I would agree with Mike that a Tory majority is almost impossible because of the rise of UKIP in a FPTP system. Even if the Tories cut UKIP to about 6% they would still only be on 39% or so rather than the 42% Major achieved in '92. However, that 39% Tory total and a 3-4% national lead is still possible if Cameron can win back the 45% of UKIP voters who voted for Cameron in 2010. If the LDs win back say 3% of their voters who have left for Labour, which will still be a minority of those who have defected to Miliband, you then get a total of 39% Tory, 36% Labour and 12% LD, ie most likely another Tory-LD Coalition.
'After bullying and Bowie there will be nothing united about this Kingdom following the referendum ...
In September, at a conference in Orkney, Better Together's Ian Davidson MP declared that the No campaign had already won and all that was left was "to bayonet the wounded".
... One of the untold stories of the referendum has been the tension within the Labour movement in Scotland as the UK Labour establishment has tried to keep a lid on it. It burst into the open last week when the STUC leader, Grahame Smith, openly criticised the Better Together campaign.
... Many Scots voters, Yes and No, felt belittled by George Osborne's punitive intervention.
... The UK political establishment has clearly forgotten that the Union of 1707 was supposed to have been a partnership not an annexation.
... Perhaps Scots were deluding themselves that this was a partnership of equals, but that is what most genuinely believed. Very few people in Scotland in the 19th or 20th centuries felt that Scotland was a colony of England, or was oppressed by England or that Scotland had been extinguished. Only now, thanks to a clodhopping Chancellor and a myopic Westminster opposition, has that idea acquired any traction. Whether they vote Yes or No in September, I suspect the Scots will never feel quite the same about the UK. The Osborne diktat has turned what was a great moral project into an exercise in crude power politics. In truth, these callow politicians are not fit to call themselves Unionist. They haven't a clue what the word means.
Oh dear Scotland being bullied by Osborne AND David Bowie - diddums!
The article is about bullying and Bowie. At no point does it try to claim that Bowie is a bully. He quite clearly is not. He is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else.
It is also worth noting that the article is (a) n a fairly Unionist newspaper, and/but by Iain Macwhirter - who is one of the two (in my opinion) most interesting neutral commentators on indy. The whole piece is also worth reading.
"Does he think English company bosses will accept the millions of pounds of extra costs that tariffs would entail, not to mention the downward tilt in the balance of payments without oil receipts?"
It seems the Guardian is idiotic in economics to just swallow what Salmond says. How on Earth does the balance of payments for a currency area help one member if those balance of payments come from another country in that area? Seriously, can't these idiots think things through for just one moment.
Mr. L, there's no way in hell Osborne will be reshuffled. The Conservatives will make the economy (or possibly Scotland, if Yes wins) the keystone of their approach to the election. Replacing your Chancellor for so many years would be seen as hoisting the white flag. For the same reason, Balls is bulletproof in terms of reshuffles.
You are right that Osborne won't be shuffled against his will. The question is whether, wearing his other hat as election strategy supremo, Osborne voluntarily stands aside because he can see from the polling evidence that this will make Conservative victory more likely.
... The only certainty, really, is that if Yes wins we're going to have a rather interesting couple of years.
"Interesting" is one way of putting it.
For Scots it will be a breath of fresh air to be in charge of our own destiny again, but England is going to wake up with one hell of a hangover after drowning its sorrows over the penultimate loss of its long imperial decline. Only Wales to go.
The biggest uncertainty about the dissolution of the United Kingdom is not what Scotland is going to be like, but what is England going to do?
Hopefully England would create and English Parliament in York.
I don't think anything says more about the current state of Scots chippiness than the fact that a refusal of a country they have just left to underwrite a foreign country's financial sector is "bullying". It seems like, should independence happen, rather than be a confident new state in the world, they will instead repeat Ireland's mentality for its early decades. Perhaps they could also refuse to participate in upholding the international order and send condolences on the death of the UK's enemies?
I don't think anything says more about the current state of your knowledge of Scots than, well, just about everything you type on the subject. Wasn't one of your favourite memes 'Oh, the Scots will be far too sensible to give up the vast benison of the Union'? That seems to have gone by the board.
Hopefully England would create and English Parliament in York.
England's Parliament should be in her capital-city: Winchester. You Danes and Jihadists should put your "Council-of-Elders" in Bradford (along with your 'militants')....
Mr. Socrates, perhaps I'm wrong. It'd be nice, as York would be the best place. My suspicion is that the South, collectively, would want London and the North would (mostly) want York.
I just hope if/when we get one it doesn't have a shitty 'modern' look.
On current trends, Cameron will lose in 2015, but a major unexpected upset could change this. Four possibilities, in no particular order:
a/ a yes vote in the referendum. Losing Scotland would be a blow to Cameron, but Labour would be looking at the loss of a few dozen seats, and might also catch some of the blame for losing the referendum.
b/ a major scandal hitting Labour, but leaving the Conservatives untouched. There's currently no reason to expect this, but nor can it be completely ruled out. (Note, I'm not a lawyer, but I understand discussing possible scandals could fall foul of the libel laws.)
c/ a successful terrorist attack on the cabinet. If half of them are dead, and the other half confined to wheelchairs, there will be a sympathy factor, and they may win points for 'defying the terrorists', 'leadership in a time of crisis', etc.
d/ a major international crisis - Russia and the EU getting involved in an Ukrainian civil war, China getting into a fight with Japan, revolution in Saudi Arabia, etc. This would make foreign policy a more significant issue, which could benefit the conservatives. They wouldn't need to have an outright advantage in foreign policy, just shoving things like the cost of living down the political agenda would help them.
I won't claim any of these are likely, but the aggregate probability of all these scenarios, and the others that could torpedo Labour, does set a floor on the chance of Cameron winning.
b) is already in place, with Harman, Dromey and Hewitt becoming embroiled in the absolutely disgusting NCCL/PIE revelations.
Right leaning media will not let this go as it involves the one thing that the general public find revolting, and the very top of Labour are up to their sorry necks in it. Why do you think the BBC are doing their best to ignore it?
Mr. Socrates, perhaps I'm wrong. It'd be nice, as York would be the best place. My suspicion is that the South, collectively, would want London and the North would (mostly) want York.
I just hope if/when we get one it doesn't have a shitty 'modern' look.
In my experience, the North has enough internal rivalries it wouldn't be able to agree on a place. I also imagine the South West would like Bristol.
Mr. Socrates, that's somewhat fair, but I don't think the furthest north would offer a location (hard to see a Parliament in the Lake District). We couldn't have it in Mordor, obviously.
... The only certainty, really, is that if Yes wins we're going to have a rather interesting couple of years.
"Interesting" is one way of putting it.
For Scots it will be a breath of fresh air to be in charge of our own destiny again, but England is going to wake up with one hell of a hangover after drowning its sorrows over the penultimate loss of its long imperial decline. Only Wales to go.
The biggest uncertainty about the dissolution of the United Kingdom is not what Scotland is going to be like, but what is England going to do?
Hopefully England would create an English Parliament in York.
Quite right too. It was the hated Norman invaders who removed the seat of English government from Winchester to London. Isn't it about time that a properly English city, eg. York, served as the capital again?
Thinking about it: Why should "York" be a capital city? Look at Nigeria* and Kazakhstan** and you'll find the answer: Compromise; inaccessibility; immunity; and corruption....
Mr. City, nice idea, but the Southerners would really hate that. An English Parliament would probably be in Birmingham, as a compromise.
Oxford would be a more sensible choice if it had to be in the southeast at all. Been done before, remember, in the 1640s. One reason was/is plenty of accommodation in the colleges (at least out of term). Another is that it's got excellent defences all round, especially when it floods.
Mr. Socrates, perhaps I'm wrong. It'd be nice, as York would be the best place. My suspicion is that the South, collectively, would want London and the North would (mostly) want York.
I just hope if/when we get one it doesn't have a shitty 'modern' look.
Are you really sure you want all those MPs, the researchers and hangers-on polluting the fair city of York? I mean, it's too nice a place to ruin by having hundreds of politicians in it, yet alone the media circus that surrounds parliament.
I'd suggest somewhere different: Norwich, perhaps. Or Staveley, or Barnsley. At least housing would be cheaper in the latter two. ;-)
Mr. City, nice idea, but the Southerners would really hate that. An English Parliament would probably be in Birmingham, as a compromise.
Oxford would be a more sensible choice if it had to be in the southeast at all. Been done before, remember, in the 1640s. One reason was/is plenty of accommodation in the colleges (at least out of term). Another is that it's got excellent defences all round, especially when it floods.
And the PPE elite would be within walking distance of their final destination.
'After bullying and Bowie there will be nothing united about this Kingdom following the referendum ...
In September, at a conference in Orkney, Better Together's Ian Davidson MP declared that the No campaign had already won and all that was left was "to bayonet the wounded".
... One of the untold stories of the referendum has been the tension within the Labour movement in Scotland as the UK Labour establishment has tried to keep a lid on it. It burst into the open last week when the STUC leader, Grahame Smith, openly criticised the Better Together campaign.
... Many Scots voters, Yes and No, felt belittled by George Osborne's punitive intervention.
... The UK political establishment has clearly forgotten that the Union of 1707 was supposed to have been a partnership not an annexation.
... Perhaps Scots were deluding themselves that this was a partnership of equals, but that is what most genuinely believed. Very few people in Scotland in the 19th or 20th centuries felt that Scotland was a colony of England, or was oppressed by England or that Scotland had been extinguished. Only now, thanks to a clodhopping Chancellor and a myopic Westminster opposition, has that idea acquired any traction. Whether they vote Yes or No in September, I suspect the Scots will never feel quite the same about the UK. The Osborne diktat has turned what was a great moral project into an exercise in crude power politics. In truth, these callow politicians are not fit to call themselves Unionist. They haven't a clue what the word means.
Oh dear Scotland being bullied by Osborne AND David Bowie - diddums!
The article is about bullying and Bowie. At no point does it try to claim that Bowie is a bully. He quite clearly is not. He is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else.
It is also worth noting that the article is (a) in a fairly Unionist newspaper, and/but by Iain Macwhirter - who is one of the two (in my opinion) most interesting neutral commentators on indy. The whole piece is also worth reading.
Agreed. It is a thought provoking piece. Especially for voters who love Scotland but are still swithering between Yes and No.
From a Tory majority of 24 in his previous prediction to 22 short now.From 57% probable Tory majority to 32%.From 15% probable Labour majority to 23%.....so this is the swingback people keep posting on here about.
Mr. City, nice idea, but the Southerners would really hate that. An English Parliament would probably be in Birmingham, as a compromise.
Oxford would be a more sensible choice if it had to be in the southeast at all. Been done before, remember, in the 1640s. One reason was/is plenty of accommodation in the colleges (at least out of term). Another is that it's got excellent defences all round, especially when it floods.
And the PPE elite would be within walking distance of their final destination.
Yes, indeed. Daddy and Mummy could buy a flat when their little dear matriculates and it'll still be a nice pied a terre for when they represent distant seats.
(O/T: For the military historians amongst us, I recall seeing a huge contemporary panoramic painting of Oxford under siege in the city council museum many years ago with the lines and entrenchments all around it. There is (or was) a cannon emplacement mound and I think a line of embankment still there in the 1980s to the north of the city centre between the Zoology Dept and Mansfield College, but I can't recall anything else surviving - certainly nothing on the scale of some of the earthworks at Newark.)
The Tories can win if enough people feel better off. Problem is that too many people can't feel better off as the economy has crashed for them, and other people won't give Osborne credit even if they do feel better off.
As has been pointed out their brand is too toxic for too many people in too many seats for a win to be likely, this collapse has accelerated since the fall of Major and short of ditching the nasty party image and agenda and nasty MPs for a proper repositioning I can't see it changing.
Their get out of jail options are few. Hope Scotland votes yes AND Labour implode AND the post independence political settlement can be pulled forward to effectively exclude Scottish MPs. Hope the Economy collapses again - another banking disaster and the end of the Eurozone in its current form could settle the yerp argument in their favour, kill UKIP and make pro-yerp parties like Labour look stupid. Or hope the Ukraine turns into a full blown US/Russia proxy war so that the election can be cancelled.
.If Osborne gives tax cuts with a 110 billion pound deficit,he will be laughed off the park.
Agreed. Which is why I am so disappointed in the government's fiscal position. I thought that by now we would be far further down the road than we are.
Cutting government spending went out of the window when growth started to falter.A lot of hype on deficit reduction for little result.Which makes it interesting which way Osborne is going to spin this years` budget.
Yes. And you could argue he was right to do so, although I'm not a great fan of his techniques (despite benefitting personally - my house increasing in value by £2k+ a month means it's a cash machine when we remortgage).
However, the penny has dropped with the brighter Conservatives - Taffys makes the key point below that the govt has now conceded all the ground it had on fiscal discipline, debt is spiralling and the deficit has not budged a great deal.
@MD - I live in London and think York would be a splendid location for any English parliament. Don't assume all southerners dislike the north!
And ever heard of Coulport Carlotta? Where exactly in England are you planning on digging silos for the 200 nuclear warheads? I expect that the local residents' associations would like some advance warning.
I thought the at-sea deterrent would be maintained, just based at a different dockyards.
Please read up on the facts. The "at-sea deterrent" has a very large land-based element.
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
From a Tory majority of 24 in his previous prediction to 22 short now.From 57% probable Tory majority to 32%.From 15% probable Labour majority to 23%.....so this is the swingback people keep posting on here about.
And yet, dear child, redrag still believes in "The Cult of Global-Warming":
No evidence; no understanding; confused (as to what should be modeled - and what should not be modeled - using mathematics, statistics and logic): There is no point in 'C0mpouter'-world as he struggles on the basics (like a Single-Sign-On)....
Mr. City, I was unaware it was founded by the Romans. I thought it had just been renamed by them (as you'll know, it later became Eoferwic and then Jorvik prior to its present name). I wonder what they'll do to celebrate the 2,000 year anniversary.
From a Tory majority of 24 in his previous prediction to 22 short now.From 57% probable Tory majority to 32%.From 15% probable Labour majority to 23%.....so this is the swingback people keep posting on here about.
And yet, dear child, redrag still believes in "The Cult of Global-Warming":
No evidence; no understanding; confused (as to what should be modeled - and what should not be modeled - using mathematics, statistics and logic): There is no point in 'C0mpouter'-world as he struggles on the basics (like a Single-Sign-On)....
Fluffy, which one is your favourite?
If the economy continues to grow If wages outstrip inflation If Ukip returns to the Tories If Lib Dems return home If Ukip only take off the Tories in safe Tory areas If Labour voters don't vote tactically in Lib Dem seats If Toby gets his way and Ukip and Tory voters vote tactically If Ukip goes to 5% If the Lib Dems head back towards 20% If Ed remains crap If Labours campaign is crap If Lynton gets his finger out If unemployment keeps falling If Scotland votes for independence If Cameron goes *ahem* cast iron on the in/out referendum If the Tory MP's of the right stop their suicide mission If the unions pull the plug on Labours money so they cannot fund a campaign If the falling Tory membership still manages to campaign hard If only they had got the boundary changes through If there is swingback If Ashcrofts marginal polling is wrong If the Tory vote was spread out more like Labours and not building up in seats that are safe If the Lib Dems get rid of Nick Clegg and replace him with someone more left wing If war breaks out If Ukip don't stand against Euro-sceptic Tory MP's If the focus goes back onto the two Ed's If Labours manifesto is torn apart by the press If the country sees sense If the right wing voters hold their nose about Cameron and vote Tory If the voters realise what a fantastic job the coalition has been doing If the raising of the minimum wage will sway floating voters toffs do have hearts If Labour polling figures are being exaggerated If the electoral bias in FPTP is not as big as it has been historically If the press decide to attack the two Eds with even more venom in the run up to the election If the Ukip supporters realise that voting Labour means the will be less chance of a Euro referendum
Mr. Jessop, I recall reading here that Norwich is actually a rather splendid place.
Leeds could be a good alternative. Central location, excellent transport links, etc.
Norwich road signs proclaim it as being a 'fine city'. Which has always struck me as being a suitably understated claim. Still, it's not as bad as the signs on Cambridge station which proclaimed Welcome to Cambridge - home of Anglia Ruskin University. As if there was not another university in the area that might, just might, attract more visitors. ;-)
A couple of years back I suggested on here that MPs should be forced to live in the poorest part of their constituency. Harsh, but as we're always being told that MPs do not understand the way that others live, it might help.
Of course, journalists would have to leave their million-pounds pads and live in those areas as well.
Mr. Scout, it wasn't so much a dislike of the North I was assuming as a desire to have/retain government in the south.
Incidentally, York Minster is well worth visiting. Splendid, magnificent structure, with a statue of Constantine the Great (a well-known Yorkshireman) outside.
On current trends, Cameron will lose in 2015, but a major unexpected upset could change this. Four possibilities, in no particular order:
a/ a yes vote in the referendum. Losing Scotland would be a blow to Cameron, but Labour would be looking at the loss of a few dozen seats, and might also catch some of the blame for losing the referendum.
b/ a major scandal hitting Labour, but leaving the Conservatives untouched. There's currently no reason to expect this, but nor can it be completely ruled out. (Note, I'm not a lawyer, but I understand discussing possible scandals could fall foul of the libel laws.)
c/ a successful terrorist attack on the cabinet. If half of them are dead, and the other half confined to wheelchairs, there will be a sympathy factor, and they may win points for 'defying the terrorists', 'leadership in a time of crisis', etc.
d/ a major international crisis - Russia and the EU getting involved in an Ukrainian civil war, China getting into a fight with Japan, revolution in Saudi Arabia, etc. This would make foreign policy a more significant issue, which could benefit the conservatives. They wouldn't need to have an outright advantage in foreign policy, just shoving things like the cost of living down the political agenda would help them.
I won't claim any of these are likely, but the aggregate probability of all these scenarios, and the others that could torpedo Labour, does set a floor on the chance of Cameron winning.
C is unlikely. (Before anyone asks my father was in Brighton, 1984) I don't think it would change VI much though.
D - Well Syria is a major crisis already, and Ukraine is too. I don't recall much VI being shifted during Russia - South Ossetia/Georgia war, Labour still won even with the Gulf War! most people prefer to watch X-Factor still though. And Labour, Conservative tend to take united positions on this - well except Syria which worked out quite well for Miliband.
B - Can be ignored for betting purposes as scandals are equally likely for all parties.
A - A ~ 20-25% chance (At the maximum) but even if this does happen the Scottish seats will still be in play at Westminster GE2015. Labour will still pick up most seats in the central belt. The Tories might pick up one or two more but the effect will be far far greater at GE2020 when Labour WILL lose all their Scottish seats due to the annexing of Scotland.
And ever heard of Coulport Carlotta? Where exactly in England are you planning on digging silos for the 200 nuclear warheads? I expect that the local residents' associations would like some advance warning.
I thought the at-sea deterrent would be maintained, just based at a different dockyards.
Please read up on the facts. The "at-sea deterrent" has a very large land-based element.
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
Carwyn Jones, according to the BBC, suggested a couple of years back basing the submarines in Milford Haven. So nothing English presumably would have to be dug.
Despite benefiting personally - my house increasing in value by £2k+ a month means it's a cash machine when we remortgage).
This is true now in most areas of Great Britain. In parts of the Midlands and the north this is very important because price increases are lifting many (voting) householding families out of negative equity. That is a powerful argument for voting for same again next time around - or at least not voting for an alternative.
The true numbers on the fiscal position won;t be known for some months and I still harbour hope. Its also true that some of the coalition's spending cuts are only now kicking in. That said, a deficit reduction would need to be dramatic to impress me. Let's see.
"I agree with Kevin McKenna ("Memo to George: England's bullying of Scots will drive us into the Yes camp", Comment) that George Osborne's statement rejecting a currency union is likely to alienate Scots further. But this has more to do with his manner and choice of language than with the substance of what he said."
The question that should be asked with incredulity is – do Kevin McKenna or Alex Salmond really believe that the rest of the UK will agree effectively to underwrite the sovereign debt of a foreign country, in order to avoid these transaction costs on 10% of its trade?
Answer came there none......
In any case not every business in rUK will want to invoice in a minor volatile currency and may well invoice in Sterling - so the costs will be in Scotland, not rUK.
Does any of this matter? Surely Scotland can have its own currency (say, the Scottish pound, issued by Scottish banks, much as now) pegged to the English pound, as Ireland did for decades. No currency union. No transaction costs.
If the economy continues to grow If wages outstrip inflation If Ukip returns to the Tories If Lib Dems return home If Ukip only take off the Tories in safe Tory areas If Labour voters don't vote tactically in Lib Dem seats If Toby gets his way and Ukip and Tory voters vote tactically If Ukip goes to 5% If the Lib Dems head back towards 20% If Ed remains crap If Labours campaign is crap If Lynton gets his finger out If unemployment keeps falling If Scotland votes for independence If Cameron goes *ahem* cast iron on the in/out referendum If the Tory MP's of the right stop their suicide mission If the unions pull the plug on Labours money so they cannot fund a campaign If the falling Tory membership still manages to campaign hard If only they had got the boundary changes through If there is swingback If Ashcrofts marginal polling is wrong If the Tory vote was spread out more like Labours and not building up in seats that are safe If the Lib Dems get rid of Nick Clegg and replace him with someone more left wing If war breaks out If Ukip don't stand against Euro-sceptic Tory MP's If the focus goes back onto the two Ed's If Labours manifesto is torn apart by the press If the country sees sense If the right wing voters hold their nose about Cameron and vote Tory If the voters realise what a fantastic job the coalition has been doing If the raising of the minimum wage will sway floating voters toffs do have hearts If Labour polling figures are being exaggerated If the electoral bias in FPTP is not as big as it has been historically If the press decide to attack the two Eds with even more venom in the run up to the election If the Ukip supporters realise that voting Labour means the will be less chance of a Euro referendum
And ever heard of Coulport Carlotta? Where exactly in England are you planning on digging silos for the 200 nuclear warheads? I expect that the local residents' associations would like some advance warning.
I thought the at-sea deterrent would be maintained, just based at a different dockyards.
Please read up on the facts. The "at-sea deterrent" has a very large land-based element.
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
If needed, it will be done. It would probably be best to be done near wherever the boats are to be based, and that will depend on the operational requirements. So somewhere in the southwest would be my initial bet, or perhaps the Cumbrian coast. The latter *might* allow some flexibility with the nuclear experience at Sellafield, but also annoy the Irish.
The French fleet is based at Île Longue in Brittany.
But it looks as though Scotland will not become independent, and so there's probably little to worry about. If that's wrong and Scotland does become independent, I think Scotland will have much more to immediately worry about than a few submarines.
F1: interesting that so little discussion has been around the tyres. There's an average of a second between compounds (less for supersoft-soft, more for the others) and they're more durable: http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2014/2/15497.html
Getting heat in could be an issue, but they should last well. However, less downforce and more torque has seen more sideways action in corners (the driver matters more in that regard) which could tear up the tyres a bit. I doubt we'll see explosive results but it could shorten the lifespan.
York was honoured by William I who ordered the erection of two castles. London was the only other place in his new kingdom which had similar treatment.
Mr. Scout, it wasn't so much a dislike of the North I was assuming as a desire to have/retain government in the south.
Incidentally, York Minster is well worth visiting. Splendid, magnificent structure, with a statue of Constantine the Great (a well-known Yorkshireman) outside.
Master Dancer: Constantine was born in Serbia.* My Princess will not be happy without me correcting you....
* Obviously before the Serbs arrived. Bit like when the Scots were kicked-out of Oirland and invaded Pictish/Saxon southern Caledonia. Hey, who cares about history...?
And ever heard of Coulport Carlotta? Where exactly in England are you planning on digging silos for the 200 nuclear warheads? I expect that the local residents' associations would like some advance warning.
I thought the at-sea deterrent would be maintained, just based at a different dockyards.
Please read up on the facts. The "at-sea deterrent" has a very large land-based element.
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
Well they aren't building silos as you originally said. Additionally, each Vanguard sub can hold 192 warheads (according to wikipedia), so I would guess the vast majority of the stockpile is actually stored in the submarines they are supposed to be launched from.
From a Tory majority of 24 in his previous prediction to 22 short now.From 57% probable Tory majority to 32%.From 15% probable Labour majority to 23%.....so this is the swingback people keep posting on here about.
And yet, dear child, redrag still believes in "The Cult of Global-Warming":
No evidence; no understanding; confused (as to what should be modeled - and what should not be modeled - using mathematics, statistics and logic): There is no point in 'C0mpouter'-world as he struggles on the basics (like a Single-Sign-On)....
Fluffy, which one is your favourite?
If the economy continues to grow If wages outstrip inflation If Ukip returns to the Tories If Lib Dems return home If Ukip only take off the Tories in safe Tory areas If Labour voters don't vote tactically in Lib Dem seats If Toby gets his way and Ukip and Tory voters vote tactically If Ukip goes to 5% If the Lib Dems head back towards 20% If Ed remains crap If Labours campaign is crap If Lynton gets his finger out If unemployment keeps falling If Scotland votes for independence If Cameron goes *ahem* cast iron on the in/out referendum If the Tory MP's of the right stop their suicide mission If the unions pull the plug on Labours money so they cannot fund a campaign If the falling Tory membership still manages to campaign hard If only they had got the boundary changes through If there is swingback If Ashcrofts marginal polling is wrong If the Tory vote was spread out more like Labours and not building up in seats that are safe If the Lib Dems get rid of Nick Clegg and replace him with someone more left wing If war breaks out If Ukip don't stand against Euro-sceptic Tory MP's If the focus goes back onto the two Ed's If Labours manifesto is torn apart by the press If the country sees sense If the right wing voters hold their nose about Cameron and vote Tory If the voters realise what a fantastic job the coalition has been doing If the raising of the minimum wage will sway floating voters toffs do have hearts If Labour polling figures are being exaggerated If the electoral bias in FPTP is not as big as it has been historically If the press decide to attack the two Eds with even more venom in the run up to the election If the Ukip supporters realise that voting Labour means the will be less chance of a Euro referendum
Come on Fluffy, the list grows ever longer, the further I carry the goalposts. Maybe we could do a PB Hodge straw clutch bingo, where we can see how many of the above "If" can be squeezed into one post to show how the Tory Party can win the GE?
Mr. Thoughts, Serbian by birth, Yorkshireman by choice
You make a good point, though, about imposing modern geographical perspectives on the past. Doing that sort of thing seriously leads to bullshit like the ridiculous Wikipedia entry for Alexander (claiming he as a Greek king of Macedon), Frenchmen pretending William I was French or Scots/Englishmen arguing about who was conquered by the Romans (neither, really. The Scotti were an Irish tribe and Caledonia was more Pictish, and the English [Angles, Saxons and Jutes] arrived a century after the Romans left).
Mr. Dickson, I must say I'm greatly surprised by the response to Osborne's speech on currency, which did contain a number of reasons behind his conclusion (rather than just 'Yes we can').
How does Scotland imagine it can vote to leave, and then demand to retain the same currency as the United Kingdom? Even if you consider sterling to be desirable, its use (via formal currency union) cannot be considered something solely within the gift of Scotland.
MD, once again , it is a negotiating position. George has shown his hand early and backed himself into a corner. Mr Salmond has all his options open. So George folds and looks a fool or else he is hamstrung in negotiating from his supposed fixed position. Mr Salmond can negotiate and either give in on it or say George is unreasonable and so no fair deal can be done. Best option I think is for George to hold his position and we can then start afresh with no baggage.
Read the polls........
I prefer reality
The alternative reality that isn't reflected in the opinion polls?
How will an rUK CoE sell a currency union to an electorate who oppose it 2:1 and think it will damage the rUK economy?
The same way they do with everything else, lie and put it in their manifesto and then do the realistic thing when they have to, simple.
And ever heard of Coulport Carlotta? Where exactly in England are you planning on digging silos for the 200 nuclear warheads? I expect that the local residents' associations would like some advance warning.
I thought the at-sea deterrent would be maintained, just based at a different dockyards.
Please read up on the facts. The "at-sea deterrent" has a very large land-based element.
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
If needed, it will be done. It would probably be best to be done near wherever the boats are to be based, and that will depend on the operational requirements. So somewhere in the southwest would be my initial bet, or perhaps the Cumbrian coast. The latter *might* allow some flexibility with the nuclear experience at Sellafield, but also annoy the Irish.
The French fleet is based at Île Longue in Brittany.
But it looks as though Scotland will not become independent, and so there's probably little to worry about. If that's wrong and Scotland does become independent, I think Scotland will have much more to immediately worry about than a few submarines.
One imagines the Russian air force will be keen to probe the air defences of an independent Scotland. Whether that makes Scots more or less keen on housing submarines (deterrent or target?) is anyone's guess.
I don't think anything says more about the current state of Scots chippiness than the fact that a refusal of a country they have just left to underwrite a foreign country's financial sector is "bullying". It seems like, should independence happen, rather than be a confident new state in the world, they will instead repeat Ireland's mentality for its early decades. Perhaps they could also refuse to participate in upholding the international order and send condolences on the death of the UK's enemies?
where did you get that bollocks interpretation from. Reality is that a commission of financial experts said a currency union was in everybody's best interests, so Scottish government say "our preferred " option is to use the best option. Squeaky says we don't care if it is good or bad we will take our ball away.
Well they aren't building silos as you originally said. Additionally, each Vanguard sub can hold 192 warheads (according to wikipedia), so I would guess the vast majority of the stockpile is actually stored in the submarines they are supposed to be launched from.
Operational stockpile are "ready-to-hand": All could fit easily into a V/|Trident-II combo. Actual stocks include maintenance. The current figure is - IIRC - between 200 and 250. This number will be reduced in-accordance-with the SDSR 2010.
And ever heard of Coulport Carlotta? Where exactly in England are you planning on digging silos for the 200 nuclear warheads? I expect that the local residents' associations would like some advance warning.
I thought the at-sea deterrent would be maintained, just based at a different dockyards.
Please read up on the facts. The "at-sea deterrent" has a very large land-based element.
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
If needed, it will be done. It would probably be best to be done near wherever the boats are to be based, and that will depend on the operational requirements. So somewhere in the southwest would be my initial bet, or perhaps the Cumbrian coast. The latter *might* allow some flexibility with the nuclear experience at Sellafield, but also annoy the Irish.
The French fleet is based at Île Longue in Brittany.
But it looks as though Scotland will not become independent, and so there's probably little to worry about. If that's wrong and Scotland does become independent, I think Scotland will have much more to immediately worry about than a few submarines.
One imagines the Russian air force will be keen to probe the air defences of an independent Scotland. Whether that makes Scots more or less keen on housing submarines (deterrent or target?) is anyone's guess.
One might also wonder why the UK government has conspicuously run down the air (and maritime) defences of Scotland, which - despite myth) - is one of the reasons some of us are going for indy. Every time the unionists deride the (initial, remember) proposals of the SNP, they might well be asked why they are being so critical when those proposals - such as they are - are a considerable improvement on what we get now.
And ever heard of Coulport Carlotta? Where exactly in England are you planning on digging silos for the 200 nuclear warheads? I expect that the local residents' associations would like some advance warning.
I thought the at-sea deterrent would be maintained, just based at a different dockyards.
Please read up on the facts. The "at-sea deterrent" has a very large land-based element.
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
Well they aren't building silos as you originally said. Additionally, each Vanguard sub can hold 192 warheads (according to wikipedia), so I would guess the vast majority of the stockpile is actually stored in the submarines they are supposed to be launched from.
Silo (which is really just a word for store) can apparently be used to describe the storage facilities for warheads.
'The implications of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 for the Coulport and Faslane bases have been extensively discussed in the media, as it is unclear if any submarine base in England, Wales or Northern Ireland could house the Coulport silos.'
Mr. G, not entirely I sure I agree on poverty/obesity. Not many fat people in Sudan.
I also think it's quite wrong to try and blame the UK for obesity in Scotland. If you become independent you won't all become svelte and gorgeous.
Rising obesity is a common problem amongst Western nations. Consumerism, lack of self-control, lack of willpower to exercise and so forth are all relevant factors.
Lol - they don't come more svelte and gorgeous that wee eck!!
Salmond claims to have been on a successful diet but he remains as fat as ever. Whatever the opposite of anorexia nervosa is, Salmond's got it.
Read in the currant bun on Thursday that Osborne has gone on the same diet that Salmond uses.. The 5:2 diet, eat what you like for five days, and NOTHING AT ALL for the other two
Sounds like a fad, like most diets.
They key to trimming a little excess weight is: a) Eat a healthy amount; a little of everything, regularly. b) Do a healthy amount of exercise.
The only thing that fasting for periods, or cutting out certain foodtypes (except in the case of allergies), will achieve is a slimming of the bank balance.
ISTR that SeanT is our dieting expert, but I can't quite recall what he did.
SeanT is only an expert on being a drunken windbag
Well they aren't building silos as you originally said. Additionally, each Vanguard sub can hold 192 warheads (according to wikipedia), so I would guess the vast majority of the stockpile is actually stored in the submarines they are supposed to be launched from.
Operational stockpile are "ready-to-hand": All could fit easily into a V/|Trident-II combo. Actual stocks include maintenance. The current figure is - IIRC - between 200 and 250. This number will be reduced in-accordance-with the SDSR 2010.
Exactly. Not sure what we plan to store in those 16 reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers Stuart was talking about.
And ever heard of Coulport Carlotta? Where exactly in England are you planning on digging silos for the 200 nuclear warheads? I expect that the local residents' associations would like some advance warning.
I thought the at-sea deterrent would be maintained, just based at a different dockyards.
Please read up on the facts. The "at-sea deterrent" has a very large land-based element.
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
If needed, it will be done. It would probably be best to be done near wherever the boats are to be based, and that will depend on the operational requirements. So somewhere in the southwest would be my initial bet, or perhaps the Cumbrian coast. The latter *might* allow some flexibility with the nuclear experience at Sellafield, but also annoy the Irish.
The French fleet is based at Île Longue in Brittany.
But it looks as though Scotland will not become independent, and so there's probably little to worry about. If that's wrong and Scotland does become independent, I think Scotland will have much more to immediately worry about than a few submarines.
One imagines the Russian air force will be keen to probe the air defences of an independent Scotland. Whether that makes Scots more or less keen on housing submarines (deterrent or target?) is anyone's guess.
One might also wonder why the UK government has conspicuously run down the air (and maritime) defences of Scotland, which - despite myth) - is one of the reasons some of us are going for indy. Every time the unionists deride the (initial, remember) proposals of the SNP, they might well be asked why they are being so critical when those proposals - such as they are - are a considerable improvement on what we get now.
They've done it to all. At least it's stopped Tories banging on about Gordon Brown's supposed hostility to the armed forces.
Silo (which is really just a word for store) can apparently be used to describe the storage facilities for warheads.
'The implications of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 for the Coulport and Faslane bases have been extensively discussed in the media, as it is unclear if any submarine base in England, Wales or Northern Ireland could house the Coulport silos.'
Silo (which is really just a word for store) can apparently be used to describe the storage facilities for warheads.
'The implications of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 for the Coulport and Faslane bases have been extensively discussed in the media, as it is unclear if any submarine base in England, Wales or Northern Ireland could house the Coulport silos.'
Trident will stay in Scotland. Salmond needs a revenue stream and a currency, rUK needs to avoid the cost and political hassle of a new home base.
i can't see it being seriously negotiable, given what has been shown in repeated polling of the Scottish public and at leasy one vote of MSPs.
To let Trident remain for more than a very short interim period would be the quickest way for Mr Salmond's administration to be elected out of power after a Yes vote - the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament being out for vengeance (so to speak) and having by then been cut off from its Unionist burden and able to say what they really think for once (and have often said, ere the referendum) about Trident, plus the LDs, plus the Greens, plus the three independents, plus no doubt some rebel SNP members ... one wonders how the Tories would vote ...
Mr Dickson, the warheads would not be kept in silo's
Indeed; sans Lancaster House (2010) warhead maintenance is out-sourced to France. [Development is Aldermaston's role]. Most warheads are either on-top or prepared.
Why any need for £billions at HMNB Clyde when the French are an appreciative host (and a suitable site for a "broken-arrow") is beyond me....
LoL, now its phone our best friends the French for a warhead, please stick 10 trident warheads on the next PO ferry to Dover.
ENGLAND, San Marino, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Switzerland
Wales are not in a particularly difficult group either.
I was just thinking the same. Scotland's group is horrendous, however.
I'm a Chelsea fan and was reading a recent interview with Eddie McCreadie, he only got 23 caps and Charlie Cooke only got 16, such was the strength of Scottish football at that time.
LoL, now its phone our best friends the French for a warhead, please stick 10 trident warheads on the next PO ferry to Dover.
Ahem,
2010 is - like - years ago. We can/will use contracted resources to fulfill our requirements. We are adults: We understand international law and the obligations thereof. Fr'Eck however is a two-faced [MODERATED] [MODERATED].
I have always been a supporter of Scottish Independence. Sadly I have had past experience of Scots' posters calling me a racist: Best rid I say Unckie', but what says you...?
"I agree with Kevin McKenna ("Memo to George: England's bullying of Scots will drive us into the Yes camp", Comment) that George Osborne's statement rejecting a currency union is likely to alienate Scots further. But this has more to do with his manner and choice of language than with the substance of what he said."
The question that should be asked with incredulity is – do Kevin McKenna or Alex Salmond really believe that the rest of the UK will agree effectively to underwrite the sovereign debt of a foreign country, in order to avoid these transaction costs on 10% of its trade?
Answer came there none......
In any case not every business in rUK will want to invoice in a minor volatile currency and may well invoice in Sterling - so the costs will be in Scotland, not rUK.
Does any of this matter? Surely Scotland can have its own currency (say, the Scottish pound, issued by Scottish banks, much as now) pegged to the English pound, as Ireland did for decades. No currency union. No transaction costs.
Unfortunately Carlotta is fixated and so cannot see beyond the end of her prejudice.
To let Trident remain for more than a very short interim period would be the quickest way for Mr Salmond's administration to be elected out of power after a Yes vote - the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament being out for vengeance (so to speak) and having by then been cut off from its Unionist burden and able to say what they really think for once (and have often said, ere the referendum) about Trident, plus the LDs, plus the Greens, plus the three independents, plus no doubt some rebel SNP members ... one wonders how the Tories would vote ...
Trident is as big a negotiating variable as the currency. The hardware as well as being strategically critical has a rather large cost value. To move it means finding an alternate location, securing the political battle to adopt it, building the infrastructure and then commissioning - won't happen before independence in 2916 and feels to me more like Obama's "close Guantanamo" pledge which we are still waiting for.
So the boats are staying there for a while yet, which makes the likelihood of a later deal as a tradable for something else increase vs the 1st view of it now. Politically all things are possible (cf Clegg campaigning on tuition fees at the same time as having already secretly agreed to bin the policy at the first opportunity)
And ever heard of Coulport Carlotta? Where exactly in England are you planning on digging silos for the 200 nuclear warheads? I expect that the local residents' associations would like some advance warning.
I thought the at-sea deterrent would be maintained, just based at a different dockyards.
Please read up on the facts. The "at-sea deterrent" has a very large land-based element.
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
If needed, it will be done. It would probably be best to be done near wherever the boats are to be based, and that will depend on the operational requirements. So somewhere in the southwest would be my initial bet, or perhaps the Cumbrian coast. The latter *might* allow some flexibility with the nuclear experience at Sellafield, but also annoy the Irish.
The French fleet is based at Île Longue in Brittany.
But it looks as though Scotland will not become independent, and so there's probably little to worry about. If that's wrong and Scotland does become independent, I think Scotland will have much more to immediately worry about than a few submarines.
You once again show your indepth knowledge on th subject you keep saying you don't post on because you have little clue what you are talking about on the topic. Bravo.
Trident is as big a negotiating variable as the currency. The hardware as well as being strategically critical has a rather large cost value. To move it means finding an alternate location, securing the political battle to adopt it, building the infrastructure and then commissioning - won't happen before independence in 2916 and feels to me more like Obama's "close Guantanamo" pledge which we are still waiting for....
You are "Mystic Meg" and have ruined the next two-years for me....
And ever heard of Coulport Carlotta? Where exactly in England are you planning on digging silos for the 200 nuclear warheads? I expect that the local residents' associations would like some advance warning.
I thought the at-sea deterrent would be maintained, just based at a different dockyards.
Please read up on the facts. The "at-sea deterrent" has a very large land-based element.
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
Well they aren't building silos as you originally said. Additionally, each Vanguard sub can hold 192 warheads (according to wikipedia), so I would guess the vast majority of the stockpile is actually stored in the submarines they are supposed to be launched from.
Bit of mixing of missiles and warheads methinks, most are stored on dry land at any given time.
From a Tory majority of 24 in his previous prediction to 22 short now.From 57% probable Tory majority to 32%.From 15% probable Labour majority to 23%.....so this is the swingback people keep posting on here about.
Right, the model expected swingback quite early on, which conveniently meant that if it happened he'd look like a sage for predicting it so early, but if it didn't it would be showing something sensible by the time the election came around so he wouldn't look like an idiot.
Silo (which is really just a word for store) can apparently be used to describe the storage facilities for warheads.
'The implications of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 for the Coulport and Faslane bases have been extensively discussed in the media, as it is unclear if any submarine base in England, Wales or Northern Ireland could house the Coulport silos.'
Silo can also mean launch-padTh'UD: Get yourself a cat and stop stroking yourself....
As a technical-historical note, the British invented the underground silo qua launch pad for Blue Streak, the land-based missile. The test model (or the hole for it - I forget which) was recently rediscovered at Spadeadam. http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1413097
The intention was to put the silos in East Anglia. I seem to recall that there was a slight problem in that the sites were in Tory constituencies but to be fair there were much wider problems in basing such things in a small country like the UK though I am not quite sure why putting a warhead store near Glasgow seemed a better idea.
But of course silo as store was a much earlier usage, generally.
And ever heard of Coulport Carlotta? Where exactly in England are you planning on digging silos for the 200 nuclear warheads? I expect that the local residents' associations would like some advance warning.
I thought the at-sea deterrent would be maintained, just based at a different dockyards.
Please read up on the facts. The "at-sea deterrent" has a very large land-based element.
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
If needed, it will be done. It would probably be best to be done near wherever the boats are to be based, and that will depend on the operational requirements. So somewhere in the southwest would be my initial bet, or perhaps the Cumbrian coast. The latter *might* allow some flexibility with the nuclear experience at Sellafield, but also annoy the Irish.
The French fleet is based at Île Longue in Brittany.
But it looks as though Scotland will not become independent, and so there's probably little to worry about. If that's wrong and Scotland does become independent, I think Scotland will have much more to immediately worry about than a few submarines.
One imagines the Russian air force will be keen to probe the air defences of an independent Scotland. Whether that makes Scots more or less keen on housing submarines (deterrent or target?) is anyone's guess.
Just like the navy. Currently our fast response is from Portsmouth which means teh Russians are docked and in their bed before our fast response tub gets to Scotland.
Bit of mixing of missiles and warheads methinks, most are stored on dry land at any given time.
Do you have a source for this, or just assuming (like I was). I would have thought the sensible policy for a deterrent would be to have the warheads ready to use.
LoL, now its phone our best friends the French for a warhead, please stick 10 trident warheads on the next PO ferry to Dover.
Ahem,
2010 is - like - years ago. We can/will use contracted resources to fulfill our requirements. We are adults: We understand international law and the obligations thereof. Fr'Eck however is a two-faced [MODERATED] [MODERATED].
I have always been a supporter of Scottish Independence. Sadly I have had past experience of Scots' posters calling me a racist: Best rid I say Unckie', but what says you...?
To let Trident remain for more than a very short interim period would be the quickest way for Mr Salmond's administration to be elected out of power after a Yes vote - the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament being out for vengeance (so to speak) and having by then been cut off from its Unionist burden and able to say what they really think for once (and have often said, ere the referendum) about Trident, plus the LDs, plus the Greens, plus the three independents, plus no doubt some rebel SNP members ... one wonders how the Tories would vote ...
Trident is as big a negotiating variable as the currency. The hardware as well as being strategically critical has a rather large cost value. To move it means finding an alternate location, securing the political battle to adopt it, building the infrastructure and then commissioning - won't happen before independence in 2916 and feels to me more like Obama's "close Guantanamo" pledge which we are still waiting for.
So the boats are staying there for a while yet, which makes the likelihood of a later deal as a tradable for something else increase vs the 1st view of it now. Politically all things are possible (cf Clegg campaigning on tuition fees at the same time as having already secretly agreed to bin the policy at the first opportunity)
Carnyx is right though that it would be the quickest way for a post Yes SNP party to pee all over its credibility in Scotland. Something will be negotiated but it won't be some airy fairy open-ended agreement; Trident gone after 5 years, 10 years at absolute max.
Bit of mixing of missiles and warheads methinks, most are stored on dry land at any given time.
Do you have a source for this, or just assuming (like I was). I would have thought the sensible policy for a deterrent would be to have the warheads ready to use.
No expert but as they normally only have guarantee one sub at sea at any time and they need lots and lots of maintenance it would suggest that 75% are on land at any given time. If they could all be stuck in one sub I doubt their would have been such handwringing about what they will do with them and why it would cost £20B to build new base.
To let Trident remain for more than a very short interim period would be the quickest way for Mr Salmond's administration to be elected out of power after a Yes vote - the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament being out for vengeance (so to speak) and having by then been cut off from its Unionist burden and able to say what they really think for once (and have often said, ere the referendum) about Trident, plus the LDs, plus the Greens, plus the three independents, plus no doubt some rebel SNP members ... one wonders how the Tories would vote ...
Trident is as big a negotiating variable as the currency. The hardware as well as being strategically critical has a rather large cost value. To move it means finding an alternate location, securing the political battle to adopt it, building the infrastructure and then commissioning - won't happen before independence in 2916 and feels to me more like Obama's "close Guantanamo" pledge which we are still waiting for.
So the boats are staying there for a while yet, which makes the likelihood of a later deal as a tradable for something else increase vs the 1st view of it now. Politically all things are possible (cf Clegg campaigning on tuition fees at the same time as having already secretly agreed to bin the policy at the first opportunity)
I presume 2916 is a slip for 2016 ... I would argue that the difference is that Mr Clegg was neither Prime Minister nor in a position to be instantly sacked when he reneged on tuition fees, but anyway it's an interesting situation with other outcomes than the one you outline.
To let Trident remain for more than a very short interim period would be the quickest way for Mr Salmond's administration to be elected out of power after a Yes vote - the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament being out for vengeance (so to speak) and having by then been cut off from its Unionist burden and able to say what they really think for once (and have often said, ere the referendum) about Trident, plus the LDs, plus the Greens, plus the three independents, plus no doubt some rebel SNP members ... one wonders how the Tories would vote ...
Trident is as big a negotiating variable as the currency. The hardware as well as being strategically critical has a rather large cost value. To move it means finding an alternate location, securing the political battle to adopt it, building the infrastructure and then commissioning - won't happen before independence in 2916 and feels to me more like Obama's "close Guantanamo" pledge which we are still waiting for.
So the boats are staying there for a while yet, which makes the likelihood of a later deal as a tradable for something else increase vs the 1st view of it now. Politically all things are possible (cf Clegg campaigning on tuition fees at the same time as having already secretly agreed to bin the policy at the first opportunity)
Carnyx is right though that it would be the quickest way for a post Yes SNP party to pee all over its credibility in Scotland. Something will be negotiated but it won't be some airy fairy open-ended agreement; Trident gone after 5 years, 10 years at absolute max.
TUD probably be similar length of that currency union that Carlotta insists is ruled out.
SNP would need to get very big give in order to sell them staying into the bargain.
I missed Avery's conclusion last night, but his data suggested that the spending was being offset in the small print. I'm wondering if he is building up a massive war chest so he can deliver a big tax cut while also bringing the deficit down?
A tax cut doesn't automatically lead to lower revenues. See the 45% tax rate, for instance. If there are any tax cuts, I am sure (hope) they will be those which further stimulate the economy.
Not necessarily, but I would go for a cut in the 40p rate, an increase in the personal allowance (to give something to those on lower incomes) and an big increase the 40p threshold. Make the necessary adjustments so that people who pay 45p at the moment don't benefit.
I'm assuming that most people on the 40p rate have less flexibility to significantly vary their workload/earnings so cuts to this band will not have the same positive impact on revenues that cuts in the additional rate can do (haven't checked though)
Mr. City, I was unaware it was founded by the Romans. I thought it had just been renamed by them (as you'll know, it later became Eoferwic and then Jorvik prior to its present name). I wonder what they'll do to celebrate the 2,000 year anniversary.
Morris , yes dont`t think I will be there to celebrate.
Would be ironic regarding a parliament,as one of Yorks most infamous sons ,Guy Fawkes was born in Stonegate a street near the Minster.
From a Tory majority of 24 in his previous prediction to 22 short now.From 57% probable Tory majority to 32%.From 15% probable Labour majority to 23%.....so this is the swingback people keep posting on here about.
Right, the model expected swingback quite early on, which conveniently meant that if it happened he'd look like a sage for predicting it so early, but if it didn't it would be showing something sensible by the time the election came around so he wouldn't look like an idiot.
I am sure there will be even more changes to his model between now and GE day which will, in a total reverse to what is predicted by many on here, will show a Tory predicted lead crossover to a Labour one as the election approaches.
Bit of mixing of missiles and warheads methinks, most are stored on dry land at any given time.
Do you have a source for this, or just assuming (like I was). I would have thought the sensible policy for a deterrent would be to have the warheads ready to use.
Some of them are (theoretically) always available for use, ie. in some sub in some sea, somewhere on the planet. But most of the UK's 200+ nuclear warheads are not. At any given time the vast majority will be on dry land: most at Coulport (Scotland), some at Aldermaston (England).
Bit of mixing of missiles and warheads methinks, most are stored on dry land at any given time.
Do you have a source for this, or just assuming (like I was). I would have thought the sensible policy for a deterrent would be to have the warheads ready to use.
Some of them are (theoretically) always available for use, ie. in some sub in some sea, somewhere on the planet. But most of the UK's 200+ nuclear warheads are not. At any given time the vast majority will be on dry land: most at Coulport (Scotland), some at Aldermaston (England).
Is there a source for this? (I'm genuinely interested!)
ENGLAND, San Marino, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Switzerland
Pride comes before a fall.
A typically English error?
You're unstoppable aren't you? You just can't help yourself from having a dig at England and the English at every possible opportunity. Did I say England were great? Did I even say they were going to win the group? No, not at all. I just said it was an amazing draw for England, which it very clearly was, relative to the teams that could have been drawn.The anti-English chippiness is the most repugnant aspect of Scottish nationalism. No wonder you see disagreement about future economic policy as "bullying".
From a Tory majority of 24 in his previous prediction to 22 short now.From 57% probable Tory majority to 32%.From 15% probable Labour majority to 23%.....so this is the swingback people keep posting on here about.
Right, the model expected swingback quite early on, which conveniently meant that if it happened he'd look like a sage for predicting it so early, but if it didn't it would be showing something sensible by the time the election came around so he wouldn't look like an idiot.
I am sure there will be even more changes to his model between now and GE day which will, in a total reverse to what is predicted by many on here, will show a Tory predicted lead crossover to a Labour one as the election approaches.
I don't think he's actually changing the model - it was designed like that from the beginning. IIUC it expected quite aggressive swingback to happen starting last Autumn, and every month that doesn't happen it gets closer to reality.
Bit of mixing of missiles and warheads methinks, most are stored on dry land at any given time.
Do you have a source for this, or just assuming (like I was). I would have thought the sensible policy for a deterrent would be to have the warheads ready to use.
'The current loading is unknown, although the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review set out that in the future each submarine would be armed with 8 missiles and a maximum of 40 warheads.'
'The principle of operation is known as continuous at-sea deterrence, which means that at least one submarine is always on active patrol. A second submarine is normally undergoing maintenance and the remaining two are in port or on training exercises.'
That suggests of 160 warhead, 40 are ready for use at any given time. I may be wrong but I doubt storing warheads in docked vessels is normal procedure, plus why build hugely expensive reinforced storage bunkers if it was?
As an irrelevant aside, I'm told that Coulport operates a small steam locomotive to transport warheads in case an EMP nuclear attack takes out conventional transport. May be a local myth!
'The current loading is unknown, although the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review set out that in the future each submarine would be armed with 8 missiles and a maximum of 40 warheads.'
'The principle of operation is known as continuous at-sea deterrence, which means that at least one submarine is always on active patrol. A second submarine is normally undergoing maintenance and the remaining two are in port or on training exercises.'
That suggests of 160 warhead, 40 are ready for use at any given time. I may be wrong but I doubt storing warheads in docked vessels is normal procedure, plus why build hugely expensive reinforced storage bunkers if it was?
As an irrelevant aside, I'm told that Coulport operates a small steam locomotive to transport warheads in case an EMP nuclear attack takes out conventional transport. May be a local myth!
Interesting, and I stand corrected. So I guess 40 are out at sea, 40 will be on some sort of standby, with the remaining in storage or themselves undergoing maintenance/monitoring. Not sure why we would need 12 bunkers to fit that many warheads, unless the bunkers are on the small side (it would suggest 10 per bunker).
That factoid at the end is one for the trainspotters!
the effect will be far far greater at GE2020 when Labour WILL lose all their Scottish seats due to the annexing of Scotland.
Now, that is a Freudian slip!
Charles, he just realises the game is up and that YES will win, realistic view given what we actually see on the ground up here. Appart from BBC and tame papers there is not a NO campaign to be seen. Everything seems to be BBC and London newspapers and politicians , it is a car crash. Labour are invisible which is incredible.
Comments
One Tory Cameron may also need to win back is Sir Tim Rice, a notable former Tory donor knighted by Major and a big supporter of Hague, who has now donated funds to UKIP
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1379183.ece
It is also worth noting that the article is (a) n a fairly Unionist newspaper, and/but by Iain Macwhirter - who is one of the two (in my opinion) most interesting neutral commentators on indy. The whole piece is also worth reading.
"Does he think English company bosses will accept the millions of pounds of extra costs that tariffs would entail, not to mention the downward tilt in the balance of payments without oil receipts?"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/16/scotland-independence-sterling-george-osborne
It seems the Guardian is idiotic in economics to just swallow what Salmond says. How on Earth does the balance of payments for a currency area help one member if those balance of payments come from another country in that area? Seriously, can't these idiots think things through for just one moment.
Hopefully England would create and English Parliament in York.
I'm southern and wouldn't have any issue at all with York having an English parliament.
:P
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt-pie-nccl-paedophile-claims
I just hope if/when we get one it doesn't have a shitty 'modern' look.
Right leaning media will not let this go as it involves the one thing that the general public find revolting, and the very top of Labour are up to their sorry necks in it. Why do you think the BBC are doing their best to ignore it?
'Revised long-range forecasting method for a 2015 British General Election
Forecast Election Day Seats
Con : 304
Lab : 289
LD : 30
Con largest party, but short of a majority by 22'
http://tinyurl.com/pdn6jd9
* Abuja.
** Almaty.
Edited-to-add: "Al'-oop-Norf'"....
I'd suggest somewhere different: Norwich, perhaps. Or Staveley, or Barnsley. At least housing would be cheaper in the latter two. ;-)
Agreed. It is a thought provoking piece. Especially for voters who love Scotland but are still swithering between Yes and No.
Leeds could be a good alternative. Central location, excellent transport links, etc.
(O/T: For the military historians amongst us, I recall seeing a huge contemporary panoramic painting of Oxford under siege in the city council museum many years ago with the lines and entrenchments all around it. There is (or was) a cannon emplacement mound and I think a line of embankment still there in the 1980s to the north of the city centre between the Zoology Dept and Mansfield College, but I can't recall anything else surviving - certainly nothing on the scale of some of the earthworks at Newark.)
Has space for a new airport at near by Elvington, which used to be a base for the free french airforce in ww2. Also it was the previously a capital.
The city was founded by the Romans under the name of Eboracum in 71 AD. It became the capital of the Roman province of Britannia Inferior,
As has been pointed out their brand is too toxic for too many people in too many seats for a win to be likely, this collapse has accelerated since the fall of Major and short of ditching the nasty party image and agenda and nasty MPs for a proper repositioning I can't see it changing.
Their get out of jail options are few. Hope Scotland votes yes AND Labour implode AND the post independence political settlement can be pulled forward to effectively exclude Scottish MPs. Hope the Economy collapses again - another banking disaster and the end of the Eurozone in its current form could settle the yerp argument in their favour, kill UKIP and make pro-yerp parties like Labour look stupid. Or hope the Ukraine turns into a full blown US/Russia proxy war so that the election can be cancelled.
No and she never will. and neither will Hewitt and Dromey. They are keeping silent and hoping the whole thing just goes away. And it probably will.
Live with it.
However, the penny has dropped with the brighter Conservatives - Taffys makes the key point below that the govt has now conceded all the ground it had on fiscal discipline, debt is spiralling and the deficit has not budged a great deal.
@MD - I live in London and think York would be a splendid location for any English parliament. Don't assume all southerners dislike the north!
- "... an operational stockpile of between 170 and 150 warheads."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNAD_Coulport
Those warheads are stored on the land, not at sea. Which piece of English land is going to be dug up for the 16 new reinforced-concrete nuclear bunkers?
No evidence; no understanding; confused (as to what should be modeled - and what should not be modeled - using mathematics, statistics and logic): There is no point in 'C0mpouter'-world as he struggles on the basics (like a Single-Sign-On)....
If the economy continues to grow
If wages outstrip inflation
If Ukip returns to the Tories
If Lib Dems return home
If Ukip only take off the Tories in safe Tory areas
If Labour voters don't vote tactically in Lib Dem seats
If Toby gets his way and Ukip and Tory voters vote tactically
If Ukip goes to 5%
If the Lib Dems head back towards 20%
If Ed remains crap
If Labours campaign is crap
If Lynton gets his finger out
If unemployment keeps falling
If Scotland votes for independence
If Cameron goes *ahem* cast iron on the in/out referendum
If the Tory MP's of the right stop their suicide mission
If the unions pull the plug on Labours money so they cannot fund a campaign
If the falling Tory membership still manages to campaign hard
If only they had got the boundary changes through
If there is swingback
If Ashcrofts marginal polling is wrong
If the Tory vote was spread out more like Labours and not building up in seats that are safe
If the Lib Dems get rid of Nick Clegg and replace him with someone more left wing
If war breaks out
If Ukip don't stand against Euro-sceptic Tory MP's
If the focus goes back onto the two Ed's
If Labours manifesto is torn apart by the press
If the country sees sense
If the right wing voters hold their nose about Cameron and vote Tory
If the voters realise what a fantastic job the coalition has been doing
If the raising of the minimum wage will sway floating voters toffs do have hearts
If Labour polling figures are being exaggerated
If the electoral bias in FPTP is not as big as it has been historically
If the press decide to attack the two Eds with even more venom in the run up to the election
If the Ukip supporters realise that voting Labour means the will be less chance of a Euro referendum
A couple of years back I suggested on here that MPs should be forced to live in the poorest part of their constituency. Harsh, but as we're always being told that MPs do not understand the way that others live, it might help.
Of course, journalists would have to leave their million-pounds pads and live in those areas as well.
Incidentally, York Minster is well worth visiting. Splendid, magnificent structure, with a statue of Constantine the Great (a well-known Yorkshireman) outside.
D - Well Syria is a major crisis already, and Ukraine is too. I don't recall much VI being shifted during Russia - South Ossetia/Georgia war, Labour still won even with the Gulf War! most people prefer to watch X-Factor still though. And Labour, Conservative tend to take united positions on this - well except Syria which worked out quite well for Miliband.
B - Can be ignored for betting purposes as scandals are equally likely for all parties.
A - A ~ 20-25% chance (At the maximum) but even if this does happen the Scottish seats will still be in play at Westminster GE2015. Labour will still pick up most seats in the central belt. The Tories might pick up one or two more but the effect will be far far greater at GE2020 when Labour WILL lose all their Scottish seats due to the annexing of Scotland.
This is true now in most areas of Great Britain. In parts of the Midlands and the north this is very important because price increases are lifting many (voting) householding families out of negative equity. That is a powerful argument for voting for same again next time around - or at least not voting for an alternative.
The true numbers on the fiscal position won;t be known for some months and I still harbour hope. Its also true that some of the coalition's spending cuts are only now kicking in. That said, a deficit reduction would need to be dramatic to impress me. Let's see.
The French fleet is based at Île Longue in Brittany.
But it looks as though Scotland will not become independent, and so there's probably little to worry about. If that's wrong and Scotland does become independent, I think Scotland will have much more to immediately worry about than a few submarines.
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2014/2/15497.html
Getting heat in could be an issue, but they should last well. However, less downforce and more torque has seen more sideways action in corners (the driver matters more in that regard) which could tear up the tyres a bit. I doubt we'll see explosive results but it could shorten the lifespan.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=125177
Must be something to do with trying to keep control.
http://www.exploring-castles.com/castles_in_york.html
* Obviously before the Serbs arrived. Bit like when the Scots were kicked-out of Oirland and invaded Pictish/Saxon southern Caledonia. Hey, who cares about history...?
You make a good point, though, about imposing modern geographical perspectives on the past. Doing that sort of thing seriously leads to bullshit like the ridiculous Wikipedia entry for Alexander (claiming he as a Greek king of Macedon), Frenchmen pretending William I was French or Scots/Englishmen arguing about who was conquered by the Romans (neither, really. The Scotti were an Irish tribe and Caledonia was more Pictish, and the English [Angles, Saxons and Jutes] arrived a century after the Romans left).
ENGLAND, San Marino, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Switzerland
'The implications of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 for the Coulport and Faslane bases have been extensively discussed in the media, as it is unclear if any submarine base in England, Wales or Northern Ireland could house the Coulport silos.'
http://tinyurl.com/oc9pxt9
** unspoofable **
To let Trident remain for more than a very short interim period would be the quickest way for Mr Salmond's administration to be elected out of power after a Yes vote - the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament being out for vengeance (so to speak) and having by then been cut off from its Unionist burden and able to say what they really think for once (and have often said, ere the referendum) about Trident, plus the LDs, plus the Greens, plus the three independents, plus no doubt some rebel SNP members ... one wonders how the Tories would vote ...
2010 is - like - years ago. We can/will use contracted resources to fulfill our requirements. We are adults: We understand international law and the obligations thereof. Fr'Eck however is a two-faced [MODERATED] [MODERATED].
I have always been a supporter of Scottish Independence. Sadly I have had past experience of Scots' posters calling me a racist: Best rid I say Unckie', but what says you...?
So the boats are staying there for a while yet, which makes the likelihood of a later deal as a tradable for something else increase vs the 1st view of it now. Politically all things are possible (cf Clegg campaigning on tuition fees at the same time as having already secretly agreed to bin the policy at the first opportunity)
Germany, Poland, Ireland, Georgia (love their flag!) and Gibraltar..
The only worry is if Germany knock 20 goals past Gibraltar and we only get 19.
http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1413097
The intention was to put the silos in East Anglia. I seem to recall that there was a slight problem in that the sites were in Tory constituencies but to be fair there were much wider problems in basing such things in a small country like the UK though I am not quite sure why putting a warhead store near Glasgow seemed a better idea.
But of course silo as store was a much earlier usage, generally.
A typically English error?
SNP would need to get very big give in order to sell them staying into the bargain.
I'm assuming that most people on the 40p rate have less flexibility to significantly vary their workload/earnings so cuts to this band will not have the same positive impact on revenues that cuts in the additional rate can do (haven't checked though)
Would be ironic regarding a parliament,as one of Yorks most infamous sons ,Guy Fawkes was born in Stonegate a street near the Minster.
'The principle of operation is known as continuous at-sea deterrence, which means that at least one submarine is always on active patrol. A second submarine is normally undergoing maintenance and the remaining two are in port or on training exercises.'
http://tinyurl.com/ncuxr4c
That suggests of 160 warhead, 40 are ready for use at any given time. I may be wrong but I doubt storing warheads in docked vessels is normal procedure, plus why build hugely expensive reinforced storage bunkers if it was?
As an irrelevant aside, I'm told that Coulport operates a small steam locomotive to transport warheads in case an EMP nuclear attack takes out conventional transport. May be a local myth!
That factoid at the end is one for the trainspotters!