Mr. Financier, it's certainly a curious mix to see foodbanks still haven't increased in number enough to meet demand, yet obesity continues to rise.
I sometimes wonder what Britain would be like if, one morning, everybody woke up with the slightly mental patriotism of Romans during the Second Punic War. The enervation of prosperity is something rarely discussed, but something we should all be aware of.
To bring it into more recent times, what would happen if they could only have the rations books of say 1948 when even bread was rationed, no imported fruit and veg and no snack foods like crisps etc, and petrol was rationed or near non-available to private or non-essential users which does include commuting. A lot more walking and cycling would happen.
So waistlines would decrease within 6 months.
From what I've read, and IMNAE, calorie-wise rationing wouldn't make much difference:
Under rationing, men were allowed 3,000 calories a day - slightly higher than 2,500 recommended today. But the reality is most of us consume as much as 3,100 calories.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8445824.stm states we eat more or less the same amount of calories as we did under rationing. Although I wonder if the type of foodstuffs has also altered - I guess we're getting far more sugars, and eating much more processed foods.
Exercise is key, and that's where we're failing ourselves as a nation.
My apologies for the delay in response. The authority is R v King (1973) 57 Cr App R. 696. The Court of Appeal (Lawton & Scarman LJJ and May J) stated at p. 700 that:
This Court wishes to state in the clearest possible terms that courts are not sounding boards for anybody's political views. Anyone attempting to bring political opinions into court is attempting to introduce wholly irrelevant matter. Counsel asked to air an accused person's political views should refuse to do so and if, as in this case, the accused then says “Well, I will not accept any advice you give me if you do not air my political views,” the duty of counsel, so it seems to us, is to say “very well, I will withdraw from the case.”
This especially applies in the context of mitigation. After all in King, it was inappropriate political mitigation given to Chapman J that caused him to pass an excessive sentence, which the court reduced on appeal.
Mr. Financier, it's certainly a curious mix to see foodbanks still haven't increased in number enough to meet demand, yet obesity continues to rise.
I sometimes wonder what Britain would be like if, one morning, everybody woke up with the slightly mental patriotism of Romans during the Second Punic War. The enervation of prosperity is something rarely discussed, but something we should all be aware of.
Obesity is caused by poor diet and/or lack of exercise. I am not sure how that conflicts in any way with more people being referred to food banks.
Current thinking is that it's a LOT more complicated than that. There are genetic and metabolic factors involved.
And how many obese people were there in Belsen or the Japanese POW camps?
Come to think of it, I cannot remember even one fat boy at school.
Mr. Financier, it's certainly a curious mix to see foodbanks still haven't increased in number enough to meet demand, yet obesity continues to rise.
I sometimes wonder what Britain would be like if, one morning, everybody woke up with the slightly mental patriotism of Romans during the Second Punic War. The enervation of prosperity is something rarely discussed, but something we should all be aware of.
Obesity is caused by poor diet and/or lack of exercise. I am not sure how that conflicts in any way with more people being referred to food banks.
Current thinking is that it's a LOT more complicated than that. There are genetic and metabolic factors involved.
I don't think SO necessarily considered that exhaustive list, or at least, did not need to. Rather it was the idea that poverty should mean eating less which should mean less obesity that SO wanted to question.
Mr. Observer, obesity just confounds me, excepting unfortunate children who are overfed and develop obesity because of that.
Then again, I'm in the rather odd position of not especially liking food (or, at least, liking it far less than everyone else). The idea of comfort eating makes as little sense to me as comfort stabbing yourself in the face with a stanley knife.
Mr. Carnyx, I imagine the Secret Blog of Procopius (a long time later, but still) could be quite entertaining.
The concept of the state being a very real core of identity rather than a thing that happens to be where you're living for the moment is interesting. Once loyalty began to shift to generals and then emperors the ideals of republican Rome disintegrated and the empire crumbled.
I do wonder, should Scotland leave, whether we'll see a resurgence of the British/English identity (and whether England, Wales and Northern Ireland would hang together).
I am a fat git because I eat and drink too much, and do not do enough exercise. It is entirely my own fault. But, on balance, it has been a rather enjoyable journey.
Mr. Financier, it's certainly a curious mix to see foodbanks still haven't increased in number enough to meet demand, yet obesity continues to rise.
I sometimes wonder what Britain would be like if, one morning, everybody woke up with the slightly mental patriotism of Romans during the Second Punic War. The enervation of prosperity is something rarely discussed, but something we should all be aware of.
Obesity is caused by poor diet and/or lack of exercise. I am not sure how that conflicts in any way with more people being referred to food banks.
Current thinking is that it's a LOT more complicated than that. There are genetic and metabolic factors involved.
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
The Treasury further argued that the UK is the continuing state in international law, and so Scotland is not entitled to a share of the Bank of England, among other things.
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
The background is that, in terms of public international law, what would happen in the event of a Yes vote in the independence referendum in September is that Scotland would become a new State in international law and that the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the “continuator” State. This position was authoritatively set out in the UK Government’s first Scotland Analysis Paper and in the legal opinion co-authored by Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle that was annexed to that paper. This legal analysis has not been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Mr. Financier, that's been my thinking likewise. If I recall correctly Wales has 3% of the UK's population and 2% of the wealth.
Northern Ireland, obviously, also has other complications.
King Cole, perhaps. There's a strong drive in psychology to pathologise every little quirk and eccentricity into a syndrome or other medical issue. I know you're talking about physiology (perhaps in addition to psychological factors), but it's important for people to actually take responsibility for themselves.
Sidenote: did a spot on the exercise bike today. It's amusing that 20 minutes or so at a decent speed burns up about one and a half Kit-Kats (in calorie terms). Shows just how much is consumed by the furnace of homeostasis.
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
The Treasury further argued that the UK is the continuing state in international law, and so Scotland is not entitled to a share of the Bank of England, among other things.
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
The currency union Salmond favours will mean the rUK having a controlling say over an independent Scotland's expenditure.
Which is why 'the three Chancellors' have been right to rule it out - if we thought the Scots moan about finances now its nothing compared to what it would be in a currency union 'Westminster has stopped us from doing X' would be a daily Press Release - it would poison inter-state relations for years. I wish Salmond had more faith in his fellow-Scots 'It'll be tough, but we can do it' would be sellable......
I doubt it would be sellable. I can't see a scenario under which Scotland will have more money for public spending than it has now. The only realistic way Scotland can see an increase in public spending is to remain part of the UK. For avowed nationalists, though, the symbolism of independence trumps all else.
LOL, that is of Carlotta standard SO. You are sounding very confused nowadays. One thing is certain public spending will be in freefall if we remain in the UK, it will never rise and will only fall.
I must admit, the spectre of Alzheimer's and the like makes me wonder if it would be more dignified for myself and easier to bear for others if I lived an unhealthier lifestyle.
Mr. G, indeed. If Scotland took none of the debt I imagine, however, that (given the role of Scottish banks, prime ministers and chancellors) England, Wales and Northern Ireland might not view such a thing in an entirely positive fashion.
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
The Treasury further argued that the UK is the continuing state in international law, and so Scotland is not entitled to a share of the Bank of England, among other things.
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
The background is that, in terms of public international law, what would happen in the event of a Yes vote in the independence referendum in September is that Scotland would become a new State in international law and that the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the “continuator” State. This position was authoritatively set out in the UK Government’s first Scotland Analysis Paper and in the legal opinion co-authored by Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle that was annexed to that paper. This legal analysis has not been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
The Treasury further argued that the UK is the continuing state in international law, and so Scotland is not entitled to a share of the Bank of England, among other things.
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
The currency union Salmond favours will mean the rUK having a controlling say over an independent Scotland's expenditure.
Which is why 'the three Chancellors' have been right to rule it out - if we thought the Scots moan about finances now its nothing compared to what it would be in a currency union 'Westminster has stopped us from doing X' would be a daily Press Release - it would poison inter-state relations for years. I wish Salmond had more faith in his fellow-Scots 'It'll be tough, but we can do it' would be sellable......
I doubt it would be sellable. I can't see a scenario under which Scotland will have more money for public spending than it has now. The only realistic way Scotland can see an increase in public spending is to remain part of the UK. For avowed nationalists, though, the symbolism of independence trumps all else.
LOL, that is of Carlotta standard SO. You are sounding very confused nowadays. One thing is certain public spending will be in freefall if we remain in the UK, it will never rise and will only fall.
None of the four options offered by the currency commission will allow Scotland to maintain public spending at current levels in the short to medium term. A Scottish currency would offer that hope in the longer term, but the SNP leadership are seemingly opposed to that.
And Putin is not a typically corrupt Soviet style carpet bagger (at least by comparison with his predecessors and peers throughout the FSU). You won't find a string of Presidential yachts and many palaces built in his name (there is one on the Black Sea) and he doesn't flaunt his personal wealth, although to be fair a Russia President will always have access to any comfort desired.
In addition his family do not run half the industry in the country. By Russian standards (I stress again this is relative), Putin is an austere and self-denying leader.
You do know about the Swiss Foundation that takes 8% off the top of all Russian state-owned oil revenues?
And Putin's "silent partnership" in Millhouse Capital?
You are right, though: Putin is not a "typically corrupt Soviet-style carpet-bagger". He's a damn sight more effective than any of the others have ever been. Of course he will never be able to spend the money himself - far too high profile. But his heirs have nothing to worry about.
Mr. Financier, it's certainly a curious mix to see foodbanks still haven't increased in number enough to meet demand, yet obesity continues to rise.
I sometimes wonder what Britain would be like if, one morning, everybody woke up with the slightly mental patriotism of Romans during the Second Punic War. The enervation of prosperity is something rarely discussed, but something we should all be aware of.
To bring it into more recent times, what would happen if they could only have the rations books of say 1948 when even bread was rationed, no imported fruit and veg and no snack foods like crisps etc, and petrol was rationed or near non-available to private or non-essential users which does include commuting. A lot more walking and cycling would happen.
So waistlines would decrease within 6 months.
From what I've read, and IMNAE, calorie-wise rationing wouldn't make much difference:
Under rationing, men were allowed 3,000 calories a day - slightly higher than 2,500 recommended today. But the reality is most of us consume as much as 3,100 calories.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8445824.stm states we eat more or less the same amount of calories as we did under rationing. Although I wonder if the type of foodstuffs has also altered - I guess we're getting far more sugars, and eating much more processed foods.
Exercise is key, and that's where we're failing ourselves as a nation.
Did you watch the recent horizon programme fat vs sugar?
It seems to be a diet that is big on foods that have an equally high amount of both that cause over eating and obesity
Processed foods obv big contributor as manafacturers know that they are moreish
But their educational expectation is lowered if they have Free School Meals!!
It's interesting that there are plenty of poster boys for the welfare reformists. Mick Philpott, White Dee etc.
We have yet to see a poster boy for the keep the taps on left. Can't Rochdale Pioneer and co. dig up a few Oliver Twists? People do seem to personalise this...
White Dee is a poster boy. I always thought those two on the front of her, sorry his, body were false.
I may be wrong - and if I am I withdraw and apologise - but I seem to remember ringing praise from nationalist posters on here for Sir Tom's scotlandseptember18.com initiative and the polling on independence he has commissioned.
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
The Treasury further argued that the UK is the continuing state in international law, and so Scotland is not entitled to a share of the Bank of England, among other things.
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
The background is that, in terms of public international law, what would happen in the event of a Yes vote in the independence referendum in September is that Scotland would become a new State in international law and that the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the “continuator” State. This position was authoritatively set out in the UK Government’s first Scotland Analysis Paper and in the legal opinion co-authored by Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle that was annexed to that paper. This legal analysis has not been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Michael Adebolajo + Michael Adebowale sentenced at the Old Baily to whole life tariff and 45 years minimum for the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.
Judge says the "sickening and pitiless conduct" in murdering Lee Rigby contrasted with the bravery of the women who tried to help him - "you butchered Lee Rigby" and went far beyond what was needed to murder him. "What the two of you did resulted in a bloodbath."
It means that he will serve a minimum term of 45 years. Then and only then, it will be for the Parole Board to consider whether his release would not endanger public safety. If the Parole Board were to decide it was safe to release him, he would be released on licence, subject to recall to prison for the rest of his life.
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
The Treasury further argued that the UK is the continuing state in international law, and so Scotland is not entitled to a share of the Bank of England, among other things.
The background is that, in terms of public international law, what would happen in the event of a Yes vote in the independence referendum in September is that Scotland would become a new State in international law and that the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the “continuator” State. This position was authoritatively set out in the UK Government’s first Scotland Analysis Paper and in the legal opinion co-authored by Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle that was annexed to that paper. This legal analysis has not been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.To quote Professor John Kay, former advisor to Cameron:
the suggestion Scotland might walk away from UK debt is another example of playground bluster).
And Professor Alan Tomkins
As for Scotland refusing its share of the national debt, this is basket-case economics. The debt is currently the UK’s. In order to reassure creditors (and to preserve its credit-rating) the Treasury has made plain that it will continue to honour the debt even in the event of Scottish independence. But this does not mean that Scotland would be born debt-free. On the contrary, as part of the separation negotiations the rUK would secure from Scotland an agreement to service an equitable share of the UK’s debt. There is no chance that Scotland could walk away from this obligation without punishing consequences being imposed at the hands of the international money markets.
I may be wrong - and if I am I withdraw and apologise - but I seem to remember ringing praise from nationalist posters on here for Sir Tom's scotlandseptember18.com initiative and the polling on independence he has commissioned.
May have been me. I mentioned his then new site as an interesting initiative. Wouldn't have given it ringing praise beyond that as it was new!
Mr. Financier, it's certainly a curious mix to see foodbanks still haven't increased in number enough to meet demand, yet obesity continues to rise.
I sometimes wonder what Britain would be like if, one morning, everybody woke up with the slightly mental patriotism of Romans during the Second Punic War. The enervation of prosperity is something rarely discussed, but something we should all be aware of.
To bring it into more recent times, what would happen if they could only have the rations books of say 1948 when even bread was rationed, no imported fruit and veg and no snack foods like crisps etc, and petrol was rationed or near non-available to private or non-essential users which does include commuting. A lot more walking and cycling would happen.
So waistlines would decrease within 6 months.
From what I've read, and IMNAE, calorie-wise rationing wouldn't make much difference:
Under rationing, men were allowed 3,000 calories a day - slightly higher than 2,500 recommended today. But the reality is most of us consume as much as 3,100 calories.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8445824.stm states we eat more or less the same amount of calories as we did under rationing. Although I wonder if the type of foodstuffs has also altered - I guess we're getting far more sugars, and eating much more processed foods.
Exercise is key, and that's where we're failing ourselves as a nation.
Did you watch the recent horizon programme fat vs sugar?
It seems to be a diet that is big on foods that have an equally high amount of both that cause over eating and obesity
Processed foods obv big contributor as manafacturers know that they are moreish
No, I'm afraid I didn't. I blame Mrs J - she wanted to watch something else, and I probably had my nose in a book whilst she watched NCIS or some other dross. But i saw some trailers, and the conclusions seemed interesting.
Anecdotally, the relationship between exercise and weight is odd. I was already fairly fit when I set off on my long walk eleven years ago, but for the first three months my weight dropped dramatically. It levelled off over the next six months, and during summer it increased, despite doing some relatively long daily mileages. I ended up weighing the same as I did when I set off, but with thighs like German cavalry pants ...
I may be wrong - and if I am I withdraw and apologise - but I seem to remember ringing praise from nationalist posters on here for Sir Tom's scotlandseptember18.com initiative and the polling on independence he has commissioned.
Er, I linked to the polling, not sure if that constitutes praise. I don't think I've mentioned him otherwise. Personally I think if Hunter had started his initiative a year ago it might have been really useful in light of the crapness and bias of the msm, however people have turned to other outlets to fill the yawning gap. I think he's missed the boat as far as providing a touchstone of objective data and information goes.
Mr. Observer, obesity just confounds me, excepting unfortunate children who are overfed and develop obesity because of that.
Then again, I'm in the rather odd position of not especially liking food (or, at least, liking it far less than everyone else). The idea of comfort eating makes as little sense to me as comfort stabbing yourself in the face with a stanley knife.
Mr. Carnyx, I imagine the Secret Blog of Procopius (a long time later, but still) could be quite entertaining.
The concept of the state being a very real core of identity rather than a thing that happens to be where you're living for the moment is interesting. Once loyalty began to shift to generals and then emperors the ideals of republican Rome disintegrated and the empire crumbled.
I do wonder, should Scotland leave, whether we'll see a resurgence of the British/English identity (and whether England, Wales and Northern Ireland would hang together).
Er... I thought the empire lasted for quite a while (and indeed expanded a bit, in Britannia and perhaps IIRC Dacia) after Octavian took over and became the first Augustus?
I may be wrong - and if I am I withdraw and apologise - but I seem to remember ringing praise from nationalist posters on here for Sir Tom's scotlandseptember18.com initiative and the polling on independence he has commissioned.
No doubt, the Usuals will be slagging him off as yet another Unionist, before dissing Wikipedia and making a reference to it, to back up an Independence claim of some kind.
I suspect that the Attorney General will be studying these sentencing remarks closely, with a view to applying for leave to refer Adebowale's minimum term to the Court of Appeal. Were his age and mental disorder really sufficient mitigation to justify departure from the starting point, given the aggravating factors? I wonder.
Mr. Carnyx, got to go, but my brief reply would be that if you take your foot off the accelerator it doesn't halt immediately. Rome's political changes made civil warfare perennial, the donatives make the troops likelier to cause them and also led to massive inflation, and military power was spent against fellow Romans rather than against barbarians.
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
The Treasury further argued that the UK is the continuing state in international law, and so Scotland is not entitled to a share of the Bank of England, among other things.
The background is that, in terms of public international law, what would happen in the event of a Yes vote in the independence referendum in September is that Scotland would become a new State in international law and that the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the “continuator” State. This position was authoritatively set out in the UK Government’s first Scotland Analysis Paper and in the legal opinion co-authored by Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle that was annexed to that paper. This legal analysis has not been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
To quote Professor John Kay, former advisor to Cameron Salmond:
the suggestion Scotland might walk away from UK debt is another example of playground bluster.
And Professor Alan Tomkins
As for Scotland refusing its share of the national debt, this is basket-case economics. The debt is currently the UK’s. In order to reassure creditors (and to preserve its credit-rating) the Treasury has made plain that it will continue to honour the debt even in the event of Scottish independence. But this does not mean that Scotland would be born debt-free. On the contrary, as part of the separation negotiations the rUK would secure from Scotland an agreement to service an equitable share of the UK’s debt. There is no chance that Scotland could walk away from this obligation without punishing consequences being imposed at the hands of the international money markets.
Mr. Financier, it's certainly a curious mix to see foodbanks still haven't increased in number enough to meet demand, yet obesity continues to rise.
I sometimes wonder what Britain would be like if, one morning, everybody woke up with the slightly mental patriotism of Romans during the Second Punic War. The enervation of prosperity is something rarely discussed, but something we should all be aware of.
To bring it into more recent times, what would happen if they could only have the rations books of say 1948 when even bread was rationed, no imported fruit and veg and no snack foods like crisps etc, and petrol was rationed or near non-available to private or non-essential users which does include commuting. A lot more walking and cycling would happen.
So waistlines would decrease within 6 months.
From what I've read, and IMNAE, calorie-wise rationing wouldn't make much difference:
Under rationing, men were allowed 3,000 calories a day - slightly higher than 2,500 recommended today. But the reality is most of us consume as much as 3,100 calories.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8445824.stm states we eat more or less the same amount of calories as we did under rationing. Although I wonder if the type of foodstuffs has also altered - I guess we're getting far more sugars, and eating much more processed foods.
Exercise is key, and that's where we're failing ourselves as a nation.
I suspect heating (or lack of it) during the war, and in the immediate afterwar years, was another factor in forcing the metabolism rather than storage of calories to keep body temperature up. I don't know current thinking on the matter, though.
It means that he will serve a minimum term of 45 years. Then and only then, it will be for the Parole Board to consider whether his release would not endanger public safety. If the Parole Board were to decide it was safe to release him, he would be released on licence, subject to recall to prison for the rest of his life.
I am 50 this year. So I was five in 1969. It's been a long, long time from then to now. The thought of having to have spent most hours of every day for each and every one of those years inside a small cell in a high security prison is not a pleasant one.
The thought of having to have spent most hours of every day for each and every one of those years inside a small cell in a high security prison is not a pleasant one.
Indeed, it would crush both the body and the spirit utterly. There wouldn't be much left of you when you came out.
In the not exactly earth-shattering news category: PC Keith Wallis is now just Keith Wallis.
In slightly surprising news, a second PC, James Glanville, has been dismissed without notice over the Plebgate affair. Who he?
"James Glanville" and pleb produces exactly one result on google. Not a strict googlewhack, but still.
The statement said Mr Glanville had not been on duty during the row but was present at the DPG office later that night.
Operation Alice, which investigated the row, found evidence he passed on information to the Sun. He later provided the newspaper with a copy of PC Rowland's email describing the confrontation to his supervisors.
I am 50 this year. So I was five in 1969. It's been a long, long time from then to now. The thought of having to have spent most hours of every day for each and every one of those years inside a small cell in a high security prison is not a pleasant one.
My view, shared by the judiciary, is that a small number of offences are serious that for the purposes of punishment and deterrence, it is necessary that a person should never be released. This was a murder done for the purposes of advancing a religious, political and ideological cause, and aggravated by a terrorist connection. It required a substantial degree of planning and premeditation, was committed in public in broad daylight with the use of weapons, and the violent conduct was far in excess of what was necessary to kill. Nobody is suggesting that spending a lifetime on the High Security Estate is going to be pleasant. I rather think that is not the point.
The thought of having to have spent most hours of every day for each and every one of those years inside a small cell in a high security prison is not a pleasant one.
Indeed, it would crush both the body and the spirit utterly. There wouldn't be much left of you when you came out.
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
The amount of calories in the UK diet has not changed much over the decades, though the proportions and nature have. Fifty years ago consumption of bread and potatoes was near double of the present day. The difference is activity. Jobs were more manual labour, both inside and outside the home, and physical activity was the principle entertainment of children. How many girls do you see skipping in the schoolyard now? And how many walking home? It was the exercise built into daily life that kept people thin, not gyms or personal trainers.
Fat is increasingly a class issue, and second only to smoking in health inequality causation. There is good evidence that exercise tolerance is a better predictor of longevity than BMI or other similar measures.
Mr. Financier, it's certainly a curious mix to see foodbanks still haven't increased in number enough to meet demand, yet obesity continues to rise.
I sometimes wonder what Britain would be like if, one morning, everybody woke up with the slightly mental patriotism of Romans during the Second Punic War. The enervation of prosperity is something rarely discussed, but something we should all be aware of.
So waistlines would decrease within 6 months.
From what I've read, and IMNAE, calorie-wise rationing wouldn't make much difference:
Under rationing, men were allowed 3,000 calories a day - slightly higher than 2,500 recommended today. But the reality is most of us consume as much as 3,100 calories.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8445824.stm states we eat more or less the same amount of calories as we did under rationing. Although I wonder if the type of foodstuffs has also altered - I guess we're getting far more sugars, and eating much more processed foods.
Exercise is key, and that's where we're failing ourselves as a nation.
Processed foods obv big contributor as manafacturers know that they are moreish
No, I'm afraid I didn't. I blame Mrs J - she wanted to watch something else, and I probably had my nose in a book whilst she watched NCIS or some other dross. But i saw some trailers, and the conclusions seemed interesting.
Anecdotally, the relationship between exercise and weight is odd. I was already fairly fit when I set off on my long walk eleven years ago, but for the first three months my weight dropped dramatically. It levelled off over the next six months, and during summer it increased, despite doing some relatively long daily mileages. I ended up weighing the same as I did when I set off, but with thighs like German cavalry pants ...
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
So we get to keep all of the oil, aircraft, hospitals etc Winner.
Pop quiz question - Given the likely hard time Adebelajo will face in prison, of which there is no prospect of ending, could one not argue that a penalty of death would be a more humane and merciful sentence ?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
The Treasury further argued that the UK is the continuing state in international law, and so Scotland is not entitled to a share of the Bank of England, among other things.
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
The currency union Salmond favours will mean the rUK having a controlling say
I doubt it would be sellable. I can't see a scenario under which Scotland will have more money for public spending than it has now. The only realistic way Scotland can see an increase in public spending is to remain part of the UK. For avowed nationalists, though, the symbolism of independence trumps all else.
LOL, that is of Carlotta standard SO. You are sounding very confused nowadays. One thing is certain public spending will be in freefall if we remain in the UK, it will never rise and will only fall.
None of the four options offered by the currency commission will allow Scotland to maintain public spending at current levels in the short to medium term. A Scottish currency would offer that hope in the longer term, but the SNP leadership are seemingly opposed to that.
But it will be sure to be higher in an independent Scotland than it will be if we stay in the UK, in the UK it is guaranteed to plummet.
The thought of having to have spent most hours of every day for each and every one of those years inside a small cell in a high security prison is not a pleasant one.
Indeed, it would crush both the body and the spirit utterly. There wouldn't be much left of you when you came out.
Every day he'll have to think about those years spread out in front. And when the anger and hate that keeps him going at the start has gone, as they will, all he'll have left are regret, repentance, self-pity, self-hatred and the thoughts of the life he could have had. It couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.Wrong. Again.
The currency is not Scotland’s (and it’s not England’s either). It is the currency of the United Kingdom. If Scotland votes Yes to independence it will have voted to leave the United Kingdom: that’s exactly what “independence” means — independence from the United Kingdom. If Scotland leaves the UK it leaves the UK’s public institutions, which would become the institutions of the rest of the UK. The UK’s assets and liabilities would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland, but the pound is neither an asset nor a liability.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
Might work, although I'm not sure that 100% of the oilfields would be enough to cover Scotland's share of the debt.
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
The Treasury further argued that the UK is the continuing state in international law, and so Scotland is not entitled to a share of the Bank of England, among other things.
The background is that, in terms of public international law, what would e rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
To quote Professor John Kay, former advisor to Cameron:
the suggestion Scotland might walk away from UK debt is another example of playground bluster).
And Professor Alan Tomkins
As for Scotland refusing its share of the national debt, this is basket-case economics. The debt is currently the UK’s. In order to reassure creditors (and to preserve its credit-rating) the Treasury has made plain that it will continue to honour the debt even in the event of Scottish independence. But this does not mean that Scotland would be born debt-free. On the contrary, as part of the separation negotiations the rUK would secure from Scotland an agreement to service an equitable share of the UK’s debt. There is no chance that Scotland could walk away from this obligation without punishing consequences being imposed at the hands of the international money markets.
So you are another one that believes rUK can just take all the assets but dump the debt onto Scotland, you are dreaming.
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
Scotland is not going to walk away. It can't. There has to be an agreement before it can become an independent country. An agreement means both sides have to agree.
The thought of having to have spent most hours of every day for each and every one of those years inside a small cell in a high security prison is not a pleasant one.
Indeed, it would crush both the body and the spirit utterly. There wouldn't be much left of you when you came out.
Every day he'll have to think about those years spread out in front. And when the anger and hate that keeps him going at the start has gone, as they will, all he'll have left are regret, repentance, self-pity, self-hatred and the thoughts of the life he could have had. It couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.
He is a convert, and I fear he will spend a great deal of that time trying to convert others.
Pop quiz question - Given the likely hard time Adebelajo will face in prison, of which there is no prospect of ending, could one not argue that a penalty of death would be a more humane and merciful sentence ?
Why on earth should those guilty of such a heinous and brutal crime be deserving of any mercy or humanity?
The judge should have requested that they serve their time at the military prison in Colchester.
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
The Treasury further argued that the UK is the continuing state in international law, and so Scotland is not entitled to a share of the Bank of England, among other things.
The background is that, in terms of public international law, what would e rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
To quote Professor John Kay, former advisor to Cameron:
the suggestion Scotland might walk away from UK debt is another example of playground bluster).
And Professor Alan Tomkins
As for Scotland refusing its share of the national debt, this is basket-case economics. The debt is currently the UK’s. In order to reassure creditors (and to preserve its credit-rating) the Treasury has made plain that it will continue to honour the debt even in the event of Scottish independence. But this does not mean that Scotland would be born debt-free. On the contrary, as part of the separation negotiations the rUK would secure from Scotland an agreement to service an equitable share of the UK’s debt. There is no chance that Scotland could walk away from this obligation without punishing consequences being imposed at the hands of the international money markets.
So you are another one that believes rUK can just take all the assets but dump the debt onto Scotland, you are dreaming.I am quoting two Professors - one of Economics, the other of Law....
You are confusing 'institutions' which stay with rUK, with 'assets and liabilities' which are apportioned between the two parties.
Sterling is not an 'asset' - its a monetary instrument of the UK Government.
The Bank of England is not an 'asset' - its an institution of the UK.
British Embassies are not 'assets' - they are part of the 'institution' of the UK.
But go ahead, cite a Professor of Law or Economics who shares your view......
Pop quiz question - Given the likely hard time Adebelajo will face in prison, of which there is no prospect of ending, could one not argue that a penalty of death would be a more humane and merciful sentence ?
Why on earth would those guilty of such a heinous and brutal crime be deserving of any mercy or humanity?
Theres a whole industry of 'human rights' lawyers (Gottlieb etc) that believe they should be - I put it that the death penalty and the 'mercy' that these do gooders crave are entirely compatible concepts !
The amount of calories in the UK diet has not changed much over the decades, though the proportions and nature have. Fifty years ago consumption of bread and potatoes was near double of the present day. The difference is activity. Jobs were more manual labour, both inside and outside the home, and physical activity was the principle entertainment of children. How many girls do you see skipping in the schoolyard now? And how many walking home? It was the exercise built into daily life that kept people thin, not gyms or personal trainers.
Fat is increasingly a class issue, and second only to smoking in health inequality causation. There is good evidence that exercise tolerance is a better predictor of longevity than BMI or other similar measures.
I think another factor is commuting time - in the past, people lived closer to their work or had a shorter commute. I do a near four-hour round trip when I go to the office so that's "dead" rime in many respects. It also means I eat late - another factor. There was a time when people had an early evening meal - now people eat later and there's insufficient time for digestion before bed.
The maxim of eating breakfast like a king, lunch like a lord and dinner like a pauper is a good way to live but that's not often how many live or are able to live.
Back to politics - I'm much less convinced that IF Scotland leaves the UK it represents some kind of death-knell for Labour and I detect a large dose of wishful thinking. It's likely an English/Welsh Labour Party would recognise its need to identify with the aspirational south and change accordingly. As someone posted this morning, Blair convincingly won England in 1997 and 2001 so it can be done.
The amount of calories in the UK diet has not changed much over the decades, though the proportions and nature have. Fifty years ago consumption of bread and potatoes was near double of the present day. The difference is activity. Jobs were more manual labour, both inside and outside the home, and physical activity was the principle entertainment of children. How many girls do you see skipping in the schoolyard now? And how many walking home? It was the exercise built into daily life that kept people thin, not gyms or personal trainers.
Fat is increasingly a class issue, and second only to smoking in health inequality causation. There is good evidence that exercise tolerance is a better predictor of longevity than BMI or other similar measures.
Back to politics - I'm much less convinced that IF Scotland leaves the UK it represents some kind of death-knell for Labour and I detect a large dose of wishful thinking. It's likely an English/Welsh Labour Party would recognise its need to identify with the aspirational south and change accordingly. As someone posted this morning, Blair convincingly won England in 1997 and 2001 so it can be done.
Quite, but its not like the right of the Tory party indulge themselves in delusional fantasies...oh...
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
Scotland is not going to walk away. It can't. There has to be an agreement before it can become an independent country. An agreement means both sides have to agree.
But it can only work if both sides are reasonable and the agreement is equitable, at least in terms of something that the PM and FM can deliver to their respective sides. And that is the interesting bit. In theory a bloodyminded Tory, or Labour, PM could refuse to let Scotland go till it delivered a hundred youths and a hundred maidens annually as tribute to the modern Babylon. But that might be going a little too far, even by their standards.
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
So we get to keep all of the oil, aircraft, hospitals etc Winner.
Even those crooks cannot take the roads and buildings or claim the sea
Pop quiz question - Given the likely hard time Adebelajo will face in prison, of which there is no prospect of ending, could one not argue that a penalty of death would be a more humane and merciful sentence ?
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
Wrong. Again.
The currency is not Scotland’s (and it’s not England’s either). It is the currency of the United Kingdom. If Scotland votes Yes to independence it will have voted to leave the United Kingdom: that’s exactly what “independence” means — independence from the United Kingdom. If Scotland leaves the UK it leaves the UK’s public institutions, which would become the institutions of the rest of the UK. The UK’s assets and liabilities would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland, but the pound is neither an asset nor a liability.
Doh, the debt is not the currency , you get the assets you get the debt , even a fool knows that.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
Might work, although I'm not sure that 100% of the oilfields would be enough to cover Scotland's share of the debt.
For anyone interested, the BBC have got a Network Rail document about the Dawlish breach, showing the damage done in the second storm and the work being done to reinstate the line. It also has a low-res map of alternative routes that may be created, two of which look rather like the 1937 GWR proposals, and another looks totally new.
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
Wrong. Again.
The currency is not Scotland’s (and it’s not England’s either). It is the currency of the United Kingdom. If Scotland votes Yes to independence it will have voted to leave the United Kingdom: that’s exactly what “independence” means — independence from the United Kingdom. If Scotland leaves the UK it leaves the UK’s public institutions, which would become the institutions of the rest of the UK. The UK’s assets and liabilities would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland, but the pound is neither an asset nor a liability.
Doh, the debt is not the currency , you get the assets you get the debt , even a fool knows that. Which Professor of Law wrote that then?
The amount of calories in the UK diet has not changed much over the decades, though the proportions and nature have. Fifty years ago consumption of bread and potatoes was near double of the present day. The difference is activity. Jobs were more manual labour, both inside and outside the home, and physical activity was the principle entertainment of children. How many girls do you see skipping in the schoolyard now? And how many walking home? It was the exercise built into daily life that kept people thin, not gyms or personal trainers.
Fat is increasingly a class issue, and second only to smoking in health inequality causation. There is good evidence that exercise tolerance is a better predictor of longevity than BMI or other similar measures.
Back to politics - I'm much less convinced that IF Scotland leaves the UK it represents some kind of death-knell for Labour and I detect a large dose of wishful thinking. It's likely an English/Welsh Labour Party would recognise its need to identify with the aspirational south and change accordingly. As someone posted this morning, Blair convincingly won England in 1997 and 2001 so it can be done.
Quite, but its not like the right of the Tory party indulge themselves in delusional fantasies...oh...
I think all parties would face huge challenges IF Scotland becomes independent least of all the SNP itself but I won't go there. Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would have to adjust to a new political reality as would others.
Oh well, even if they can't come up with a coherent currency plan, at least the SNP can do a proper 'sex n'sleaze' scandal the Tories or Labour would be proud of:
Alex Salmond’s closest aide used public money to hire the wife of the man she had been having a secret affair with, the Mail can reveal today.
The SNP’s Joan McAlpine used her MSP’s allowance to employ mother-of-two Jane McLachlan as a personal photographer after she had a torrid sexual relationship with her 51-year-old husband, Mark McLachlan.
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
So we get to keep all of the oil, aircraft, hospitals etc Winner.
Even those crooks cannot take the roads and buildings or claim the sea
Keeping the oilfields is easy, if you don't have any assets to take them back.
Oh well, even if they can't come up with a coherent currency plan, at least the SNP can do a proper 'sex n'sleaze' scandal the Tories or Labour would be proud of:
Alex Salmond’s closest aide used public money to hire the wife of the man she had been having a secret affair with, the Mail can reveal today.
The SNP’s Joan McAlpine used her MSP’s allowance to employ mother-of-two Jane McLachlan as a personal photographer after she had a torrid sexual relationship with her 51-year-old husband, Mark McLachlan.
@Carnyx - Should there be a Yes both sides will want a deal done as soon as possible, without selling itself short. In the end, though, the rUK holds most of the negotiating cards. On the currency especially, there is no nice way out for Scotland and certainly not one that I can see which will allow for increases in public spending. Three of the four options almost guarantee tightening monetary and fiscal policy, while the last (a separate currency) may mean higher spending in the future but definitely means much lower spending over the short to medium term.
Oh well, even if they can't come up with a coherent currency plan, at least the SNP can do a proper 'sex n'sleaze' scandal the Tories or Labour would be proud of:
Alex Salmond’s closest aide used public money to hire the wife of the man she had been having a secret affair with, the Mail can reveal today.
The SNP’s Joan McAlpine used her MSP’s allowance to employ mother-of-two Jane McLachlan as a personal photographer after she had a torrid sexual relationship with her 51-year-old husband, Mark McLachlan.
Mineral rights belong to the government. If Salmond really wants to claim no assets and therefore no debt, then he has no claim to either offshore oil, or for that matter onshore fracking possibilities. An independent Scotland would be a tenant rather than an owner occupier. He does know that on seperation assets sited in Scotland would become Scottish, as would a share of the debt.
Any attempt to claim otherwise is bluster and playground pomposity. It seems that it is only Salmond and the SNP that think the Scottish people are gullible fools.
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
So we get to keep all of the oil, aircraft, hospitals etc Winner.
Even those crooks cannot take the roads and buildings or claim the sea
Keeping the oilfields is easy, if you don't have any assets to take them back.
"Both Labour and Conservative Party memberships are in freefall. If all those deploring where the geat parties have gone wrong were to get out there, join up and take control from the bottom up, which is what my friends and I did in the late Sixties, they could put things right. It is harder work that sitting at a computer, but it is the way forward. If you don't take it then you are consenting to what is being done by those who did."
The Scottish tenants could move out, and establish a new home elsewhere. Perhaps a warm country in South America, would consider renting space? They could call their new home 'Caledonia'.
Mineral rights belong to the government. If Salmond really wants to claim no assets and therefore no debt, then he has no claim to either offshore oil, or for that matter onshore fracking possibilities. An independent Scotland would be a tenant rather than an owner occupier. He does know that on seperation assets sited in Scotland would become Scottish, as would a share of the debt.
Any attempt to claim otherwise is bluster and playground pomposity. It seems that it is only Salmond and the SNP that think the Scottish people are gullible fools.
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
So we get to keep all of the oil, aircraft, hospitals etc Winner.
Even those crooks cannot take the roads and buildings or claim the sea
Keeping the oilfields is easy, if you don't have any assets to take them back.
I am quoting two Professors - one of Economics, the other of Law....
You are confusing 'institutions' which stay with rUK, with 'assets and liabilities' which are apportioned between the two parties.
Sterling is not an 'asset' - its a monetary instrument of the UK Government.
The Bank of England is not an 'asset' - its an institution of the UK.
British Embassies are not 'assets' - they are part of the 'institution' of the UK.
But go ahead, cite a Professor of Law or Economics who shares your view......
I suggest that you are guilty of the sin which you rightly condemn. An embassy is a physical asset, and even the Diplomatic Service is merely an arm of the UK state that can be struck out at any time by the stroke of a minister's pen, unlike the simplest charity. BoE is part of the state apparatus but is also independent and it and its assets pertain to the UK as a whole. Sterling is itself part of the state apparatus just as much as anything else. The battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland are in one sense assets in terms of their equipment and training, but, in another and very important sense, are of course institutions in terms of their regimental spirit. However, at least they can be inherited as a whole by Scotland (should agreement so allow), because their loyalty is to HM the Queen and not to the PM of UK/EWNI.
Seemingly you and Mr G are going to disagree forever on whether (a) EWNI is the continuing state and Scotland is de novo, or (b) whether they are two continuing states of the UK (1707 model as modified later) which disappears on indy day. Your insistence on describing the post-independence southern portion of the UK as the continuing state of the UK doubly confounds this issue. It would be helpful if you used some such term as EWNI to refer to the rump of the UK remaining south of Carter bar on Independence day. The Treaty does, after all, refer to equal partners, and it is still in force.
One cannot pick and choose between a or b. One must pick one or the other and stick to it. The SNP have gone for b, consistently, absolutely consistently, at the very great cost of the Scottish share of debt up front (for which, incidentally, I believe that a deduction is already being made, rather oddly, from the Barnett formula, but I may be wrong here). All else is bluff and bargaining, and that will change (as so often noted here) the instant after a Yes vote and actual bargaining ), under the pressure of market and political instability, which determines which of the two is actually achieved, and in the case of b, how it is modified by e.g. swapping (what am I bid for 17% of a Trident submarine and 8.5% of the Washington DC embassy?).
"Both Labour and Conservative Party memberships are in freefall. If all those deploring where the geat parties have gone wrong were to get out there, join up and take control from the bottom up, which is what my friends and I did in the late Sixties, they could put things right. It is harder work that sitting at a computer, but it is the way forward. If you don't take it then you are consenting to what is being done by those who did."
There's a reason why political parties are in long term decline. Blaming the public for not joining them is like record companies blaming the public for not buying CDs.
Mineral rights belong to the government. If Salmond really wants to claim no assets and therefore no debt, then he has no claim to either offshore oil, or for that matter onshore fracking possibilities. An independent Scotland would be a tenant rather than an owner occupier. He does know that on seperation assets sited in Scotland would become Scottish, as would a share of the debt.
Any attempt to claim otherwise is bluster and playground pomposity. It seems that it is only Salmond and the SNP that think the Scottish people are gullible fools.
Walking away from the debt would make Scotland a pariah state, and not acceptable to the EU. Still, who needs friends when you have Salmonds wing and prayer?
Interestingly Salmond does not seek to dispute this:
Either Salmond has been badly advised on the consequences of this, is ignoring the advice he gets.....or is only listening to the advice he wants to hear......
been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months.
rUK and an independent Scotland.
Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
So we get to keep all of the oil, aircraft, hospitals etc Winner.
Even those crooks cannot take the roads and buildings or claim the sea
Keeping the oilfields is easy, if you don't have any assets to take them back.
Hopefully you are better at your day job , barking at best.
I am quoting two Professors - one of Economics, the other of Law....
You are confusing 'institutions' which stay with rUK, with 'assets and liabilities' which are apportioned between the two parties.
Sterling is not an 'asset' - its a monetary instrument of the UK Government.
The Bank of England is not an 'asset' - its an institution of the UK.
British Embassies are not 'assets' - they are part of the 'institution' of the UK.
But go ahead, cite a Professor of Law or Economics who shares your view......
I suggest that you are guilty of the sin which you rightly condemn. An embassy is a physical asset, and even the Diplomatic Service is merely an arm of the UK state that can be struck out at any time by the stroke of a minister's pen, unlike the simplest charity. BoE is part of the state apparatus but is also independent and it and its assets pertain to the UK as a whole. Sterling is itself part of the state apparatus just as much as anything else. The battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland are in one sense assets in terms of their equipment and training, but, in another and very important sense, are of course institutions in terms of their regimental spirit. However, at least they can be inherited as a whole by Scotland (should agreement so allow), because their loyalty is to HM the Queen and not to the PM of UK/EWNI.
Seemingly you and Mr G are going to disagree forever on whether (a) EWNI is the continuing state and Scotland is de novo, or (b) whether they are two continuing states of the UK (1707 model as modified later) which disappears on indy day. Your insistence on describing the post-independence southern portion of the UK as the continuing state of the UK doubly confounds this issue. It would be helpful if you used some such term as EWNI to refer to the rump of the UK remaining south of Carter bar on Independence day. The Treaty does, after all, refer to equal partners, and it is still in force.
One cannot pick and choose between a or b. One must pick one or the other and stick to it. The SNP have gone for b, consistently, absolutely consistently, at the very great cost of the Scottish share of debt up front (for which, incidentally, I believe that a deduction is already being made, rather oddly, from the Barnett formula, but I may be wrong here). All else is bluff and bargaining, and that will change (as so often noted here) the instant after a Yes vote and actual bargaining ), under the pressure of market and political instability, which determines which of the two is actually achieved, and in the case of b, how it is modified by e.g. swapping (what am I bid for 17% of a Trident submarine and 8.5% of the Washington DC embassy?).
Carnyx, Carlotta is deluded so not worth discussing rationally.
It is good to see Lee Rigby's killers get appropriate prison sentences. If only 45 year terms were given out more regularly for murders and sexual assaults...
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8445824.stm states we eat more or less the same amount of calories as we did under rationing. Although I wonder if the type of foodstuffs has also altered - I guess we're getting far more sugars, and eating much more processed foods.
Exercise is key, and that's where we're failing ourselves as a nation.
Come to think of it, I cannot remember even one fat boy at school.
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/the-hidden-costs-of-independence/
Yes and surprise surprise all the debt becomes the debt of the rUK, as Salmond has said many times recently. Now you are beginning to see the light.
Northern Ireland, obviously, also has other complications.
King Cole, perhaps. There's a strong drive in psychology to pathologise every little quirk and eccentricity into a syndrome or other medical issue. I know you're talking about physiology (perhaps in addition to psychological factors), but it's important for people to actually take responsibility for themselves.
Sidenote: did a spot on the exercise bike today. It's amusing that 20 minutes or so at a decent speed burns up about one and a half Kit-Kats (in calorie terms). Shows just how much is consumed by the furnace of homeostasis.
LOL, that is of Carlotta standard SO. You are sounding very confused nowadays. One thing is certain public spending will be in freefall if we remain in the UK, it will never rise and will only fall.
I must admit, the spectre of Alzheimer's and the like makes me wonder if it would be more dignified for myself and easier to bear for others if I lived an unhealthier lifestyle.
Mr. G, indeed. If Scotland took none of the debt I imagine, however, that (given the role of Scottish banks, prime ministers and chancellors) England, Wales and Northern Ireland might not view such a thing in an entirely positive fashion.
None of the four options offered by the currency commission will allow Scotland to maintain public spending at current levels in the short to medium term. A Scottish currency would offer that hope in the longer term, but the SNP leadership are seemingly opposed to that.
And Putin's "silent partnership" in Millhouse Capital?
You are right, though: Putin is not a "typically corrupt Soviet-style carpet-bagger". He's a damn sight more effective than any of the others have ever been. Of course he will never be able to spend the money himself - far too high profile. But his heirs have nothing to worry about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8445824.stm states we eat more or less the same amount of calories as we did under rationing. Although I wonder if the type of foodstuffs has also altered - I guess we're getting far more sugars, and eating much more processed foods.
Exercise is key, and that's where we're failing ourselves as a nation.
Did you watch the recent horizon programme fat vs sugar?
It seems to be a diet that is big on foods that have an equally high amount of both that cause over eating and obesity
Processed foods obv big contributor as manafacturers know that they are moreish
Adebowale gets 45 years...
Under international law Scotland can only become an independent country once there is an agreement between the rUK and Scotland.
Judge says the "sickening and pitiless conduct" in murdering Lee Rigby contrasted with the bravery of the women who tried to help him - "you butchered Lee Rigby" and went far beyond what was needed to murder him. "What the two of you did resulted in a bloodbath."
No comment.
He won;t be on general release, surely....
the suggestion Scotland might walk away from UK debt is another example of playground bluster).
And Professor Alan Tomkins
As for Scotland refusing its share of the national debt, this is basket-case economics. The debt is currently the UK’s. In order to reassure creditors (and to preserve its credit-rating) the Treasury has made plain that it will continue to honour the debt even in the event of Scottish independence. But this does not mean that Scotland would be born debt-free. On the contrary, as part of the separation negotiations the rUK would secure from Scotland an agreement to service an equitable share of the UK’s debt. There is no chance that Scotland could walk away from this obligation without punishing consequences being imposed at the hands of the international money markets.
It seems to be a diet that is big on foods that have an equally high amount of both that cause over eating and obesity
Processed foods obv big contributor as manafacturers know that they are moreish
No, I'm afraid I didn't. I blame Mrs J - she wanted to watch something else, and I probably had my nose in a book whilst she watched NCIS or some other dross. But i saw some trailers, and the conclusions seemed interesting.
Anecdotally, the relationship between exercise and weight is odd. I was already fairly fit when I set off on my long walk eleven years ago, but for the first three months my weight dropped dramatically. It levelled off over the next six months, and during summer it increased, despite doing some relatively long daily mileages. I ended up weighing the same as I did when I set off, but with thighs like German cavalry pants ...
Personally I think if Hunter had started his initiative a year ago it might have been really useful in light of the crapness and bias of the msm, however people have turned to other outlets to fill the yawning gap. I think he's missed the boat as far as providing a touchstone of objective data and information goes.
Not at HMP - Hounslow Barracks would have been a better place to perform sentence.
Sadly, its not just skin head idiots. Couple of red berets in there as well.
He should be very grateful.
the suggestion Scotland might walk away from UK debt is another example of playground bluster.
And Professor Alan Tomkins
As for Scotland refusing its share of the national debt, this is basket-case economics. The debt is currently the UK’s. In order to reassure creditors (and to preserve its credit-rating) the Treasury has made plain that it will continue to honour the debt even in the event of Scottish independence. But this does not mean that Scotland would be born debt-free. On the contrary, as part of the separation negotiations the rUK would secure from Scotland an agreement to service an equitable share of the UK’s debt. There is no chance that Scotland could walk away from this obligation without punishing consequences being imposed at the hands of the international money markets.
*innocent face*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8445824.stm states we eat more or less the same amount of calories as we did under rationing. Although I wonder if the type of foodstuffs has also altered - I guess we're getting far more sugars, and eating much more processed foods.
Exercise is key, and that's where we're failing ourselves as a nation.
I suspect heating (or lack of it) during the war, and in the immediate afterwar years, was another factor in forcing the metabolism rather than storage of calories to keep body temperature up. I don't know current thinking on the matter, though.
Indeed, it would crush both the body and the spirit utterly. There wouldn't be much left of you when you came out.
Operation Alice, which investigated the row, found evidence he passed on information to the Sun. He later provided the newspaper with a copy of PC Rowland's email describing the confrontation to his supervisors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26358662
Did you read it , nobody is walking away from anything , it states that as rUK is the successor state and it takes all the assets , as part of that it takes all the debts. You people cannot seem to grasp that fact. Simple point is 100% assets = 100% debt.
Fat is increasingly a class issue, and second only to smoking in health inequality causation. There is good evidence that exercise tolerance is a better predictor of longevity than BMI or other similar measures. No, I'm afraid I didn't. I blame Mrs J - she wanted to watch something else, and I probably had my nose in a book whilst she watched NCIS or some other dross. But i saw some trailers, and the conclusions seemed interesting.
Anecdotally, the relationship between exercise and weight is odd. I was already fairly fit when I set off on my long walk eleven years ago, but for the first three months my weight dropped dramatically. It levelled off over the next six months, and during summer it increased, despite doing some relatively long daily mileages. I ended up weighing the same as I did when I set off, but with thighs like German cavalry pants ...
So we get to keep all of the oil, aircraft, hospitals etc Winner.
The currency is not Scotland’s (and it’s not England’s either). It is the currency of the United Kingdom. If Scotland votes Yes to independence it will have voted to leave the United Kingdom: that’s exactly what “independence” means — independence from the United Kingdom. If Scotland leaves the UK it leaves the UK’s public institutions, which would become the institutions of the rest of the UK. The UK’s assets and liabilities would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland, but the pound is neither an asset nor a liability.
the suggestion Scotland might walk away from UK debt is another example of playground bluster).
And Professor Alan Tomkins
As for Scotland refusing its share of the national debt, this is basket-case economics. The debt is currently the UK’s. In order to reassure creditors (and to preserve its credit-rating) the Treasury has made plain that it will continue to honour the debt even in the event of Scottish independence. But this does not mean that Scotland would be born debt-free. On the contrary, as part of the separation negotiations the rUK would secure from Scotland an agreement to service an equitable share of the UK’s debt. There is no chance that Scotland could walk away from this obligation without punishing consequences being imposed at the hands of the international money markets.
So you are another one that believes rUK can just take all the assets but dump the debt onto Scotland, you are dreaming.
Scotland is not going to walk away. It can't. There has to be an agreement before it can become an independent country. An agreement means both sides have to agree.
The judge should have requested that they serve their time at the military prison in Colchester.
You are confusing 'institutions' which stay with rUK, with 'assets and liabilities' which are apportioned between the two parties.
Sterling is not an 'asset' - its a monetary instrument of the UK Government.
The Bank of England is not an 'asset' - its an institution of the UK.
British Embassies are not 'assets' - they are part of the 'institution' of the UK.
But go ahead, cite a Professor of Law or Economics who shares your view......
The maxim of eating breakfast like a king, lunch like a lord and dinner like a pauper is a good way to live but that's not often how many live or are able to live.
Back to politics - I'm much less convinced that IF Scotland leaves the UK it represents some kind of death-knell for Labour and I detect a large dose of wishful thinking. It's likely an English/Welsh Labour Party would recognise its need to identify with the aspirational south and change accordingly. As someone posted this morning, Blair convincingly won England in 1997 and 2001 so it can be done.
There is not any more to it than that.
Either eat less or move more.
NEXT !
But it can only work if both sides are reasonable and the agreement is equitable, at least in terms of something that the PM and FM can deliver to their respective sides. And that is the interesting bit. In theory a bloodyminded Tory, or Labour, PM could refuse to let Scotland go till it delivered a hundred youths and a hundred maidens annually as tribute to the modern Babylon. But that might be going a little too far, even by their standards.
Even those crooks cannot take the roads and buildings or claim the sea
That would be a prescient and appropriate place of sentence.
The currency is not Scotland’s (and it’s not England’s either). It is the currency of the United Kingdom. If Scotland votes Yes to independence it will have voted to leave the United Kingdom: that’s exactly what “independence” means — independence from the United Kingdom. If Scotland leaves the UK it leaves the UK’s public institutions, which would become the institutions of the rest of the UK. The UK’s assets and liabilities would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland, but the pound is neither an asset nor a liability.
Doh, the debt is not the currency , you get the assets you get the debt , even a fool knows that.
For anyone interested, the BBC have got a Network Rail document about the Dawlish breach, showing the damage done in the second storm and the work being done to reinstate the line. It also has a low-res map of alternative routes that may be created, two of which look rather like the 1937 GWR proposals, and another looks totally new.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_02_14_dawlish_jmo.pdf
The engineers are doing good work down there.
Seems a bit OTT !
Alex Salmond’s closest aide used public money to hire the wife of the man she had been having a secret affair with, the Mail can reveal today.
The SNP’s Joan McAlpine used her MSP’s allowance to employ mother-of-two Jane McLachlan as a personal photographer after she had a torrid sexual relationship with her 51-year-old husband, Mark McLachlan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568325/Alex-Salmond-aide-six-month-affair-axed-party-worker-used-public-money-pay-cheated-wife.html#ixzz2uS6jcO6X
Keeping the oilfields is easy, if you don't have any assets to take them back.
:smiley face:
Imagine being one of the prison officers having to look after lags who are on whole life sentences. Awful and potentially very dangerous.
Any attempt to claim otherwise is bluster and playground pomposity. It seems that it is only Salmond and the SNP that think the Scottish people are gullible fools. Keeping the oilfields is easy, if you don't have any assets to take them back.
"Both Labour and Conservative Party memberships are in freefall. If all those deploring where the geat parties have gone wrong were to get out there, join up and take control from the bottom up, which is what my friends and I did in the late Sixties, they could put things right. It is harder work that sitting at a computer, but it is the way forward. If you don't take it then you are consenting to what is being done by those who did."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100261368/david-cameron-cannot-admit-the-coalition-was-a-mistake-but-he-knows-it-must-be-put-out-of-its-misery/
You are confusing 'institutions' which stay with rUK, with 'assets and liabilities' which are apportioned between the two parties.
Sterling is not an 'asset' - its a monetary instrument of the UK Government.
The Bank of England is not an 'asset' - its an institution of the UK.
British Embassies are not 'assets' - they are part of the 'institution' of the UK.
But go ahead, cite a Professor of Law or Economics who shares your view......
I suggest that you are guilty of the sin which you rightly condemn. An embassy is a physical asset, and even the Diplomatic Service is merely an arm of the UK state that can be struck out at any time by the stroke of a minister's pen, unlike the simplest charity. BoE is part of the state apparatus but is also independent and it and its assets pertain to the UK as a whole. Sterling is itself part of the state apparatus just as much as anything else. The battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland are in one sense assets in terms of their equipment and training, but, in another and very important sense, are of course institutions in terms of their regimental spirit. However, at least they can be inherited as a whole by Scotland (should agreement so allow), because their loyalty is to HM the Queen and not to the PM of UK/EWNI.
Seemingly you and Mr G are going to disagree forever on whether (a) EWNI is the continuing state and Scotland is de novo, or (b) whether they are two continuing states of the UK (1707 model as modified later) which disappears on indy day. Your insistence on describing the post-independence southern portion of the UK as the continuing state of the UK doubly confounds this issue. It would be helpful if you used some such term as EWNI to refer to the rump of the UK remaining south of Carter bar on Independence day. The Treaty does, after all, refer to equal partners, and it is still in force.
One cannot pick and choose between a or b. One must pick one or the other and stick to it. The SNP have gone for b, consistently, absolutely consistently, at the very great cost of the Scottish share of debt up front (for which, incidentally, I believe that a deduction is already being made, rather oddly, from the Barnett formula, but I may be wrong here). All else is bluff and bargaining, and that will change (as so often noted here) the instant after a Yes vote and actual bargaining ), under the pressure of market and political instability, which determines which of the two is actually achieved, and in the case of b, how it is modified by e.g. swapping (what am I bid for 17% of a Trident submarine and 8.5% of the Washington DC embassy?).
Hopefully you are better at your day job , barking at best.
Seemingly you and Mr G are going to disagree forever on whether (a) EWNI is the continuing state and Scotland is de novo, or (b) whether they are two continuing states of the UK (1707 model as modified later) which disappears on indy day. Your insistence on describing the post-independence southern portion of the UK as the continuing state of the UK doubly confounds this issue. It would be helpful if you used some such term as EWNI to refer to the rump of the UK remaining south of Carter bar on Independence day. The Treaty does, after all, refer to equal partners, and it is still in force.
One cannot pick and choose between a or b. One must pick one or the other and stick to it. The SNP have gone for b, consistently, absolutely consistently, at the very great cost of the Scottish share of debt up front (for which, incidentally, I believe that a deduction is already being made, rather oddly, from the Barnett formula, but I may be wrong here). All else is bluff and bargaining, and that will change (as so often noted here) the instant after a Yes vote and actual bargaining ), under the pressure of market and political instability, which determines which of the two is actually achieved, and in the case of b, how it is modified by e.g. swapping (what am I bid for 17% of a Trident submarine and 8.5% of the Washington DC embassy?).
Carnyx, Carlotta is deluded so not worth discussing rationally.