Given that institutions are "assets" according to Alex Salmond, surely Scotland should get their "share" of all assets of the United Kingdom. It could continue to share the Bank of England, the UK armed forces, the Foreign Office, the UK parliament....
Oh wait, institutions aren't assets and he's an idiot.
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.
Mr G & my opinions are neither here nor there (unless Mr G is a closet Constitutional Lawyer with hitherto obscured expertise).
Do post an academic opinion which supports (b) - and if you can, explain why the SNP has not deployed it......The UK Government has consistently claimed (a) - the Scottish Government spent tens of thousands of pounds pretending it had opinion to support (b) - but it turned out it didn't....
Ive had my say on the murderers of Lee Rigby a long time ago, but I would be interested to hear the argument from anyone who thinks four years is sufficient for this lowlife
Those were the figures from the last of my three links. It maybe that as men tend to be more physically acive already that there is less to be gained by more. Many women (white Dee?) start near zero so more to gain.
Of couse obesity and poor exercise tolerance are correlated, but the evidence is that obese people with good exercise tolerance have life expectancy not far from their slimmer peers, and both have better longevity than those fat or thin with poor exercise tolerance.
Just because Scotland would be a new state doesn't mean it can avoid it's share of debt. If the new state is given assets by the UK (and by assets, I mean actual assets, as by the definition of the word), then it gets the same share of debt. You don't get to unilaterally decide what chunk of UK assets and liabilities you get to take and what you can leave.
Ive had my say on the murderers of Lee Rigby a long time ago, but I would be interested to hear the argument from anyone who thinks four years is sufficient for this lowlife
Ive had my say on the murderers of Lee Rigby a long time ago, but I would be interested to hear the argument from anyone who thinks four years is sufficient for this lowlife
"Lucky punch" cases are really difficult. The consequences of the action were out of all proportion to the action itself. It's very doubtful that the defendant intended to kill the victim. What sentence do you think is appropriate for causing death by dangerous driving?
On the other hand, I can completely understand the deep distress caused to the family.
Do we sentence on the basis of risk to society, wickedness of the act or the consequences? Each approach will produce a different answer.
I expect the defendant wasn't a charmer. But we can't set sentences on that basis alone.
Summary: it's hard and I'm firmly on the fence on this one.
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.
Do post an academic opinion which supports (b) - and if you can, explain why the SNP has not deployed it......The UK Government has consistently claimed (a) - the Scottish Government spent tens of thousands of pounds pretending it had opinion to support (b) - but it turned out it didn't....
I am not aware of any such statement as you suggest in your last sentence and I think you are confusing it with something else - which was nonsense anyway (and remember that the unionists have wasted far, far more public money on [edit: such things as] trying to prove that Mr Salmond didn't pay for his own biscuits and teabags when having SNP members to tea in Bute House).
On the first point, it is an academic issue, if you'll pardon my expression, as for many practical purposes the two options are indistinguishable - for instance, the Foreign Office will continue to operate out of wherever it hangs out on Whitehall, and EWNI will still operate the Washington Embassy in its current location. Of course they will, given the numerical disparities in population. I imagine also that EWNI will try to retain its nukes, its seat in the Security Council, and so on.
The critical area is in the separation agreement and as the SNP are already offering to go for one option they hardly need to pay an extra money for a legal option when it's gong to be expensive enough as it is, even with a share of the QE instruments in the Bank of England.
On the horse behind the saddle is the soldier's valise. On the end of the valise you can (just about) see the letters D, R, B, and N.
Two fun quiz questions for our Nats.
1/ What is the correct order of those letters? 2/ What do they stand for?
No prize, I'm afraid.
It's something that historical colleagues unfamiliar to Scottish history find confusing when they find letters with the writers seemingly saying "Nota Bene" after every address ... At least the Scots tried to join in the Union. Why the southerners never did call themselves South Britain is a mystery ...
Just because Scotland would be a new state doesn't mean it can avoid it's share of debt. If the new state is given assets by the UK (and by assets, I mean actual assets, as by the definition of the word), then it gets the same share of debt. You don't get to unilaterally decide what chunk of UK assets and liabilities you get to take and what you can leave.
Course we don't. Absolutely not. But it has to be agreed by both sides. In any case ...
Ukraine leaves USSR - no debts, just has whatever is on its soil.
On the horse behind the saddle is the soldier's valise. On the end of the valise you can (just about) see the letters D, R, B, and N.
Two fun quiz questions for our Nats.
1/ What is the correct order of those letters? 2/ What do they stand for?
No prize, I'm afraid.
It's something that historical colleagues unfamiliar to Scottish history find confusing when they find letters with the writers seemingly saying "Nota Bene" after every address ... At least the Scots tried to join in the Union. Why the southerners never did call themselves South Britain is a mystery ...
For the same reason that no one ever refers to Athens as the Edinburgh of the South.
Ive had my say on the murderers of Lee Rigby a long time ago, but I would be interested to hear the argument from anyone who thinks four years is sufficient for this lowlife
I don't know the facts of the case, but the judge would have been obliged to reduce the sentence by a third as a result of the guilty plea. So he would have taken six years as a starting point. The Court of Appeal gave guidance on one-punch manslaughter cases in Attorney General's Reference Nos 60, 62 and 63 of 2009 [2010] 2 Cr App R(S) 46, which binds the Crown Court. In one of the cases before the court (Bryan), the sentence was increased to five years after a guilty plea, (i.e. seven and a half years if the trial had been contested). However, in that case, the violence extended to more than one punch. The Judge in the instant case may have thought accordingly that a reduction of a quarter from the sentence imposed on Byran by the Court of Appeal was justified given that the violence of the offender he was sentencing consisted of only the single punch. Judges in the Crown Court are bound by authority and cannot depart from it.
Somerset Cybernats Wings Over Scotland make their crowdfunding target of £53k in just over 8 hours (plus a one-off donation of £10k); must be close to a record if these things are recorded. Thanks to all PBers for their contributions.
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.
Do post an academic opinion which supports (b) - and if you can, explain why the SNP has not deployed it......The UK Government has consistently claimed (a) - the Scottish Government spent tens of thousands of pounds pretending it had opinion to support (b) - but it turned out it didn't....
I am not aware of any such statement as you suggest in your last sentence and I think you are confusing it with something else - which was nonsense anyway (and remember that the unionists have wasted far, far more public money on trying to prove that Mr Salmond didn't pay for his own biscuits and teabags when having SNP members to tea in Bute House).
On the first point, it is an academic issue, if you'll pardon my expression, as for many practical purposes the two options are indistinguishable - for instance, the Foreign Office will continue to operate out of wherever it hangs out on Whitehall, and EWNI will still operate the Washington Embassy in its current location. Of course they will, given the numerical disparities in population. I imagine also that EWNI will try to retain its nukes, its seat in the Security Council, and so on.
The critical area is in the separation agreement and as the SNP are already offering to go for one option they hardly need to pay an extra money for a legal option when it's gong to be expensive enough as it is, even with a share of the QE instruments in the Bank of England.
In international law, both sides have to agree before Scotland can become an independent country. Everything else is just detail. The issue is how you get to an agreement when one side can live with things as they are and the other cannot. What bargaining tools does Scotland have? In practice, the Scots will be almost entirely dependent on the goodwill of the rUK side. And that essentially means an agreement the rUK dictates.
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......
To be fair, though, the BoE FX reserves and the real estate used as embassies has a monetary value. So although it makes no sense for Scotland to receive a portion of those organisations, the monetary value should be considered as part of the overall division of assets
On the horse behind the saddle is the soldier's valise. On the end of the valise you can (just about) see the letters D, R, B, and N.
Two fun quiz questions for our Nats.
1/ What is the correct order of those letters? 2/ What do they stand for?
No prize, I'm afraid.
It's something that historical colleagues unfamiliar to Scottish history find confusing when they find letters with the writers seemingly saying "Nota Bene" after every address ... At least the Scots tried to join in the Union. Why the southerners never did call themselves South Britain is a mystery ...
For the same reason that no one ever refers to Athens as the Edinburgh of the South.
No good. The one came chronologically before the other ,,,
Ive had my say on the murderers of Lee Rigby a long time ago, but I would be interested to hear the argument from anyone who thinks four years is sufficient for this lowlife
"Lucky punch" cases are really difficult. The consequences of the action were out of all proportion to the action itself. It's very doubtful that the defendant intended to kill the victim. What sentence do you think is appropriate for causing death by dangerous driving?
On the other hand, I can completely understand the deep distress caused to the family.
Do we sentence on the basis of risk to society, wickedness of the act or the consequences? Each approach will produce a different answer.
I expect the defendant wasn't a charmer. But we can't set sentences on that basis alone.
Summary: it's hard and I'm firmly on the fence on this one.
I think the sentence is being reviewed on the back of complaints from the public
Do we take into account the victims mental illness? I guess the guy that killed him couldn't have been sure of that, but to say he thought he might pull a gun seems a bit frivolous
I don't think you have to take the defendants personality into account too much. I don't think of myself as a bad person at all, but if I punched a mentally challenged person in broad daylight for any reason other than self defence, I would then be a bad person no matter what
In international law, both sides have to agree before Scotland can become an independent country. Everything else is just detail.
I don't think that is true; the principle of the right to self-determination is fundamental to international law. The correct position is: in international law, the Scots have an unfettered and unconditional right to independence if that is what they want. Agreement with anyone on anything is just detail.
The Edinburgh of the South is surely the delightful city of Dunedin in New Zealand, it even has a statue of Burns in its central "square" the Octagon: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin
Better climate than the one in the north of Britain, and I am told more pipe bands also.
On the horse behind the saddle is the soldier's valise. On the end of the valise you can (just about) see the letters D, R, B, and N.
Two fun quiz questions for our Nats.
1/ What is the correct order of those letters? 2/ What do they stand for?
No prize, I'm afraid.
It's something that historical colleagues unfamiliar to Scottish history find confusing when they find letters with the writers seemingly saying "Nota Bene" after every address ... At least the Scots tried to join in the Union. Why the southerners never did call themselves South Britain is a mystery ...
For the same reason that no one ever refers to Athens as the Edinburgh of the South.
In international law, both sides have to agree before Scotland can become an independent country. Everything else is just detail.
I don't think that is true; the principle of the right to self-determination is fundamental to international law. The correct position is: in international law, the Scots have an unfettered and unconditional right to independence if that is what they want. Agreement with anyone on anything is just detail.
In reality, nothing in international law is ever quite that simple.
"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.
I'm quite politically aware but I really don't see the benefits of joining any political party. What benefits, if any, are there to membership?
Back in the day one grandfather was a small businessman and used to go to the Con club where he lived a lot. It was no doubt good for networking and so on. My other grandfather used to go to the working man's club, which I guess had ties with Labour.
It seems that the benefits there were to party membership have largely disappeared.
Somerset Cybernats Wings Over Scotland make their crowdfunding target of £53k in just over 8 hours (plus a one-off donation of £10k); must be close to a record if these things are recorded. Thanks to all PBers for their contributions.
Ive had my say on the murderers of Lee Rigby a long time ago, but I would be interested to hear the argument from anyone who thinks four years is sufficient for this lowlife
"Lucky punch" cases are really difficult. The consequences of the action were out of all proportion to the action itself. It's very doubtful that the defendant intended to kill the victim. What sentence do you think is appropriate for causing death by dangerous driving?
On the other hand, I can completely understand the deep distress caused to the family.
Do we sentence on the basis of risk to society, wickedness of the act or the consequences? Each approach will produce a different answer.
I expect the defendant wasn't a charmer. But we can't set sentences on that basis alone.
Summary: it's hard and I'm firmly on the fence on this one.
I think the sentence is being reviewed on the back of complaints from the public
Do we take into account the victims mental illness? I guess the guy that killed him couldn't have been sure of that, but to say he thought he might pull a gun seems a bit frivolous
I don't think you have to take the defendants personality into account too much. I don't think of myself as a bad person at all, but if I punched a mentally challenged person in broad daylight for any reason other than self defence, I would then be a bad person no matter what
Sure, but what kind of bad person.
Many people have thrown punches on the street, with varying levels of provocation.
Are they not as bad as Gill because they were luckier in the consequences of their similar actions?
In international law, both sides have to agree before Scotland can become an independent country. Everything else is just detail.
I don't think that is true; the principle of the right to self-determination is fundamental to international law. The correct position is: in international law, the Scots have an unfettered and unconditional right to independence if that is what they want. Agreement with anyone on anything is just detail.
In reality, nothing in international law is ever quite that simple.
True, and international law is a pretendy construct anyway because of lack of sanctions. But self-determination does make it into Art. 1 of the UN Charter.
"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.
To carry that metaphor on, that they're not buying CDs doesn't mean they're not interested in music.
Ive had my say on the murderers of Lee Rigby a long time ago, but I would be interested to hear the argument from anyone who thinks four years is sufficient for this lowlife
"Lucky punch" cases are really difficult. The consequences of the action were out of all proportion to the action itself. It's very doubtful that the defendant intended to kill the victim. What sentence do you think is appropriate for causing death by dangerous driving?
On the other hand, I can completely understand the deep distress caused to the family.
Do we sentence on the basis of risk to society, wickedness of the act or the consequences? Each approach will produce a different answer.
I expect the defendant wasn't a charmer. But we can't set sentences on that basis alone.
Summary: it's hard and I'm firmly on the fence on this one.
I think the sentence is being reviewed on the back of complaints from the public
Do we take into account the victims mental illness? I guess the guy that killed him couldn't have been sure of that, but to say he thought he might pull a gun seems a bit frivolous
I don't think you have to take the defendants personality into account too much. I don't think of myself as a bad person at all, but if I punched a mentally challenged person in broad daylight for any reason other than self defence, I would then be a bad person no matter what
Sure, but what kind of bad person.
Many people have thrown punches on the street, with varying levels of provocation.
Are they not as bad as Gill because they were luckier in the consequences of their similar actions?
Im not claiming to have the answer but I would think the level of provocation and the size/mental capacity/sex of the victim should be factors also
Don't think it can get much worse than this one really.. the footage is on the news and he was not provoked at all
In international law, both sides have to agree before Scotland can become an independent country. Everything else is just detail.
I don't think that is true; the principle of the right to self-determination is fundamental to international law. The correct position is: in international law, the Scots have an unfettered and unconditional right to independence if that is what they want. Agreement with anyone on anything is just detail.
The problem is when that unfettered right runs up against realpolitik. Scotland's alternatives are: (1) unilaterally declaring independence, with all the disastrous consequences that entails - forfeiture of all UK assets, trade sanctions, inability to access financial markets, exclusion from all international bodies etc; or (2) negotiating a separation agreement with the rUK. And that's it.
Im not claiming to have the answer but I would think the level of provocation and the size/mental capacity/sex of the victim should be factors also
Don't think it can get much worse than this one really.. the footage is on the news and he was not provoked at all
The issue is less provocation but intention. The defendant did not intend to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. He falls to be sentenced on that basis.
"Lucky punch" cases are really difficult. The consequences of the action were out of all proportion to the action itself. It's very doubtful that the defendant intended to kill the victim. What sentence do you think is appropriate for causing death by dangerous driving?
On the other hand, I can completely understand the deep distress caused to the family.
Do we sentence on the basis of risk to society, wickedness of the act or the consequences? Each approach will produce a different answer.
I expect the defendant wasn't a charmer. But we can't set sentences on that basis alone.
Summary: it's hard and I'm firmly on the fence on this one.
Wot he said: Guilty-plea for man-slaughter: Maybe the CPS are becoming more effective? Or maybe, if he was a 'convert', Keir-today-no-sentence-ever...?
In international law, both sides have to agree before Scotland can become an independent country. Everything else is just detail.
I don't think that is true; the principle of the right to self-determination is fundamental to international law. The correct position is: in international law, the Scots have an unfettered and unconditional right to independence if that is what they want. Agreement with anyone on anything is just detail.
The problem is when that unfettered right runs up against realpolitik. Scotland's alternatives are: (1) unilaterally declaring independence, with all the disastrous consequences that entails - forfeiture of all UK assets, trade sanctions, inability to access financial markets, exclusion from all international bodies etc; or (2) negotiating a separation agreement with the rUK. And that's it.
Yes, but faced with a Yes vote and that unfettered right rUK won't be in a position to play unlimited hardball in negotiations. I imagine we may end up with some sort of supranational conciliation and mediation commission to sort out the details.
The Edinburgh of the South is surely the delightful city of Dunedin in New Zealand, it even has a statue of Burns in its central "square" the Octagon: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin
Better climate than the one in the north of Britain, and I am told more pipe bands also.
On the horse behind the saddle is the soldier's valise. On the end of the valise you can (just about) see the letters D, R, B, and N.
Two fun quiz questions for our Nats.
1/ What is the correct order of those letters? 2/ What do they stand for?
No prize, I'm afraid.
It's something that historical colleagues unfamiliar to Scottish history find confusing when they find letters with the writers seemingly saying "Nota Bene" after every address ... At least the Scots tried to join in the Union. Why the southerners never did call themselves South Britain is a mystery ...
For the same reason that no one ever refers to Athens as the Edinburgh of the South.
To be fair, though, the BoE FX reserves and the real estate used as embassies has a monetary value. So although it makes no sense for Scotland to receive a portion of those organisations, the monetary value should be considered as part of the overall division of assets
And Scots' banknotes are underwritten by PLCs: And therefore their share-holders should have BoE protection from eejit rapacious Scots' politicians? So that is a 50% devaluation* come the - welcomed feck-orf - Scots' Independence-Day, no?
:to-share-or-bleat-ask-the-scots-nats-sheep:
* Assets are English (with pocket-money for the Welch and the Ulster-Sctos)....
"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."
In international law, both sides have to agree before Scotland can become an independent country. Everything else is just detail.
I don't think that is true; the principle of the right to self-determination is fundamental to international law. The correct position is: in international law, the Scots have an unfettered and unconditional right to independence if that is what they want. Agreement with anyone on anything is just detail.
The problem is when that unfettered right runs up against realpolitik. Scotland's alternatives are: (1) unilaterally declaring independence, with all the disastrous consequences that entails - forfeiture of all UK assets, trade sanctions, inability to access financial markets, exclusion from all international bodies etc; or (2) negotiating a separation agreement with the rUK. And that's it.
So the nats get indy because they've wheeled out the Osborne bogeyman and the first thing they have to do is negotiate with the Osborne bogeyman with all that goodwill.
I sometimes get the feeling they've not really thought this through.
In international law, both sides have to agree before Scotland can become an independent country. Everything else is just detail.
I don't think that is true; the principle of the right to self-determination is fundamental to international law. The correct position is: in international law, the Scots have an unfettered and unconditional right to independence if that is what they want. Agreement with anyone on anything is just detail.
The problem is when that unfettered right runs up against realpolitik. Scotland's alternatives are: (1) unilaterally declaring independence, with all the disastrous consequences that entails - forfeiture of all UK assets, trade sanctions, inability to access financial markets, exclusion from all international bodies etc; or (2) negotiating a separation agreement with the rUK. And that's it.
Yes, but faced with a Yes vote and that unfettered right rUK won't be in a position to play unlimited hardball in negotiations. I imagine we may end up with some sort of supranational conciliation and mediation commission to sort out the details.
Only if both sides agree. You cannot force conciliation and mediation on anyone. And there will be internal political calls to make before going ahead - will it be binding and/or will it have to be approved by referendum in both Scotland and the rUK, for example? But if we do end up with that, we are talking about a process that is going to last for a very long time. That won't be an issue for the putative rUK, of course - although it could become one if the SNP holds the balance of power at Westminster.
In international law, both sides have to agree before Scotland can become an independent country. Everything else is just detail.
I don't think that is true; the principle of the right to self-determination is fundamental to international law. The correct position is: in international law, the Scots have an unfettered and unconditional right to independence if that is what they want. Agreement with anyone on anything is just detail.
The problem is when that unfettered right runs up against realpolitik. Scotland's alternatives are: (1) unilaterally declaring independence, with all the disastrous consequences that entails - forfeiture of all UK assets, trade sanctions, inability to access financial markets, exclusion from all international bodies etc; or (2) negotiating a separation agreement with the rUK. And that's it.
So the nats get indy because they've wheeled out the Osborne bogeyman and the first thing they have to do is negotiate with the Osborne bogeyman with all that goodwill.
I sometimes get the feeling they've not really thought this through.
The ones who believe Scotland should have its own currency have thought it through. The rest have either not bothered, or have but don't like the consequences. My guess is that it's the latter mostly - at least among the SNP leadership.
Get plenty of exercise on youf travels. I tracked down this link on exercise vs weight for those who are interested. Overweight people often find exercise difficult, but swimming tends to be a good place to start as fat makes for bouyancy.
In international law, both sides have to agree before Scotland can become an independent country. Everything else is just detail.
I don't think that is true; the principle of the right to self-determination is fundamental to international law. The correct position is: in international law, the Scots have an unfettered and unconditional right to independence if that is what they want. Agreement with anyone on anything is just detail.
The problem is when that unfettered right runs up against realpolitik. Scotland's alternatives are: (1) unilaterally declaring independence, with all the disastrous consequences that entails - forfeiture of all UK assets, trade sanctions, inability to access financial markets, exclusion from all international bodies etc; or (2) negotiating a separation agreement with the rUK. And that's it.
So the nats get indy because they've wheeled out the Osborne bogeyman and the first thing they have to do is negotiate with the Osborne bogeyman with all that goodwill.
I sometimes get the feeling they've not really thought this through.
The ones who believe Scotland should have its own currency have thought it through. The rest have either not bothered, or have but don't like the consequences. My guess is that it's the latter mostly - at least among the SNP leadership.
Yup. I've always said issue their own currency, but as you say it'll frighten the voters.
I assume the 4% saying neither are Nats blaming the English?
At that level of response? Far too many to be SNP or even pro-indy types. Forbye the SNP would be far more likely to blame Labour and the Tories together. More likely to be people thinking of the City bankers.
Could be Telegraph readers, PB Unionists & Heffer fans blaming it all on Salmond for his three line 'Yours for Scotland' note to Goodwin?
Wait till you see the awesome fund raising power of the scottish tory surger old biddies and the yellow tories. (Assuming they can find someone who isn't embroiled in fraud and arms deals investigations.)
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
I assume the 4% saying neither are Nats blaming the English?
At that level of response? Far too many to be SNP or even pro-indy types. Forbye the SNP would be far more likely to blame Labour and the Tories together. More likely to be people thinking of the City bankers.
Could be Telegraph readers, PB Unionists & Heffer fans blaming it all on Salmond for his three line 'Yours for Scotland' note to Goodwin?
Wait till you see the awesome fund raising power of the scottish tory surger old biddies and the yellow tories. (Assuming they can find someone who isn't embroiled in fraud and arms deals investigations.)
Although as a Liberal Party agent in the 70's I was told I was spending the last of the Lloyd George "fund" I feel disgusted at some of the activities of Clegg (and I suspect Rennard's) LibDems.
I suppose it's the Greens or NOTA in 2014 & 2015.
Just maybe the LibDems, though, because they're the only genuinely pro-EU party. Round here, anyway.
That's bound to help. Clearly he's thought this through. Maybe they should send Osbrowne and the fop over to tell them what's what?
*chortle*
It is illegal as under the Spanish constitution, which the Catalans backed by a huge majority in a referendum in 1978, Spain is an indivisible territory. In any case, the solution to the Catalan problem is a change of Madrid government away.
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
We should leave it as one of the assets in the divorce. :-)
where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign
It's tougher to present a positive case for voting 'no' anyway. But when the people who have taken on the role of advocating for 'no' cant agree on what that positive case is then it's more difficult still. In the end people arent asked their reasons for voting 'yes' or 'no' though.
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
They're scraping the bottom of the barrel these days to be sure.
Next thing you know the scottish tory surgers and yellow tories will be dumb enough to think just because Cammie and Osbrowne say it must mean it's true.
I assume the 4% saying neither are Nats blaming the English?
At that level of response? Far too many to be SNP or even pro-indy types. Forbye the SNP would be far more likely to blame Labour and the Tories together. More likely to be people thinking of the City bankers.
Could be Telegraph readers, PB Unionists & Heffer fans blaming it all on Salmond for his three line 'Yours for Scotland' note to Goodwin?
Wait till you see the awesome fund raising power of the scottish tory surger old biddies and the yellow tories. (Assuming they can find someone who isn't embroiled in fraud and arms deals investigations.)
Although as a Liberal Party agent in the 70's I was told I was spending the last of the Lloyd George "fund" I feel disgusted at some of the activities of Clegg (and I suspect Rennard's) LibDems.
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
They're scraping the bottom of the barrel these days to be sure.
Next thing you know the scottish tory surgers and yellow tories will be dumb enough to think just because Cammie and Osbrowne say it must mean it's true.
No no Mick we all believe Salmond because his promises are just so credible.
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
Agreed - it's a silly thing to say, though why the Scots would want to keep the BBC is a puzzle, as nationalists consistently tell us how the Scots are becoming less and less like everyone else in Britain.
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.
Judging by his article on Comment is Free, Peter Hain would think he merits immunity from prosecution.
"... where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign ..."
I dunno, I never hear any. No reason why I should of course, not being in Scotland and all. I suppose it is possible that nobody can think of any positive reasons why the Union should remain, I certainly can't from the English perspective.
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
I'm sure a lot of English folk would like to give us the bloody thing for free.
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
Agreed - it's a silly thing to say, though why the Scots would want to keep the BBC is a puzzle, as nationalists consistently tell us how the Scots are becoming less and less like everyone else in Britain.
The story is a lot of mince for all sorts of reasons. Does nothing to encourage the No Campaign to be taken seriously. Never mind Ms Miller.
if the BBC is owned by the state then we'd expect a share of the assets (or just the bits on Scots soil, though as I believe they have been sold off to commercial companies for lease back, we need not worry about them).
Future progs would have to be bought in and so on, of course. But that is PERFECTLY NORMAL and as much of the comment elsewhere has pointed out, lots of people in other countries get the BBC for free anyway.
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
Agreed - it's a silly thing to say, though why the Scots would want to keep the BBC is a puzzle, as nationalists consistently tell us how the Scots are becoming less and less like everyone else in Britain.
I am confident that Scotland would end up with a replacement lefty-groupthink top-heavy biased broadcaster with a pay-up-or-go-to-jail method of funding pretty soon after independence anyway.
In fact, they should just take the whole of the existing one with them and save a sensible rUK government the hassle of privatising it.
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
So that's a nailed on guaranteed present to each Scottish household of £145.50 a year, and rising, for voting Yes.
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
Agreed - it's a silly thing to say, though why the Scots would want to keep the BBC is a puzzle, as nationalists consistently tell us how the Scots are becoming less and less like everyone else in Britain.
The story is a lot of mince for all sorts of reasons. Does nothing to encourage the No Campaign to be taken seriously. Never mind Ms Miller.
if the BBC is owned by the state then we'd expect a share of the assets (or just the bits on Scots soil, though as I believe they have been sold off to commercial companies for lease back, we need not worry about them).
Future progs would have to be bought in and so on, of course. But that is PERFECTLY NORMAL and as much of the comment elsewhere has pointed out, lots of people in other countries get the BBC for free anyway.
Seems perfectly reasonable for BBC Scotland property and locations to be transferred to a new national broadcaster, if that's what the Scots want. This looks like one of the easier parts of the negotiation.
1.6 milions people participated in a 300mi human chain for Catalan independence in 2013 #CatalansWantToVote #MWC14 http://ow.ly/tQZ7K
They must all be nasty and odious nationalists. Certainly not the type that yellow tories would deign to respect.
That's the highest number I have seen for the chain. It means that a large majority of Catalans did not take part, of course.
I do indeed have very little respect for nationalism as a political creed. But there are plenty of very pleasant Catalan nationalists, a number of whom are my friends.
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
Agreed - it's a silly thing to say, though why the Scots would want to keep the BBC is a puzzle, as nationalists consistently tell us how the Scots are becoming less and less like everyone else in Britain.
The story is a lot of mince for all sorts of reasons. Does nothing to encourage the No Campaign to be taken seriously. Never mind Ms Miller.
if the BBC is owned by the state then we'd expect a share of the assets (or just the bits on Scots soil, though as I believe they have been sold off to commercial companies for lease back, we need not worry about them).
Future progs would have to be bought in and so on, of course. But that is PERFECTLY NORMAL and as much of the comment elsewhere has pointed out, lots of people in other countries get the BBC for free anyway.
It's also going to be crunch time for the BBC next charter renewal which is due 2016 I think. Doesn't matter who is in power at westminster as the BBC are a dinosaur when it comes to funding and content delivery methods. Having an iPlayer does not constitute a compelling reason to keep a frankly archaic and bizarre method of payment for content across a myriad of platforms. They'll be moving to some kind of freemium service soon enough with an ever smaller chunk of the license fee being used as that is eventually phased out. What party leader wouldn't want to have an election promise to slash the license fee? Technology is what was always going to force real change on the bloated and incompetent BBC bureaucracy as the way TV is watched now has changed beyond all recognition. Particularly for the younger generations.
I do indeed have very little respect for nationalism as a political creed.
You can imagine just how seriously any nationalist would take that 'respect' from a supporter of unprincipled and despised yellow tories like calamity Clegg.
I do indeed have very little respect for nationalism as a political creed.
You can imagine just how seriously any nationalist would take that 'respect' from a supporter of unprincipled and despised yellow tories like calamity Clegg.
I do indeed have very little respect for nationalism as a political creed.
You can imagine just how seriously any nationalist would take that 'respect' from a supporter of unprincipled and despised yellow tories like calamity Clegg.
@nick_clegg not sure what planet you're on food bank figures say so much.You are robbing the poor to feed the rich.#indecent #openyoureyes
Or indeed Romney.
LOL
Don't tell fibs about me being a Romney or Clegg supporter Mick. You can do better than that.
You were the sites foremost PB Romney whether you like it or not and calamity Clegg is the leader of the lib dem yellow tories whether you like it or not.
Your somewhat rabid attitude to Independence is amusing though it is of course of no consequence whatsoever. Your assertions are no more convincing than Cammie or Osborne's and certainly no more convincing to the scottish public. The fact that you don't seem to have a clue that there is such a thing as BritNats or Spanish nationalists speaks for itself. Scottish nationalism bad, Brit nationalism good, is that it?
I do indeed have very little respect for nationalism as a political creed.
You can imagine just how seriously any nationalist would take that 'respect' from a supporter of unprincipled and despised yellow tories like calamity Clegg.
@nick_clegg not sure what planet you're on food bank figures say so much.You are robbing the poor to feed the rich.#indecent #openyoureyes
Or indeed Romney.
LOL
Don't tell fibs about me being a Romney or Clegg supporter Mick. You can do better than that.
You were the sites foremost PB Romney whether you like it or not and calamity Clegg is the leader of the lib dem yellow tories whether you like it or not.
Your somewhat rabid attitude to Independence is amusing though it is of course of no consequence whatsoever. Your assertions are no more convincing than Cammie or Osborne's and certainly no more convincing to the scottish public. The fact that you don't seem to have a clue that there is such a thing as BritNats or Spanish nationalists speaks for itself. Scottish nationalism bad, Brit nationalism good, is that it?
Riiiiight.
Nope - I dislike British and Spanish nationalism too. And thinking Romney was going to win did not make me a supporter. And I am not a LibDem. I understand that you prefer to play the man rather than engage with the issues, but if you're going to do that it's best not to fib.
I do indeed have very little respect for nationalism as a political creed.
You can imagine just how seriously any nationalist would take that 'respect' from a supporter of unprincipled and despised yellow tories like calamity Clegg.
@nick_clegg not sure what planet you're on food bank figures say so much.You are robbing the poor to feed the rich.#indecent #openyoureyes
Or indeed Romney.
LOL
Don't tell fibs about me being a Romney or Clegg supporter Mick. You can do better than that.
You were the sites foremost PB Romney whether you like it or not and calamity Clegg is the leader of the lib dem yellow tories whether you like it or not.
Your somewhat rabid attitude to Independence is amusing though it is of course of no consequence whatsoever. Your assertions are no more convincing than Cammie or Osborne's and certainly no more convincing to the scottish public. The fact that you don't seem to have a clue that there is such a thing as BritNats or Spanish nationalists speaks for itself. Scottish nationalism bad, Brit nationalism good, is that it?
I do indeed have very little respect for nationalism as a political creed.
You can imagine just how seriously any nationalist would take that 'respect' from a supporter of unprincipled and despised yellow tories like calamity Clegg.
@nick_clegg not sure what planet you're on food bank figures say so much.You are robbing the poor to feed the rich.#indecent #openyoureyes
Or indeed Romney.
LOL
Don't tell fibs about me being a Romney or Clegg supporter Mick. You can do better than that.
You were the sites foremost PB Romney whether you like it or not and calamity Clegg is the leader of the lib dem yellow tories whether you like it or not.
Your somewhat rabid attitude to Independence is amusing though it is of course of no consequence whatsoever. Your assertions are no more convincing than Cammie or Osborne's and certainly no more convincing to the scottish public. The fact that you don't seem to have a clue that there is such a thing as BritNats or Spanish nationalists speaks for itself. Scottish nationalism bad, Brit nationalism good, is that it?
Riiiiight.
And I am not a LibDem.
ROFL
That's a very peculiar response. Perhaps you're embarrassed by your fibs.
I do indeed have very little respect for nationalism as a political creed.
You can imagine just how seriously any nationalist would take that 'respect' from a supporter of unprincipled and despised yellow tories like calamity Clegg.
@nick_clegg not sure what planet you're on food bank figures say so much.You are robbing the poor to feed the rich.#indecent #openyoureyes
Or indeed Romney.
LOL
Don't tell fibs about me being a Romney or Clegg supporter Mick. You can do better than that.
You were the sites foremost PB Romney whether you like it or not and calamity Clegg is the leader of the lib dem yellow tories whether you like it or not.
Your somewhat rabid attitude to Independence is amusing though it is of course of no consequence whatsoever. Your assertions are no more convincing than Cammie or Osborne's and certainly no more convincing to the scottish public. The fact that you don't seem to have a clue that there is such a thing as BritNats or Spanish nationalists speaks for itself. Scottish nationalism bad, Brit nationalism good, is that it?
Riiiiight.
And I am not a LibDem.
ROFL
That's a very peculiar response. Perhaps you're embarrassed by your fibs.
Why would I be proud of a political philosophy I dislike?
Someone who was whining about nasty Catalan nationalists sounds exactly like a Spanish nationalist to me and I suspect anyone not fooled by your constant evasion and attempts to portray yourself as some kind of ludicrous impartial observer. You're not and you made a complete fool of yourself on PB over Romney. So we can safely discard your predictions and analysis in the bin along with your barely concealed hatred of the very idea of Independence.
So by all means keep fibbing if you think it makes your whining any more credible.
Why would I be proud of a political philosophy I dislike?
Someone who was whining about nasty Catalan nationalists sounds exactly like a Spanish nationalist to me and I suspect anyone not fooled by your constant evasion and attempts to portray yourself as some kind of ludicrous impartial observer. You're not and you made a complete fool of yourself on PB over Romney. So we can safely discard your predictions and analysis in the bin along with your barely concealed hatred of the very idea of Independence.
So by all means keep fibbing if you think it makes your whining any more credible.
So, to summarise: you have lied about me being a Romney supporter; lied about me being a LibDem; lied about me claiming to be an impartial observer; and lied about me being a Spanish nationalist. All this while proving incapable of being able to engage with any issues. I do understand you have a need to attack those whose views you don't share, but if you're going to do that it's probably best not to dissemble so obviously.
Did you vote for them in 2010 or not? If not why on earth do you keep posting on here since you have no clear political beliefs or party? Though to be fair that sounds an ideal philosophy for a Clegg supporter too embarrassed to admit it.
All this while proving incapable of being able to engage with any issues.
What issues would these be? All you ever seem to do is repeat feeble assertions given by Cammie and Osbrowne over Independence and currency while perpetuating some laughably pompous belief that what they say must be true - in the precise same manner you swept aside all those who were laughing at your completely unfounded belief that Romney was going to win
I do understand you have a need to attack those whose views you don't share, but if you're going to do that it's probably best not to dissemble so obviously.
Don't be so hypocritical chum. Whining about lies as you pile on the BritNat spin over independence just makes you look an even bigger fool than your Romney stupidity did.
Nice to see a Spanish nationalist like yourself couldn't even manage to criticise the revolting and undemocratic possibility of the Spanish army and police 'sorting out' Catalan Independence. Speaks volumes.
As far as political opponents go even the scottish tory surgers are more formidable than you
Assertions are all you have just like your heroically stupid assertion that Romney would win. You're a joke on here chum. Better accept it since your continued fibbing won't fool anyone.
You whine about issues then ignore me dealing with every one of your feeble 'points'. Clearly Independence makes you cross and as 'eccentric' as Romney did, I'm sorry about that, but what can we do? It is what it is.
You seriously think you get a free pass on repeating tory stupidity on Independence just because you want to pretend you are impartial and don't want to admit who you support?
Assertions are all you have just like your heroically stupid assertion that Romney would win. You're a joke on here chum. Better accept it since your continued fibbing won't fool anyone.
You whine about issues then ignore me dealing with every one of your feeble 'points'. Clearly Independence makes you cross and as 'eccentric' as Romney did, I'm sorry about that, but what can we do? It is what it is.
You seriously think you get a free pass on repeating tory stupidity on Independence just because you want to pretend you are impartial and don't want to admit who you support?
No chance.
I think you should continue telling fibs about me and my beliefs. It does rather undermine your attack the man strategy. So, carry on dissembling. Please.
Assertions are all you have just like your heroically stupid assertion that Romney would win. You're a joke on here chum. Better accept it since your continued fibbing won't fool anyone.
You whine about issues then ignore me dealing with every one of your feeble 'points'. Clearly Independence makes you cross and as 'eccentric' as Romney did, I'm sorry about that, but what can we do? It is what it is.
You seriously think you get a free pass on repeating tory stupidity on Independence just because you want to pretend you are impartial and don't want to admit who you support?
No chance.
I think you I should continue telling fibs about me and my beliefs. It does rather undermine your my attack the man strategy. So Let me carry on dissembling. Please.
Fixed that for you. You don't have any beliefs, remember? Well, apart from your belief Romney would win and you seeming to be fine with the army and police being sent in to 'deal with' Catalan Independence. Which sounds precisely like the kind of thing a Spanish nationalist would be fine with, doesn't it?
Assertions are all you have just like your heroically stupid assertion that Romney would win. You're a joke on here chum. Better accept it since your continued fibbing won't fool anyone.
You whine about issues then ignore me dealing with every one of your feeble 'points'. Clearly Independence makes you cross and as 'eccentric' as Romney did, I'm sorry about that, but what can we do? It is what it is.
You seriously think you get a free pass on repeating tory stupidity on Independence just because you want to pretend you are impartial and don't want to admit who you support?
No chance.
I think you I should continue telling fibs about me and my beliefs. It does rather undermine your my attack the man strategy. So Let me carry on dissembling. Please.
Fixed that for you. You don't have any beliefs, remember? Well, apart from your belief Romney would win and you seeming to be fine with the army and police being sent in to 'deal with' Catalan Independence. Which sounds precisely like the kind of thing a Spanish nationalist would be fine with, doesn't it?
Absolutely Mick. You are in no way flailing. Please continue ...
Assertions are all you have just like your heroically stupid assertion that Romney would win. You're a joke on here chum. Better accept it since your continued fibbing won't fool anyone.
You whine about issues then ignore me dealing with every one of your feeble 'points'. Clearly Independence makes you cross and as 'eccentric' as Romney did, I'm sorry about that, but what can we do? It is what it is.
You seriously think you get a free pass on repeating tory stupidity on Independence just because you want to pretend you are impartial and don't want to admit who you support?
No chance.
I think you I should continue telling fibs about me and my beliefs. It does rather undermine your my attack the man strategy. So Let me carry on dissembling. Please.
Fixed that for you. You don't have any beliefs, remember? Well, apart from your belief Romney would win and you seeming to be fine with the army and police being sent in to 'deal with' Catalan Independence. Which sounds precisely like the kind of thing a Spanish nationalist would be fine with, doesn't it?
Absolutely Mick. You are in no way flailing. Please continue ...
Translation - Assertion + pretence of being fine with it = feeble.
Still no sign of you condemning the police and army being sent in to 'deal with' Catalan Independence Mr Spanish Nationalist.
Assertions are all you have just like your heroically stupid assertion that Romney would win. You're a joke on here chum. Better accept it since your continued fibbing won't fool anyone.
You whine about issues then ignore me dealing with every one of your feeble 'points'. Clearly Independence makes you cross and as 'eccentric' as Romney did, I'm sorry about that, but what can we do? It is what it is.
You seriously think you get a free pass on repeating tory stupidity on Independence just because you want to pretend you are impartial and don't want to admit who you support?
No chance.
I think you I should continue telling fibs about me and my beliefs. It does rather undermine your my attack the man strategy. So Let me carry on dissembling. Please.
Fixed that for you. You don't have any beliefs, remember? Well, apart from your belief Romney would win and you seeming to be fine with the army and police being sent in to 'deal with' Catalan Independence. Which sounds precisely like the kind of thing a Spanish nationalist would be fine with, doesn't it?
Absolutely Mick. You are in no way flailing. Please continue ...
Translation - Assertion + pretence of being fine with it = feeble.
Still no sign of you condemning the police and army being sent in to 'deal with' Catalan Independence Mr Spanish Nationalist.
Flailing, Micky. The police and army are not being sent in to Catalonia, though I have been saying it might happen for a while, given that the Madrid government is packed full of Spanish nationalist Franco apologists, whose whole approach to what is happening in Catalonia I have regularly criticised since they came to power. But you keep on fibbing, bless you.
Bless. It only took that long for you to realise how pathetic it was you still hadn't condemned the possibility of police & army intervening in Catalonia. How 'democratic' of you.
How long do you think it will take PB to forget how hilariously wrong you were over Romney as you told all those fibs over and over again about how he would be elected President?
Which party do you support again? You still seem VERY shy about that.
Bless. It only took that long for you to realise how pathetic it was you still hadn't condemned the possibility of police & army intervening in Catalonia. How 'democratic' of you.
How long do you think it will take PB to forget how hilariously wrong you were over Romney as you told all those fibs over and over again about how he would be elected President?
Which party do you support again? You still seem VERY shy about that.
LOL
Mick, you've been caught fibbing. You know it, I know it, anyone reading this thread knows it. Move on. Bona nit.
How long do you think it will take PB to forget how hilariously wrong you were over Romney as you told all those fibs over and over again about how he would be elected President?
Which party do you support again? You still seem VERY shy about that.
LOL
Still waiting. Yellow tory? Or are you going to keep fibbing?
Comments
Oh wait, institutions aren't assets and he's an idiot.
Do post an academic opinion which supports (b) - and if you can, explain why the SNP has not deployed it......The UK Government has consistently claimed (a) - the Scottish Government spent tens of thousands of pounds pretending it had opinion to support (b) - but it turned out it didn't....
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lewis-gill-killed-andrew-young-3183689
Of couse obesity and poor exercise tolerance are correlated, but the evidence is that obese people with good exercise tolerance have life expectancy not far from their slimmer peers, and both have better longevity than those fat or thin with poor exercise tolerance.
Just because Scotland would be a new state doesn't mean it can avoid it's share of debt. If the new state is given assets by the UK (and by assets, I mean actual assets, as by the definition of the word), then it gets the same share of debt. You don't get to unilaterally decide what chunk of UK assets and liabilities you get to take and what you can leave.
http://0.static.wix.com/media/be5318_bbd39d3fb6cef66ecc812db11ba00077.jpg_1024
On the horse behind the saddle is the soldier's valise. On the end of the valise you can (just about) see the letters D, R, B, and N.
Two fun quiz questions for our Nats.
1/ What is the correct order of those letters?
2/ What do they stand for?
No prize, I'm afraid.
How about engaging with the argument?
On the other hand, I can completely understand the deep distress caused to the family.
Do we sentence on the basis of risk to society, wickedness of the act or the consequences? Each approach will produce a different answer.
I expect the defendant wasn't a charmer. But we can't set sentences on that basis alone.
Summary: it's hard and I'm firmly on the fence on this one.
On the first point, it is an academic issue, if you'll pardon my expression, as for many practical purposes the two options are indistinguishable - for instance, the Foreign Office will continue to operate out of wherever it hangs out on Whitehall, and EWNI will still operate the Washington Embassy in its current location. Of course they will, given the numerical disparities in population. I imagine also that EWNI will try to retain its nukes, its seat in the Security Council, and so on.
The critical area is in the separation agreement and as the SNP are already offering to go for one option they hardly need to pay an extra money for a legal option when it's gong to be expensive enough as it is, even with a share of the QE instruments in the Bank of England.
Ukraine leaves USSR - no debts, just has whatever is on its soil.
Czechoslovakia splits - share assets and debts.
Two precedents ...
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......
To be fair, though, the BoE FX reserves and the real estate used as embassies has a monetary value. So although it makes no sense for Scotland to receive a portion of those organisations, the monetary value should be considered as part of the overall division of assets
Please send me your back details so I can send you money!
My username at gmail.com
Thanks
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/26/tessa-jowell-harriet-harman-daily-mail-paedophila-row
Do we take into account the victims mental illness? I guess the guy that killed him couldn't have been sure of that, but to say he thought he might pull a gun seems a bit frivolous
I don't think you have to take the defendants personality into account too much. I don't think of myself as a bad person at all, but if I punched a mentally challenged person in broad daylight for any reason other than self defence, I would then be a bad person no matter what
Better climate than the one in the north of Britain, and I am told more pipe bands also.
Back in the day one grandfather was a small businessman and used to go to the Con club where he lived a lot. It was no doubt good for networking and so on. My other grandfather used to go to the working man's club, which I guess had ties with Labour.
It seems that the benefits there were to party membership have largely disappeared.
Many people have thrown punches on the street, with varying levels of provocation.
Are they not as bad as Gill because they were luckier in the consequences of their similar actions?
Don't think it can get much worse than this one really.. the footage is on the news and he was not provoked at all
:to-share-or-bleat-ask-the-scots-nats-sheep:
* Assets are English (with pocket-money for the Welch and the Ulster-Sctos)....
I sometimes get the feeling they've not really thought this through.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12December/Pages/Study-may-bust-myth-of-fat-and-fit-healthy-obesity.aspx
*chortle*
*chortle*
*chortle*
that's the mad bustard you think will let you into the EU
*chortle* *chortle*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568306/If-Scots-vote-leave-UK-voting-lose-BBC-minister-warns.html
Silly statements like this will only make Scottish floating voters go to the yes camp,where the hell is the positive keep the union together campaign,lucky I'm in the Yes camp ;-)
*chortle* *chortle* *chortle*
Although as a Liberal Party agent in the 70's I was told I was spending the last of the Lloyd George "fund" I feel disgusted at some of the activities of Clegg (and I suspect Rennard's) LibDems.
I suppose it's the Greens or NOTA in 2014 & 2015.
Just maybe the LibDems, though, because they're the only genuinely pro-EU party. Round here, anyway.
*chortle*
It is illegal as under the Spanish constitution, which the Catalans backed by a huge majority in a referendum in 1978, Spain is an indivisible territory. In any case, the solution to the Catalan problem is a change of Madrid government away.
Your suspicions would seem to be well founded.
No no Mick we all believe Salmond because his promises are just so credible.
I dunno, I never hear any. No reason why I should of course, not being in Scotland and all. I suppose it is possible that nobody can think of any positive reasons why the Union should remain, I certainly can't from the English perspective.
if the BBC is owned by the state then we'd expect a share of the assets (or just the bits on Scots soil, though as I believe they have been sold off to commercial companies for lease back, we need not worry about them).
Future progs would have to be bought in and so on, of course. But that is PERFECTLY NORMAL and as much of the comment elsewhere has pointed out, lots of people in other countries get the BBC for free anyway.
In fact, they should just take the whole of the existing one with them and save a sensible rUK government the hassle of privatising it.
Clever move.
That's the highest number I have seen for the chain. It means that a large majority of Catalans did not take part, of course.
I do indeed have very little respect for nationalism as a political creed. But there are plenty of very pleasant Catalan nationalists, a number of whom are my friends.
Doesn't matter who is in power at westminster as the BBC are a dinosaur when it comes to funding and content delivery methods. Having an iPlayer does not constitute a compelling reason to keep a frankly archaic and bizarre method of payment for content across a myriad of platforms. They'll be moving to some kind of freemium service soon enough with an ever smaller chunk of the license fee being used as that is eventually phased out. What party leader wouldn't want to have an election promise to slash the license fee? Technology is what was always going to force real change on the bloated and incompetent BBC bureaucracy as the way TV is watched now has changed beyond all recognition. Particularly for the younger generations.
LOL
LOL
Don't tell fibs about me being a Romney or Clegg supporter Mick. You can do better than that.
You were the sites foremost PB Romney whether you like it or not and calamity Clegg is the leader of the lib dem yellow tories whether you like it or not.
Your somewhat rabid attitude to Independence is amusing though it is of course of no consequence whatsoever. Your assertions are no more convincing than Cammie or Osborne's and certainly no more convincing to the scottish public. The fact that you don't seem to have a clue that there is such a thing as BritNats or Spanish nationalists speaks for itself. Scottish nationalism bad, Brit nationalism good, is that it?
Riiiiight.
Your somewhat rabid attitude to Independence is amusing though it is of course of no consequence whatsoever. Your assertions are no more convincing than Cammie or Osborne's and certainly no more convincing to the scottish public. The fact that you don't seem to have a clue that there is such a thing as BritNats or Spanish nationalists speaks for itself. Scottish nationalism bad, Brit nationalism good, is that it?
Riiiiight.
Nope - I dislike British and Spanish nationalism too. And thinking Romney was going to win did not make me a supporter. And I am not a LibDem. I understand that you prefer to play the man rather than engage with the issues, but if you're going to do that it's best not to fib.
ROFL
That's a very peculiar response. Perhaps you're embarrassed by your fibs.
Perhaps I'm just laughing at yours chum.
Why would I be proud of a political philosophy I dislike? You're flailing Mick and telling more fibs. Silly.
Someone who was whining about nasty Catalan nationalists sounds exactly like a Spanish nationalist to me and I suspect anyone not fooled by your constant evasion and attempts to portray yourself as some kind of ludicrous impartial observer. You're not and you made a complete fool of yourself on PB over Romney. So we can safely discard your predictions and analysis in the bin along with your barely concealed hatred of the very idea of Independence.
So by all means keep fibbing if you think it makes your whining any more credible.
So by all means keep fibbing if you think it makes your whining any more credible.
So, to summarise: you have lied about me being a Romney supporter; lied about me being a LibDem; lied about me claiming to be an impartial observer; and lied about me being a Spanish nationalist. All this while proving incapable of being able to engage with any issues. I do understand you have a need to attack those whose views you don't share, but if you're going to do that it's probably best not to dissemble so obviously.
Nice to see a Spanish nationalist like yourself couldn't even manage to criticise the revolting and undemocratic possibility of the Spanish army and police 'sorting out' Catalan Independence. Speaks volumes.
As far as political opponents go even the scottish tory surgers are more formidable than you
Assertions are all you have just like your heroically stupid assertion that Romney would win.
You're a joke on here chum. Better accept it since your continued fibbing won't fool anyone.
You whine about issues then ignore me dealing with every one of your feeble 'points'.
Clearly Independence makes you cross and as 'eccentric' as Romney did, I'm sorry about that, but what can we do? It is what it is.
You seriously think you get a free pass on repeating tory stupidity on Independence just because you want to pretend you are impartial and don't want to admit who you support?
No chance.
Still no sign of you condemning the police and army being sent in to 'deal with' Catalan Independence Mr Spanish Nationalist.
How long do you think it will take PB to forget how hilariously wrong you were over Romney as you told all those fibs over and over again about how he would be elected President?
Which party do you support again? You still seem VERY shy about that.
LOL
Still waiting. Yellow tory? Or are you going to keep fibbing?