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.
If you are correct then does that not imply Scotland voting for independence automatically removes EWNI from the EU? Sounds good to me.
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.
Hello, International Markets, newly minted Free Republic of Eck here, can we borrow some cash?
Any bad credit history?
Well, we crashed the biggest bank in the World and ran away from the debt. Does that count?
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.
I don't disagree with the technical side, but the political gain for the Cons to start in Leeds and Liverpool are too great. It would neutralise the idea that they only care about the south in one single move.
I still think it is a horrible waste of money, but if they are dead set on doing it, may as well make as much political capital out of it as possible by starting in the north. Ideally it would be York -> Leeds -> Manchester -> Stoke -> Birmingham New Street -> Warwick -> Heathrow -> Euston/KX-StP. Have a small branch from Manchester to Liverpool with one out of four trains heading down that branch and three out of four to York. If that could be built for £30bn or less, it would be great value for money. The £50-70bn being talked about is not, but given they are doing it, they should make the best of it and start up north because it would be one in the eye of Labour.
I will add that if I was designing it, I would have it branch off at Birmingham rather than Manchester so it could serve Nottingham and Sheffield also and then from Leeds take it all the way up to Newcastle non-stop. Have the other branch from Birmingham serve Manchester and Liverpool, and link that up to the other branch in Leeds so you could have Liverpool -> Newcastle services without having to go down to Birmingham. A much more ambitious idea, but then we are going to end up spending towards the top end of the estimate, may as well get as much as possible for it.
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.
The SNP have not challenged the Westminster (and widely held) view that Scotland is a new state and rUK is the continuing state - tho they periodically dig out an academic from the mid-west of the USA to argue otherwise. The debt is part of the negotiations in how Scotland becomes independent. If Scotland does not agree to an equitable share, rUK will not agree to independence leaving Scotland in legal limbo.
As for Scotland refusing its share of the national debt, this is basket-case economics. The debt is currently the UK’s. In order to reassure creditors (and to preserve its credit-rating) the Treasury has made plain that it will continue to honour the debt even in the event of Scottish independence. But this does not mean that Scotland would be born debt-free. On the contrary, as part of the separation negotiations the rUK would secure from Scotland an agreement to service an equitable share of the UK’s debt. There is no chance that Scotland could walk away from this obligation without punishing consequences being imposed at the hands of the international money markets. An independent Scottish state would need to borrow from day 1....
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.
If you are correct then does that not imply Scotland voting for independence automatically removes EWNI from the EU? Sounds good to me.
Not really.....it's pretty easy to work out which the continuing state is when the population splits 92:8......
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.
I wish you and your support for Labour well.
Either you or I, Topping, are reading this wrong. As I read it Mr Pioneers doesn’t give a whatever for his neighbours’ incomes. What he does care about is that he is being messed about by HMRC when he knows that some of those whom he knows, and knows that their incomes are higher than his are NOT being similarly treated.
Nothing whatsoever to do with resentment of their actual incomes.
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?
*giggle* 8/10 for comedy value. I am happy to pay tax and think given the circumstances people on my salary could pay more. I am quite happy that Labour are giving no pledges to bin off this tax as there are millions of people earning less than me who are struggling for existence not struggling to understand what HRMC are doing.
Had this tax been done evenly - means test it at £50k - then people might have winced but they'd get it. Any tax has to be seen to be fair to gain public support, this one patently isn't and has generated a lot of noise from natually Tory voters. Me paying more should equal people earning more paying a lot more should equal people earning less paying a lot less. Thats proportionality which as we have a tiered tax system is supposedly how it works. I don't give a toss about what car people drive having been up to 5-series level (company car that came with the job) and ditched it for something less crass and more practical. I know that some colleagues earn more and have progressed their careers faster - good for them, its not a race against them, its a race against yourself. So no, its not jealously, just a sense that the system in place is a political liability for the Tories due to its inherrent unfairness.
IIRC, some very “interesting” remarks about Tony Blair in her autobiography.
She is very rude about Mr Blair, whom she knew when they were both young barristers in Scotland. “He has psychopath eyes. You know those dead eyes that look at you and try to work out what you want to hear?”
What does she make of him now? “I don’t recognise the young man that I knew. He was this rather wet, long-haired law student and barrister who nobody expected to succeed. One thought he would disappear without trace, or become a clerk at a London court.”
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.
If you ever get me to a Peebie drink I may share my thoughts on the FCA...
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.
Is it rated better? I thought the southern section had a better BCR, and that the northern BCR was predicated on the southern being built first. I'm not sure they've done a BCR for the northern section without the southern, but could well be wrong - I must admit that my eyes glaze over on some of the boring documents.
Also, as HurstLlama says, high-speed lines are best over long distances. Leeds to Manchester may well be too short - sadly, I can't immediately find my data for the distances needed to get to maximum speed. This acceleration & braking distance is one of the reasons it is best not to have too many stations close together on high-speed lines.
As for Heathrow: that link is provisionally planned for phase 2. As I said the other day, there is talk of doing the earthworks for the junctions at the same times as phase 1, to prevent disruption to running services. See point 8 in the document below.
I'm intrigued by the Euston suggestions today, when added in conjunction with Osborne's statement a few weeks ago. Could we be looking at a massive redevelopment of one of the worst London termini?
HS2 should really be paying me for all this brilliant and well considered advocacy. :-)
I was quite impressed with the humanity and intellect of the girl at HMRC who was dealing with this, once I got through to her. She told me something similar but added: "we think the government might change its mind".
Crikey what I have started with this charger debate? PB is at its greatest when impassioned arguments are advanced about white goods
@Max - that's what I do already (I think) - ATV HDMI to TV to RCA to AMP
No, run the ATV via HDMI to the AVR and set the ATV to bitstream/passthrough or whatever the equivalent option is, and then run the AVR to your TV by HDMI. Your AVR acts as the go between and will strip the audio out of the signal and send the video only to your TV, and pipe the audio out of the speakers connected to it. Optical out is a sub-par way of doing it when HDMI is available.
On Clarissa Dickson Wright, my favourite quote from her was about how "this country has too many Chefs and not enough cooks" a sentiment with which I completely agree.....
IIRC, some very “interesting” remarks about Tony Blair in her autobiography.
She is very rude about Mr Blair, whom she knew when they were both young barristers in Scotland. “He has psychopath eyes. You know those dead eyes that look at you and try to work out what you want to hear?”
What does she make of him now? “I don’t recognise the young man that I knew. He was this rather wet, long-haired law student and barrister who nobody expected to succeed. One thought he would disappear without trace, or become a clerk at a London court.”
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.
I don't disagree with the technical side, but the political gain for the Cons to start in Leeds and Liverpool are too great. It would neutralise the idea that they only care about the south in one single move.
I still think it is a horrible waste of money, but if they are dead set on doing it, may as well make as much political capital out of it as possible by starting in the north. Ideally it would be York -> Leeds -> Manchester -> Stoke -> Birmingham New Street -> Warwick -> Heathrow -> Euston/KX-StP. Have a small branch from Manchester to Liverpool with one out of four trains heading down that branch and three out of four to York. If that could be built for £30bn or less, it would be great value for money. The £50-70bn being talked about is not, but given they are doing it, they should make the best of it and start up north because it would be one in the eye of Labour.
I will add that if I was designing it, I would have it branch off at Birmingham rather than Manchester so it could serve Nottingham and Sheffield also and then from Leeds take it all the way up to Newcastle non-stop. Have the other branch from Birmingham serve Manchester and Liverpool, and link that up to the other branch in Leeds so you could have Liverpool -> Newcastle services without having to go down to Birmingham. A much more ambitious idea, but then we are going to end up spending towards the top end of the estimate, may as well get as much as possible for it.
That's the same logic which has the Railway to Nowhere being built initially from Madera to Bakersfield rather than from Los Angeles to San Francisco or San Diego. But it's only costing $2.6bn for the first segment (130 miles) so that's ok...
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).
Screwing up the integrity of the banking system shafts the consumers in that market, not just the producers. BTW the consumers of financial institutions include businesses; consumers as opposed to producers means the people who use the service as opposed to the people who provide it.
PS A lot of the Brown red tape will have been law enforcement rather than consumer protection, especially post-911.
IIRC, some very “interesting” remarks about Tony Blair in her autobiography.
Indeed so. Not too sure Tony Blair ranked too close to the top of her Christmas card list.
I vastly enjoyed her attitude to life - Simply put - Enjoy it, revel in it and damn the consequences.
Both of the "Two Fat Ladies" were a joy, the complete antithesis of political correctness and stick insect female presenters. They liked a fag, a drink (not Clarissa) plenty of butter, fat and double cream and none of this ridiculous nouvelle cuisine portion control.
You may be sure of one thing, with the pair of them united upstairs St. Peter's diet has gone for a burton !!
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.
I don't disagree with the technical side, but the political gain for the Cons to start in Leeds and Liverpool are too great. It would neutralise the idea that they only care about the south in one single move.
I still think it is a horrible waste of money, but if they are dead set on doing it, may as well make as much political capital out of it as possible by starting in the north. Ideally it would be York -> Leeds -> Manchester -> Stoke -> Birmingham New Street -> Warwick -> Heathrow -> Euston/KX-StP. Have a small branch from Manchester to Liverpool with one out of four trains heading down that branch and three out of four to York. If that could be built for £30bn or less, it would be great value for money. The £50-70bn being talked about is not, but given they are doing it, they should make the best of it and start up north because it would be one in the eye of Labour.
I will add rve Manchester and Liverpool, and link that up to the other branch in Leeds so you could have Liverpool -> Newcastle services without having to go down to Birmingham. A much more ambitious idea, but then we are going to end up spending towards the top end of the estimate, may as well get as much as possible for it.
That's the same logic which has the Railway to Nowhere being built initially from Madera to Bakersfield rather than from Los Angeles to San Francisco or San Diego. But it's only costing $2.6bn for the first segment (130 miles) so that's ok...
Only if you call the great Northern cities "nowhere". I think Max's idea has real merit.
Saw an article not that long ago about power mains. Basically what we have was designed to deliver heavy load to power up hoovers, washing machines, toasters, etc. Fine. But in the modern world we also need a much lighter 12V DC main to power laptops, TVs, mobiles, playstations, etc. Right now nearly all of these are powered off the big AC main with a step-down transformer - and a huge waste of power. I for one would be interested to know how much power is wasted in this way.
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?
*giggle* 8/10 for comedy value. I am happy to pay tax and think given the circumstances people on my salary could pay more. I am quite happy that Labour are giving no pledges to bin off this tax as there are millions of people earning less than me who are struggling for existence not struggling to understand what HRMC are doing.
Had this tax been done evenly - means test it at £50k - then people might have winced but they'd get it. Any tax has to be seen to be fair to gain public support, this one patently isn't and has generated a lot of noise from natually Tory voters. Me paying more should equal people earning more paying a lot more should equal people earning less paying a lot less. Thats proportionality which as we have a tiered tax system is supposedly how it works. I don't give a toss about what car people drive having been up to 5-series level (company car that came with the job) and ditched it for something less crass and more practical. I know that some colleagues earn more and have progressed their careers faster - good for them, its not a race against them, its a race against yourself. So no, its not jealously, just a sense that the system in place is a political liability for the Tories due to its inherrent unfairness.
I think it was but one way to skin a cat. They chose the 50k/person rate which as you mention will "discriminate" against households where there is eg one salaried person >£50k.
But I'm not sure there is a universally equitable system. To use household income would bring in variables (who is in the household and how is that determined for eg. separated couples) and I suppose there must have been a decision that this was the least bad of a set of options.
Out of interest (and I'm not saying this in the "well let's see you write War & Peace" type of way), what would be your optimal system of handling it?
But the overriding point is that I don't blame George Osborne.
These are the issues I expect a CotE to address and I can see pros and cons in any solution.
PS A lot of the Brown red tape will have been law enforcement rather than consumer protection, especially post-911.
True, but on that score too the regulation has been utterly useless, forcing grannies to produce passports and gas bills if they want to sign a document with the bank they've used for forty years, whilst having little or no effect on drugs barons and terrorists.
It mystifies me why the coalition doesn't fix this nonsense. It would be a cost-free hit on red-tape to exempt transactions which are obviously trivial, or could not possibly in a month of Sundays have anything to do with money laundering.
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....
To paraphrase GBS, he who can shag, does, he who cannot squeaks angrily from the sidelines, castrato stylee.
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.
If you are correct then does that not imply Scotland voting for independence automatically removes EWNI from the EU? Sounds good to me.
I could go on what the unionists keep telling us on this site ... but more precisely I'd say in realpolitik terms it puts EWNI in a similar, interim, position - not a full member but not automatically ejected either. Remember how long it took Greenland to leave, and it wanted to leave the EU!
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.
Hello, International Markets, newly minted Free Republic of Eck here, can we borrow some cash?
Any bad credit history?
Well, we crashed the biggest bank in the World and ran away from the debt. Does that count?
If you want to keep up with that old nonsense about most of HBOS and RBS being in Scotland rather than in EWNI, and regulated by London, then there is nothing I can do.
If you want to keep up with that old nonsense about most of HBOS and RBS being in Scotland rather than in EWNI, and regulated by London, then there is nothing I can do.
If you want to pretend RBS was not Scottish, there is nothing I can do.
Stick your fingers back in your ears, say three Hail Nicolas and everything will be all right.
Saw an article not that long ago about power mains. Basically what we have was designed to deliver heavy load to power up hoovers, washing machines, toasters, etc. Fine. But in the modern world we also need a much lighter 12V DC main to power laptops, TVs, mobiles, playstations, etc. Right now nearly all of these are powered off the big AC main with a step-down transformer - and a huge waste of power. I for one would be interested to know how much power is wasted in this way.
About a decade ago I saw a series of documents about this, along with figures. Sadly I cannot remember them and would probably still be under NDA if I could, but I think the conclusion was that the costs of wiring a house with an extra set of cables, standardisation issues, losses in the system and safety all made it a non-starter. There were some technical issues as well, but I can't remember them.
I *think* the documents had been produced by the EU or ETSI, but could well be wrong on that. It was some official multi-national organisation.
PS A lot of the Brown red tape will have been law enforcement rather than consumer protection, especially post-911.
True, but on that score too the regulation has been utterly useless, forcing grannies to produce passports and gas bills if they want to sign a document with the bank they've used for forty years, whilst having little or no effect on drugs barons and terrorists.
It mystifies me why the coalition doesn't fix this nonsense. It would be a cost-free hit on red-tape to exempt transactions which are obviously trivial, or could not possibly in a month of Sundays have anything to do with money laundering.
I agree, has anyone ever done any actual cost-benefit analysis on any of this stuff?
That's the same logic which has the Railway to Nowhere being built initially from Madera to Bakersfield rather than from Los Angeles to San Francisco or San Diego. But it's only costing $2.6bn for the first segment (130 miles) so that's ok...
Only if you call the great Northern cities "nowhere". I think Max's idea has real merit.
That's misinterpreting my point.
The value of HS2 is access to London and Europe at speed (ignoring the capacity point, which actually seems to me to be the real value of the investment).
An HS rail link from Liverpool to Manchester or Leeds will have little value as HS rail (no more than ordinary rail would do) because of the short distances. Consequently there will be limited value creation until the connection to London is completed. It therefore makes sense to start in London and work upwards.
(I do have quite a lot of sympathy for the idea of accelerating the northern parts and building them simultaneously)
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.
The SNP have not challenged the Westminster (and widely held) view that Scotland is a new state and rUK is the continuing state - tho they periodically dig out an academic from the mid-west of the USA to argue otherwise. The debt is part of the negotiations in how Scotland becomes independent. If Scotland does not agree to an equitable share, rUK will not agree to independence leaving Scotland in legal limbo.
As for Scotland refusing its share of the national debt, this is basket-case economics. The debt is currently the UK’s. In order to reassure creditors (and to preserve its credit-rating) the Treasury has made plain that it will continue to honour the debt even in the event of Scottish independence. But this does not mean that Scotland would be born debt-free. On the contrary, as part of the separation negotiations the rUK would secure from Scotland an agreement to service an equitable share of the UK’s debt. There is no chance that Scotland could walk away from this obligation without punishing consequences being imposed at the hands of the international money markets. An independent Scottish state would need to borrow from day 1....
On the contrary. The SNP policy has been entirely consistent, to require a fair share of assets and debts, and state apparatus, as a starting point for the inevitable sorting out on the fringes. It is the Unionists who pick and choose (far, far more than the SNP) on the most fundamental issues - we'll have the assets [flip] you'll pay the debts [flop] we'll be the same old UK and you'll be a new state [flip].
And you might want to start picking from a wider selection of websites than one whose URL in itself gleefully proclaims the extreme beliefs of its owner and author.
[Edit: I'm gojng to fo away now, not because I think you are right, but because I don't want to stretch the patience of other PBers any more than it has already.]
O/T, Why can Scotland have a legal referendum on independence, Catalonia have a possibly legal one but Venice can only have an illegal one? Further, when the Crimea has one, with apparently as free a vote as anywhere else in the region, the EU and US get all worked up?
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....
O/T, Why can Scotland have a legal referendum on independence, Catalonia have a possibly legal one but Venice can only have an illegal one? Further, when the Crimea has one, with apparently as free a vote as anywhere else in the region, the EU and US get all worked up?
Whatever happened to self-determination?
@BBCKimGhattas: US official says- according to results 123% of Sevastopol population would have had to vote yes... #Crimea #Ukraine
If you want to keep up with that old nonsense about most of HBOS and RBS being in Scotland rather than in EWNI, and regulated by London, then there is nothing I can do.
If you want to pretend RBS was not Scottish, there is nothing I can do.
Stick your fingers back in your ears, say three Hail Nicolas and everything will be all right.
QWhat is the registered address of the RBS group head office?
AThe registered address is The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, EH2 2YB.
That's the same logic which has the Railway to Nowhere being built initially from Madera to Bakersfield rather than from Los Angeles to San Francisco or San Diego. But it's only costing $2.6bn for the first segment (130 miles) so that's ok...
Only if you call the great Northern cities "nowhere". I think Max's idea has real merit.
That's misinterpreting my point.
The value of HS2 is access to London and Europe at speed (ignoring the capacity point, which actually seems to me to be the real value of the investment).
An HS rail link from Liverpool to Manchester or Leeds will have little value as HS rail (no more than ordinary rail would do) because of the short distances. Consequently there will be limited value creation until the connection to London is completed. It therefore makes sense to start in London and work upwards.
(I do have quite a lot of sympathy for the idea of accelerating the northern parts and building them simultaneously)
You're talking financial value, Max is talking political value. You're looking at the value equation the wrong way as ever.
What's the value of Ed Balls not being CoE ? See, you can't think of a big enough number.
QWhat is the registered address of the RBS group head office?
AThe registered address is The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, EH2 2YB.
@Carnyx - but the SNP also claim that sterling is an 'asset' - which of course is complete horsefeathers.......its the monetary instrument of the UK state - and if you vote to leave the UK state, you vote to leave sterling....
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....
Always threats from unionists, no clue whatsoever
I think you'll find the threat to renege on the debt is the SNP's........
O/T, Why can Scotland have a legal referendum on independence, Catalonia have a possibly legal one but Venice can only have an illegal one? Further, when the Crimea has one, with apparently as free a vote as anywhere else in the region, the EU and US get all worked up?
Whatever happened to self-determination?
Scotland's referendum is legal because it is taking place in accordance with Scottish and English law. Catalonia cannot have a legal referendum unless it takes place in accordance with Spanish law, ditto Venice with Italian law. You can still have a referendum and then declare independence unilaterally, but it's not a great idea.
O/T, Why can Scotland have a legal referendum on independence, Catalonia have a possibly legal one but Venice can only have an illegal one? Further, when the Crimea has one, with apparently as free a vote as anywhere else in the region, the EU and US get all worked up?
Whatever happened to self-determination?
The difference is the UK government agreed to have a vote on Scottish independence (remember all the SNP bluster on how they would do it by themselves?) - and will abide by the result of that vote. It will also be conducted after a lengthy (god help us) campaign expelling the pros and cons....
The Ukrainian government (nor the Italian, nor Spanish) have not agreed to such votes, let alone ones that happen in a matter of days.
The Russians have overplayed this - if they'd bided their time they could have had a referendum in Crimea with international agreement and almost certainly the same result.....now they've got a result few will recognise.....
Build a third runway at Heathrow, invest in rail infrastructure in the north of England and Scotland to create regional hubs that while never being able to match London will offer alternatives and create markets in and of themselves: Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester; Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle; and, perhaps, Brum, the Black Country and Coventry.
If we have £30bn to spend on rail is it really best spent on HS2 and reinforcing London's already totally dominant position in the UK?
O/T, Why can Scotland have a legal referendum on independence, Catalonia have a possibly legal one but Venice can only have an illegal one? Further, when the Crimea has one, with apparently as free a vote as anywhere else in the region, the EU and US get all worked up?
Whatever happened to self-determination?
The difference is the UK government agreed to have a vote on Scottish independence (remember all the SNP bluster on how they would do it by themselves?) - and will abide by the result of that vote. It will also be conducted after a lengthy (god help us) campaign expelling the pros and cons....
The Ukrainian government (nor the Italian, nor Spanish) have not agreed to such votes, let alone ones that happen in a matter of days.
The Russians have overplayed this - if they'd bided their time they could have had a referendum in Crimea with international agreement and almost certainly the same result.....now they've got a result few will recognise.....
I’m all for expelling the cons, Ms Vance! From government in UK anyway!
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.
If you ever get me to a Peebie drink I may share my thoughts on the FCA...
But not in writing... ;-)
Actually Brown was even worse than that. the regime he constructed was so lax it gave London advantages the US felt it needed to copy. So this time Labotu managed to break not only the UK economy but everyone else's as well.
The story of Labour in office is that they identify something you didn't think it was possible to break or make worse, and then do so, whether it's council tax, pensions, or the entire western financial system.
It's a mugs' game trying to guess what Labour will break next, but universities must be high on the list. So far they've only been made a fair bit worse and a lot more expensive, but the better ones could be totally ruined by being comprehensivised, for example.
Yay! Well done all the locals who fought this so fiercely.
You always have a chance when the locals are who they are in Camden. I was at my Mum's last week in Dartmouth Park and there were loads of No to HS2 posters in some very affluent and well connected front windows. Up here in Warwickshire the anti-HS2 locals are finding the going a little tougher.
Build a third runway at Heathrow, invest in rail infrastructure in the north of England and Scotland to create regional hubs that while never being able to match London will offer alternatives and create markets in and of themselves: Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester; Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle; and, perhaps, Brum, the Black Country and Coventry.
If we have £30bn to spend on rail is it really best spent on HS2 and reinforcing London's already totally dominant position in the UK?
HS2 is there to solve a problem of a capacity crunch. There are a number of locations on the railway network where there is, or soon will be, a massive lack of capacity in the form of train paths. In many places money is being spent to ease these - witness the works at Nottingham, Reading, the electric spine, MML and GWML electrification, longer trains on commuter lines, etc. This government is investing massively in the existing network.
The problem comes on the WCML, where the cheap and easy things have already been done. Indeed, they've gone beyond th cheap and easy with the farcical WCML upgrade.
Sadly, building capacity where it is not needed - or where there are cheaper alternatives that can still be done - is pointless. And that is exactly what your propose above.
O/T, Why can Scotland have a legal referendum on independence, Catalonia have a possibly legal one but Venice can only have an illegal one? Further, when the Crimea has one, with apparently as free a vote as anywhere else in the region, the EU and US get all worked up?
Whatever happened to self-determination?
Scotland's referendum is legal because it is taking place in accordance with Scottish and English law. Catalonia cannot have a legal referendum unless it takes place in accordance with Spanish law, ditto Venice with Italian law. You can still have a referendum and then declare independence unilaterally, but it's not a great idea.
Makes a nonsense of the concept of self-determination. Like a law freeing all slaves, provided their owners agree.
Build a third runway at Heathrow, invest in rail infrastructure in the north of England and Scotland to create regional hubs that while never being able to match London will offer alternatives and create markets in and of themselves: Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester; Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle; and, perhaps, Brum, the Black Country and Coventry.
If we have £30bn to spend on rail is it really best spent on HS2 and reinforcing London's already totally dominant position in the UK?
Part two of my reply:
the studies done so far into the effects of high speed rail on communities at the hub stations have shown mixed results (I posted some links a week or so ago). But I think three points seem to stand out:
1) They can either advantage the main population centre, or the lesser population centre, more. E.g. London or Birmingham.
2) Lesser population centres get a benefit from people moving towards it from their hinterlands. An example might be HS2 at Toton, where the Broxtowe area might benefit as businesses move from (say) Clifton or Gedling.
3) Where smaller cities getting a HSL station have invested in that line and the development opportunities, they have done quite well. Cities that have not invested have suffered.
The story of Labour in office is that they identify something you didn't think it was possible to break or make worse, and then do so.
The problem for labour is that devolution is showing they can't even be trusted with areas that are meant to be absolute core competencies, like health and education.
QT showed us this last week. We Dougie got Walesed as soon as he opened his gob on health.
O/T, Why can Scotland have a legal referendum on independence, Catalonia have a possibly legal one but Venice can only have an illegal one? Further, when the Crimea has one, with apparently as free a vote as anywhere else in the region, the EU and US get all worked up?
Whatever happened to self-determination?
Cos it's not all legal and democratic like the coup in Kiev.
Build a third runway at Heathrow, invest in rail infrastructure in the north of England and Scotland to create regional hubs that while never being able to match London will offer alternatives and create markets in and of themselves: Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester; Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle; and, perhaps, Brum, the Black Country and Coventry.
If we have £30bn to spend on rail is it really best spent on HS2 and reinforcing London's already totally dominant position in the UK?
Therein lies the attraction of starting HS2 in the north and not in London. Do it in three phases. Start in Liverpool and Leeds. Build those to Birmingham, basically the current phase two, but with the Manchester branch extended to Liverpool. Phase two would go down to London, and from Leeds up to Newcastle, so a north and south extension. Phase three could branch off from Heathrow to Oxford and from Manchester up to Glasgow, where it can link up with the proposed Glasgow to Edinburgh line.
The worst part about what we have is that the money will get spent and we will end up with a useless line to Birmingham and it will just be over. An ambitious project with a reasonable budget and delivery time could win over a lot of sceptics (including myself). However, it means starting in the north, which our London-centric government would probably not be prepared to do.
Don;t you find this a little artificial? Isn't Osborne pitching for centrist votes by refusing to cave in to his own troops?
It is a massive phony war to make the Chancellor look like he is on the side of the working classes rather than the middle classes. Anyone who thinks it is a serious policy debate is kidding themselves. The Tories would not lower tax yield from the middle classes this close to an election. They have nowhere else to go in 2015 with Labour looking at mansion taxes and higher tax rates in general.
That's the same logic which has the Railway to Nowhere being built initially from Madera to Bakersfield rather than from Los Angeles to San Francisco or San Diego. But it's only costing $2.6bn for the first segment (130 miles) so that's ok...
Only if you call the great Northern cities "nowhere". I think Max's idea has real merit.
That's misinterpreting my point.
The value of HS2 is access to London and Europe at speed (ignoring the capacity point, which actually seems to me to be the real value of the investment).
An HS rail link from Liverpool to Manchester or Leeds will have little value as HS rail (no more than ordinary rail would do) because of the short distances. Consequently there will be limited value creation until the connection to London is completed. It therefore makes sense to start in London and work upwards.
(I do have quite a lot of sympathy for the idea of accelerating the northern parts and building them simultaneously)
You're talking financial value, Max is talking political value. You're looking at the value equation the wrong way as ever.
What's the value of Ed Balls not being CoE ? See, you can't think of a big enough number.
In what way is wanting a very major investment to generate value (which, of course, is a different calculation than it would be for a private investor) unreasonable?
O/T, Why can Scotland have a legal referendum on independence, Catalonia have a possibly legal one but Venice can only have an illegal one? Further, when the Crimea has one, with apparently as free a vote as anywhere else in the region, the EU and US get all worked up?
Whatever happened to self-determination?
Scotland's referendum is legal because it is taking place in accordance with Scottish and English law. Catalonia cannot have a legal referendum unless it takes place in accordance with Spanish law, ditto Venice with Italian law. You can still have a referendum and then declare independence unilaterally, but it's not a great idea.
Makes a nonsense of the concept of self-determination. Like a law freeing all slaves, provided their owners agree.
That's what happened mostly though, isn't it? Slave owners were either defeated in war or were paid off.
Self-determination is a fine concept, but often a lot more complicated in practice. In Spain, for example, the Spanish constitution guarantees the unity of the country and states that this can only be altered upon consent of the majority of all Spaniards. This constitution was framed after the fall of Franco and was approved in a referendum less than 40 years ago. It was overwhelmingly endorsed in Catalonia.
Build a third runway at Heathrow, invest in rail infrastructure in the north of England and Scotland to create regional hubs that while never being able to match London will offer alternatives and create markets in and of themselves: Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester; Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle; and, perhaps, Brum, the Black Country and Coventry.
If we have £30bn to spend on rail is it really best spent on HS2 and reinforcing London's already totally dominant position in the UK?
Therein lies the attraction of starting HS2 in the north and not in London. Do it in three phases. Start in Liverpool and Leeds. Build those to Birmingham, basically the current phase two, but with the Manchester branch extended to Liverpool. Phase two would go down to London, and from Leeds up to Newcastle, so a north and south extension. Phase three could branch off from Heathrow to Oxford and from Manchester up to Glasgow, where it can link up with the proposed Glasgow to Edinburgh line.
The worst part about what we have is that the money will get spent and we will end up with a useless line to Birmingham and it will just be over. An ambitious project with a reasonable budget and delivery time could win over a lot of sceptics (including myself). However, it means starting in the north, which our London-centric government would probably not be prepared to do.
You are talking about a totally different project, and not one called HS2. Indeed, it sounds like it will be much more vast in scope, much more expensive, and not address the same (or an) issues that HS2 is meant to address.
And where is your evidence that the line to Birmingham will be 'useless'?
Build a third runway at Heathrow, invest in rail infrastructure in the north of England and Scotland to create regional hubs that while never being able to match London will offer alternatives and create markets in and of themselves: Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester; Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle; and, perhaps, Brum, the Black Country and Coventry.
If we have £30bn to spend on rail is it really best spent on HS2 and reinforcing London's already totally dominant position in the UK?
Therein lies the attraction of starting HS2 in the north and not in London. Do it in three phases. Start in Liverpool and Leeds. Build those to Birmingham, basically the current phase two, but with the Manchester branch extended to Liverpool. Phase two would go down to London, and from Leeds up to Newcastle, so a north and south extension. Phase three could branch off from Heathrow to Oxford and from Manchester up to Glasgow, where it can link up with the proposed Glasgow to Edinburgh line.
The worst part about what we have is that the money will get spent and we will end up with a useless line to Birmingham and it will just be over. An ambitious project with a reasonable budget and delivery time could win over a lot of sceptics (including myself). However, it means starting in the north, which our London-centric government would probably not be prepared to do.
Don;t you find this a little artificial? Isn't Osborne pitching for centrist votes by refusing to cave in to his own troops?
It is a massive phony war to make the Chancellor look like he is on the side of the working classes rather than the middle classes. Anyone who thinks it is a serious policy debate is kidding themselves. The Tories would not lower tax yield from the middle classes this close to an election. They have nowhere else to go in 2015 with Labour looking at mansion taxes and higher tax rates in general.
And here is me thinking all this Tory infighting recently is because millionaires are used to getting their own way. If they cannot win the argument they can always buy the outcome.
I think Bojo would make a cracking leader of the Tory Party by the way.
Yay! Well done all the locals who fought this so fiercely.
You always have a chance when the locals are who they are in Camden. I was at my Mum's last week in Dartmouth Park and there were loads of No to HS2 posters in some very affluent and well connected front windows. Up here in Warwickshire the anti-HS2 locals are finding the going a little tougher.
Yep. Very true. Thank God for lefty, well-connected, north London NIMBYs.
I guess driving an HS2 link right through the back yard of the probable future prime minister, Ed Miliband (and the back yard of Peter Mandelson, David Miliband and Boris Johnson's dad), was always going to be difficult.
My sympathies go out to Warwickshire.
As I said on here the other day, the problems with the HS2<->HS1 link are:
1) It is single-track, and therefore low capacity (I think 3TPH in either direction).
2) It is massively expensive.
3) There is apparently little demand for such through services.
4) There is little planned excess capacity on HS2 once it is built; and it may be better if that capacity was used on services north of London.
5) There is the problem of passport controls. At the moment, they are (I think) at St Pancras International, Ebbsfleet and Ashford. You would need similar systems at any other stations regional trains called at. It is much more convenient to have them when trains are changed at SPI. I don't know why on-train checks are frowned upon. Of course, it could be more sensible to do without passport checks .
I seemed to hear Higgins say today that it is not off the table, and may even be built as a double track. I think he wants it investigated.
PS A lot of the Brown red tape will have been law enforcement rather than consumer protection, especially post-911.
True, but on that score too the regulation has been utterly useless, forcing grannies to produce passports and gas bills if they want to sign a document with the bank they've used for forty years, whilst having little or no effect on drugs barons and terrorists.
It mystifies me why the coalition doesn't fix this nonsense. It would be a cost-free hit on red-tape to exempt transactions which are obviously trivial, or could not possibly in a month of Sundays have anything to do with money laundering.
I agree, has anyone ever done any actual cost-benefit analysis on any of this stuff?
Agree too. My eyes were opened when I tried to transfer my RBS bank account from London to my local branch in Nottingham - same name, same account, just a change of home branch. Everyone there knew me as the local MP, but they required a four-page form and copious documentation and urged me kindly not to bother. I took their advice.
But I suspect it's some sort of international agreement, and we'd need to leave NATO or something if we dropped 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.
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.
Conversely , rump UK will need to ante up a fair share of the assets, works both ways
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.
Hello, International Markets, newly minted Free Republic of Eck here, can we borrow some cash?
Any bad credit history?
Well, we crashed the biggest bank in the World and ran away from the debt. Does that count?
Hello , Can you explain why Iceland after defaulting can borrow at better rates than UK
@NickP - it's effectively impossible to change your branch. My branch is therefore the one next to my university, where I opened the account years ago.
Yes, the 'omnishambles budget' was nothing more than a media invention. The journalistic class persuaded themselves that Ozzy was due a fall from grace so went at it like piranhas. (Many on the Right had, as point of fact, been sulking for some months over the Child Benefit cut.) Ozzy's mistake was not to have removed his trivial tax anomalies in his first budget. No one would have noticed or cared.
Well I don't know about libertarian, but Apple's insistence on using proprietary cables is anti-competitive. It costs £30 for an iPhone 5 charger - and no the third-party versions don't work. I have tried.
Comments
Any bad credit history?
Well, we crashed the biggest bank in the World and ran away from the debt. Does that count?
I still think it is a horrible waste of money, but if they are dead set on doing it, may as well make as much political capital out of it as possible by starting in the north. Ideally it would be York -> Leeds -> Manchester -> Stoke -> Birmingham New Street -> Warwick -> Heathrow -> Euston/KX-StP. Have a small branch from Manchester to Liverpool with one out of four trains heading down that branch and three out of four to York. If that could be built for £30bn or less, it would be great value for money. The £50-70bn being talked about is not, but given they are doing it, they should make the best of it and start up north because it would be one in the eye of Labour.
I will add that if I was designing it, I would have it branch off at Birmingham rather than Manchester so it could serve Nottingham and Sheffield also and then from Leeds take it all the way up to Newcastle non-stop. Have the other branch from Birmingham serve Manchester and Liverpool, and link that up to the other branch in Leeds so you could have Liverpool -> Newcastle services without having to go down to Birmingham. A much more ambitious idea, but then we are going to end up spending towards the top end of the estimate, may as well get as much as possible for it.
As for Scotland refusing its share of the national debt, this is basket-case economics. The debt is currently the UK’s. In order to reassure creditors (and to preserve its credit-rating) the Treasury has made plain that it will continue to honour the debt even in the event of Scottish independence. But this does not mean that Scotland would be born debt-free. On the contrary, as part of the separation negotiations the rUK would secure from Scotland an agreement to service an equitable share of the UK’s debt. There is no chance that Scotland could walk away from this obligation without punishing consequences being imposed at the hands of the international money markets. An independent Scottish state would need to borrow from day 1....
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/the-snps-currency-nightmare/
@Max - that's what I do already (I think) - ATV HDMI to TV to RCA to AMP
Nothing whatsoever to do with resentment of their actual incomes.
Had this tax been done evenly - means test it at £50k - then people might have winced but they'd get it. Any tax has to be seen to be fair to gain public support, this one patently isn't and has generated a lot of noise from natually Tory voters. Me paying more should equal people earning more paying a lot more should equal people earning less paying a lot less. Thats proportionality which as we have a tiered tax system is supposedly how it works. I don't give a toss about what car people drive having been up to 5-series level (company car that came with the job) and ditched it for something less crass and more practical. I know that some colleagues earn more and have progressed their careers faster - good for them, its not a race against them, its a race against yourself. So no, its not jealously, just a sense that the system in place is a political liability for the Tories due to its inherrent unfairness.
What does she make of him now? “I don’t recognise the young man that I knew. He was this rather wet, long-haired law student and barrister who nobody expected to succeed. One thought he would disappear without trace, or become a clerk at a London court.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9559811/Clarissa-Dickson-Wright-I-go-to-Mass-to-say-thank-you.html
*remarkably, this is completely true
But not in writing... ;-)
Also, as HurstLlama says, high-speed lines are best over long distances. Leeds to Manchester may well be too short - sadly, I can't immediately find my data for the distances needed to get to maximum speed. This acceleration & braking distance is one of the reasons it is best not to have too many stations close together on high-speed lines.
As for Heathrow: that link is provisionally planned for phase 2. As I said the other day, there is talk of doing the earthworks for the junctions at the same times as phase 1, to prevent disruption to running services. See point 8 in the document below.
http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/130116 heathrow route description for ehs final policy approved text.pdf
I'm intrigued by the Euston suggestions today, when added in conjunction with Osborne's statement a few weeks ago. Could we be looking at a massive redevelopment of one of the worst London termini?
HS2 should really be paying me for all this brilliant and well considered advocacy. :-)
http://www.lindy.co.uk/accessories-c9/iphone-ipod-ipad-accessories-c379/power-charging-c381/usb-charging-adapter-for-ipad-p5749
I was quite impressed with the humanity and intellect of the girl at HMRC who was dealing with this, once I got through to her. She told me something similar but added: "we think the government might change its mind".
It's clear they think the system sucks.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/qbhph3p
In fact I'm struggling to think of a single useful thing the entire organisation did during its entire existence.
PS A lot of the Brown red tape will have been law enforcement rather than consumer protection, especially post-911.
Wow. That could be a great tip not least because I have been having audio lag issues on the ATV. What do you mean by AVR - Virgin box or Amp?
I vastly enjoyed her attitude to life - Simply put - Enjoy it, revel in it and damn the consequences.
Both of the "Two Fat Ladies" were a joy, the complete antithesis of political correctness and stick insect female presenters. They liked a fag, a drink (not Clarissa) plenty of butter, fat and double cream and none of this ridiculous nouvelle cuisine portion control.
You may be sure of one thing, with the pair of them united upstairs St. Peter's diet has gone for a burton !!
The FCA is one of the new ones... I love the PRA :-)
But I'm not sure there is a universally equitable system. To use household income would bring in variables (who is in the household and how is that determined for eg. separated couples) and I suppose there must have been a decision that this was the least bad of a set of options.
Out of interest (and I'm not saying this in the "well let's see you write War & Peace" type of way), what would be your optimal system of handling it?
But the overriding point is that I don't blame George Osborne.
These are the issues I expect a CotE to address and I can see pros and cons in any solution.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26604044
It mystifies me why the coalition doesn't fix this nonsense. It would be a cost-free hit on red-tape to exempt transactions which are obviously trivial, or could not possibly in a month of Sundays have anything to do with money laundering.
If you need a new amp, then I would recommend one of these:
http://www.whathifi.com/review/yamaha-rx-v675
It can be had for closer to £300. I have the 2012 version of it and it is superb.
Stick your fingers back in your ears, say three Hail Nicolas and everything will be all right.
I *think* the documents had been produced by the EU or ETSI, but could well be wrong on that. It was some official multi-national organisation.
The value of HS2 is access to London and Europe at speed (ignoring the capacity point, which actually seems to me to be the real value of the investment).
An HS rail link from Liverpool to Manchester or Leeds will have little value as HS rail (no more than ordinary rail would do) because of the short distances. Consequently there will be limited value creation until the connection to London is completed. It therefore makes sense to start in London and work upwards.
(I do have quite a lot of sympathy for the idea of accelerating the northern parts and building them simultaneously)
And you might want to start picking from a wider selection of websites than one whose URL in itself gleefully proclaims the extreme beliefs of its owner and author.
[Edit: I'm gojng to fo away now, not because I think you are right, but because I don't want to stretch the patience of other PBers any more than it has already.]
Whatever happened to self-determination?
A The registered address is The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, EH2 2YB.
Read more at http://www.rbs.com/faqs.html#pvdVF6XgOLgxKQtx.99
What's the value of Ed Balls not being CoE ? See, you can't think of a big enough number.
They are all at it now:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4035699.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2582301/40p-tax-storm-rocks-Tories-As-business-leaders-call-millions-spared-higher-rate-Osborne-denies-saying-people-ENJOY-paying-it.html
The Ukrainian government (nor the Italian, nor Spanish) have not agreed to such votes, let alone ones that happen in a matter of days.
The Russians have overplayed this - if they'd bided their time they could have had a referendum in Crimea with international agreement and almost certainly the same result.....now they've got a result few will recognise.....
If we have £30bn to spend on rail is it really best spent on HS2 and reinforcing London's already totally dominant position in the UK?
Don;t you find this a little artificial? Isn't Osborne pitching for centrist votes by refusing to cave in to his own troops?
#BREAKING - #USA: Magnitude 4.7 quake hits near Los Angeles: USGS
That cunning Putin; nice of him to give a warning though.
Congratulations to ed on having sidestepped this pitfall.
The story of Labour in office is that they identify something you didn't think it was possible to break or make worse, and then do so, whether it's council tax, pensions, or the entire western financial system.
It's a mugs' game trying to guess what Labour will break next, but universities must be high on the list. So far they've only been made a fair bit worse and a lot more expensive, but the better ones could be totally ruined by being comprehensivised, for example.
The problem comes on the WCML, where the cheap and easy things have already been done. Indeed, they've gone beyond th cheap and easy with the farcical WCML upgrade.
Sadly, building capacity where it is not needed - or where there are cheaper alternatives that can still be done - is pointless. And that is exactly what your propose above.
the studies done so far into the effects of high speed rail on communities at the hub stations have shown mixed results (I posted some links a week or so ago). But I think three points seem to stand out:
1) They can either advantage the main population centre, or the lesser population centre, more. E.g. London or Birmingham.
2) Lesser population centres get a benefit from people moving towards it from their hinterlands. An example might be HS2 at Toton, where the Broxtowe area might benefit as businesses move from (say) Clifton or Gedling.
3) Where smaller cities getting a HSL station have invested in that line and the development opportunities, they have done quite well. Cities that have not invested have suffered.
It's a very complex situation.
The problem for labour is that devolution is showing they can't even be trusted with areas that are meant to be absolute core competencies, like health and education.
QT showed us this last week. We Dougie got Walesed as soon as he opened his gob on health.
The worst part about what we have is that the money will get spent and we will end up with a useless line to Birmingham and it will just be over. An ambitious project with a reasonable budget and delivery time could win over a lot of sceptics (including myself). However, it means starting in the north, which our London-centric government would probably not be prepared to do. It is a massive phony war to make the Chancellor look like he is on the side of the working classes rather than the middle classes. Anyone who thinks it is a serious policy debate is kidding themselves. The Tories would not lower tax yield from the middle classes this close to an election. They have nowhere else to go in 2015 with Labour looking at mansion taxes and higher tax rates in general.
It turns out Yorkshire invented the dictionary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26606768
Now, what's Latin for: "Aye up mi duck, I opes yer ant polished mer whippet!"
Self-determination is a fine concept, but often a lot more complicated in practice. In Spain, for example, the Spanish constitution guarantees the unity of the country and states that this can only be altered upon consent of the majority of all Spaniards. This constitution was framed after the fall of Franco and was approved in a referendum less than 40 years ago. It was overwhelmingly endorsed in Catalonia.
Precisely. Ozzie knows that labour's strongest suit is that the tories are 'the party of the rich'.
And Ozzie knows he can safely ignore the aspirational middle classes. They will never vote for a labour party led by Ed Miliband.
You are talking about a totally different project, and not one called HS2. Indeed, it sounds like it will be much more vast in scope, much more expensive, and not address the same (or an) issues that HS2 is meant to address.
And where is your evidence that the line to Birmingham will be 'useless'?
I think Bojo would make a cracking leader of the Tory Party by the way.
1) It is single-track, and therefore low capacity (I think 3TPH in either direction).
2) It is massively expensive.
3) There is apparently little demand for such through services.
4) There is little planned excess capacity on HS2 once it is built; and it may be better if that capacity was used on services north of London.
5) There is the problem of passport controls. At the moment, they are (I think) at St Pancras International, Ebbsfleet and Ashford. You would need similar systems at any other stations regional trains called at. It is much more convenient to have them when trains are changed at SPI. I don't know why on-train checks are frowned upon. Of course, it could be more sensible to do without passport checks .
I seemed to hear Higgins say today that it is not off the table, and may even be built as a double track. I think he wants it investigated.
Not doing it saves £700 million.
But I suspect it's some sort of international agreement, and we'd need to leave NATO or something if we dropped it?
Do you have a shred of evidence for that or is it just another of your risible conspiracy theories?
http://www.epanorama.net/newepa/2010/08/18/apple-charger-secrets/
And a doohicky that claims to solve the problem here
http://www.lindy.co.uk/accessories-c9/iphone-ipod-ipad-accessories-c379/power-charging-c381/usb-charging-adapter-for-ipad-p5749
I have not tried this
http://www.epanorama.net/newepa/2010/08/18/apple-charger-secrets/