I'd like to think the EU has more pressing matters to legislate on.
Like plugs. British plugs don't work in France and vice versa. WTF? This is exactly the kind of thing the EU should be fixing.
Who's going to pay for the rewiring?
Consumers are already paying the cost of manufacturers having to put different plugs on things depending where they're going to be sold. Make a new standard, make the transition once, then you're done and you don't have to do any more dicking around.
During the transition period you'd use adapters so new appliances would work with your old sockets, but it would be the same, simple design, mass-produced and extremely cheap. They could have a big bucket of the things in the shop to give you one free when you bought a new appliance, which would be more efficient than coordinating getting the appliance with the right plug on sale in the right country all the time. Then once the transition is done you never need to bother with it again.
Do you know what it costs to change a socket in an English property (dunno about the reg's in other parts)? You have to have the work done and signed off by a qualified, certified electrician. It'd cost an absolute fortune. Now, I understand what your saying in the long term, but the short term hit would be massive.
Use an adapter that came with the new appliance with the new plug, then put in the new version when you're rewiring anyhow.
I'd like to think the EU has more pressing matters to legislate on.
Like plugs. British plugs don't work in France and vice versa. WTF? This is exactly the kind of thing the EU should be fixing.
Who's going to pay for the rewiring?
Consumers are already paying the cost of manufacturers having to put different plugs on things depending where they're going to be sold. Make a new standard, make the transition once, then you're done and you don't have to do any more dicking around.
During the transition period you'd use adapters so new appliances would work with your old sockets, but it would be the same, simple design, mass-produced and extremely cheap. They could have a big bucket of the things in the shop to give you one free when you bought a new appliance, which would be more efficient than coordinating getting the appliance with the right plug on sale in the right country all the time. Then once the transition is done you never need to bother with it again.
Sounds like an excuse for someone to make loads of money shafting the consumer, just like the great light bulb scam. All the expense and waste of rewiring houses across Europe, over a transition period of a century.
Seriously, do you really think it's a problem that a French toaster cannot be used in England without replacing the plug?
Yes, it's a problem. It's a barrier to trade and a waste of money, both of which make people poorer than they need to be.
If you can't see the issue here, would you see the issue if Northern England and Southern England had different standards? (*)
(*) In Japan different parts of the country actually do (the voltage not the plug size) which happened for historical reasons but didn't get fixed because the utilities like having the barrier to trade that prevents them from having to compete with each other.
The costs of this barrier to trade are trivial compared to the costs that would be imposed on householders and companies from a forced re-wiring of every house and business premises in the land. Of course, if the rest of Europe wanted to adopt the far more sensible and safer* British wiring standard I would not object quite so much.
*Actually I have no idea is the British standard is safer or more sensible, I don't understand electricity at all, but there must be a reason we went for it in the first place.
Marr blew his Barroso interview and he now knows it. The lack if a follow up to find out what legal process would follow a Yes vote was inexcusable and laughable.
It's a view.......
Scotland is not a member of the EU - the UK is.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK, it votes to leave the EU......
Somehow pointing this out upsets St Eck and his believers......
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
I'm reflecting what the EU Commission President said - that's only embarrassing to Salmond..........
you are reflecting the biased opinion of someone buying a favour from Cameron, it has been widely discredited as being absolute rubbish, but keep up the pretence.
Who mentioned the SNP, it is you that has the fetish on Alex Salmond. I have no connection with the SNP and post based on Scotland and my own opinion.
Which curiously never varies or wavers from the SNPs - but the broader question remains, why do you feel so insecure that you need to insult and abuse Scots who hold different views to your own?
I'd like to think the EU has more pressing matters to legislate on.
Like plugs. British plugs don't work in France and vice versa. WTF? This is exactly the kind of thing the EU should be fixing.
Who's going to pay for the rewiring?
Consumers are already paying the cost of manufacturers having to put different plugs on things depending where they're going to be sold. Make a new standard, make the transition once, then you're done and you don't have to do any more dicking around.
During the transition period you'd use adapters so new appliances would work with your old sockets, but it would be the same, simple design, mass-produced and extremely cheap. They could have a big bucket of the things in the shop to give you one free when you bought a new appliance, which would be more efficient than coordinating getting the appliance with the right plug on sale in the right country all the time. Then once the transition is done you never need to bother with it again.
Do you know what it costs to change a socket in an English property (dunno about the reg's in other parts)? You have to have the work done and signed off by a qualified, certified electrician. It'd cost an absolute fortune. Now, I understand what your saying in the long term, but the short term hit would be massive.
It would make more sense to have buckets of free travel adapters at airports, for people too lazy to bring their own.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
I'd like to think the EU has more pressing matters to legislate on.
Like plugs. British plugs don't work in France and vice versa. WTF? This is exactly the kind of thing the EU should be fixing.
Who's going to pay for the rewiring?
Consumers are already paying the cost of manufacturers having to put different plugs on things depending where they're going to be sold. Make a new standard, make the transition once, then you're done and you don't have to do any more dicking around.
During the transition period you'd use adapters so new appliances would work with your old sockets, but it would be the same, simple design, mass-produced and extremely cheap. They could have a big bucket of the things in the shop to give you one free when you bought a new appliance, which would be more efficient than coordinating getting the appliance with the right plug on sale in the right country all the time. Then once the transition is done you never need to bother with it again.
It's gonna cost a fortune getting everyone to drive on the left!
The fact there are things we cannot do, does not mean we shouldn't do the things we can.
If you want another example: the Internet and the web both rely on internationally-agreed standards. This has been to the advantage of all of us, and the fact that many of those standards are not reliant on patents, and are open.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm just not that fussed that different manufacturers decide to put different bits on the end of the wire that actually goes into their device. If I don't like it, I don't buy it. I don't expect the EU to get involved. Talk of standardising wall sockets and such like, then yes, I understand and would encourage that, notwithstanding the cost, but why bar Apple from using their own system, if people want to buy it?
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
The idea that Spain would rubber stamp the automatic continuous membership of a secessionist state is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
You are embarrassing, but reason that YES will win is the calibre of unionists like yourself.
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
The idea that Spain would rubber stamp the automatic continuous membership of a secessionist state is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
Do you think that the EU would refuse Scotland's application?
Marr blew his Barroso interview and he now knows it. The lack if a follow up to find out what legal process would follow a Yes vote was inexcusable and laughable.
It's a view.......
Scotland is not a member of the EU - the UK is.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK, it votes to leave the EU......
Somehow pointing this out upsets St Eck and his believers......
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
I'm reflecting what the EU Commission President said - that's only embarrassing to Salmond..........
you are reflecting the biased opinion of someone buying a favour from Cameron, it has been widely discredited as being absolute rubbish, but keep up the pretence.
Salmond was careful not to slander Barroso with the libel you have just written....he at least had the wit to quote French parliamentarians, saying he himself 'did not know'.....
It has only been 'widely discredited' in Nat-land - nowhere else.
I have a lot more sympathy with BobaFett's suggestion about Apple chargers than with EiT's suggestion about changing plugs round Europe. The latter seems mainly for the minor convenience of the small number of regular international travellers at the great inconvenience of everyone else.
It helps retailers and manufacturers as well (with the savings passed onto consumers) because they no longer have to coordinate this box going to Country X and this one going to Country Y, and are easily able to reroute boxes from Country Y if they get a shortage in Country X.
All child seats should clip in securely to a standard fixing on cars. All audio/video equipment should include RCA/phono out*
*Apple TV does not - which means you have to route it through your TV to get it out to your amp, unless you have optical in on your amp.
Terrible idea. Why don't you use the HDMI out on your Apple TV? HDMI to the AVR then AVR to the TV. It's how I have everything set up, one connection from the AVR to the TV handles everything.
I go ATV>TV>AMP (using RCA). I'd rather go straight to the amp as it is more direct and removes a stage. I assume adding stages is lossy, but can't test it because I have no optional in...
In which case you are doing it wrong. Get the Apple TV 3, use the HDMI out, et voila, you now have digital output of audio without it passing through your TV.
The whole point of HDMI is to push RCA inputs/outputs into retirement on media devices as they add DACs to the build cost. HDMI allows for the decoding to be done on the client side rather than host side. It shifts the burden of cost onto devices which should have audio output anyway.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
I disagree that the BBC promotes one form of Britishness. But I do agree that there are certain political parties that tend towards nationalism and that's one of the reasons why I do not support them.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
The nationalists in particular are becoming adept at dismissing any opinion or fact they don’t like the sound of.
Awkward news coverage is “biased”, opposition politicians who raise concerns are “scaremongering”, companies who warn they could have to leave Scotland are “bluffing”.
Sounds like an excuse for someone to make loads of money shafting the consumer, just like the great light bulb scam. All the expense and waste of rewiring houses across Europe, over a transition period of a century.
Seriously, do you really think it's a problem that a French toaster cannot be used in England without replacing the plug?
Yes, it's a problem. It's a barrier to trade and a waste of money, both of which make people poorer than they need to be.
If you can't see the issue here, would you see the issue if Northern England and Southern England had different standards? (*)
(*) In Japan different parts of the country actually do (the voltage not the plug size) which happened for historical reasons but didn't get fixed because the utilities like having the barrier to trade that prevents them from having to compete with each other.
The costs of this barrier to trade are trivial compared to the costs that would be imposed on householders and companies from a forced re-wiring of every house and business premises in the land. Of course, if the rest of Europe wanted to adopt the far more sensible and safer* British wiring standard I would not object quite so much.
*Actually I have no idea is the British standard is safer or more sensible, I don't understand electricity at all, but there must be a reason we went for it in the first place.
ISTR the three-pin BS-1363 system we use is rather good in comparison to out international competitors. Things like the earth pin (if used), blocking shutters, insulated pins are all good safety features. As much as I hate the nanny state aspect of it, sealed plugs are also good.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
I disagree that the BBC promotes one form of Britishness. But I do agree that there are certain political parties that tend towards nationalism and that's one of the reasons why I do not support them.
Well, if you lived north of the border, you could still vote for the Scottish National (not nationalist) Party. And it is in any case a centrist social democratic party (in marked contrast to the right wing Labour, Tory and now also LD parties.
I have a lot more sympathy with BobaFett's suggestion about Apple chargers than with EiT's suggestion about changing plugs round Europe. The latter seems mainly for the minor convenience of the small number of regular international travellers at the great inconvenience of everyone else.
£10 buys you a very nice multi country converter. I have 3 that live in my carry on bag.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
Marr blew his Barroso interview and he now knows it. The lack if a follow up to find out what legal process would follow a Yes vote was inexcusable and laughable.
It's a view.......
Scotland is not a member of the EU - the UK is.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK, it votes to leave the EU......
Somehow pointing this out upsets St Eck and his believers......
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
I'm reflecting what the EU Commission President said - that's only embarrassing to Salmond..........
you are reflecting the biased opinion of someone buying a favour from Cameron, it has been widely discredited as being absolute rubbish, but keep up the pretence.
Salmond was careful not to slander Barroso with the libel you have just written....he at least had the wit to quote French parliamentarians, saying he himself 'did not know'.....
It has only been 'widely discredited' in Nat-land - nowhere else.
Hardly surprising given the overwhelmingly Unionist bias of the media: but in fact that is not true. Some of the comment in even Unionist papers has been notably sceptical of the No campaign nonsense, and I'm talking about neutral commentators, in the Herald for instance.
On topic: the so-called 'omnishambles budget' was actually a very good budget. The key to understanding the politics is in Mike's third paragraph: "It started with Tweets on the #grannytax then the #pastytax, the #charitytax, the #churchestax and the #caravantax."
All trivia, and all now forgotten. The fact is, the media were determined to find fault; failing to find anything substantial to criticise, they laid into trivia from the footnotes, including (most bizarrely) the technical change to VAT on hot food - dozens of such changes happen every year, and no-one notices.
So it wouldn't have mattered what Osborne did or did not do, the media were going to lay into him anyway. They seem to have got bored with that now, perhaps because the evidence that his economic judgement has been spot-on is now too strong to ignore.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
I disagree that the BBC promotes one form of Britishness.
I'm more inclined to that old saw 'if both sides are complaining they must be getting it about right'....today, its the turn of the left:
It's the BBC's rightwing bias that is the threat to democracy and journalism The claim of 'liberal bias' is a clever fairytale that allows the right to police the corporation and set the wider political agenda
Sounds like an excuse for someone to make loads of money shafting the consumer, just like the great light bulb scam. All the expense and waste of rewiring houses across Europe, over a transition period of a century.
Seriously, do you really think it's a problem that a French toaster cannot be used in England without replacing the plug?
Yes, it's a problem. It's a barrier to trade and a waste of money, both of which make people poorer than they need to be.
If you can't see the issue here, would you see the issue if Northern England and Southern England had different standards? (*)
(*) In Japan different parts of the country actually do (the voltage not the plug size) which happened for historical reasons but didn't get fixed because the utilities like having the barrier to trade that prevents them from having to compete with each other.
The costs of this barrier to trade are trivial compared to the costs that would be imposed on householders and companies from a forced re-wiring of every house and business premises in the land. Of course, if the rest of Europe wanted to adopt the far more sensible and safer* British wiring standard I would not object quite so much.
*Actually I have no idea is the British standard is safer or more sensible, I don't understand electricity at all, but there must be a reason we went for it in the first place.
ISTR the three-pin BS-1363 system we use is rather good in comparison to out international competitors. Things like the earth pin (if used), blocking shutters, insulated pins are all good safety features. As much as I hate the nanny state aspect of it, sealed plugs are also good.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
The nationalists in particular are becoming adept at dismissing any opinion or fact they don’t like the sound of.
Awkward news coverage is “biased”, opposition politicians who raise concerns are “scaremongering”, companies who warn they could have to leave Scotland are “bluffing”.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
The idea that Spain would rubber stamp the automatic continuous membership of a secessionist state is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
Do you think that the EU would refuse Scotland's application?
A simple yes or no to that question will suffice.
You will have confused him with that
I really the hate the politician's trick of "yes or no".
Nothing in life is simple, and to suggest it is is designed to mislead.
In Scotland the probable case is (a) yes but (b) not immediately but (c) with an interim work around and (d) likely to less favourable terms than the current UK membership.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
I disagree that the BBC promotes one form of Britishness. But I do agree that there are certain political parties that tend towards nationalism and that's one of the reasons why I do not support them.
Well, if you lived north of the border, you could still vote for the Scottish National (not nationalist) Party. And it is in any case a centrist social democratic party (in marked contrast to the right wing Labour, Tory and now also LD parties.
The SNP is a nationalist party whose overwhelming priority is for Scotland to be independent. Everything else is secondary - hence its leadership's willingness to sign up for a currency union with the rUK that would leave Scotland unable to determine its own fiscal and economic trajectory.
In many ways, next year’s general election will be a battle between two rival narratives: “the economy’s on the mend; don’t give the keys back to the people who crashed the car” versus “the growth is too little, too late; only the rich are better off than they were in 2010”.
As George Osborne finalises this week’s Budget, YouGov’s latest survey for the Sunday Times suggests that the Government is edging ahead in the contest between these two narratives.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
I disagree that the BBC promotes one form of Britishness. But I do agree that there are certain political parties that tend towards nationalism and that's one of the reasons why I do not support them.
You're certainly right that the BBC differentiates between Scottish 'Britishness' compared to that of England, Wales and NI. Why else would they have closed down comments only on their Scottish political blogs for the last 18 months? It's not like there any important political decisions coming up.
I'm guessing you won't be voting one nation, Union Jack Labour next time.
Sounds like an excuse for someone to make loads of money shafting the consumer, just like the great light bulb scam. All the expense and waste of rewiring houses across Europe, over a transition period of a century.
Seriously, do you really think it's a problem that a French toaster cannot be used in England without replacing the plug?
Yes, it's a problem. It's a barrier to trade and a waste of money, both of which make people poorer than they need to be.
If you can't see the issue here, would you see the issue if Northern England and Southern England had different standards? (*)
(*) In Japan different parts of the country actually do (the voltage not the plug size) which happened for historical reasons but didn't get fixed because the utilities like having the barrier to trade that prevents them from having to compete with each other.
The costs of this barrier to trade are trivial compared to the costs that would be imposed on householders and companies from a forced re-wiring of every house and business premises in the land. Of course, if the rest of Europe wanted to adopt the far more sensible and safer* British wiring standard I would not object quite so much.
*Actually I have no idea is the British standard is safer or more sensible, I don't understand electricity at all, but there must be a reason we went for it in the first place.
ISTR the three-pin BS-1363 system we use is rather good in comparison to out international competitors. Things like the earth pin (if used), blocking shutters, insulated pins are all good safety features. As much as I hate the nanny state aspect of it, sealed plugs are also good.
2017 renegotiation: Britain agrees to stop being a dick about financial regulation, and in return the rest of the EU agrees to use British plugs.
Nah, that won't happen.
What will happen is this:
1) Europe will realise they're being dicks over financial regulation, and agree to move all European financial services to Sunderland.
2) Europe will realise that moving the EU parliament between Strasbourg and Brussels is a costly nonsense that makes them a laughing stock; instead they agree to move to Aberystwyth.
3) Europe will realise the UK is brilliant, and agree to become part of the British Empire.
4) Europe will use British 3-pin plugs.
5) Cricket will overtake football as the No. 1 European sport.
On topic: the so-called 'omnishambles budget' was actually a very good budget. The key to understanding the politics is in Mike's third paragraph: "It started with Tweets on the #grannytax then the #pastytax, the #charitytax, the #churchestax and the #caravantax."
All trivia, and all now forgotten. The fact is, the media were determined to find fault; failing to find anything substantial to criticise, they laid into trivia from the footnotes, including (most bizarrely) the technical change to VAT on hot food - dozens of such changes happen every year, and no-one notices.
I don't think that's quite right, although as you say those are all minor (and quite good) changes. The political problem was that the headline rate cut, whatever you think about it on its merits, blew away the coalition's core one-nation-ish narrative about not having enough money, and needing everyone to make sacrifices. That was the shield that had been protecting them from death by a thousand trivial hash-tags.
I really the hate the politician's trick of "yes or no".
Nothing in life is simple, and to suggest it is is designed to mislead.
In Scotland the probable case is (a) yes but (b) not immediately but (c) with an interim work around and (d) likely to less favourable terms than the current UK membership.
Does that count a yes or no?
How about if you ask a politician a question like "Have you had any legal advice" and they answer yes, which in fact means no?
Sounds like an excuse for someone to make loads of money shafting the consumer, just like the great light bulb scam. All the expense and waste of rewiring houses across Europe, over a transition period of a century.
Seriously, do you really think it's a problem that a French toaster cannot be used in England without replacing the plug?
Yes, it's a problem. It's a barrier to trade and a waste of money, both of which make people poorer than they need to be.
If you can't see the issue here, would you see the issue if Northern England and Southern England had different standards? (*)
(*) In Japan different parts of the country actually do (the voltage not the plug size) which happened for historical reasons but didn't get fixed because the utilities like having the barrier to trade that prevents them from having to compete with each other.
The costs of this barrier to trade are trivial compared to the costs that would be imposed on householders and companies from a forced re-wiring of every house and business premises in the land. Of course, if the rest of Europe wanted to adopt the far more sensible and safer* British wiring standard I would not object quite so much.
*Actually I have no idea is the British standard is safer or more sensible, I don't understand electricity at all, but there must be a reason we went for it in the first place.
ISTR the three-pin BS-1363 system we use is rather good in comparison to out international competitors. Things like the earth pin (if used), blocking shutters, insulated pins are all good safety features. As much as I hate the nanny state aspect of it, sealed plugs are also good.
2017 renegotiation: Britain agrees to stop being a dick about financial regulation, and in return the rest of the EU agrees to use British plugs.
How about the EU doesn't interfere in things like financial regulation where it has little expertise and where the downsides to getting it wrong are felt most immediately where it is currently regulated?
You could even give the principle a name. Subsidiarity is an ugly word, but it will do for now.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
The nationalists in particular are becoming adept at dismissing any opinion or fact they don’t like the sound of.
Awkward news coverage is “biased”, opposition politicians who raise concerns are “scaremongering”, companies who warn they could have to leave Scotland are “bluffing”.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
It was threat of "consequences" towards Marr for contradicting the FM which was so sinister.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
I disagree that the BBC promotes one form of Britishness. But I do agree that there are certain political parties that tend towards nationalism and that's one of the reasons why I do not support them.
You're certainly right that the BBC differentiates between Scottish 'Britishness' compared to that of England, Wales and NI. Why else would they have closed down comments only on their Scottish political blogs for the last 18 months? It's not like there any important political decisions coming up.
I'm guessing you won't be voting one nation, Union Jack Labour next time.
To be more precise, a very few Scottish political stories got comments but they were (as far as I could see) those that came from the "UK" news (ie London HQ), with predictable results on the knowledge and quality of comments.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
I disagree that the BBC promotes one form of Britishness. But I do agree that there are certain political parties that tend towards nationalism and that's one of the reasons why I do not support them.
Why else would they have closed down comments only on their Scottish political blogs for the last 18 months? It's not like there any important political decisions coming up.
In many ways, next year’s general election will be a battle between two rival narratives: “the economy’s on the mend; don’t give the keys back to the people who crashed the car” versus “the growth is too little, too late; only the rich are better off than they were in 2010”.
As George Osborne finalises this week’s Budget, YouGov’s latest survey for the Sunday Times suggests that the Government is edging ahead in the contest between these two narratives.
Listening to those soundbites over the weekend I think EdB is in danger of sounding as though he'd turn the taps on again.
"Not feeling the recovery" has "let's spend more to make everyone feel better" written all over it which might initially thrill but ultimately scare people. Were I a Cons strategist, that would be the point I would highlight.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
I disagree that the BBC promotes one form of Britishness. But I do agree that there are certain political parties that tend towards nationalism and that's one of the reasons why I do not support them.
You're certainly right that the BBC differentiates between Scottish 'Britishness' compared to that of England, Wales and NI. Why else would they have closed down comments only on their Scottish political blogs for the last 18 months? It's not like there any important political decisions coming up.
I'm guessing you won't be voting one nation, Union Jack Labour next time.
It is unlikely, yes. But not for that reason. I do not see that as particularly prescriptive, just as I would not see the SNP calling Scotland one nation problematic. It becomes an issue when people's patriotism, identity etc are questioned because they do not act in a certain way or believe certain things.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
The nationalists in particular are becoming adept at dismissing any opinion or fact they don’t like the sound of.
Awkward news coverage is “biased”, opposition politicians who raise concerns are “scaremongering”, companies who warn they could have to leave Scotland are “bluffing”.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
No, it copied the academic's employers on their reply to his report, detailing the questions they had about his report and methodology. If you believe your reputation has been traduced, are you not entitled to defend it?
And the question on Marr is about Wishart's call for him to face 'consequences' - something Salmond wisely has avoided.....
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
I disagree that the BBC promotes one form of Britishness.
I'm more inclined to that old saw 'if both sides are complaining they must be getting it about right'....today, its the turn of the left:
It's the BBC's rightwing bias that is the threat to democracy and journalism The claim of 'liberal bias' is a clever fairytale that allows the right to police the corporation and set the wider political agenda
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
The nationalists in particular are becoming adept at dismissing any opinion or fact they don’t like the sound of.
Awkward news coverage is “biased”, opposition politicians who raise concerns are “scaremongering”, companies who warn they could have to leave Scotland are “bluffing”.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
It was threat of "consequences" towards Marr for contradicting the FM which was so sinister.
Oh come off it - that is obviously meant to cover formal complaints to the BBC. Which, you presumably know, is regulated and controlled solely from London, broadcasting not being a devolved power.
Sounds like an excuse for someone to make loads of money shafting the consumer, just like the great light bulb scam. All the expense and waste of rewiring houses across Europe, over a transition period of a century.
Seriously, do you really think it's a problem that a French toaster cannot be used in England without replacing the plug?
Yes, it's a problem. It's a barrier to trade and a waste of money, both of which make people poorer than they need to be.
If you can't see the issue here, would you see the issue if Northern England and Southern England had different standards? (*)
(*) In Japan different parts of the country actually do (the voltage not the plug size) which happened for historical reasons but didn't get fixed because the utilities like having the barrier to trade that prevents them from having to compete with each other.
The costs of this barrier to trade are trivial compared to the costs that would be imposed on householders and companies from a forced re-wiring of every house and business premises in the land. Of course, if the rest of Europe wanted to adopt the far more sensible and safer* British wiring standard I would not object quite so much.
*Actually I have no idea is the British standard is safer or more sensible, I don't understand electricity at all, but there must be a reason we went for it in the first place.
ISTR the three-pin BS-1363 system we use is rather good in comparison to out international competitors. Things like the earth pin (if used), blocking shutters, insulated pins are all good safety features. As much as I hate the nanny state aspect of it, sealed plugs are also good.
2017 renegotiation: Britain agrees to stop being a dick about financial regulation, and in return the rest of the EU agrees to use British plugs.
How about the EU doesn't interfere in things like financial regulation where it has little expertise and where the downsides to getting it wrong are felt most immediately where it is currently regulated?
You could even give the principle a name. Subsidiarity is an ugly word, but it will do for now.
It's a pan-EU market where the producers in any one member state get to sell to consumers in all the other member states, so at least some of the regulation should be happening at EU level.
Not always wrong, more akin to a bunch of eunuchs commenting on the Kama Sutra. They might have some theoretical knowledge and some almost-forgotten experience, but they're unlikely to be taking part in any of the activities described.
I don't think that's quite right, although as you say those are all minor (and quite good) changes. The political problem was that the headline rate cut, whatever you think about it on its merits, blew away the coalition's core one-nation-ish narrative about not having enough money, and needing everyone to make sacrifices. That was the shield that had been protecting them from death by a thousand trivial hash-tags.
But the oddity is that there was little comment about that at the time. Even Labour were fairly muted in their criticisms on that score, instead concentrating on silly photos of Balls and Miliband pretending to eat pasties.
Sure, there was a political cost to cutting the top rate, but that was not a 'shambles', it was a cool decision based on balancing the national interest against the political cost to the Conservatives. Clearly, Osborne was convinced that the 50p rate was just too damaging, both in terms of lost tax revenue and the message it sent to business. I think he was right.
Not always wrong, more akin to a bunch of eunuchs commenting on the Kama Sutra. They might have some theoretical knowledge and some almost-forgotten experience, but they're unlikely to be taking part in any of the activities described.
TUD I'm worried. As there are UK troops stationed in Scotland, will this render the referendum illegal and illegitimate?
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
No, it copied the academic's employers on their reply to his report, detailing the questions they had about his report and methodology. If you believe your reputation has been traduced, are you not entitled to defend it?
And the question on Marr is about Wishart's call for him to face 'consequences' - something Salmond wisely has avoided.....
The BBC was intimidating (and defaming) the academic by cc'ing their assertions - effectively that he was lying and/or incompetent - to his management before going through them with him. You should be able to draw your own conclusion from the fact that the BBC shut up very quickly when they did (presumably) check the facts and analysis.
Consequences - what do you mean? In a non-devolved power like broadcasting, all the SNP can do is complain. Not like Unionist Westminster where the pols have the BBC by the short and curlies.
Not always wrong, more akin to a bunch of eunuchs commenting on the Kama Sutra. They might have some theoretical knowledge and some almost-forgotten experience, but they're unlikely to be taking part in any of the activities described.
TUD I'm worried. As there are UK troops stationed in Scotland, will this render the referendum illegal and illegitimate?
Well, they're living in Scotland, aren't they? Perfectly legal voters on that definition.
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
No, it copied the academic's employers on their reply to his report, detailing the questions they had about his report and methodology. If you believe your reputation has been traduced, are you not entitled to defend it?
And the question on Marr is about Wishart's call for him to face 'consequences' - something Salmond wisely has avoided.....
The BBC was intimidating (and defaming) the academic by cc'ing their assertions - effectively that he was lying and/or incompetent - to his management before going through them with him.
So, by that logic, the academic was intimidating and defaming the BBC for publishing his report without going through it with the BBC?
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
No, it copied the academic's employers on their reply to his report, detailing the questions they had about his report and methodology. If you believe your reputation has been traduced, are you not entitled to defend it?
And the question on Marr is about Wishart's call for him to face 'consequences' - something Salmond wisely has avoided.....
You should be able to draw your own conclusion from the fact that the BBC shut up very quickly when they did (presumably) check the facts and analysis.
Link? I have seen nothing that suggests the BBC have withdrawn their criticism of the report.
Not always wrong, more akin to a bunch of eunuchs commenting on the Kama Sutra. They might have some theoretical knowledge and some almost-forgotten experience, but they're unlikely to be taking part in any of the activities described.
TUD I'm worried. As there are UK troops stationed in Scotland, will this render the referendum illegal and illegitimate?
Well, they're living in Scotland, aren't they? Perfectly legal voters on that definition.
I'm worried that the international community will deem the referendum not free and fair and impose sanctions.
I expect it to stop short of a shooting war, that said.
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
No, it copied the academic's employers on their reply to his report, detailing the questions they had about his report and methodology. If you believe your reputation has been traduced, are you not entitled to defend it?
And the question on Marr is about Wishart's call for him to face 'consequences' - something Salmond wisely has avoided.....
The BBC was intimidating (and defaming) the academic by cc'ing their assertions - effectively that he was lying and/or incompetent - to his management before going through them with him.
So, by that logic, the academic was intimidating and defaming the BBC for publishing his report without going through it with the BBC?
No, because it was a factual analysis of output. He wasn't CCing it to the BBC Trust and demanding by implication that BBC Scotland bosses should be sacked.
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
No, it copied the academic's employers on their reply to his report, detailing the questions they had about his report and methodology. If you believe your reputation has been traduced, are you not entitled to defend it?
And the question on Marr is about Wishart's call for him to face 'consequences' - something Salmond wisely has avoided.....
Consequences - what do you mean? In a non-devolved power like broadcasting, all the SNP can do is complain. Not like Unionist Westminster where the pols have the BBC by the short and curlies.
Some of the 'harder core' Nats probably have a list of those Scots who've transgressed, and will require further attention in the unlikely event of a Yes vote.
2017 renegotiation: Britain agrees to stop being a dick about financial regulation, and in return the rest of the EU agrees to use British plugs.
How about the EU doesn't interfere in things like financial regulation where it has little expertise and where the downsides to getting it wrong are felt most immediately where it is currently regulated?
You could even give the principle a name. Subsidiarity is an ugly word, but it will do for now.
It's a pan-EU market where the producers in any one member state get to sell to consumers in all the other member states, so at least some of the regulation should be happening at EU level.
It's a market overwhelmingly dominated in many areas by one member state, where the first forays into regulation at an EU level have been daft and where other member states have openly sought to use EU powers to sabotage that member state's market dominance. The necessary trust for appropriate regulation is lacking.
Some of the 'harder core' Nats probably have a list of those Scots who've transgressed, and will require further attention in the unlikely event of a Yes vote.
Yawn - the Snp just want to big up this row as it keeps the convo off the failure of their currency policy.
"For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship's captain complaining about the sea - Enoch Powell."
What is actually the case is that the SNP themselves have hardly ever complained about the media and the BBC. It astounded me years back in the early days of the referendum campaign but they are obviously of that view if not necessarily happy about it.
What has changed in the last few days, and probably explains this, is that the BBC Trust have just ordered the BBC to follow guidelines on handling the referendum (why they didn't do that before I have no idea, and one can only speculate). If the state broadcaster still deliberately persists in biased coverage then that is very significant news and worthy of comment.
But the oddity is that there was little comment about that at the time. Even Labour were fairly muted in their criticisms on that score, instead concentrating on silly photos of Balls and Miliband pretending to eat pasties.
When you've got a bunch of knives being thrown and drawing blood, people talk about the knives and the blood. In the grand scheme of things the important factor was the absence of the shield that allowed the knives to hit, not those particular knives and where they landed. But people don't usually talk about things that aren't there. Think of it as the curious incident of the austerity narrative in the night-time.
Sure, there was a political cost to cutting the top rate, but that was not a 'shambles', it was a cool decision based on balancing the national interest against the political cost to the Conservatives. Clearly, Osborne was convinced that the 50p rate was just too damaging, both in terms of lost tax revenue and the message it sent to business. I think he was right.
From memory, and not having got the telly, I read the shambles aspect as being about u-turns, or the appearance of u-turns, once the government came under fire.
But I agree that the substance was fine. (At least I liked it, which is a good sign the voters aren't going to.)
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
No, it copied the academic's employers on their reply to his report, detailing the questions they had about his report and methodology. If you believe your reputation has been traduced, are you not entitled to defend it?
And the question on Marr is about Wishart's call for him to face 'consequences' - something Salmond wisely has avoided.....
The BBC was intimidating (and defaming) the academic by cc'ing their assertions - effectively that he was lying and/or incompetent - to his management before going through them with him.
So, by that logic, the academic was intimidating and defaming the BBC for publishing his report without going through it with the BBC?
No, because it was a factual analysis of output. He wasn't CCing it to the BBC Trust and demanding by implication that BBC Scotland bosses should be sacked.
It was a subjective analysis of output - the basis of the BBC's complaint......no matter how much you 'truthify' a study with numbers, it was based on the perceptions of the author.
Evidence of the BBC 'demanding by implication' that he should be sacked?
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
Some of the 'harder core' Nats probably have a list of those Scots who've transgressed, and will require further attention in the unlikely event of a Yes vote.
In a little black book perhaps...
After WWII, the Nazi death list of who would have been round up and shot in the event of a successful British invasion was released, communists, left wingers, trades unionists, public figures...As Noel Coward observed 'to think, the people we would have been seen dead with.....'
Yawn - the Snp just want to big up this row as it keeps the convo off the failure of their currency policy.
Actually, I don't thing Nat1 does want it bigged up - its the minions who have run amok. After all, it publicises their failure over their EU policy.....
It's a market overwhelmingly dominated in many areas by one member state, where the first forays into regulation at an EU level have been daft and where other member states have openly sought to use EU powers to sabotage that member state's market dominance. The necessary trust for appropriate regulation is lacking.
We need pan-EU regulation with a UK veto, and, if we had had a sane government when Lisbon was being negotiated, that is what we could have had. No veto, No Treaty should have been the line; our EU friends would have caved in.
Clawing it back now is of course much harder, but should be our number one target for renegotiation.
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
The idea that Spain would rubber stamp the automatic continuous membership of a secessionist state is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
Do you think that the EU would refuse Scotland's application?
A simple yes or no to that question will suffice.
You will have confused him with that
I really the hate the politician's trick of "yes or no".
Nothing in life is simple, and to suggest it is is designed to mislead.
In Scotland the probable case is (a) yes but (b) not immediately but (c) with an interim work around and (d) likely to less favourable terms than the current UK membership.
Does that count a yes or no?
Charles, the only sensible answer is Yes but there may be some changes in conditions or there may not be which again may or may not be beneficial. The way the unionists are presenting it is pathetic.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
The nationalists in particular are becoming adept at dismissing any opinion or fact they don’t like the sound of.
Awkward news coverage is “biased”, opposition politicians who raise concerns are “scaremongering”, companies who warn they could have to leave Scotland are “bluffing”.
British nationalism is just as bad: you can't be properly British unless you wave the flag, love the queen etc. People that set themselves up as arbiters of national identity and culture, and who pontificate on who and who doesn't fit the bill, are much of a muchness wherever in the world you find them.
Except of course British Nationalism is promoted by the state broadcaster, the government, much of the media and the establishment; not so much a pontification as an assumption that it's the cultural norm.
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
It was threat of "consequences" towards Marr for contradicting the FM which was so sinister.
More garbage from you, of course if you are grossly negligent in your job there should be consequences. Any normal employer would give them a warning and ensure they did not repeat the misconduct.
It's a market overwhelmingly dominated in many areas by one member state, where the first forays into regulation at an EU level have been daft and where other member states have openly sought to use EU powers to sabotage that member state's market dominance. The necessary trust for appropriate regulation is lacking.
We need pan-EU regulation with a UK veto, and, if we had had a sane government when Lisbon was being negotiated, that is what we could have had. No veto, No Treaty should have been the line; our EU friends would have caved in.
Clawing it back now is of course much harder, but should be our number one target for renegotiation.
Giving one member state with strong producer interests a special veto over regulations affecting consumers everywhere would be a terrible way to govern; You may as well get rid of the ministers from the member states and replace them with industry lobbyists. I'd hope that even in the event that the member states agreed to that, the parliament would blow it up.
Some of the 'harder core' Nats probably have a list of those Scots who've transgressed, and will require further attention in the unlikely event of a Yes vote.
In a little black book perhaps...
We note you have yet to get your head round the YES or NO difficult question you were asked earlier. Maybe shadsy can give odds on whether you will manage to work it out
OT Just completed another Yougov VI poll. Supplementaries on view of two main parties on various main issues, good/bad chancellor, country and personal better off, should/should not have gone into Afghanistan and - strangely - dreams and whether or not I can remember them.
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
The idea that Spain would rubber stamp the automatic continuous membership of a secessionist state is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
Do you think that the EU would refuse Scotland's application?
A simple yes or no to that question will suffice.
You will have confused him with that
I really the hate the politician's trick of "yes or no".
Nothing in life is simple, and to suggest it is is designed to mislead.
In Scotland the probable case is (a) yes but (b) not immediately but (c) with an interim work around and (d) likely to less favourable terms than the current UK membership.
Does that count a yes or no?
Charles, the only sensible answer is Yes but there may be some changes in conditions or there may not be which again may or may not be beneficial. The way the unionists are presenting it is pathetic.
That's what most of the replies on this thread have said - why don't you read peoples views than putting words in their mouths?
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
No, it copied the academic's employers on their reply to his report, detailing the questions they had about his report and methodology. If you believe your reputation has been traduced, are you not entitled to defend it?
And the question on Marr is about Wishart's call for him to face 'consequences' - something Salmond wisely has avoided.....
The BBC was intimidating (and defaming) the academic by cc'ing their assertions - effectively that he was lying and/or incompetent - to his management before going through them with him.
So, by that logic, the academic was intimidating and defaming the BBC for publishing his report without going through it with the BBC?
No, because it was a factual analysis of output. He wasn't CCing it to the BBC Trust and demanding by implication that BBC Scotland bosses should be sacked.
It was a subjective analysis of output - the basis of the BBC's complaint......no matter how much you 'truthify' a study with numbers, it was based on the perceptions of the author.
Evidence of the BBC 'demanding by implication' that he should be sacked?
Carnyx, obey orders immediately or else, when Carlotta is lost then she gets very demanding.
It's a sad day when Unionists think that challenging a journalist on the spot is intimidation. And this is about the BBC, an organization which complained to an academic's employers when he dared to demonstrate systematic bias in BBC coverage of the indy campaign.
No, it copied the academic's employers on their reply to his report, detailing the questions they had about his report and methodology. If you believe your reputation has been traduced, are you not entitled to defend it?
And the question on Marr is about Wishart's call for him to face 'consequences' - something Salmond wisely has avoided.....
The BBC was intimidating (and defaming) the academic by cc'ing their assertions - effectively that he was lying and/or incompetent - to his management before going through them with him.
So, by that logic, the academic was intimidating and defaming the BBC for publishing his report without going through it with the BBC?
No, because it was a factual analysis of output. He wasn't CCing it to the BBC Trust and demanding by implication that BBC Scotland bosses should be sacked.
It was a subjective analysis of output - the basis of the BBC's complaint......no matter how much you 'truthify' a study with numbers, it was based on the perceptions of the author.
Evidence of the BBC 'demanding by implication' that he should be sacked?
On 'perceptions' - well, it is usually fairly obvious if a report gives more time to one side than another, personalises/demonises one side (Salmond this, Salmond that, but never, ever the opposite), , etc. All of those he noted, as you will know if you read the study which has long been published. And none of which the BBC could substantively criticise, which strongly suggests that his methodology was replicable when they did their own analysis. [Edit: or they got even worse results when they did it because he'd been so scrupulous.]
'demanding by implication' - I was talking about a hypothetical case where it did not happen (which is my point).
OT Just completed another Yougov VI poll. Supplementaries on view of two main parties on various main issues, good/bad chancellor, country and personal better off, should/should not have gone into Afghanistan and - strangely - dreams and whether or not I can remember them.
2017 renegotiation: Britain agrees to stop being a dick about financial regulation, and in return the rest of the EU agrees to use British plugs.
How about the EU doesn't interfere in things like financial regulation where it has little expertise and where the downsides to getting it wrong are felt most immediately where it is currently regulated?
You could even give the principle a name. Subsidiarity is an ugly word, but it will do for now.
It's a pan-EU market where the producers in any one member state get to sell to consumers in all the other member states, so at least some of the regulation should be happening at EU level.
It's a market overwhelmingly dominated in many areas by one member state, where the first forays into regulation at an EU level have been daft and where other member states have openly sought to use EU powers to sabotage that member state's market dominance. The necessary trust for appropriate regulation is lacking.
The (avowed and correct) role of the EU is to reduce the need for firms to comply with divergent national standards, so as to favour the domestic producer (who need only comply with one) over the European producer. The EU has argued other points, but tey must be secondary and I take issue with many of them.
So I have sympathy with the argument made earlier that different plug sockets should be standardised - if I make kettles here and sell them also in France, I have to account for differing technical specifications whereas my French competitor does not. However, the change-over cost may make this infeasible - but that's another argument altogether.
Financial regulation, on the other hand, fits less neatly. If you look at bank capitalisation, for example, the bank usually only needs to comply with the regulations of its home market, whether or not it trades across Europe. Bankers' bonuses are really neither here nor there, either.
An actually interesting debate on HS2 on the DP. Never thought about starting it in the North. Makes much more sense to me.
Missed that.
Why does it make more sense to start it in the north?
The economic case for a north to south build is strong basically because the phase 2 part of HS2 is rated better. Why not do that first? Start on Liverpool and Leeds to Manchester, then down to Birmingham. Once the third runway is built then extend HS2 to Heathrow (or whatever is picked to be the hub). Starting in London and not having HS2 linked up to the hub airport because of uncertainty over its future means that its better to start in the North.
the Chinese told Hank Paulson that the Russians were suggesting a joint pact with China to drive down the price of the debt of Fanny and Freddie, and maximize the turmoil on Wall Street - presumably with a view to maximizing the cost of the rescue for Washington and further damaging its financial health.....
....But this kind of intelligence from China on Russian desire and willingness to embarrass the US in a financial sense may help to explain - in a small way - why President Obama shows little desire to understand Crimea as seen by Mr Putin.
And maybe if the US is being a bit more robust than the EU in wanting to impose economic and financial sanctions on Russia, that may not all be about America's much lesser dependence (negligible dependence) on Russian gas and oil.
Not always wrong, more akin to a bunch of eunuchs commenting on the Kama Sutra. They might have some theoretical knowledge and some almost-forgotten experience, but they're unlikely to be taking part in any of the activities described.
Doesn't invalidate our commenting on you being a rotten shag....
An actually interesting debate on HS2 on the DP. Never thought about starting it in the North. Makes much more sense to me.
Missed that.
Why does it make more sense to start it in the north?
The economic case for a north to south build is strong basically because the phase 2 part of HS2 is rated better. Why not do that first? Start on Liverpool and Leeds to Manchester, then down to Birmingham. Once the third runway is built then extend HS2 to Heathrow (or whatever is picked to be the hub). Starting in London and not having HS2 linked up to the hub airport because of uncertainty over its future means that its better to start in the North.
Politically valuable too - those people in the M25 bubble keep talking about One nation! and We're all in it together! and it might actually help prove they are telling the truth about their beliefs and priorities. And keeps the Nimbies out of it.
It's happened before, too. Remember the first cross-channel tunnel trains, TGV speeds in France, then slamming on the brakes to slow down to stop-start commuter line speeds in Kent. As I recall, the French president inquired of Mrs T if this was to allow passengers to admire the beautiful English countryside ...
And none of which the BBC could substantively criticise, which strongly suggests that his methodology was replicable when they did their own analysis. [Edit: or they got even worse results when they did it because he'd been so scrupulous.]
This is the most recent reply from the BBC - somewhat at variance with your account:
BBC chief rejects claims of referendum coverage bias THE BBC has challenged claims that it engaged in "thought-control" by allegedly suppressing a study about media bias in the independence referendum....
.....BBC bosses completely rejected the allegations, insisting the report contained factual inaccuracies with quotes from people who did not feature in its reports and lines that its journalists did not say.
BBC Scotland director Ken MacQuarrie said Mr Robertson refused the BBC's requests for his raw data.
Mr MacQuarrie said: "We completely reject the allegations about our news coverage, as we do the questioning of our journalists' professionalism
"The evidence it presents does not support the contentions that it makes."
He added: "We asked if we might see the data as we did not recognise the evidence presented as an reflection of our broadcast output and the request was rejected by the report's author."
An actually interesting debate on HS2 on the DP. Never thought about starting it in the North. Makes much more sense to me.
Missed that.
Why does it make more sense to start it in the north?
The economic case for a north to south build is strong basically because the phase 2 part of HS2 is rated better. Why not do that first? Start on Liverpool and Leeds to Manchester, then down to Birmingham. Once the third runway is built then extend HS2 to Heathrow (or whatever is picked to be the hub). Starting in London and not having HS2 linked up to the hub airport because of uncertainty over its future means that its better to start in the North.
But the BCR of phase 2 of HS2 is only better because it assumes phase 1 has been built first.
The key point for me is in McLoughlin's written statement to parliament. Redevelop Euston and bring back the Euston Arch!
Is anyone surprised? The system is understood by very few people including HMRC. In my case I saw the posters advertising the charge, rang HMRC, talked them through my circumstances and they told me I wouldn't be affected. Then in late November they wrote to me saying I was affected and need to act NOW. Rang them back, they ran calculations and said yes I owe a small amount. Asked why was told no and now yes, lady said "I'm having to bite my tongue to avoid giving the real answer, lets just say its complicated". Perhaps the axing of so many HMRC staff at a time when they explode the numbers having to do self assessment might have something to do with it.
Anyway, register for self assessment and receive a pack dated 30/12, so I have until the end of March to file. I've also received a letter from HMRC saying that the return I am to file is the last one they will send me as they don't think I should be impacted by the charge. I expect my earnings in 13/14 to be higher than 12/13 but as I am being booted back out of self assessment what do I know.
Here's the thing. I am not and nevr will be a Tory voter. But if I had been, and had to go through all of this confused faff knowing that several of my colleagues have significantly higher household income yet aren't affected, would I be (a) more likely or (b) less likely to vote Tory. Or listen to a word Osborne says?
Earlier I posted about the end of all in this together being the thing thats sunk the Tories. And here it is in a nutshell.
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
The idea that Spain would rubber stamp the automatic continuous membership of a secessionist state is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
Do you think that the EU would refuse Scotland's application?
A simple yes or no to that question will suffice.
You will have confused him with that
I really the hate the politician's trick of "yes or no".
Nothing in life is simple, and to suggest it is is designed to mislead.
In Scotland the probable case is (a) yes but (b) not immediately but (c) with an interim work around and (d) likely to less favourable terms than the current UK membership.
Does that count a yes or no?
Charles, the only sensible answer is Yes but there may be some changes in conditions or there may not be which again may or may not be beneficial. The way the unionists are presenting it is pathetic.
It's more likely to be 'yes in 3-4 years with an interim arrangement beforehand'. It could be quicker if Salmond rolls over in negotiations and accepts all of the EU's demands.
2017 renegotiation: Britain agrees to stop being a dick about financial regulation, and in return the rest of the EU agrees to use British plugs.
How about the EU doesn't interfere in things like financial regulation where it has little expertise and where the downsides to getting it wrong are felt most immediately where it is currently regulated?
You could even give the principle a name. Subsidiarity is an ugly word, but it will do for now.
It's a pan-EU market where the producers in any one member state get to sell to consumers in all the other member states, so at least some of the regulation should be happening at EU level.
It's a market overwhelmingly dominated in many areas by one member state, where the first forays into regulation at an EU level have been daft and where other member states have openly sought to use EU powers to sabotage that member state's market dominance. The necessary trust for appropriate regulation is lacking.
The (avowed and correct) role of the EU is to reduce the need for firms to comply with divergent national standards, so as to favour the domestic producer (who need only comply with one) over the European producer. The EU has argued other points, but tey must be secondary and I take issue with many of them.
So I have sympathy with the argument made earlier that different plug sockets should be standardised - if I make kettles here and sell them also in France, I have to account for differing technical specifications whereas my French competitor does not. However, the change-over cost may make this infeasible - but that's another argument altogether.
Financial regulation, on the other hand, fits less neatly. If you look at bank capitalisation, for example, the bank usually only needs to comply with the regulations of its home market, whether or not it trades across Europe. Bankers' bonuses are really neither here nor there, either.
The big problem with European standard plugs is that they are not fused. This makes them inherently more dangerous. It is because we have fused plugs that we are able to have a higher load on our ring mains - 32 amps being standard. The maximum limit for European systems is about half that at 15 amps. The UK system is safer and delivers higher power. It also lowers fire risk by removing the need for multiple junction boxes as you have in a radial/spur system.
Not always wrong, more akin to a bunch of eunuchs commenting on the Kama Sutra. They might have some theoretical knowledge and some almost-forgotten experience, but they're unlikely to be taking part in any of the activities described.
Doesn't invalidate our commenting on you being a rotten shag....
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
The idea that Spain would rubber stamp the automatic continuous membership of a secessionist state is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
Do you think that the EU would refuse Scotland's application?
A simple yes or no to that question will suffice.
You will have confused him with that
I really the hate the politician's trick of "yes or no".
Nothing in life is simple, and to suggest it is is designed to mislead.
In Scotland the probable case is (a) yes but (b) not immediately but (c) with an interim work around and (d) likely to less favourable terms than the current UK membership.
Does that count a yes or no?
Charles, the only sensible answer is Yes but there may be some changes in conditions or there may not be which again may or may not be beneficial. The way the unionists are presenting it is pathetic.
It's more likely to be 'yes in 3-4 years with an interim arrangement beforehand'. It could be quicker if Salmond rolls over in negotiations and accepts all of the EU's demands.
Just as long as Scotland does seek to renege on its debts to a veto holding member....
An actually interesting debate on HS2 on the DP. Never thought about starting it in the North. Makes much more sense to me.
Missed that.
Why does it make more sense to start it in the north?
The economic case for a north to south build is strong basically because the phase 2 part of HS2 is rated better. Why not do that first? Start on Liverpool and Leeds to Manchester, then down to Birmingham. Once the third runway is built then extend HS2 to Heathrow (or whatever is picked to be the hub). Starting in London and not having HS2 linked up to the hub airport because of uncertainty over its future means that its better to start in the North.
Build a High speed rail link from Liverpool to Manchester? Its only 35 miles, the train would barely have time to accelerate to top speed before it had to start breaking again. Much the same would apply for a Leeds to Manchester line, that would be about 45 miles long.
And none of which the BBC could substantively criticise, which strongly suggests that his methodology was replicable when they did their own analysis. [Edit: or they got even worse results when they did it because he'd been so scrupulous.]
This is the most recent reply from the BBC - somewhat at variance with your account:
BBC chief rejects claims of referendum coverage bias THE BBC has challenged claims that it engaged in "thought-control" by allegedly suppressing a study about media bias in the independence referendum....
.....BBC bosses completely rejected the allegations, insisting the report contained factual inaccuracies with quotes from people who did not feature in its reports and lines that its journalists did not say.
BBC Scotland director Ken MacQuarrie said Mr Robertson refused the BBC's requests for his raw data.
Mr MacQuarrie said: "We completely reject the allegations about our news coverage, as we do the questioning of our journalists' professionalism
"The evidence it presents does not support the contentions that it makes."
He added: "We asked if we might see the data as we did not recognise the evidence presented as an reflection of our broadcast output and the request was rejected by the report's author."
As the report was also about STV coverage it would not be surprising if some non-BBC stuff was mentioned. As the BBC are not specific about the problems we can't assess them to see if they are in fact true, and if they actually make any difference. Nor have they released their own data and their own analysis using Dr, now Prof, Robertson's methodology.;
Those web interviews are very interesting - the BBC demanding to see data, copying their attacks to all and sundry (not just employers), and so on. Maybe because he dared to criticise BBC Scotland? He wasn't even criticising them - just observing.
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
The idea that Spain would rubber stamp the automatic continuous membership of a secessionist state is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
Do you think that the EU would refuse Scotland's application?
A simple yes or no to that question will suffice.
You will have confused him with that
I really the hate the politician's trick of "yes or no".
Nothing in life is simple, and to suggest it is is designed to mislead.
In Scotland the probable case is (a) yes but (b) not immediately but (c) with an interim work around and (d) likely to less favourable terms than the current UK membership.
Does that count a yes or no?
Charles, the only sensible answer is Yes but there may be some changes in conditions or there may not be which again may or may not be beneficial. The way the unionists are presenting it is pathetic.
It's more likely to be 'yes in 3-4 years with an interim arrangement beforehand'. It could be quicker if Salmond rolls over in negotiations and accepts all of the EU's demands.
Just as long as Scotland does seek to renege on its debts to a veto holding member....
For the nth time, if what likes to call itself the UK even after a Yes bote and independence thinks that Scotland is a new state, then it has to accept the consequences, and that means no debt, nothing owed. Full stop.
If Scotland and EWNI on the contrary are joint successor states, then of course they share the debt, EU membership, etc. And if Scotland is paying the debt then EWNI is in exavtly the same position - it is, at best, an interim member with no veto at all and negotiations to do.
Giving one member state with strong producer interests a special veto over regulations affecting consumers everywhere would be a terrible way to govern; You may as well get rid of the ministers from the member states and replace them with industry lobbyists. I'd hope that even in the event that the member states agreed to that, the parliament would blow it up.
Ah, the mistake Brown made. He too thought financial regulation was principally to do with consumers, so the FSA employed thousands of people ticking boxes about consumer protection. (Like all box-ticking regulation it was a 100% waste of time and money, of course - it didn't even manage to protect consumers against the PPI scam, let alone the rather more important goal of protecting the integrity of the banking system).
In any case, where did you get this quaint idea that the EU prevents one member state with strong consumer interests from having a veto on change? France manages very well to effectively veto changes to CAP.
2017 renegotiation: Britain agrees to stop being a dick about financial regulation, and in return the rest of the EU agrees to use British plugs.
How about the EU doesn't interfere in things like financial regulation where it has little expertise and where the downsides to getting it wrong are felt most immediately where it is currently regulated?
You could even give the principle a name. Subsidiarity is an ugly word, but it will do for now.
It's a pan-EU market where the producers in any one member state get to sell to consumers in all the other member states, so at least some of the regulation should be happening at EU level.
It's a market overwhelmingly dominated in many areas by one member state, where the first forays into regulation at an EU level have been daft and where other member states have openly sought to use EU powers to sabotage that member state's market dominance. The necessary trust for appropriate regulation is lacking.
The (avowed and correct) role of the EU is to reduce the need for firms to comply with divergent national standards, so as to favour the domestic producer (who need only comply with one) over the European producer. The EU has argued other points, but tey must be secondary and I take issue with many of them.
So I have sympathy with the argument made earlier that different plug sockets should be standardised - if I make kettles here and sell them also in France, I have to account for differing technical specifications whereas my French competitor does not. However, the change-over cost may make this infeasible - but that's another argument altogether.
Financial regulation, on the other hand, fits less neatly. If you look at bank capitalisation, for example, the bank usually only needs to comply with the regulations of its home market, whether or not it trades across Europe. Bankers' bonuses are really neither here nor there, either.
The big problem with European standard plugs is that they are not fused. This makes them inherently more dangerous. It is because we have fused plugs that we are able to have a higher load on our ring mains - 32 amps being standard. The maximum limit for European systems is about half that at 15 amps. The UK system is safer and delivers higher power. It also lowers fire risk by removing the need for multiple junction boxes as you have in a radial/spur system.
Ah, but thanks to Mr. Jessop I can now say that the UK is the only country to use ring mains (they were introduced after WWII to save on copper wire). So does the ability to carry more power actually matter?
Is anyone surprised? The system is understood by very few people including HMRC. In my case I saw the posters advertising the charge, rang HMRC, talked them through my circumstances and they told me I wouldn't be affected. Then in late November they wrote to me saying I was affected and need to act NOW. Rang them back, they ran calculations and said yes I owe a small amount. Asked why was told no and now yes, lady said "I'm having to bite my tongue to avoid giving the real answer, lets just say its complicated". Perhaps the axing of so many HMRC staff at a time when they explode the numbers having to do self assessment might have something to do with it.
Anyway, register for self assessment and receive a pack dated 30/12, so I have until the end of March to file. I've also received a letter from HMRC saying that the return I am to file is the last one they will send me as they don't think I should be impacted by the charge. I expect my earnings in 13/14 to be higher than 12/13 but as I am being booted back out of self assessment what do I know.
Here's the thing. I am not and nevr will be a Tory voter. But if I had been, and had to go through all of this confused faff knowing that several of my colleagues have significantly higher household income yet aren't affected, would I be (a) more likely or (b) less likely to vote Tory. Or listen to a word Osborne says?
Earlier I posted about the end of all in this together being the thing thats sunk the Tories. And here it is in a nutshell.
You have provided an interesting insight into the mind of a left-winger.
If I may summarise your views:
You resent the fact that other people are doing better than you. Plus tax is complicated. Have I missed anything?
If I was a Tory (oh wait...I am a Tory) I wouldn't care what my neighbours car was or what benefits my colleagues were or are receiving. I would applaud George Osborne for making a stab at making the tax system fairer so that those who are better off don't receive certain benefits. Seems almost left of centre to me but there you are.
Even as a unionist, I can see that this is a dumb line. The idea that the EU wouldn't embrace what would be the ~17th richest nation on Earth and a £1bn pa net contributor is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
The idea that Spain would rubber stamp the automatic continuous membership of a secessionist state is far-fetched to say the least. Better to drop this line of thinking entirely - it's embarrassing.
Do you think that the EU would refuse Scotland's application?
A simple yes or no to that question will suffice.
You will have confused him with that
I really the hate the politician's trick of "yes or no".
Nothing in life is simple, and to suggest it is is designed to mislead.
In Scotland the probable case is (a) yes but (b) not immediately but (c) with an interim work around and (d) likely to less favourable terms than the current UK membership.
Does that count a yes or no?
Charles, the only sensible answer is Yes but there may be some changes in conditions or there may not be which again may or may not be beneficial. The way the unionists are presenting it is pathetic.
It's more likely to be 'yes in 3-4 years with an interim arrangement beforehand'. It could be quicker if Salmond rolls over in negotiations and accepts all of the EU's demands.
Just as long as Scotland does seek to renege on its debts to a veto holding member....
For the nth time, if what likes to call itself the UK even after a Yes bote and independence thinks that Scotland is a new state, then it has to accept the consequences, and that means no debt, nothing owed. Full stop.
If Scotland and EWNI on the contrary are joint successor states, then of course they share the debt, EU membership, etc. And if Scotland is paying the debt then EWNI is in exavtly the same position - it is, at best, an interim member with no veto at all and negotiations to do.
Not really. For Scotland to become independent there has to be an agreement between the two sides. The rUK is not going to sign up to anything which does not protect its interests. And that means Scotland talking a share of the debt.
Comments
Hares and badgers reported to be relieved.
Having said that: RIP.
*Actually I have no idea is the British standard is safer or more sensible, I don't understand electricity at all, but there must be a reason we went for it in the first place.
Salmond's attack on Marr sets a new low in political intimidation of journalists.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/record-view-stop-your-shouting-3251052
It has only been 'widely discredited' in Nat-land - nowhere else.
The whole point of HDMI is to push RCA inputs/outputs into retirement on media devices as they add DACs to the build cost. HDMI allows for the decoding to be done on the client side rather than host side. It shifts the burden of cost onto devices which should have audio output anyway.
It's great when PB Unionists resort to giving props to the SLAB in house journal.
Awkward news coverage is “biased”, opposition politicians who raise concerns are “scaremongering”, companies who warn they could have to leave Scotland are “bluffing”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power_plugs_and_sockets_-_British_and_related_types
"The PB SNP are always right, the PB Britnats are never wrong"
Will any of them ever learn?
All trivia, and all now forgotten. The fact is, the media were determined to find fault; failing to find anything substantial to criticise, they laid into trivia from the footnotes, including (most bizarrely) the technical change to VAT on hot food - dozens of such changes happen every year, and no-one notices.
So it wouldn't have mattered what Osborne did or did not do, the media were going to lay into him anyway. They seem to have got bored with that now, perhaps because the evidence that his economic judgement has been spot-on is now too strong to ignore.
It's the BBC's rightwing bias that is the threat to democracy and journalism
The claim of 'liberal bias' is a clever fairytale that allows the right to police the corporation and set the wider political agenda
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/bbc-leftwing-bias-non-existent-myth
Nothing in life is simple, and to suggest it is is designed to mislead.
In Scotland the probable case is (a) yes but (b) not immediately but (c) with an interim work around and (d) likely to less favourable terms than the current UK membership.
Does that count a yes or no?
In many ways, next year’s general election will be a battle between two rival narratives: “the economy’s on the mend; don’t give the keys back to the people who crashed the car” versus “the growth is too little, too late; only the rich are better off than they were in 2010”.
As George Osborne finalises this week’s Budget, YouGov’s latest survey for the Sunday Times suggests that the Government is edging ahead in the contest between these two narratives.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/03/17/tories-enter-budget-week-ahead-economy/
I'm guessing you won't be voting one nation, Union Jack Labour next time.
http://tinyurl.com/qdcnbv8
What will happen is this:
1) Europe will realise they're being dicks over financial regulation, and agree to move all European financial services to Sunderland.
2) Europe will realise that moving the EU parliament between Strasbourg and Brussels is a costly nonsense that makes them a laughing stock; instead they agree to move to Aberystwyth.
3) Europe will realise the UK is brilliant, and agree to become part of the British Empire.
4) Europe will use British 3-pin plugs.
5) Cricket will overtake football as the No. 1 European sport.
And the world will be a better place ... ?
You could even give the principle a name. Subsidiarity is an ugly word, but it will do for now.
"Not feeling the recovery" has "let's spend more to make everyone feel better" written all over it which might initially thrill but ultimately scare people. Were I a Cons strategist, that would be the point I would highlight.
And the question on Marr is about Wishart's call for him to face 'consequences' - something Salmond wisely has avoided.....
Sure, there was a political cost to cutting the top rate, but that was not a 'shambles', it was a cool decision based on balancing the national interest against the political cost to the Conservatives. Clearly, Osborne was convinced that the 50p rate was just too damaging, both in terms of lost tax revenue and the message it sent to business. I think he was right.
Consequences - what do you mean? In a non-devolved power like broadcasting, all the SNP can do is complain. Not like Unionist Westminster where the pols have the BBC by the short and curlies.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14d_1348362692
"For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship's captain complaining about the sea - Enoch Powell."
I expect it to stop short of a shooting war, that said.
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/Budget-Specials/2014-Budget-Speech-Specials/Politics-N-1z0s9x3Z1z0s9wwZ1z141ne/
What has changed in the last few days, and probably explains this, is that the BBC Trust have just ordered the BBC to follow guidelines on handling the referendum (why they didn't do that before I have no idea, and one can only speculate). If the state broadcaster still deliberately persists in biased coverage then that is very significant news and worthy of comment.
But I agree that the substance was fine. (At least I liked it, which is a good sign the voters aren't going to.)
Evidence of the BBC 'demanding by implication' that he should be sacked?
Clawing it back now is of course much harder, but should be our number one target for renegotiation.
'demanding by implication' - I was talking about a hypothetical case where it did not happen (which is my point).
Why does it make more sense to start it in the north?
So I have sympathy with the argument made earlier that different plug sockets should be standardised - if I make kettles here and sell them also in France, I have to account for differing technical specifications whereas my French competitor does not. However, the change-over cost may make this infeasible - but that's another argument altogether.
Financial regulation, on the other hand, fits less neatly. If you look at bank capitalisation, for example, the bank usually only needs to comply with the regulations of its home market, whether or not it trades across Europe. Bankers' bonuses are really neither here nor there, either.
the Chinese told Hank Paulson that the Russians were suggesting a joint pact with China to drive down the price of the debt of Fanny and Freddie, and maximize the turmoil on Wall Street - presumably with a view to maximizing the cost of the rescue for Washington and further damaging its financial health.....
....But this kind of intelligence from China on Russian desire and willingness to embarrass the US in a financial sense may help to explain - in a small way - why President Obama shows little desire to understand Crimea as seen by Mr Putin.
And maybe if the US is being a bit more robust than the EU in wanting to impose economic and financial sanctions on Russia, that may not all be about America's much lesser dependence (negligible dependence) on Russian gas and oil.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26609548
It's happened before, too. Remember the first cross-channel tunnel trains, TGV speeds in France, then slamming on the brakes to slow down to stop-start commuter line speeds in Kent. As I recall, the French president inquired of Mrs T if this was to allow passengers to admire the beautiful English countryside ...
BBC chief rejects claims of referendum coverage bias
THE BBC has challenged claims that it engaged in "thought-control" by allegedly suppressing a study about media bias in the independence referendum....
.....BBC bosses completely rejected the allegations, insisting the report contained factual inaccuracies with quotes from people who did not feature in its reports and lines that its journalists did not say.
BBC Scotland director Ken MacQuarrie said Mr Robertson refused the BBC's requests for his raw data.
Mr MacQuarrie said: "We completely reject the allegations about our news coverage, as we do the questioning of our journalists' professionalism
"The evidence it presents does not support the contentions that it makes."
He added: "We asked if we might see the data as we did not recognise the evidence presented as an reflection of our broadcast output and the request was rejected by the report's author."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/bbc-chief-rejects-claims-of-referendum-coverage-bias.23666472
The key point for me is in McLoughlin's written statement to parliament. Redevelop Euston and bring back the Euston Arch!
Anyway, register for self assessment and receive a pack dated 30/12, so I have until the end of March to file. I've also received a letter from HMRC saying that the return I am to file is the last one they will send me as they don't think I should be impacted by the charge. I expect my earnings in 13/14 to be higher than 12/13 but as I am being booted back out of self assessment what do I know.
Here's the thing. I am not and nevr will be a Tory voter. But if I had been, and had to go through all of this confused faff knowing that several of my colleagues have significantly higher household income yet aren't affected, would I be (a) more likely or (b) less likely to vote Tory. Or listen to a word Osborne says?
Earlier I posted about the end of all in this together being the thing thats sunk the Tories. And here it is in a nutshell.
*innocent face*
A quite splendid old trouper :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26611394
Those web interviews are very interesting - the BBC demanding to see data, copying their attacks to all and sundry (not just employers), and so on. Maybe because he dared to criticise BBC Scotland? He wasn't even criticising them - just observing.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson-oliver-huitson/interview-bbc-bias-bullying-and-scottish-referendum
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8679-uws-academic-responds-to-bbc-scotland-criticism-of-indy-news-study
If Scotland and EWNI on the contrary are joint successor states, then of course they share the debt, EU membership, etc. And if Scotland is paying the debt then EWNI is in exavtly the same position - it is, at best, an interim member with no veto at all and negotiations to do.
In any case, where did you get this quaint idea that the EU prevents one member state with strong consumer interests from having a veto on change? France manages very well to effectively veto changes to CAP.
If I may summarise your views:
You resent the fact that other people are doing better than you. Plus tax is complicated. Have I missed anything?
If I was a Tory (oh wait...I am a Tory) I wouldn't care what my neighbours car was or what benefits my colleagues were or are receiving. I would applaud George Osborne for making a stab at making the tax system fairer so that those who are better off don't receive certain benefits. Seems almost left of centre to me but there you are.
I wish you and your support for Labour well.