by the IOC for supporting a Scottish team with a Scottish flag? No wonder Scots are seriously considering independence when absurdities like this exist in the solitary major sporting showcase that forces Scotland to play as GB - and enforces it with pathetic measures like this.
It could be worse. During the London olympics corporate sponsors could veto spectator's wardrobe choices.
Any reason why Scottish fans have been chastised by the IOC for supporting a Scottish team with a Scottish flag? No wonder Scots are seriously considering independence when absurdities like this exist in the solitary major sporting showcase that forces Scotland to play as GB - and enforces it with pathetic measures like this.
To try and keep political statements out of the events, mainly with things like Catalonia, Kosovo, Abkhazia, (and I'm sure PBers could name more examples, I seem to remember Argentina looking into a way of claiming the Falklands on their kit). Just things the IOC doesn't want to deal with if it can avoid it.
It's also not the solitary showcase to have a GB team.
You're certainly being silly, willfully or otherwise, using the phrase 'weren't/aren't really Scots'.
Just correcting the SNP rewrite of history, which absurdly tries to pretend that the UK defence policy of the last 50 years is somehow nothing to do with Scotland and was somehow formulated without Scottish influence or consent, when in actual fact Scots had a disproportionately large share of the policy-making.
Is that why they're building the aircraft carriers in Scotland and not an English yard? I've often wondered about that.
ACCA which is as impartial as you'll get disagrees:
Classic, ‘pure’ PFI for building and infrastructure projects should, in my opinion, undoubtedly be retired. It is based on a redundant Public Sector Comparator, and ineffective funding gateways and post-project audit. That model certainly has proved a gravy train for the private sector, and too often delivers poor returns for the levels of public investment.
But there are lots of great PFI/PPP ‘derivatives’ – the sons and daughters of PFI – like many European regeneration PPPs, French-style municipal services PPPs, Hong Kong and Danish land value capture and infrastructure projects, the Scottish PFI model, Northern Ireland Health Estates’ exemplar model, smart PFI.
These initiatives show value for money and innovative processes, built on repeated efficiency improvements and properly shared public/private project ownership.
Many thanks, I'll have a look at that with real interest. I should have been much clearer that I was thinking of the original model which was still being pushed by Labour and the Tories long after the problems were apparent, and has left serious problems in national and local government budgeting. There is indeed a new model which is different and this website looks interesting.
We wont be having the O'Neill's anywhere near the throne, thank you very much. If it has to come back it will be an O'Conor and nothing less! (I believe the current O'Conor Don lives in the Home Counties somewhere, I wonder if he sits by the phone waiting for the call to come as a compromise Head of State of a united Ireland?)
Clegg's pitch as "the party of in" does not strike me as a particularly good idea. Sure, the rabid rightwingers totally overestimate how many people froth at the mouth in fury at the EU. If there were a referendum, I think the majority (including me) would vote somewhat unenthusiastically to stay in the EU. Even though people think the "Eurocrats" are generally idiots and don't necessarily believe it would be some world-ending catastrophe for us to leave, I don't think people would really see the point in upsetting the apple-cart when there aren't any obvious advantages to leaving anyway.
But even so, even though as I say I think the majority would be an unenthusiastic vote to stay in, very very few people are actually enthusiastically pro-EU, and those who are are certainly outnumbered by the angry anti-EU brigade. On top of that, if the Lib Dems are aiming to have themselves defined primarily as a party who is in favour of the EU, then even leaving aside whether people agree with them on that issue or not, just sending out the image that they're mainly concerned with such aloof technocratic things as that, rather than with the things that people think really matter, would not really be a good look.
The EU Parliament polls currently have the LDs ~9%.
There are more pro-EU voters than pro-LD voters.
It certainly makes sense for the EU Parliament elections. Whether or not it could backfire in the local/general election is something I'm sure the LDs have considered.
During the 'vetogasm' the LD polling support didn't seem to waver, so perhaps they've already purged their anti-EU supporters.
Clegg's pitch as "the party of in" does not strike me as a particularly good idea. Sure, the rabid rightwingers totally overestimate how many people froth at the mouth in fury at the EU. If there were a referendum, I think the majority (including me) would vote somewhat unenthusiastically to stay in the EU. Even though people think the "Eurocrats" are generally idiots and don't necessarily believe it would be some world-ending catastrophe for us to leave, I don't think people would really see the point in upsetting the apple-cart when there aren't any obvious advantages to leaving anyway.
But even so, even though as I say I think the majority would be an unenthusiastic vote to stay in, very very few people are actually enthusiastically pro-EU, and those who are are certainly outnumbered by the angry anti-EU brigade. On top of that, if the Lib Dems are aiming to have themselves defined primarily as a party who is in favour of the EU, then even leaving aside whether people agree with them on that issue or not, just sending out the image that they're mainly concerned with such aloof technocratic things as that, rather than with the things that people think really matter, would not really be a good look.
There are probably 15-20% of the voters who are enthusiastically pro-EU.
Any reason why Scottish fans have been chastised by the IOC for supporting a Scottish team with a Scottish flag? No wonder Scots are seriously considering independence when absurdities like this exist in the solitary major sporting showcase that forces Scotland to play as GB - and enforces it with pathetic measures like this.
It could be worse. During the London olympics corporate sponsors could veto spectator's wardrobe choices.
Any reason why Scottish fans have been chastised by the IOC for supporting a Scottish team with a Scottish flag? No wonder Scots are seriously considering independence when absurdities like this exist in the solitary major sporting showcase that forces Scotland to play as GB - and enforces it with pathetic measures like this.
Think it through.....for a minute.....I'm sure you'll realise why there are rules like this and why they are enforced.....
But to ban the saltire and Lion Rampant from Scottish OLympic events on Scottish soil? IT's not as if they are the SNP flags. And the equivalent, I believe, in Wales and Cornwall? It took a lot of arguing to allow even the saltire as one of the flags outside Hampden Stadium as I recall. And the Olympic Torch events in Scotland ended up with nothing but Union Flags and commercial sponsors' flags being handed out, when a more traditional celebration will always have the Union Flag, Saltire and Lion Rampants all cheerfully mixed up together.
One size fits all is the kindest interpretation. But it might have been tactful for Mr Coe to think in more generous terms given the degree to which the budget and lottery funds were raided not just for the sports but for infrastructure improvement.
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.
Maybe because they didn't have Scots in charge of their public finances for 13 years.
Probably also related to the fact that the Norwegians have twice as much oil as the UK does. Not to mention a Scandinavian work ethic and rule-abiding mentality.
Indeed, but what I find extraordinary is the Scottish (or at least SNP) idea that somehow Scotland has been run by perfidious Englishmen, whereas the reality is that much of what they complain about relates to policies where Scottish politicians have had a major, in fact disproportionate, influence. Trident is another example.
Richard , you seem a tad confused. We say it has been badly run by Westminster , nowhere does anyone berate the English in general. The perfidious Labour MPs in Westminster are the worst of the bunch. It is not personal and not about the English, it is the way the UK is governed that is the point. It is not to the advantage of Scotland and similarly to many parts of England. Scotland does not want Tories and does not want Trident but we get them all the time.
Any reason why Scottish fans have been chastised by the IOC for supporting a Scottish team with a Scottish flag? No wonder Scots are seriously considering independence when absurdities like this exist in the solitary major sporting showcase that forces Scotland to play as GB - and enforces it with pathetic measures like this.
I seem to remember Argentina looking into a way of claiming the Falklands on their kit
They also surreptitiously filmed an ad - which was promptly sent up:
Both very ticklish problems for Cammie and the tories. If they are relying on Clegg to save them from their own angry Eurosceptic side again then I'm not entirely sure they have thought things through. This is not good for them by any stretch of the imagination.
For the Conservatives, I wonder if the LDs might be bigger threat.
UKIP drawing in anti-EU votes seems to be a given, if the LDs start to draw in pro-EU votes too the Conservatives will be reduced to a partisans+undecideds rump.
The perfidious Labour MPs in Westminster are the worst of the bunch. .
I agree. What a pity that your fellow Scots have voted for them in such overwhelming numbers for the past thirty years. You can't blame that on anyone but yourselves.
Nick Clegg faces being shut out of TV debeats ahead of the 2015 general election under Labour plans for a head-to-head battle between the only two men who can be Prime Minister.
Labour wants to see straight fight between David Cameron and Ed Miliband, in a marked shift from previous demands for a re-run of the 2010 debates when Lib Dem Mr Clegg was also included.
The plan emerged as Labour made clear Mr Miliband would not take part in a debate on Britain's membership of the European Union ordered after Mr Clegg threw down the gauntlet to Ukip leader Nigel Farage.
You're certainly being silly, willfully or otherwise, using the phrase 'weren't/aren't really Scots'.
Just correcting the SNP rewrite of history, which absurdly tries to pretend that the UK defence policy of the last 50 years is somehow nothing to do with Scotland and was somehow formulated without Scottish influence or consent, when in actual fact Scots had a disproportionately large share of the policy-making.
Is that why they're building the aircraft carriers in Scotland and not an English yard? I've often wondered about that.
No: it's because (a) some was built in English yards (and far, far more in England when you include the electronics and equipment) and (b) the English shipbuilding industry no longer has the capability. Which I think -objectively speaking - a great shame.
Any reason why Scottish fans have been chastised by the IOC for supporting a Scottish team with a Scottish flag? No wonder Scots are seriously considering independence when absurdities like this exist in the solitary major sporting showcase that forces Scotland to play as GB - and enforces it with pathetic measures like this.
Think it through.....for a minute.....I'm sure you'll realise why there are rules like this and why they are enforced.....
But to ban the saltire and Lion Rampant from Scottish OLympic events on Scottish soil? IT's not as if they are the SNP flags. And the equivalent, I believe, in Wales and Cornwall? It took a lot of arguing to allow even the saltire as one of the flags outside Hampden Stadium as I recall. And the Olympic Torch events in Scotland ended up with nothing but Union Flags and commercial sponsors' flags being handed out, when a more traditional celebration will always have the Union Flag, Saltire and Lion Rampants all cheerfully mixed up together.
One size fits all is the kindest interpretation. But it might have been tactful for Mr Coe to think in more generous terms given the degree to which the budget and lottery funds were raided not just for the sports but for infrastructure improvement.
I doubt Mr Coe had a say in the matter. It's the IOC not wanting to deal with political statements if they can avoid it, and if they make exceptions then they start picking and choosing on the exceptions they make and opens up a whole lot of stuff they can just avoid being their issue.
Any reason why Scottish fans have been chastised by the IOC for supporting a Scottish team with a Scottish flag? No wonder Scots are seriously considering independence when absurdities like this exist in the solitary major sporting showcase that forces Scotland to play as GB - and enforces it with pathetic measures like this.
Think it through.....for a minute.....I'm sure you'll realise why there are rules like this and why they are enforced.....
But to ban the saltire and Lion Rampant from Scottish OLympic events on Scottish soil?
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Mercifully we are spared that here, the rest of the world is not so lucky.....
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.
Any oil money that Scotland may receive after Independence will only come for a limited period. They face the choice of having to adjust taxation and expenditure to balance without it either at the beginning of that period - so that they can use the surplus to create a sovereign fund - or at the end of that period - as is the current policy of the UK.
It will, however, be exactly that. A choice. They don't have to continue on the present path if they're prepared to make the effort to do something different.
A point well made. Is this being discussed in Scotland currently?
Oh yes. The problem is that the unionists like to take the worst case scenarios (which is a bit illogical as they simultaneously say that we can't cope with the riches). Oil price will collapse, wells dry up, etc.. Therefore much of the stuff in public debate is unrealistic and tends to go round and round in circles, usually disappearing up its own fundament like the farfamed jubjub bird. A mildly more positive approach suggests that there is some truth in the SNP analysis which is that the Scottish economy is rather wider than oil for which it is something of a bonus. Or one can just say the obvious, which is that the UK is knackered (as the Unionists carefully fail to point out as a bonus of staying in the UK). As confirmed most recently by the FT the Scottish economy is at least as good as the UK average and in some ways better off e.g. in exports, so that we have some hope of doing rather better (and more flexibly) if we cut loose.
Didn't that FT article show that Scotland needs the oil money to sustain current levels of expenditure? If that is the case, surely there will have to be significant cuts in spending if the SNP do create the oil fund they are currently talking about. And if the currency union does happen as per SNP wishes, the Scottish government will be severely constrained in what it can do. Is the SNP really making this clear?
There are lots of things we would not have to pay. For example we pay interest on the QE raised by Westminster, we also pay a higher share of interest on the debt than our population share would demand, Trident , smaller defence costs, etc , etc. So we will be in a better position immediately. Given we will also need infrastructure for all those public service jobs transferring from London we will have a mini boom into the bargain.
You're certainly being silly, willfully or otherwise, using the phrase 'weren't/aren't really Scots'.
Just correcting the SNP rewrite of history, which absurdly tries to pretend that the UK defence policy of the last 50 years is somehow nothing to do with Scotland and was somehow formulated without Scottish influence or consent, when in actual fact Scots had a disproportionately large share of the policy-making.
Is that why they're building the aircraft carriers in Scotland and not an English yard? I've often wondered about that.
No: it's because (a) some was built in English yards (and far, far more in England when you include the electronics and equipment) and (b) the English shipbuilding industry no longer has the capability. Which I think -objectively speaking - a great shame.
Would I be right in thinking that they'll move any naval work south after independence? Or even overseas?
Nick Clegg faces being shut out of TV debeats ahead of the 2015 general election under Labour plans for a head-to-head battle between the only two men who can be Prime Minister.
Labour wants to see straight fight between David Cameron and Ed Miliband, in a marked shift from previous demands for a re-run of the 2010 debates when Lib Dem Mr Clegg was also included.
The plan emerged as Labour made clear Mr Miliband would not take part in a debate on Britain's membership of the European Union ordered after Mr Clegg threw down the gauntlet to Ukip leader Nigel Farage.
If a new Scottish nation doesn't accept its share of UK debt (liablities) then it will not be entitle to its share of Uk assets.
So an independent Scotland that does not accept its share of debt will have to buy the hospitals, schools, defence buildings, and any other public buildings from rUK.
Comments
It will, however, be exactly that. A choice. They don't have to continue on the present path if they're prepared to make the effort to do something different.
Whatever we did, it is as nothing to what the socialist Venezuelans are doing.
And after that being a Scottish citizen would have - presumably - no inherent right to EWNI citizenship?
1/ He talks about debates plural.
2/ He's confirmed that not just Sky but other broadcasters are keenly sniffing around to get a piece of this. Nor was that unexpected as the curiosity factor for this will be high.
Now unless Clegg is even more stupid than usual then it's a safe bet that he want's maximum publicity out of this as does Farage. That means it's in both their interests to go for the option which gives them as much exposure as possible. Nor should that kind of exposure be dismissed when it's blatantly obvious that TV debates are publicity bonanza for the parties involved and to no cost to themselves. Other than the cost of them not looking good which is minimised in this case since both will Farage and Clegg will be playing to completely different audiences.
If Cammie and little Ed are sanguine about this then they should have another look at last years local election results.
http://news.sky.com/story/1215218/farage-v-clegg-euro-debate-suits-both-parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union#2013
Similarly, their children will be born to UK citizens, resident abroad, and hence also entitled to UK citizenship.
Its only their children - for example, born in iScotland, to parents born in iScotland and who did not apply for rUK citizenship (a right via their parents, born in UK), who may lose the right to rUK citizenship......unless the law is changed, which may make things more complicated.....
You're everywhere!
Faint musical accompaniment of "Zadock the Priest" in the background ....
We currently DO have a mixed, capitalist economy. The main problems in our economy today are due to allowing debt (both government and private) to be run up due to the belief the boom and bust had been abolished and that we could spend freely without saving for a rainy day.
1/ He talks about debates plural.
2/ He's confirmed that not just Sky but other broadcasters are keenly sniffing around to get a piece of this. Nor was that unexpected as the curiosity factor for this will be high.
Now unless Clegg is even more stupid than usual then it's a safe bet that he want's maximum publicity out of this as does Farage. That means it's in both their interests to go for the option which gives them as much exposure as possible. Nor should that kind of exposure be dismissed when it's blatantly obvious that TV debates are publicity bonanza for the parties involved and to no cost to themselves. Other than the cost of them not looking good which is minimised in this case since both will Farage and Clegg will be playing to completely different audiences.
If Cammie and little Ed are sanguine about this then they should have another look at last years local election results.
I think 'debates' was a slip, unless it's very, very popular there will only be one Clegg vs Farage debate.
I'm curious to see what happens during the campaign though. The trailing of an EU Referendum in 2017 seems to have geared up some in and out business campaigns, so non-political party groups involving themselves in an in/out debate during the EU Parliament election campaign could be interesting.
I'm also curious to see what UKIP have planned for their campaign, given a 'whatever it takes' budget by Mr Sykes.
Richard Conway @richard_conway 1h
Scottish fans told to take down Saltire flag in curling arena by Sochi official. Union flag allowed, Saltire not apparently under IOC rules.
It's as logical as saying, ginger headed Foreign Ministers signed up to it so it's a surprise that a lot of ginger heidies don't like Trident.
Indeed, Trident is very unpopular in Scots politics. Even in Labour circles, though Ms Lamont doesn't like to talk about that.
Turns out not to be the case. Barroso has shot that fox
In fact as many will vote 'No' for fear of being chucked out, as vote 'Yes' to get chucked out!
Fear of not being in the EU may be a factor in motivating some people to vote ‘No’ to an independent Scotland. 36% of ‘No’ voters said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso’s comments about the difficulty of an independent Scotland joining the EU would make them even more likely to vote ‘No’ to independence.
However, looking at the net figures for all Scottish people, just as many (21%) say that Barroso’s comments make them more likely to vote ‘Yes’ to independence as those who say his comments make them more likely to vote ‘No’.
It seems that, for the 35% of Scottish people who would vote to leave the EU, the notion that an independent Scotland might be barred from rejoining may be attractive rather than worrying.
- See more at: http://survation.com/2014/02/a-tale-of-two-referendums-fear-of-leaving-eu-has-little-effect-on-pro-independence-scots/#sthash.VFX8p0OY.dpuf
Add a touch of Elton John and ABBA for the music and what could possibly go wrong ?!?
Do you think all the nice people working for RBS in Scotland would have found new jobs if the bank had gone broke.
I don't think that any government which refuses to use PPP or PFI has any great problem with fiscal restraint.
The simple fact of the matter is that TV debates are a success. 2010 proved that for the broadcasters. They get to tick off their 'public service' remit while actually getting pretty damn good viewing figures at the same time. If labour and the tories leave a massive gap in the market than that would be their problem. I could easily see there being two TV debates which would have one focused on the EU and membership itself with the other one on immigration. You add to that a TV canny Farage who should still know how to make things as 'colourful' as possible then the keen interest of the broadcasters is not hard to understand. Both very ticklish problems for Cammie and the tories. If they are relying on Clegg to save them from their own angry Eurosceptic side again then I'm not entirely sure they have thought things through. This is not good for them by any stretch of the imagination.
http://www.euractiv.com/eu-elections-2014/socialists-set-overtake-centre-r-news-533642?utm_source=EurActiv Newsletter&utm_campaign=c795cf6b73-newsletter_weekly_update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-c795cf6b73-245514803
George VI was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but not King of Ireland. The last person to hold that title was his namesake, George III.
They are as toxic as Osborne was.
So an independent Scotland that does not accept its share of debt will have to buy the hospitals, schools, defence buildings, and any other public buildings from rUK.
It is, however, pretty clear what the policy of successive UK governments has been and if the voters of Scotland want to do something different they will have to vote for independence and then those politicians who will have taxes higher, and/or spending lower, in order to create a sovereign fund.
The question for any Scottish voter tempted by the Norwegian model is whether they think politicians in Scotland are more like those in Oslo or more like those in London. I know which I would prefer to be true if I were such a voter, but reality has an unfortunate habit of not corresponding to my preferences.
As is often the case for your brethren (e.g. MickPOrk), you've fapped yourself off by retweeting a non-entity's dribblings, without actually thinking what it means.
More generally, I don't think anyone is denying history - it is the present and the future we are concerned with.
Charlie was only a Prince, not a King.
ACCA which is as impartial as you'll get disagrees:
Classic, ‘pure’ PFI for building and infrastructure projects should, in my opinion, undoubtedly be retired. It is based on a redundant Public Sector Comparator, and ineffective funding gateways and post-project audit. That model certainly has proved a gravy train for the private sector, and too often delivers poor returns for the levels of public investment.
But there are lots of great PFI/PPP ‘derivatives’ – the sons and daughters of PFI – like many European regeneration PPPs, French-style municipal services PPPs, Hong Kong and Danish land value capture and infrastructure projects, the Scottish PFI model, Northern Ireland Health Estates’ exemplar model, smart PFI.
These initiatives show value for money and innovative processes, built on repeated efficiency improvements and properly shared public/private project ownership.
But even so, even though as I say I think the majority would be an unenthusiastic vote to stay in, very very few people are actually enthusiastically pro-EU, and those who are are certainly outnumbered by the angry anti-EU brigade. On top of that, if the Lib Dems are aiming to have themselves defined primarily as a party who is in favour of the EU, then even leaving aside whether people agree with them on that issue or not, just sending out the image that they're mainly concerned with such aloof technocratic things as that, rather than with the things that people think really matter, would not really be a good look.
If that is accepted, the issue becomes more complicated. Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair was probably the last Irish monarch, although he did commit treason by coming to terms with Henry II during the 1170s. According to the Remonstrance of the Irish "princes" to John XXII of 1317, however, Donald O'Neill was by hereditary right king of all Ireland, there having been an unbroken line of 197 kings since the sons of Milesius of Cantabria first came to Ireland. On the other hand, the Remonstrance purported to raise Edward de Brus, Earl of Carrick to the status of king. It is, in fact, a vexed question.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9414178/London-2012-Olympics-You-can-wear-Nike-trainers-but-leave-the-Pepsi-T-shirt-at-home-says-Lord-Coe.html
It's also not the solitary showcase to have a GB team.
There are more pro-EU voters than pro-LD voters.
It certainly makes sense for the EU Parliament elections. Whether or not it could backfire in the local/general election is something I'm sure the LDs have considered.
During the 'vetogasm' the LD polling support didn't seem to waver, so perhaps they've already purged their anti-EU supporters.
One size fits all is the kindest interpretation. But it might have been tactful for Mr Coe to think in more generous terms given the degree to which the budget and lottery funds were raided not just for the sports but for infrastructure improvement.
Looking at individual scores, Marine Le Pen can probably get a group of 35-40 MEPs together, as well.
That will still leave the Parliament with a hugely federalist majority.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VetuOlwcmqU
UKIP drawing in anti-EU votes seems to be a given, if the LDs start to draw in pro-EU votes too the Conservatives will be reduced to a partisans+undecideds rump.
The interest on QE is paid TO the Treasury, not BY it.
Unless OFCOM changes its definitions I think they'd run into trouble on that.
I wonder out of Cameron and Miliband how they really feel about the debates.